About Hillary Clinton's vagina

What about Hillary Clinton's vagina?  For too many people, especially women, that will be the exact reason they'll support her run for the presidency in 2016.  They'll pretend there are other reasons - like the oft-cited "fact" she's such a hard worker. But, truth be told, there are a lot of lower- and middle-class people who work 70 hour weeks. But no part of their work hour tallies will ever involve being entertained at diplomatic functions.

I don't care how many hours per week Hillary works - or hours that are claimed on her behalf. If she wants to be our next president, I'm more interested in two things: her qualifications and what she has to offer the country.

As for her qualifications, her most prominent for decades has been being Bill Clinton's wife. To be sure, her fanbase will try to song-and-dance their way around that overwhelming prime cause, but to no avail.  For who could possibly believe she could have risen to such heights if she'd been a single woman and one lacking social standing, wealth, or a powerful patron?  Hillary reminds me of a technocrat who is particularly outstanding only because she has a powerful patron. But has her lengthy tenure as Bill Clinton's wife forged her into a leader who can truly stand on her own?  I'm afraid we'll only be able to find that out if she gets elected.

Even her latest stint as Secretary of State wasn't very remarkable (name one notable achievement) and in fact shows us what kind of president she'd be - one who relies heavily on advisors and is risk averse. Ask yourself one question: Has she ever made a political decision on her own?  Presidents are called on to do exactly that - although of course they also have advisors.  However, especially in the case of presidents, they can't seek cover by saying "We made this decision" if a particular decision turns out to have been a bad one.

Why won't Hillary right this wrong?

QUOTE:

Clinton has been criticized for not giving credit to a ghostwriter in connection with It Takes a Village.  The majority of the book was reportedly written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman.[9]  When the book was first announced in April 1995, The New York Times reported publisher Simon & Schuster as saying "The book will actually be written by Barbara Feinman, a journalism professor at Georgetown University in Washington.  Ms. Feinman will conduct a series of interviews with Mrs. Clinton, who will help edit the resulting text."[10]

Feinman spent seven months on the project and was paid $120,000 for her work.[11]  Feinman, however, was not mentioned anywhere in the book. Clinton's acknowledgment section began: "It takes a village to bring a book into the world, as everyone who has written one knows.  Many people have helped me to complete this one, sometimes without even knowing it. They are so numerous that I will not even attempt to acknowledge them individually, for fear that I might leave one out."[12]

:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village


I'm sure Hillary Clinton, like many of us, have watched the Academy Awards. She has heard acknowledgements from award winners thanking their supporters and apologizing for anyone inadvertently overlooked. So who was she trying to kid by writing above, "...I will not even attempt to acknowledge them individually for fear that I might leave one out."? I will go farther by saying, "Hillary Clinton wasn't trying to 'kid' anyone. She did worse that that; she called us stupid enough to believe that line of crap."

However, the tenth anniversary edition of "her" book, first printed in 1996, would have presented a golden opportunity for Clinton to include a proper acknowledgement by at least mentioning Barbara Feinman's name. The same Barbara Feinman whom Clinton thought of highly enough to engage in service for $120,000 for seven months work.  In the same breath, Hillary could have named some of the others she'd left unacknowleged while apologizing to any others she might have inadvertently omitted.

But Hillary Clinton didn't do any of that simply because being Hillary Clinton means never having to say you're sorry.

Then there's the matter of karma

QUOTE:

And the Nirvana Sutra also says, "If all the desires and delusions of all the men throughout the major world system [one major world system equals one billion worlds] were lumped together, they would be no greater than the karmic impediment of one single woman.

:UNQUOTE:  Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin,Vol. 3, p. 20]

This is one helluva statement, especially coming from the Buddha!  However, he also claimed that women could attain enlightenment - but only after being born as men in a future reincarnation.  The issue of women in Buddhism as well as in politics is not at all clear.  Especially, again referring to Buddhism, after considering stories of legendary teachers who shapeshifted themselves into female form in order to preach the Law, if that form was what was needed for a particular audience.

So one is forced to think, "What should I make of Hillary Clinton?"  Is she the one who will, if elected, lead generations of young girls and women to aspire to higher goals?  Or will she only be understood to say, "If you have enough drive and native smarts - you too can do what I did. But...only if you marry well."?

Or maybe female America will ignore that last question and shrug as they reply, "So what if Hillary vaulted to the top thanks in great part to Bill Clinton?  Great movements have to start somewhere, even from flawed beginnings.  However, once we get that first female president, others will follow in many fields of endeavor, for whom influential spouses will come to matter less and less as time goes on."

Perhaps that will turn out to be so.  And that might serve to mitigate the Bill Clinton factor in Hillary's ascent.  Which could be another way of saying, "The end justifies the means."  For my own part?  I remember something else the Buddha said toward the end of his life, which is this to the best of my recollection: "Don't follow persons, follow the Law."  In this case, the "person" might very well be a shapeshifted male in the form of the one whom we see as "Hillary Clinton."  Or is she a "devil pretending to be a Buddha?"  Our mortal eyes can't penetrate these disguises.  However, we can only hope our enlightened nature - which we all possess - can tell us if Hillary Clinton is preaching to us the Law or some devilish perversion thereof.

Closing Comments

I'm most afraid that Hillary Clinton will end up trying to please as big an audience as possible, though when push comes to shove and she has to make a polarizing decision, she'll waffle and will try to make that decision she hopes will please everybody.

These words about "fooling people" are worth remembering:

P.T. Barnum supposedly said (though perhaps it was Abraham Lincoln), "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." To which a third party added this refinement, "You can fool too many of the people too much of the time."

As for the first quote, if one makes a career out of trying to fool anybody for even part of the time, everyone will eventually catch on to that - even the people who were initially fooled - and that will breed resentment.  As for the second quote, Hillary Clinton may well succeed to the presidency by virtue of too many of us being vulnerable to being fooled just long enough to get her into office.  And the rest of us will be stuck praying she doesn't sink us too badly.

I take as one small clue a certain truism: "Many women, no matter how talented and accomplished, feel that their best efforts just aren't good enough."  That sentiment leads to a certain insecurity which makes them want to at least appear good enough.  Which might have led to Hillary's attempt to withhold or minimize acknowledgement of (shall we say) "co-author credit" for one book - It Takes a Village - and one of her other books - Living History.   It is a mark of the insecure that they wish to make themselves seem bigger than they really are.

As for my provocative title - "About Hillary Clinton's vagina."  Some might protest my (apparent) reduction of the female to organ-centricity, that there's more to a woman besides her sexuality.  To be sure, there are many women of whom this is true - just as there are many men (take Bill Clinton for example) of whom his organ is more centric than it should ever have been.  There are perhaps as many as 100 women on this planet of whom this is not true at all - of whom their sexuality is self-acknowledged but only silently and then is either ignored or developed in an enlightened manner.

But far more than these 100 are the legions of other women who are close to making the leap needed to join them.  And there are men who could become very good allies of such women.  But also, there are too many men who will fall prey to their own base karmic tendencies and end up trying to exploit them - coming to see them more as vaginas than anything else.  Men and women alike out there - tread carefully.  Much is at stake.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"Yeah, I admit to feeling a little slimy for having titled this essay as I did.  But I did so after much soul-searching and without any fear of making a bad decision.  However, should it turn out my decision was bad, I apologize in advance and hope that at least some of the points I tried to advance here will be recognized for their merits."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Invitation to sue Senate for filibustering

Open Memo to:

the ACLU, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC, and George Soros et al

I urge you to consider filing a lawsuit against the United States Senate, seeking a judicial order to cease and desist the practice of the filibuster and its partner-in-crime - the senatorial hold. The following argues against the Constitutionality of the filibuster, though similar logic could be used against the hold. In essence, the filibuster is nothing more than a tool used by a minority to thwart the will of a majority, thus being a gross denial of our cherished "one man, one vote" ideal.

Constitutionality

The practice of the filibuster is in direct violation of at least three different sections of the US Constitution:

Article V: "...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." If, for example, a state were (like all other states) allowed two senators but (unlike the others) only one could vote, that would be a clear deprivation of "equal suffrage." And yet, if a state's senator were to find his vote rendered meaningless by a minority threatening a filibuster, that is a comparably clear deprivation of "equal suffrage."

The Fifth Amendment: "No person...[shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." When a citizen's senator finds the value of his vote diminished in Senate chambers, that citizen finds the value of his own vote similarly diminished. In other words, that citizen is being denied full and complete representation in the Senate, which in turn means he has been "deprived of...[his] property [that is, the full value of his vote], without due process of law."

The Seventeenth Amendment: "...each senator shall have one vote." That must mean, by any fair and sensible standard, that each senator's vote is to be considered equal to each other senator's vote. Allowing for filibusters denies this equality.

The Matter of Standing

If the merits of this lawsuit are to be considered by the US Supreme Court, the issue of standing must (obviously) be addressed. There are several possible parties you could recruit to be plantiffs:

1. A currently-sitting US Senator on record as having voted for cloture in a current filibuster session. Of course, it would help if this senator had not, earlier in his career, voted against cloture.

2. The parents of shooting victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who didn't have a chance in the Senate of having a gun control bill passed due to an implied filibuster threat.

3. A soldier who swore to defend the Constitution and chooses to do so by participating as a plaintiff in this suit.

4. A state with senators who have always voted for, and never against, cloture.

5. A homeless person - who is essentially a stateless person (in terms of the state he happens to live in) - who would love to have his voice heard for once in the lofty chambers of SCOTUS.

6. Any USA citizen who objects to, and is harmed by (who isn't?), the legislative gridlock caused by the Senate's insistence on supermajority rule.

7. Any combination of the above.

Sovereign Immunity

The Supreme Court might refuse to hear this case based on the long-assumed right of Sovereign Immunity possessed by the federal government. The idea that the government cannot be sued without its permission, however, is one that should be challenged. There are strong arguments to be made against the absolutism of this right and in favor of the sovereignty of the individual, as follows:


1)  From the Declaration of Independence: "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." That is, without the consent of We-the-People (each of whom has Individual Sovereignty), the Sovereign government would not have its "just powers."

2)  The Tenth Amendment identifies three sovereign entities - the United States, the individual states, and the people.

3)  Nowhere in the Constitution does this concept appear: "The state can do no wrong and therefore cannot be sued without its permission." Since Article VI states, "This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land..," any other source promoting state Sovereign Immunity must be considered inferior. Article III, Section 2 argues against Sovereign Immunity when it states: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...to controversies to which the United States shall be a party..." It doesn't say, "...to controversies to which the United States shall be a party, but only if it grants permission to be sued."

4)  Since Congress has the power to impeach the Sovereign President, surely We-the-People have sufficient sovereignty to be heard by the Supreme Court when violations of our constitutional rights are claimed.

5) The First Amendment enumerates certain rights, limiting the power of Congress. Suppose, however, that Congress violates the First by creating a state religion, or by abridging the freedom of speech or of the press? Will the Supreme Court claim that a citizen has no access to the judicial system because the state cannot be sued without its permission?

But there's no mechanism...

The Supreme Court might claim, "There's no Constitutional mechanism by which a lawsuit against the United States - in this case, the US Senate - could proceed." Indeed, Article III, Section 2 seems to support this view:

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

SCOTUS might point out, "Since this Court doesn't have original jurisdiction to hear a case brought by a citizen against the United States, and since it cannot be imagined which lower court could have such jurisdiction, it must be concluded that SCOTUS has no power to hear such a case under either form of jurisdiction."

However, I would argue there's an implied right for a citizen to have this case heard by the High Court. For Article III, Section 2 also states: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..." Any claim that the Senate is violating the Constitution must surely be encompassed by this "judicial power." Since the First Amendment disallows the Congress from making any laws "...abridging the...right of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances," that must mean Congress can't bar SCOTUS from hearing an anti-filibuster case. For what good does it do to have the right to petition the government - of which SCOTUS is a part - for a redress of grievances, if it can be claimed that there's no mechanism in place by which SCOTUS can even consider this petition?

The Supreme Court might claim, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..," as stated in Article I, Section 5.  However, can it be claimed that this power is absolute, including the ability to determine rules which deny to citizens and their states their Constitutional rights? Section 5 also states that, "Each House may...punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour..." Surely that doesn't mean that such punishment could include drawing and quartering. Just how much power are we willing to grant to "each House?"

5)  The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Surely one of these rights must include a reasonable expectation that We-the-People have a right to have our case heard by SCOTUS when our rights are being violated.

Closing Comment

In closing, we would all do well to remember these particular words of the Preamble to the US Constitution:  "We the people of the United States, in order to...establish justice...and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If, by any stretch, our current Constitution won't allow a court case against the filibuster to proceed, it would be high time to seriously consider ordaining and establishing a replacement Constitution.

Sincerely,



Steven Searle, former Candidate for U.S. President (2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"I invite anyone reading this post to add their voices to mine by doing what I'm about to do - forward this post to the above-named parties as well as to whomever else you think might respond favorably."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Constitution "vs" enemy combatants

Actually, the title of this article should be:

The Constitution vs All those Bullets* and

the Usurpers who would use concepts like "enemy combatant" to

deprive US citizens of their rights.

In the case of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the paramount fact to keep in mind is that he is a USA citizen and is therefore covered under the Bill of Rights. It should also be remembered that, nowhere in the US Constitution is the term or concept "enemy combatant" to be found.

There are several ways in which the authorities could proceed against Dzhokhar in court, ranging from Massachusetts charging him with multiple counts of murder to the feds charging him with (among other possibilities) treason. However, no matter how they proceed, it would serve no useful purpose to pretend, in the absence of proof, that this defendant is something other than a citizen of the USA. Such a pretense serves only as a thinly-veiled attempt to deprive this man of his rights.

What is an enemy combatant?

For your convenience, in the next paragraph I will broach the definition of "enemy combatant." However, this is my personal feeling: There are a lot of lawyers working for the US government who have nothing better to do than muddy the waters with definitions and self-serving memos which (for instance) justify torture.

QUOTE [Note my highlighted portion]:

Enemy combatant is a term historically referring to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2]  Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term "enemy state' may be replaced by the more general term "Party to the conflict" (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3).[3]  In the United States the phrase "enemy combatant" was used after the September 11 attacks by the George W. Bush administration to include an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States. In the United States on March 13, 2009, the Obama administration announced its abandonment of the Bush administration's use of the term "enemy combatant."[4]

:UNQUOTE:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

As for my highlight above:  Since no proof has been presented that Dzhokhar is an "enemy combatant" or an "unlawful combatant" - and no charge to that effect has been made - then he must be treated as a USA citizen fully entitled to his rights. My reasons for so concluding, as well as my other comments, will be found within the following quote within brackets:


QUOTE:

...Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will not be tried as an enemy combatant, the White House said today, rejecting calls from some lawmakers to do so.

"He will not be treated as an enemy combatant. We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice, " White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters today. "Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. And it is important to remember that since 9/11, we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists."

[Jay Carney should have said, "We will prosecute the accused..." To call him a "terrorist" at this point is premature, even in light of recent comments he made. For a man to have committed a crime, intent has to be present. And that can't be if, as I strongly suspect, this man (as well as his brother) was under mind control and therefore not responsible for his actions when he detonated those explosives.]

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., today blasted the decison as "premature."

[Memo to Sen. Graham: It would be premature to label the suspect as an "enemy combatant." I know how badly you want him to undergo intensive interrogation; but lacking proof that he fits the definition, that shouldn't happen.]

"It is impossible for us to gather the evidence in just a few days to determine whether or not this individual should be held for questioning under the law of war," Graham told reporters.

[Once you do gather the evidence, then you may question him under the law of war. Not before.]

In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed a joint resolution called the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which granted the president the power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

[The President has determined, at least for the time being, that Dzhokhar isn't one of those persons or affiliated with one of those organizations or nations.]

A Supreme Court ruling three years later seemed to suggest that a U.S. citizen captured while fighting for al-Qaida could legally be held as an "enemy combatant," but left unanswered was how to proceed if the accused is nabbed on U.S. soil.

[SCOTUS "seemed to suggest?" Is our High Court so wishy-washy that they can't come right out and say so in clear, unambiguous language? Once a USA citizen is captured "while fighting for al-Qaida," and once it becomes known by his captors that he is a USA citizen, he should be arrested for treason. And that would make him eligible to be tried in a USA court (not a military tribunal) as indicated in the Constitution where it defines treason, and therefore he would have the full protection of the Bill of Rights. If we can't allow that much, then the glory of what it means to be a USA citizen is compromised.]

[As for SCOTUS leaving "unanswered {as to} how to proceed if the accused is nabbed on U.S. soil" - that's just cowardice on the part of our justices.]

Republican senators said this weekend that the enemy-combatant designation was [even in the absence of proof] appropriate in the case of Tsarnaev, the Kyrgyzstan-born naturalized U.S. citizen. He was charged today with using a weapon of mass destruction in connection with the blasts that killed three and wounded at least 176 last week.

"I think we should stay with enemy combatant until we find out for sure whether or not there was a link to foreign terrorist organizations," Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."

[Coats is putting the cart before the horse. Once "we find out for sure {that there is} a link to foreign terrorist organizations," then designate him as an enemy combatant.]

"Even though he's a citizen. There have been exceptions to this before with the public safety issue, of course, on Miranda rights. I think we ought to keep that option open until we find out whether or not there was a connection to a terrorist organization."

[The public safety exception was an invention of the Supreme Court which, even if it were valid, doesn't apply in this case. The whole world knew well in advance of their actual capture who the authorities were looking for. And everyone knew when Dzhokhar was captured and that he was unable to talk immediately. Therefore, any member of a cell known to this suspect would have either changed or abandoned his own plans to do anything to threaten public safety. Therefore, the public safety exception wouldn't apply even if it were Constitutional.]

[We should carefully consider this exception, since it's not much of a leap to reach this point: "It's okay to torture a suspect if public safety demands it."]

Sen. Chuck Schumer disagreed.

"I think that the good news is we don't need enemy combatant to get all the information we need out of him," Schumer, D-N.Y., said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday. "The one court that has ruled has allowed a lot of flexibility in the public safety exception before you Mirandize somebody.

"But second, at any time, what's called a HIG, a high-value interrogation group composed of the FBI, CIA and anyone else, can question him without a lawyer in a secured situation and find out whatever they need."

[Suppose this suspect hadn't been Mirandized but he, knowing he was entitled to counsel, demanded a lawyer. Just because he wasn't read his rights doesn't mean that he doesn't have any. Schumer was wrong to say a HIG "can question him without a lawyer." And by "secured location," does Schumer mean "out of the prying eyes of any neutral third party?" If I was in Dzhokhar's shoes, I would definitely not want to be left alone with a HIG, since (if left to their own devices) they might be tempted to bend a few rules.]

Carney affirmed Monday that the White House sides with Schumer, deeming it unnecessary to call 19-year-old Tsarnaev an enemy combatant.

[Not only is it "unnecessary," it's not possible since (again) there's no evidence to support such a label.]

...

...

GOP Sen. Graham took issue with the idea that a lawyer might be present during questioning, wresting control of the interrogation away from U.S. intelligence gatherers.

["Wresting control?" In this country, power is shared with no single entity being allowed to completely control anything. Any defense lawyer present would be entitled to his input, to object, and to insist that any interrogation be videotaped. Of course, the prosecution could make a motion to a judge that such a taping be viewable only by the judge, who would have the power to decide if a jury should see the footage.]

"There's a disturbing pattern here, quite frankly, of not gathering intelligence when that opportunity exists," he said.

[You may gather your intelligence, but you have to follow certain rules in doing so. You can't do whatever you want. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.]

But Antonia Chayes, a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford, Mass., called the idea of holding Tsarnaev under that designation "hare-brained" and "ridiculous," saying it is generally reserved for those engaged in conflict on the battlefield who can't be extradited to the United States.

[What nonsense! Those engaged in conflict on the battlefield can eventually be extradited to the USA. What on earth does she mean by "can't be extradited?"]

Although Tsarnaev will not be questioned as an enemy combatant, he also will not be read his Miranda rights before being interrogated by the HIG group to which Schumer referred.

[But, again, suppose the accused had demanded that a lawyer representing him be present?]

Under an exception intended to preserve public safety, the Justice Department has decided that the surviving suspect will be questioned without first hearing that he has the right to a lawyer or to remain silent because of concerns of an imminent threat.

[Even though Justice decided he won't hear about his rights, are they saying he doesn't have them? Another thing: I hope Tsarnaev's attorney makes a motion that none of his comments made prior to being Mirandized be admissible in court. Since he was so badly wounded, even if he had been Mirandized, he was in such traumatic pain (undeniably so) he should have been judged temporarily incompetent to be subjected to questioning in the first place. The HIG team might have gleaned useful intel from an incapacitated man (fair? enough, but I doubt they did), but the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to use that impaired testimony in court.

...

...

A conviction could be put in jeopardy if DOJ waited an unreasonable amount of time to Mirandize the suspect, according to Chayes of Tufts University, but that would depend on the length of time, the judge and the facts of the case, many of which are unclear to the public.

"I think it really turns on the facts, and we don't know all the facts," she said. "Is there evidence of other participants of this that we have not been informed about? Are there rumors about it? Are there hints about it?

"If he's kept like that for, let's say, three weeks, you begin to wonder how in the world can they justify that. But if it's three days or even five days or something like that, then that sounds to me like reasonable."

[No, it is not "reasonable" to allow any amount of time. Once he's in custody, he has his rights and should be Mirandized immediately. The state seems to be saying, "By us not reading you your rights, you don't have those rights." I don't think we want to go down that slippery slope.]

...

:UNQUOTE: http://gma.yahoo.com/bombing-suspect-tried-civilian-201459223--abc-news-topstories.html

What about trying him for treason?

Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution, defines treason as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

The difficulty here lies in the last sentence. As for "two witnesses," did anybody actually see either of these brothers plant those bombs? Even if videotapes show them leaving backpacks at the scene, can those tapes be counted as "witnesses" since the concept of taping didn't even exist when the Constitution was written? Then of course there's the matter of "confession in open court." Even if the defendant confesses before the trial commences, he could refuse to confess in open court. Any prior confession would be irrelevant to the charge of treason.

I've never been comfortable with these words in the quote cited above: "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." That sounds unconstitutionally vague. For instance, critics of the American Way such as myself could be accused of giving comfort to our enemies or even of aiding them by undermining public confidence in our system.

End Note:  All those Bullets*

What about all those bullets fired at the boat where Dzhokhar was hiding? There are reports from unnamed police sources saying the suspect was unarmed, which contradicts the official version that cops were being shot at. But even if Dzhokhar was armed and was shooting at the police, I don't see why they returned fire. They had him surrounded; he wasn't going anywhere. So shooting at him seems to contradict the claim that they wanted him alive for questioning. If the public safety exception was going to be invoked at his hospital bed - denying him the reading of his Miranda rights - then why wasn't the public safety consideration in operation in the field? That alone should have stopped the cops from shooting at what was basically a sitting duck.

I suppose they might claim they had to shoot in order to discourage him from shooting at them and maybe hitting innocent bystanders. But those very same bystanders could have just as easily been hit by friendly fire. And besides, the cops should have withheld fire in the name of the greater public safety issue which concerned questioning the suspect to learn the identities of other conspirators who might be ready to attack with more explosives.


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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"All I can hope for is, the public continues to maintain interest in this case, which can teach us a lot about ourselves."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Once again, we get filibustered

Introduction

Once again, the American people* have been filibustered - that is, "screwed." The amendment to Senate Bill 649 failed to pass, even though 54 senators voted in favor. After quoting from the background story, as reported by CNN, I will reintroduce my claim that the Senate filibuster rule should be challenged in court, dealing primarily with the issue of who should initiate such a law suit. That is, I will challenge the concept of the standing required to sue.

Note carefully the part I highlight in yellow:


QUOTE:

Due to early opposition to the background check provision, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania worked out a compromise that was less comprehensive than what Obama wanted but still gained the president's support.

The Manchin-Toomey plan [an amendment] would have expanded background checks to include private sales at gun shows and all Internet sales, while continuing to exempt most sales between family members and friends.

Due to procedural steps agreed to by both sides, all the amendments considered Wednesday required 60 votes to pass in the 100-member chamber, meaning Democrats and their independent allies who hold 55 seats needed support from some GOP senators to push through the Manchin-Toomey proposal.

:UNQUOTE:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html


This part is worth repeating:  "Due to procedural steps agreed to by both sides." What that means is, without that agreement, the GOP would have filibustered the entire package - not just any proposed amendments. So Democrats felt they had to agree to a "60 votes needed" rule to avoid that. Well, the GOP and the Democrats might have "agreed," but I didn't.  So now a question arises: "Who am I that my disagreement matters?" Translation: Even though I believe all filibusters to be grossly unconstitutional, would I have sufficient legal standing to challenge the matter in court? And if I don't, who would?

Before I get started on "standing," this quote from one of my previous posts lays out my argument against the filibuster - an argument I'd like to see ruled on by the Supreme Court:

QUOTE:

More importantly, the practice of filibuster is in direct violation of at least three different sections of the US Constitution:

Article V: "...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." If, for example, a state were (like all other states) allowed two senators but (unlike the others) only one could vote, that would be a clear deprivation of "equal suffrage." And yet, if a state's senators were to find their votes rendered meaningless by a minority threatening a filibuster, that is a comparably clear deprivation of "equal suffrage."

The Fifth Amendment: "No person...[shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." When a citizen's senator finds the value of his vote diminished in Senate chambers, that citizen finds the value of his own vote similarly diminished. In other words, that citizen is being denied full and complete representation in the Senate, which in turn means that citizen has been "deprived of...[his] property [that is, the full value of his vote], without due process of law."

The Seventeenth Amendment: "...each Senator shall have one vote." That must mean, by any fair and sensible standard, that each Senator's vote is to be considered equal to each other Senator's vote. Allowing for filibusters denies this equality.

:UNQUOTE.

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/12/obamas-legacy-filibustered.html

"Standing" in the eyes of the law

I'll start with a example. If you are injured in an auto accident, you have the right to sue for damages. And you have the right to determine how much you should sue for - let's say, you and your lawyer decide on $200,000 as a just compensation. I, a total stranger, can't jump in and say, "That's not enough; I will sue instead of you and try to obtain $400,000." Even if I'm willing to share the settlement with you, the judge wouldn't allow me to proceed on your unauthorized behalf. That's the kind of standing-to-sue I understand.

What I don't understand is this (again, note my highlight):

QUOTE:

In 1984, the Supreme Court reviewed and further outlined the standing requirements in a major ruling concerning the meaning of the three standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability.

In the suit, parents of black public school children alleged that the Internal Revenue Service was not enforcing standards and procedures that would deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit. Although the Court established a significant injury for one of the claims, it found the causation of the injury (the nexus between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries) to be too attenuated. "The injury alleged was not fairly traceable to the Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful".

:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

If, as indicated in yellow, the IRS isn't "enforcing standards and procedures," any American* citizen should be able to sue. If the IRS isn't doing its job, that should concern any citizen whose taxes help support that monster. As far as "injury" is concerned, any citizen should be considered injured when a government agency isn't doing its job - even if that citizen can't demonstrate specifically how he is being injured.

I'll even expand my claim to cover citizens who don't even pay income taxes, even though a court might claim that since he isn't helping to fund the IRS, he shouldn't have any grounds for complaint due to IRS selective enforcement of its own rules. I would ask the court: "Applying your standard, such a non-taxpaying citizen should also be denied the right to vote since he isn't paying anything to help support the government." Even a non-taxpaying citizen has rights, which must include his right to expect government agencies supported and empowered by his elected representatives to do their jobs. I'll even extend this right in the case of a citizen whose Congressman votes consistently to abolish the IRS! In such a case, there's of course no way to know if the suing constituent himself agrees with his representative's negative votes or if he even voted for that lawmaker in the last election.

Or even if he voted at all!

As you can see, I have a very broad standard concerning who should have standing to sue. Especially when it comes to violations of the Constitution of which each of us should be empowered as guardian since it belongs to all of us.


The Obligation of SCOTUS to respond

The US Supreme Court should be expected to respond to my lawsuit. I start my defense of this claim by citing Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..."

I maintain that the Supreme Court not only has "the judicial power" cited above, but should be obligated to use it.  SCOTUS shouldn't be allowed to deny, without providing a reason, a citizen's right to be heard by that Court. As things stand now, a case will not be heard by SCOTUS unless at least four of its nine justices say it should be. That standard is fine with me, however I would not allow the Court to deny a hearing without providing a written reason or reasons, in the case of different justices wishing to deny for their own particular reasons. Though each reason should be publicly matched to its denying justice.

The reason for this is quite simple. Since justices are allowed to "hold their offices during good behaviour" - per Article III, Section 1 - we must have some way of knowing if each justice is behaving (that is, ruling) properly. Is he doing his job or is he being capricious in deciding which cases which should be heard by the whole Court. All I'm asking for is an accountability which even the US President must provide. Here I cite Article I, Section 7:

"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, POTUS can't just refuse to sign a bill into law; he's got to say why he objects for the public record. In the case of SCOTUS, Congress could merely inform the High Court of this new standard - threatening impeachment for non-compliance as a form of bad "behaviour." Of course, our current Congress - lacking any independence and possessing only loyalty to the causes of party and reelection - will not do this. I present this lacking as part of a mountain of evidence concerning the need to replace all Dem/Pub lawmakers with true independents.


But SCOTUS might object

If the High Court were to be expected to issue reasons for not hearing cases presented to it, it might object saying, "This new requirement represents an increase in workload we are logistically incapable of handling."

Fair enough. After all, the Legislative and Executive branches are provided ample resources to do their jobs. So SCOTUS should be granted an increase as well. I propose - as merely one possibility - that Congress increase the size of the Court to ninety - that is, to ten groups of nine sitting justices. This would still be regarded as one Supreme Court, but would be - in a de facto sense - ten Supreme Courts each with its own Chief Justice. If workload is to be a concern - and it's already widely acknowledged that SCOTUS is overworked - then randomly assigning incoming cases to any of these ten should be regarded as assigning them to "the" Supreme Court.

Of course, then it would be possible for one such "supreme" court to issue a decision that contradicts a ruling from another such "supreme" court. That possibility of contradiction or self-reversal exists in the Court we currently have on hand, especially in view of the many five-to-four decisions which seem to indicate judicial uncertainty. This is one reason why I propose that judges be appointed by a President and confirmed by a Senate - both of which are independent rather than Republican or Democratic. Another reason: Our current Constitution is simply too vague and archaic to be reasonably interpreted in this modern age; therefore we need a new Constitution.

To deal with SCOTUS's contradictory rulings, I would leave it to Congress to be the final arbiter - but of course that would require a Constitutional amendment. Or that this be a provision in a replacement Constitution.

Who will answer?

I have nothing but contempt for the hypocrites on the right who have no problem with the unconstitutional filibuster once again thwarting the will of the people - as long as their Second Amendment rights (as they interpret them) aren't threatened. Never mind that a majority of our senators - who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution - didn't perceive any such threats.

I would love to personally answer the call regarding who should submit a lawsuit suing the United States Senate for its unconstitutional filibuster rule. However, I can't - especially since I am no longer a US citizen, having renounced that status a few years ago. Even I can agree that I wouldn't have standing to present such a lawsuit. There are two other reasons: I am too poor to pursue such a case in light of the filing fees involved, and I am too sick - currently battling Stage IV liver cancer. Since my life might be cut short (I'm only 61 years old now), I might not be around long enough to be screwed too many more times by the filibuster rule.

But most of you will outlive me and will, therefore, have many more opportunities to be screwed. Unless one of you decides to speak up and take a stand.

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

Steven Searle, former US presidential candidate (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"United we stand - unless the Supreme Court rules that we don't have sufficient standing."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* I wrote "the American people" meaning no disrespect to Americans who are citizens of the countries other than the USA. Rather, I wrote to be consistent with my efforts to rename the USA "America."