I would like to see a member of the USA's armed forces covertly arrest U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham. And then I'd like to see this member arrange for the Senator's incognito imprisonment in a black-hole cell controlled by one of our independent militias. Graham would only be released after an election is held to replace him in the Senate.
This sounds like the kind of material that makes for interesting fiction. Perhaps so, but I think this traitor of a senator should be somehow made to account for violating his constitutional oath of office.
What crime did Graham commit?
I accuse the Senator of attempting to usurp the power of the President as specified here:
QUOTE:
source: Article II, Section 2, US Constitution
...and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors...
:UNQUOTE.
According to the preceding quote, the President "shall appoint ambassadors" and the Senate shall give "advice" toward this end. However, Graham is trying a pre-emptive strike as indicated here:
QUOTE:
source: CNSNews.com, article by Susan Jones, Dec. 22, 2014
(CNSNews.com) - A message from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): "If you are being offered the ambassadorship to Cuba, turn it down, because you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting confirmed."
Graham, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," said, "The Congress is not going to reinforce this policy." The senator was talking about Obama's diplomatic re-engagement with Cuba. "There will be no confirmation of an ambassador to Cuba because the Castro brothers are terrible dictators who deserve no new engagement. They deserve to be condemned and isolated...."
:UNQUOTE.
As for that last sentence, it is Senator Graham who deserves "to be condemned and isolated."
In the sentence highlighted in blue, Graham is addressing every potential candidate for this ambassadorship, which has a chilling effect. Since he is a high-ranking member of his party, his GOP colleagues would be hard put to oppose him by responding to any request from the White House for "advice," which the Constitution says the Senate must provide. Suppose, for example, that Graham himself were to be asked by President Obama to provide his Constitutionally-mandated "advice" on this matter, perhaps to offer his insight on the merits of candidates who made the short-list. To be consistent with his comments made on "Face the Nation," Graham would have to decline, though that would violate the Constitution.
Concerning the language I yellowed above: It is not the place of Congress [though I'm sure Lindsey meant to say "Senate"] to "reinforce this policy." If the President should decide that Cuba is to have an ambassador, the Constitution does not say "but only if the Senate will allow it."
In the sentence highlighted in blue, Graham is addressing every potential candidate for this ambassadorship, which has a chilling effect. Since he is a high-ranking member of his party, his GOP colleagues would be hard put to oppose him by responding to any request from the White House for "advice," which the Constitution says the Senate must provide. Suppose, for example, that Graham himself were to be asked by President Obama to provide his Constitutionally-mandated "advice" on this matter, perhaps to offer his insight on the merits of candidates who made the short-list. To be consistent with his comments made on "Face the Nation," Graham would have to decline, though that would violate the Constitution.
Concerning the language I yellowed above: It is not the place of Congress [though I'm sure Lindsey meant to say "Senate"] to "reinforce this policy." If the President should decide that Cuba is to have an ambassador, the Constitution does not say "but only if the Senate will allow it."
Concerning Constitutionally-mandated oaths
Senator Graham, as well as all officers and enlisted men in the military, have sworn an oath. These oaths all share the same opening language:
QUOTE:
source: See Footnote 1
"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...."
:UNQUOTE.
Senator Graham has violated his oath by attempting to foment an usurpation of the President's powers with his words, which were meant to sway his fellow senators and discourage potential applicants for this ambassadorship. And so far, our entire military has failed to uphold their oath by allowing him to get away with this.
The military oath might be considered problematic, given these two apparently opposing demands:
- that each troop has sworn to defend the Constitution but
- each has also been tasked with following all lawful orders issued by his superiors [See Footnote two].
Some people might ask, "Are you suggesting that each member of our military be allowed to decide on his own whether a member of Congress is an enemy of the Constitution?" The answer to that is obviously "yes." What other option is there - to mandate that they ask their superiors for permission to arrest a member of Congress to stop him from undermining the Constitution? That won't work because the chain of command has a built-in bias to defend the status quo as dictated by the Dem/GOP duopoly instead of defending the Constitution.
And to think Lindsey Graham, who has launched this blatant attack on the Constitution, wants to become our next President.
Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office
Footnote 2:
According to the link cited in Footnote 1:
QUOTE:
One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personal are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders.
:UNQUOTE.
I find it hard to believe the implication that officers do not have to obey orders, though their oath doesn't address this issue. No matter how you slice and dice it, insubordination is still insubordination.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office
Footnote 2:
According to the link cited in Footnote 1:
QUOTE:
One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personal are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders.
:UNQUOTE.
I find it hard to believe the implication that officers do not have to obey orders, though their oath doesn't address this issue. No matter how you slice and dice it, insubordination is still insubordination.
No comments:
Post a Comment