"... this Speaker's position must be declared vacant."

...or her brain and/or her moral code must be declared vacant.

"There is nothing suggesting EO 9808 has been rescinded, retracted or superseded:"

True, but the committee it formed was dissolved when (and if) its report was submitted. It would require another Executive Order (from President Bush) to reinstate EO 9808.

You know what's interesting about this Pelosi-bashing is that she is by far the most leftwing speaker we've had for a long time. For a San Fran lefty to become speaker of the house in Bush's America -- wow!

Yet, the purists and fanatics actually hate her more for having to make compromises. I'm sure if she had the votes, she would pursue. You can not wring blood from a stone.

Similarly, I think it is fascinating that some fo the fringe rightwing loathe John McCain on his immigration and other stances, like initial opposition to drilling in Alaska. Why hate McCain more than the Dems, who also oppose drilling? Because McCain is being a "traitor", so he is hated more than Democrats by some. In some ways, McCain might now be on the receving end of the "Nader effect".

Just goes to show how purists and absolutists are one of the biggest impedements to realworld progress.

Repost: Corrected HTML

Stare Decisis

The key concept, which appears to escape some is the plain language: "Preservation of civil rights" as a duty of elected officials. Consider the language in the Supreme Court, linking the duty of "preservation of civil liberty" with the structure of the US government in this Constitution:

"The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference." [ 459 U.S. 116 ]

"[T]he principles adopted have become settled constitutional law, and are universally recognized and acted upon as such, by all judicial tribunals in this country. They are found in the doctrines of learned civilians, and the decisions of able judges, without a single decision, or even opinion or dictum to the contrary. They not only grow out of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, but are founded in the very nature of a free government, and are absolutely essential to the preservation of civil liberty, and the equal and permanent security of rights." FREEBORN v. SMITH 69 U.S. 160 March 10, 1865, Decided

Before the Supreme Court, an attorney has emphatically asserted the "duty" of lawyers to meet this standard to defend the Constitution, yet this obligation seems lost on lawyers and American elected officials:

"And I respectfully submit, your Honor, that a country with an intimidated bar is a country whose liberties are in danger. Here in America we know that the American bar occupies a place of honor in the achievement and preservation of the liberties of our people, and I say, your Honor, with all due respect to your decision and judgment here that any threat to the integrity, independence and courage of the bar can only constitute a threat to the integrity and wholesomeness and preservation of our civil liberties." Sacher v. US 343 U.S. 1, decided March 10, 1952.

The lawyer argued that an independent, not complicit bar was crucial to preserve civil liberties. Yet, what is to be said of a bar that, through alleged inaction and silence, would ask we support it in it's alleged complicity with this President's reckless assaults on the Constitution? They appear to have made excuses, but have not met the standard presented before the Supreme Court.

Who has intimidated Pelosi to argue that the "right" action is to not investigate? Something must have dissuaded action, otherwise there would have been an investigation and state proclamations.

Who is arguing that the "duty" to enforce the Constitution, preserve civil liberties, is "not" settled Constitutional law? Explain yourself.

Who is suggesting that the "duty" to enforce the Constitution and preserve civil rights is not required; and that those saying this is "discretionary" are "learned" or "able" civilians, leaders, or judges? That defies reason.

Who is arguing that the language "preservation of civil liberty," as affirmed by the Supreme Court is somehow "not" a duty; or "outside" what the Constitution intended?

Executive Orders

Until executive orders are revoked, they otherwise they remain in full force, unless amended or rescinded, or superseded. Once signed, these Executive Orders are part of the Code of Federal Regulations.

No one has provided any justification to believe this language no longer applies to Pelosi or US federal, state, or local employees:

"The preservation of civil liberties is a duty of every Government-state, Federal and local."

This President has made a point of changing EOs or saying they do not apply. Yet, 9808, which has not been rescinded, must still apply.

This President cannot have it both ways. An Executive order, it's language, and the Supreme Court opinion is unrelated to Congressional Committees: They are three separate branches of government. The language is binding on all Americans, including Congressional legal counsel.

This American community is making excuses to avoid accepting: The American elected officials do have a duty to enforce the law; to preserve civil liberties; and they have recklessly refused to fulfill their legal obligations, as evidenced by the inaction on an impeachment investigation; and an assent to excuses not to call on Congress to investigate.

Rather than confront the failure to assert their duty, Americans seem quick to enable excuses that trivialize the issue, and make excuses to pretend the operative language -- whether it is in an executive order or Supreme Court language -- somehow doesn't apply. You have provided nothing to justify any faith that these legal duties have been granted a waiver. As evidenced by the oath, those duties are binding obligations, not discretionary.

To argue that this duty is discretionary would ask that we believe the Constitution is merely a piece of paper, not binding, and unenforceable. That is not a defensible legal position, but worthy of public and grand jury scrutiny. The issue is whether the Speaker, as an elected official and sworn Constitutional officer, will or will not lead the required confrontation with this President's illegal defiance of our civil liberties. She permitted a vote on FISA. That was her choice. Asking Americans to "go along" with that assault on our civil liberties defies reason and is an excuse to reward reckless assaults on the Constitution.

Wrong. Answer.

It is an error to argue that an electorate, once they cast their vote, are bound to remain loyal to leaders who defy the Constitution. The individual leaders are not the same as the Constitution. To argue that leaders are infallible, and above challenge is absurd. To argue this would have us absurdly believe the oath of office, once taken and not adhered, is unenforceable; yet, the Constitution itself requires an oath:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"

The purpose of grand juries, impeachment investigations, and other oversight is to have, as required, mid-term corrections. Otherwise, governance collapses into a charade of rubber stamps without continuing oversight, compliance, and preservation of the Constitution.

Arguing that elected officials cannot be challenged, mid-term, would absurdly say, "Despite an alleged violation of the law, no US government, state, or local official may be convicted of any crime." They are not more equal than the Constitution.

This is sophistry, and a distraction from the needed investigation:

". . .the idea of impeaching President Bush isn't in the cards if the party . . ."

Impeachment is in the Constitution; and the duty to enforce the Constitution is in the oath. Whether an "idea" is or isn't something elected officials want to entertain is misdirection from their legal obligations.

The promise not to fully assert ones oath, not investigate, or not defend the Constitution is not an enforcable campaign promise. If presented as an "agreement," it is not enforceable. The voters did not vote to agree to let the Constitution decay.

The voters voted as they did, but that vote does not trump the obligations of the elected officials. The voters' decision does not strip the US government officials of their legal obligations, which the elected officials agreed through the oath.

Deconstructing the Misdirection

Notice the misdirection: The false assertion that the "voters said" something in an election, and distracting attention from the legal obligations on the Constitution, through the oath of office.

Misdirection: "Whether the voters do or do not have no power to elect anyone who refuses to investigate threats to the Constitution." The voters might do this.

Voting decisions a separate issue than legal obligations on those elected officials:

The real issue: "Whether those leaders, once elected, have a duty to investigate and gather facts." They do.

Quibbling Over Justifications For Inaction

The DNC majority in the House elected Pelosi as Speaker; but the House may declare her position vacant. The DNC is not obliged to protect her. The House, not the Speaker, decides whether to investigate, impeach, or do nothing. This Speaker would have us believe she is the House. She is not.

She said this After the election, November 2006:

“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.

It is also false to say the DNC "always" had a promise to not impeach or investigate. Other members of the caucus promised the opposite, an investigation:

"House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus."

The removal decision belongs with the Senate, not the DNC or Pelosi. The proper starting position is with an investigation; then a decision, after that investigation, "What do we do." Pelosi and others have circularly argued, "We aren't going to remove, so we aren't going to investigate." That hardly meets the intent of 9808, the SUpreme Court language, or the oath of office.

Some might argue, "She did not agree, when taking impeachment off the table, to never investigate." That argument fails because there's been no investigation. Why? No answer.

We need to find out. Pelosi needs to explain why she's essentially ignored the language in EO 9808; and why she and others have effectively thwarted 9808 and the language in 9808 and the Supreme Court precedents:

"The preservation of civil liberties is a duty of every Government-state, Federal and local."

Here is the finding of the Committee:

MR. PRESIDENT: This is the report which we have prepared in accordance with the instructions which you gave to us in your statement and Executive Order on December 5, 1946

Here is the language expressly showing the problem with local, state, and federal officials:

"The preservation of civil liberties is a duty of every Government-state, Federal and local. Wherever the law enforcement measures and the authority of Federal, state, and local governments are inadequate to discharge this primary function of government, these measures and this authority should be strengthened and improved.

"The Constitutional guarantees of individual liberties and of equal protection under the laws clearly place on the Federal Government the duty to act when state or local authorities abridge or fail to protect these Constitutional rights."

Conversely, this means when the US Federal government refuses to act, this imposes a duty on the state and local officials to act. But somehow, Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table"-argument thwarted state legislatures and assemblies asking Congress to investigate. Only Vermont's Senate, not legislative assembly including the House, passed the resolution.

Who would like to know why, despite a finding from the 1940s on state-local-federal obligations and duties to preserve civil rights, your elected officials did nothing to investigate this President's FISA violations? Your civil rights have been thwarted. The current litigation is going after the telecoms. The decision makers in Congress and the local-state level have the duties which must be met.

We had FISA, but this President and Congress ignored it, completely at odds with the language related to the committee report in re EO 9808:

"Yet in its discharge of the obligations placed on it by the Constitution, the Federal Government is hampered by inadequate civil rights statutes. The protection of our democratic institutions and the enjoyment by the people of their rights under the Constitution require that these weak and inadequate statutes should be expanded and improved. We must provide the Department of Justice with the tools to do the job."

DoJ had the "tools" to do the job: FISA. They ignored it. This Congress and President refused to enforce the law. Congress would have us absurdly believe that there was a "gap" in the FISA. No, there was a gap in the state, local, and federal officials interested in preserving civil rights.

The President, Congress, and Pelosi jointly agreed:

We're not going to enforce FISA, an instrumental tool to give DOJ, the NSA, and President the tools to balance law enforcement and civil rights; we're going to pretend there is a hole in the law.

No, there's a hole in the oversight and leadership's commitment to enforce the Constitution. Without FISA, the Constitutional requirements to comply with the warrant remain in full force. Ignoring FISA doesn't solve the problem; it leaves the President with a warrant requirement without any lawful way to circumvent the civil right to a warrant.

Who has another excuse to explain away legal duties of state, local, and federal officials?