Obama’s Recess Appointments – January, 2012

Title of article recently posted on The Blaze:

“Obama Uses Executive Authority to Make Recess Appointment – While Senate is Still in Session”*

This is what nobody’s pointing out – an inconvenient truth if ever there was one: Even if, as Obama claims, the Senate was not in session, he would still have been wrong to make these 4 recess appointments: 3 for the NLRB and 1 (Richard Cordray) to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Obama claims to be making recess appointments but nobody is pointing out that these can only be made in the case of “vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” According to the Constitution:

Article II, Section 2: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”

None of these vacancies “happened” (that is, “occurred”) during “the recess of the Senate;” they “happened” when the Senate was, by universal agreement, in session. All four appointments had been pending in the Senate (Cordray’s, since July 2011), only to be held up by the GOP. If any of these positions had become vacant during a senatorial recess, only then would Obama have been within his rights to make a recess appointment.

The only way Cordray’s confirmation had failed was due to (you guessed it) a filibuster. Why do we allow the Senate to cling to this highly unconstitutional device? Rule by supermajority is the surest way to get nothing done.

My view of recess appointments, in general

Back in 2008, I had run for the office of US President under the terms of a 47-point contract. I was the first presidential candidate in this country’s history to offer such a revolutionary document. This is point #34 from that contract:

“I will not make any recess appointments. Also, I will ask for lists of recommendations to ambassadorships from the ten leading universities in the U.S. with programs in international studies. I will submit names to the Senate from those lists.”

[NOTE: Think about it. If I had been elected instead of Barack Obama, we would have all been spared the ignominy of an Imperial President trying to thwart the will of the elected representatives of the people.]

Detractors will object to my point #34 by claiming: “What if Congress isn’t in session and it would be imperative that a position be filled immediately?” For one thing, I can’t imagine such an imperative arising. But if a particular position should be filled quickly, I would simply use my power under Section 3 of Article II: “…[the President] may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses…” Then I would invoke the usual process for filling such a vacancy.

Even though recess appointments are allowable under the Constitution, I find them repugnant to the notion that Congress should be regarded as the supreme of our three branches of government. For that reason, under a Searle presidency, there wouldn’t be any recess appointments.

I base my Congress first philosophy on at least three grounds:

·       Congress outranks the President simply because it can impeach him for any reason whatsoever (or none, should it so choose) and the courts would be powerless to interfere.

·       Though there is a provision to enable the removal of any sitting president (again, by means of impeachment), there is no counterpart in terms of the president being able to dissolve the Congress. Some countries grant that power to their chief executives; we don’t.

·       The President should be regarded as beholden to the Congress since he must report to that body according to Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution: “Every bill…shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated…” In other words, the President can’t just say “no” to a bill, he’s got to say why he objects.

More on the idea of Electoral Contracting

This is from the Preamble to my 2008 contract, posted on-line September 19, 2008:

QUOTE:

 The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2008

Preamble:       I, Steven Searle, am the only candidate running for the office of US president in 2008 who is offering a binding contract in exchange for your vote. The following 47 points comprise this contract, which is now presented to you in its final form….

I will not be shy about claiming this to be an historic document, on a par with the Magna Carta and the U.S. Declaration of Independence. I hope my creation will serve as a model for future candidates (for national and local offices) who wish to follow my lead by offering themselves as alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties which are ruining this country.

:UNQUOTE.

Suppose a candidate for the US Senate would want to offer such a contract. He might want to include a provision like this:

“If elected, I will vote to end any and all attempts to filibuster any business before the Senate.”

The Senate as an institution will never willingly get rid of this anti-democratic device. However, individual senators might hasten its demise by “contracting it out,” as it were. As soon as individual senatorial office-seekers oppose the filibuster in their contracts, perhaps that might generate the public outcry needed to finally terminate this practice.

There is another provision I’d like to see in (again) a Senate candidate’s contract:

“If elected, I understand that my constituents are sending me to Washington DC to be a senator who is to be the equal of any other, regardless of seniority. Toward that end, my constituents are instructing me to be a member of the Senate but not a member of any of its committees.”

I’m very keen on reigning in the power of the Imperial Presidency by redesigning Congress, as indicated in my essay, “The Long Arm of the Law,” posted on April 12, 2011. After clicking the following link, scroll to the part that’s yellowed –

How a Congress without committees would work:      

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5696907376473242750&postID=3382380853699079953

Enforcement Mechanism: Such a contract would be easy to enforce against a sitting President – he could simply be impeached for non-compliance. Even though Congressmen can’t be impeached, they can give their contracts teeth by (in effect) posting a compliance bond. For instance, Senator So-and-So’s contract could identify in advance a panel of 12 volunteers to monitor his compliance. If, for instance, 8 out of 12 would determine him to be in violation of his contract (for instance, by voting against cloture, thereby enabling a filibuster to continue), So-and-So would be given the option of either resigning his office or forfeiting a bond held in trust by that panel, which would consist of (for instance) 12 faculty members of a leading law school.

What I wrote in the preceding paragraph are only my suggestions. I’m sure if an office-seeker really wanted to commit to an Electoral Contract, he would come up with his own contractual provisions and enforcement mechanisms. I have no doubt that such Electoral Contracts will find their way into our campaigns. Perhaps they’ll be offered by candidates who are desperate enough to try anything. In that spirit, I had sent several of the current GOP presidential candidates a suggestion that they, too, submit their own contracts to the voters. Michelle Bachmann was one whose campaign I’d contacted. Either she didn’t believe she was desperate enough or the whole concept of contracting didn’t fit into her strategy.

One of these days, though, my approach will sound viable enough to attract a mainstream candidate’s attention. One desperate enough. Newt Gingrich comes to mind, for I had contacted his campaign as well several months ago. We’ll see.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I wonder if Ron Paul would have made such ‘recess’ appointments if he happened to be president right now.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

  * http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-uses-executive-authority-to-make-recess-appointment%e2%80%94while-congress-is-still-in-session/

Yahoo! News Censors my Cain Comment

I tried posting this as a comment to a Yahoo! News article. And was twice rejected:

QUOTE:

Gloria Cain says, “I’m thinking he would have to have a split personality to do the things that were said.”

Well, Gloria, you may well be on to something there. You know the old saying: The wife is the last to know, and the first to exclaim “I should have known!” This is where Herman’s claim that his wife supports him “200 percent” gets interesting.

First, I’d rather hear that from his wife than from her “spokesman.”

Second, if his wife supports him 200%, that would break down to 100% support for each of his split personalities (hmm...maybe she does know).

Third, if that isn’t true, then I have to seriously question Herman’s math – and he was a math major in college, wasn’t he? Go figure!

Oh, BTW, if Herman Cain cared anything at all for his wife’s heart condition, he should not have allowed himself to be photographed (recently) with his arms around two white college-age honeys. That picture sent a message: No one tells Herman Cain what to do.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“This man is a dog; and I’m not spelling that d-a-w-g.”

:UNQUOTE.

I firmly believe Yahoo! News censors readers’ comments. I’ve seen comments by some posters who manage to attract hundreds of “thumbs up” within a few hours of the source article being posted. And many of those comments aren’t really that controversial nor do they do much except allow people to vent. They certainly don’t contribute anything substantial to the debate. It seems to me that Yahoo has some way of artificially “managing” the news – for lack of a better word.

For a while, I had huge problems posting anything critical of Sarah Palin. For other types of posts, I would see my comments a few hours later but then they’d disappear soon thereafter. I have a feeling that Yahoo! News, much like other corporate media outlets, seeks to dumb down the dialogue, pandering to the lowest common denominator. This is most obvious in the poor quality of the offerings of certain selected contributors who are allowed a status similar to guest editorialists.

Not that my feelings are hurt by any of these machinations. I post what I can, when I can. But I want to call Yahoo on their mischief. That’s the least I can do.

As of this writing, it seems that Herman Cain is very much on the way out, with Newt Gingrich on the rise. That would please me immensely, for I would then have the opportunity to compare my written contract to his earlier Contract with America. For starters, his version didn’t have any teeth. That is, there were no provisions for non-performance. My contract, however, guarantees (as it did during my first presidential run in 2008) that I would lose my office if I failed to deliver on any of my 47-points.

And these points were promises on which I could make good without the support of Congress. For instance, here are the first three points of my 2008 Contract:

ONE: If I violate any of the terms of this contract, I will be removed from office by means of impeachment. I hereby affirm, in advance, that I will not defend myself nor authorize any other party to defend me against any impeachment activity in the House or trial by the Senate. I further agree to a speedy trial - within less than 10 minutes, if deemed necessary by the Senate.

TWO: Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently operating in Iran.

THREE: I will urge Congress to retroactively raise to $5,000,000 the payment to next-of-kin (or other designees) of all U.S. soldiers (and members of Private Military Companies) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan - and make that tax free. In addition, I will urge Congress to increase disability benefits to $1,000,000 per lost limb, also retroactively and tax free. All this with an apology to our troops who've sacrificed so much: "We - made - a - mistake - and - we're - sorry."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Yes, I hope Gingrich’s campaign catches on. Then I’ll work on scripting a YouTube video showing me and Newt debating. Since my Contract has teeth and his Contract with America didn’t, I might feature Newt trying to gum his toothless way through our debate. I’ve heard that Newt is thinking of offering an updated version of his contract specific to his current campaign, though I really doubt that version will have teeth either.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Why doesn’t Newt Gingrich quit while he’s ahead and still has a shred of dignity?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The US President’s position on government finance

“How will you [if elected US President in 2012] determine the gathering of financial resources to have the government carry out its obligations?”

This was one of the questions asked by Anon, in a post to my Sept. 19, 2010 blog. Anon’s question was inspired by this item on my electoral contract* listed on that blog:

“I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress which has any provision for tax increase or for increased government spending.”

However, my reply to Anon will be complicated by something he(?) didn’t consider. Elsewhere on this site, I have other essays further defining my positions on government spending. For instance, I have stated that I won’t sign any bill into law that provides any kind of financial aid to Israel or to Egypt. But that’s nothing compared to this:

QUOTE:

I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes:

• A Single Payer health care reform package, which will provide medical coverage to all US citizens free of charge – that is, without co-payments, deductibles, or any requirement to pay insurance premiums. This will also establish reasonable medical billing practices and rates.

• A nationwide cap on personal credit card interest rates of 18%.

:UNQUOTE.

My Reply to Anonymous or

My Position on the Power of the Presidency

My aim is to dismantle the power of the Imperial Presidency – that’s my goal, in 25 words or less.

My case against the presidency:

The United States has three branches of government, one of which is a One-Man Branch. This one man is so powerful, he can overrule the will of the people as expressed by their duly-elected Congressmen.

Consider the House of Reps, though I’ll get to the Senate in the next paragraph. If a simple-majority (218) passes a bill, that means the entire House passes that bill. However, if the President (again, one man) vetoes it, two-thirds of the House (290) would have to pass it in order to override that veto. In this case, the president would have the same voting power as 72 Reps – and the millions of people they represent.

Now, consider the Senate, that mighty and venerable bastion of elitism and anti-democracy.  Due to the long-established institution of the filibuster, it takes 60 senators to pass a bill. In order to override a presidential veto, it would take 7 more. That would mean the president has an influence greater than three states, since each state has two senators.

Side note: I think it’s bad enough that there is a Senate – a body in which one senator could represent as few as 214 thousand voters (as in the mighty state of Wyoming) or as many as 14 million voters (as in the vastly underrepresented state of California). So right off the bat, the principle of “equal representation” doesn’t apply to the Senate. However, each senator is supposed to be equal to any other senator, in terms of his standing in the Senate. But that is not so, due to the filibuster; the will of 41 senators is sufficient to override the will of 59 – worst case scenario. If Barack Obama had accomplished nothing else but had managed to challenge the filibuster – thereby making each senator the equal of his colleagues – he could have gone down in history as a great president who bestowed a great advantage to future generations.

If I am elected President in 2012:

This is a good time to get back to Anon’s question, which is:

“How [will] you [if elected US President in 2012] determine the gathering of financial resources to have the government carry out its obligations?”

It is not I who would have to “determine the gathering of financial resources.” That task would fall upon Congress, which would have to pass bills into law by two-thirds majorities until it:

·        Repeals Obamacare and replaces it with the Single Payer program mandated by my contract*. I shall also insist that the insurance industry lose its exemption from federal regulation.

• Passes a nationwide cap on personal credit card interest rates of 18%.

In addition, Congress would have to pass bills, by two-thirds majorities, containing tax increases or increased government spending since I would veto those.

In a worst-case scenario, I might end up vetoing every single bill passed by Congress. This would invite the question: Wouldn’t our legislative process grind to a halt since it would be “impossible” to get the necessary votes to override my vetoes?

There are three possible answers to that question:

ONE: If indeed Congress found itself unable to pass any laws, they might use that as grounds to impeach me. Oh, to be sure, they’d call it something else. But impeachment would be a tempting move since, once I’d be removed, business as usual could once against reign in DC.

TWO: Congress could find itself subject to enormous pressure from the Elite to find a way to come together, at least “together” enough to form a two-thirds coalition. You have to realize that there’s too much at stake for the Elite to allow government to grind to a halt. They would find a way to move things along.

THREE: The Elite could decide to assassinate me. And in fact they might even give me a friendly warning. However, I would simply tell them this: “If you make one move against me, your entire house of cards will come tumbling down. If you read the Buddhist text called the Lotus Sutra, you will come to see the disaster predicted for anyone who moves against a votary of that teaching. And, just to spell it out for you, I am such a votary.”

Back to that “One-Man Branch”

Earlier in this essay, I railed against the power of the One-Man Branch of government. It would seem that I am embracing that imperial power rather than moving against it. However, I offer a proposal:

If, as a result of the 2014 elections, we reach a point where less than one-third (each) of the Senate and the House consist of incumbents, I will change my tune. I will pass (“rubberstamp,” in other words) every bill passed (only) by simple-majorities. BUT…and this is a big BUT indeed: I still would not pass any bill which my contract* states I’d veto. For instance, I still wouldn’t pass any bill with a “provision for tax increase or for increased government spending.”

My view would be then (as it is now): Congress has to find a way to cut expenses, working instead with the money flowing in from currently-authorized revenue sources. And in case you’re wondering: I would not approve any increase in our ability to borrow.

One of the easiest budget items to cut would be from our bloated military. We don’t need hundreds of bases scattered all over the world nor do we need to spend trillions to weaponize outer space or build that next generation of nuclear warheads.

Another area of concern: Congress needs to stop coddling the financial services industry by refusing to regulate. And I’m not talking about more government “interference” – I’m talking about more efficient government regulation which isn’t hamstrung by the dictates of political parties.

Closing statement:

As I’ve written before, if anyone has questions concerning the content of any of my blogs, I’ll be more than glad to answer them. But…first you’ve got to ask the questions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I guess a lot of bad things could be said about me. But one of them wouldn’t be that I’m unresponsive to questioning” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com .

  * “my contract” – I am the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to offer a binding written contract to the voters, as explained here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

Questions concerning Supreme Court nominations

A couple of days ago, someone anonymously posted four questions concerning my essay posted on Sept. 19, 2010. Today I attempt to answer two of those questions – these two:

“Why would you [if elected President of the US in 2012] ignore the Constitutional duties that the Senate has in Supreme Court selection? Wouldn’t the Court simply declare your choice and method unconstitutional?”

These questions were in response to one of my campaign promises listed in my contract*:

I will not nominate any person to the US Supreme Court who will not sign the following contract in advance: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will serve for only five years, after which I will resign. Failure to resign, I here and now freely stipulate, will constitute a violation of the ‘good behavior’ rule mandated by Article III, section 1 of the Constitution. Such a violation would and should subject me to a well-deserved impeachment and removal from office.

Before I answer Anon’s questions, I wish to change the text highlighted above to read: “any position in the federal judiciary up to and including the US Supreme Court.”

My Reply to Anon’s Questions

The Constitution allows the President to nominate candidates to the federal judiciary, while placing no restrictions on how he is to make his decision. The Senate’s only constitutional duties, which would not be impinged by my contractual insistence, are summed up in these words: “…with the advice and consent of the Senate, he shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court [and all other federal judges as well]…” By the way, that “advice” doesn’t have to be sought or considered before POTUS nominates.

I could choose whomever I’d please but the Senate would still have the final say as to whether my nominee would be confirmed. Now the Senate might object (but so what?) to being forced to consider a nominee who could not serve more than five years, though that same nominee (after resigning) could be reconfirmed by a future Senate. That body should welcome the chance to reconfirm, after getting a chance to review how judges performed during their five-year terms. This, of course, assumes the next President would reappoint, but if he wouldn’t – that would be his prerogative.

Of course the Senate could refuse to consider any of my nominees. That could mean a great number of seats on the bench would remain vacant because (again) I wouldn’t nominate anyone who’d refuse to sign that contract. If that would be the will of the Senate, who would I be to argue? Of course, the Senate (by rejecting a provision in the contract under which I was elected) could be said to be rejecting the will of the people.

The Senate might decide to approve one of my nominees while adding this language to that written approval: “The 5-year-term-of-office contract signed by this nominee is, by decree of the Senate, held to be null and void.” That approach won’t work for two reasons:

·       The Senate does not have the power to nullify an oath. For instance, could the Senate nullify the oath taken by the President before he assumes office?

·       The Senate would, in effect, be telling the President the terms and conditions under which he must nominate. Since the Constitution doesn’t define these, how does the Senate get to? Besides, if the Senate wouldn’t like my nominee because he’d come to them for consideration while “shackled” to an oath, the Senate could simply refuse to confirm him.

A likelier scenario would occur if a duly-appointed judge decided not to resign after his five-year term expired. According to his contract/oath, he could be impeached and removed from office. But that would be up to Congress. If Congress decided not to impeach, they would be letting a scoundrel get away with violating his oath. But, again, that would be up to Congress, though I think that body would acquire a negative taint with this type of complicity.

The Supreme Court could declare my method unconstitutional, secure in the knowledge that Congress would not impeach them for this. However, SCOTUS would have to overlook the fact that my method doesn’t violate the Constitution at all. [“Show me where, good Justices!”]

My method should be hailed as a welcome relief by those who are tired of judicial tyranny, who yearn for a way to discourage judicial activism. Don’t forget – any of my 5-year nominees could be renominated, so perhaps they’d think twice before jeopardizing their second chance by engaging in extra-judicial behavior. Nowhere in the Law of the Land are judges granted lifetime appointments, though a lot of people make this assumption. They are allowed to “hold their offices during good behavior.” All I’m doing (in effect) is trying to define (at least in part) what constitutes “good behavior.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The only reason anyone could oppose my proposed 5-year judicial contracting system would be due to an inherently rigid mindset” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com .

  * “my contract” – I am the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to offer a binding written contract to the voters, as explained here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

Replacing the US Supreme Court

Today, I will make a radical proposal to reform the US Supreme Court. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments will be part of the following analysis.

An interesting background story:

Yesterday, I posted a response to this article on Yahoo News: “Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court sex-bias ruling.” The Court ruled that a class action lawsuit was not appropriate in this case.

QUOTE [my response]:

"… Because respondents wish to sue about literally millions of employment decisions at once, they need some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together," [Justice Antonin Scalia] said.

Ah, once again, Dirt Bag Scalia pontificates. Okay, Tony, I’ll spell it out for you. The “glue” you speak of is Wal-Mart’s very own Non-Discrimination policy which says, “Walmart will not tolerate discrimination in employment, employment-related decisions…”

That policy is an umbrella under which all Walmart employees and supervisors work. That’s the glue you weren’t (apparently) looking very hard for. If such policies are to be worth more than the paper they’re printed on, there must be a way unobstructed by SCOTUS antics that would allow for redress.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If elected, I will seek to remove Dirt Bag Scalia from the bench.”

:UNQUOTE.

Almost immediately, someone calling himself “Gladius,” challenged me:

QUOTE:

Steven Searle is blowing smoke up your sphincter. A Supreme Court appointment is for life. They are a separate branch of the government and the President has no power over them once congress approves an appointment…

:UNQUOTE.

To which I responded Thor-like:

:QUOTE.

Gladius,

Supreme Court appointments are not for life – nowhere does it say that. What [the Constitution] does say: “The judges…shall hold their offices during good behavior…” Here’s how we can use this to our advantage:

·       If I get a chance to appoint any new SCOTUS judges, I will ask my potential nominee to publicly sign a contract in which the candidate swears (upon oath) to resign after 5 years. Further, if he does not, his contract would stipulate that he’d be in violation of “good behavior” and should be impeached. That’s how we get rid of the erroneous but wide-spread belief that such appointments are for life.

·       As for Scalia (and actually, all 9 of them), I said “I will SEEK to remove…from the bench.” I will do that by having in my own written contract: “If you vote for me, I will demand the resignations of all 9 justices but will renominate them for 5 years [under the conditions stated above]. Failure of these justices to submit their resignations immediately to their new president will be defined as a violation of “good behavior” and will therefore be grounds for impeachment.

If We-the-People elect me under such a contract, that would mean We-the-People would be defining “good behavior” as indicated.

:UNQUOTE.

Precipitating a Constitutional crisis:

If elected, I would use the occasion of my inauguration ceremony to demand the immediate resignations of all nine Supreme Court justices.

Of course, they might refuse. Then what? Basically, I would tell them – in so many words – “I’m tired of your bullshit.” Meaning? I would instruct the Justice Department to have no dealings with this Court – file no briefs, make no appearances. For this Court would be illegitimate in terms of the will of the people.

That “will” would have been expressed by “the people” having voted for me – and my contract. That contract would have served as advance notice to the Court of my intentions. By voting for me, We-the-People voted for my contract, which states what I’d do if elected. It also says, if I fail to do as promised, I would forfeit the presidency.

So, by refusing the will of the people, the Supreme Court would stand alone. Or would it? Would Congress rally round the Court? They could do so by threatening to impeach me, which is something any Congress could do for the flimsiest of reasons – or none at all, truth be told. If I would win this election as an Independent, you can bet that a Two-Party dominated Congress would unite to undermine my administration. They’d love to go back to business as usual with one of their fellow Party animals in charge.

That’s where I come in…and you. The US President has huge power in terms of the Bully Pulpit. We-the-People hold our legislators in low esteem – as in, “You wouldn’t actually let your daughter date one, would you?” People perceive the Congress as a major contributor to our problems. So it would be easy for me to “lecture” Congress – in the same breath as when denouncing activist judges who dare to defy the will of the people.

An added consideration: Suppose, to explore a scenario, three Supreme Court justices were to die in a plane crash. That would give me a chance to nominate their replacements, which I would but only under terms of the 5-year contract detailed above. If I actually got three nominees to sign such a contract, the Senate could refuse to ratify – unless my nominees were to sign (and swear to uphold) another contract, which would void the 5-year term limitation.

The Senate could do anything it wanted, but there would be a problem: The potential justices would be “swearing to uphold” two contradictory contracts. Common sense tells me that a person cannot swear two such oaths. During the Senate’s confirmation hearings, my nominees could be told, “We’ll confirm you but only if you sign this contract, which basically frees you from complying with the one you’d signed for the President.”

At that point, my nominees should say, “I signed President Searle’s contract in exchange for him nominating me. I couldn’t have secured his nomination without signing that contract and swearing to uphold it. How can you offer to have me sign and swear to another contract releasing me from that vow, just to win your confirmation? If I should feel, here and now, that I couldn’t honor the contract I signed with the President, I would have to withdraw my nomination. Actually, my signing your contract would serve to void his nomination, which would mean you couldn’t confirm me under any circumstances.

“If you want to confirm me, it must be under the terms of the contract I’d signed and sworn to uphold per the President’s offer.”

Congress has yet another option: The Senate could refuse to confirm any of my nominees. That would not put the Supreme Court out of business since they could lawfully function with fewer than nine justices. However, it would give the Senate the chance to voice their opposition to the underlying philosophy of my political contracts.

That would be unwise, though, since We-the-People supported that philosophy by voting for me under the terms of my own contract. If the voters would accept my innovation, the Congress would be on the ethical low-ground to challenge them.

Ninth and Tenth Amendment considerations:

We the People have a lot more power than we realize, as enshrined in the Ninth and Tenth amendments – each only one sentence long.

The Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Bottom line? We have “rights” and “powers.” We have the “right” to transcend the dictates of Congress and make clear the rules under which we will be governed. Some call that the Right to Self-Determination. We have the “power” to call the shots – even if that would mean (in effect) “no more lifetime appointments for SCOTUS justices.”

 We have “rights” and “powers” alright. But only if we choose to be assertive enough to wield them. You and I should unite in our insistence in these and other matters. But courage is called for – the courage to say, “It doesn’t matter how we’ve ‘always’ done things, we have the ‘rights’ and the ‘powers’ to say otherwise.”

As for courage, think of it this way: “A gun in the hands of a coward is still in the hands of a coward.” Your “rights” and “powers” are far more potent than any gun. But you – and also I, I must admit – must summon up the courage necessary to make certain fundamental changes. I, for one, am tired of politicized, activist courts that split far too often along ideological lines. We deserve better than that. We deserve justices who are accountable, instead of the arrogant lot we have now who are too comfortable in their (alleged) lifetime appointments.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“In the name of the future of this country, we’ve got to take a stand. Are you with me on this?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com