Of possible interest....

I've just made a post on my other blog that may be of interest. Assuming of course, anyone is reading THIS blog.

The Irony of Stem Cells Juxtaposed Against Pictures of Dead Children in the Middle East

I post this because it does have a Constitutional angle. Read it to learn more.

I'm also posting some of my favorite blogs over there if interested. Anyone can read Daily Kos or HuffPost (and I usually do), but the progressive-investigative slant of these blogs is especially appealing to me. Check them out.

If we can see past the flames, and pictures of innocent dead children...

With all the horrors in the Middle East, it's been hard to concentrate on Constitutional issues, but a few bits of good news did surface this week.

1. Check out our friends at The Carpetbagger Report. They've been keeping on top of things as well as anyone in the blogosphere. Kudos in particular for an excellent report on the sputtering Alberto Gonzales testifying before Congress on the NSA Wiretapping. In particular: "Literally Obstructing Justice," and "Bush and the DoJ's Office of Professional Responsibility — Day 2."
2. The American Bar Association is getting in on the act regarding those illegal signing statements. (It's about time.) Again, at Carpetbagger, check out "Challenging signing statements — in court."
3. And in a particularly nice bit of legal work, "Bush's warrantless searches will go to court."

In the latter, a very sweet victory, the Electronic Frontier Foundation prevailed over AT&T because a Federal District Court Judge did not dismiss the EFF case against AT&T and the Bush administration for warrantless wiretaps. Which has made Sen. Specter reconsider his ill-considered legislation to make the Church Committee work void by making this program retroactively legal. As if we were still staring down the barrel of Soviet ACBMs! Geesh, these warmongers will use the terrorism excuse for everything, when terrorism is and always has been a fact of life among humans who oppress other humans. Oppression breeds more terrorism, you idiots. You want to stop terrorism, stop being fucking greedheads. Save your posturing for real threats, like those from Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin.

Speaking of the greedheads, since they can't win an election legitimately (and I do hope Lopes-Obradors in Mexico proves to be their undoing), and they've proven the adage that you can only fool some of the people all of the time, they're up to their old tricks in Georgia, going after their favorite target again, Rep. Cynthia McKinney. (Who is unflinching in going after them, natch. Makes her enemy number one.) Read more about that here:

REPORTS: GA Dem. Paperless Electronic Primary Votes Flipping from Cynthia McKinney to Opponent Hank Johnson.

Obviously we still have our work cut out for us, because as long as they control the way we vote, which controls Congress - the representatives of the Sovereign People, which means us - they are preventing us from firing their good-for-nothing asses, so we can find some people who are prepared to lead and govern this country on our behalf.

And maybe in the process find people who use REAL diplomacy to do something about North Korean missile tests, not to mention the Middle East. On a humorous note, you just have to read this blurb about this administration's idea of "diplomacy":

Snow: ‘Nobody Has Been More Diplomatically Active Than We Have’ On The Middle East Peace Process

The president's job description.

The Power of the President, Curbed (Letters, New York Times, 7/2/06)

Let's get this straight. The idea of "The Unitary Power of the President" is a figment of the imaginations of some neo-conservatives who created Progress for a New American Century. Most notably Cheney, the kingmaker, with some support from Thomas and Scalia.

There is no such thing as unitary power in our three-branched Federal government. So I am using some letters from legal professionals to the New York Times re: the Hamdan case, to establish the REAL job description of the president.

Furthermore, while I appreciated the Times letting the legal professionals weigh in, there's an issue that continually irritates me. I can only assume that Constitutional Law professors (and with people like Bork teaching the classes, it does provide perspective) are teaching a fundamental concept incorrectly. I know that sounds arrogant coming from a non-lawyer, but you didn't know my legal scholar father or how he schooled his children on the Charters of Freedom. I have had Constitutional scholars read some of my white papers and tell me they pass muster, so I don't feel too much compunction about being a well-educated citizen who knows her Constitution inside-out and wants to share that knowledge with fellow citizens.

We should all understand our Constitution thoroughly, especially in these dark Constitutional days. Hence this blog.

So here's my pet peeve. Well, actually two. One mentioned in the letters above, one mentioned elsewhere ALL THE TIME.

No where in the Charters, not in the Constitution, not in the Federalist Papers, not in any Amendment, are the three branches of government called "co-equal." THEY ARE NOT.

This misunderstanding probably arises from the concept that each branch is bound by oath to the job description provided in the first three articles. But if you read the articles, you will see that the powers invested in each article are significantly different and Congress has the biggest job of all, detailed in Article 1. It is NOT equal to Articles 2 or 3.

First, Article 1 comes first because Congress represents the SOVEREIGNS. And that, happy citizens, is US. We are the bosses. In lieu of a King, this country is ruled by US, the citizens. (And Impeachment is described FIVE times in the first three articles because the framers were intent that there would be careful oversight of the process, but more importantly, NO KING. This is not partisan, either, because political parties are not included in the Constitution.) The very powers invested in Congress in Article I, which are lengthy (10 Sections worth), makes Congress the most powerful branch of government, as it should be, because it serves US, the Sovereigns. (Actually, at the time, the sovereigns were white male landowners, but that has, thankfully, been rectified.)

Article 2, by comparison, is teensy. It is a mere four sections. Section 1 describes the Electoral College and the qualifications for running for office, and Section 4 describes IMPEACHMENT. (Seeing a theme here?) That leaves two sections that cover the executive's job description. It's pretty short and sweet:

1) The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

Emphasis mine. It was considered more convenient if the executive could be CinC. However, as Congress has already been designated the ONLY branch that may declare war (the people who fight the wars should be the ones to declare them), the implication is that if Congress ("the United States") feels another individual is more suited to the task of CinC, Congress has the power to name another individual CinC. Three War Powers Statutes have reaffirmed these portions of the Constitution.

2) He may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices...

In other words, he's the boss of the bureaucracy. He enforces and executes the laws established by the People. More on this in a moment.

3) He shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.

This was a gimme. The framers felt the executive should have at least one task all his own, and someone had to be able to do it. Says so right in the Federalist Papers. In 18th Century language, of course.

4) He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

John Adams saw that this provision was included. He wisely recognized that the new nation needed a head of state who could sit at table with Kings and Queens. There was also the task of nominating Judges, to be a combined effort by the executive with the advice and consent of the Senate. (It IS also included in Article 1.) It seemed like a good compromise, while conferring a little extra power on this head of state for the benefit of appearances to other nations.

And note, advice and consent does NOT mean "rubberstamp." It was fully anticipated that this would be power-sharing. It is an example of the "oversight" that constitutes the checks and balances of our system. At least one branch oversees one of the others on issues of major importance to the Sovereigns. Again, that would be US, the citizens.

And, in light of all the hubbub since the newspapers ran the banking story, we can see that this oversight does not always work, and we do need the Fourth Estate. So many thanks to Mr. Madison who not only insisted on the First and Fourth Amendments (and, in fact, on the entire Bill of Rights), because he wanted the sovereigns to provide direct oversight if any of the other branches fell down on the job. In steps the Fourth Estate - a free press of the citizens - and the freedom of citizens to assemble peaceably. One can argue whether the Vietnam protests were peaceful, but they did contribute to ending the war. As did the Fourth Estate.

(As for Madison, like the other founders he was also pretty damn tired of the King's agents breaking into his home at all hours of day or night. So no search or seizure without a warrant stating probable cause. That does not include subpoenas, my friends.)

BTW, Thomas Jefferson even created procedures to allow the States to take direct actions if Federal oversight was failing. Unfortunately they were never codifed, but that doesn't mean we can't make our Congress codify them for us. (Preferably as a Constitutional Amendment.) The goal of all the framers was to avoid the kind of bloody revolution they were having in France at the time. And we've been pretty good at that, even when we do fail to fully live up to our Charters.

This also means that all these states and communities that have voted down the Patriot Act and voted for Impeachment are doing so symbolically, for now, and they are doing so peaceably. But if there's enough momentum, we could - peaceably - move our elected officials to create statute or Amendment to allow us to take these actions as well. The elements are all there in Jefferson's writings. All we need is persistence and a willingness to vote non-compliant members of Congress out of office. We're in charge. Special interests will try to influence us, but it is up to us and if our representatives are not doing their jobs, it is our responsibility to see that they are FIRED! It is our responsibility to go to our state legislatures if our states have been gerrymandered to a fare-thee-well and we feel our elections are suffering. It is our responsibility to ensure our states provide clean, fair elections WITHOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. And many thanks to the thousands of citizens activists out there who are doing just this, and doing it peaceably, just as the framers hoped.

5) 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.

Emphasis mine. Recess appointments were not intended for anything other the most critical vacancies. And a mechanism did have to exist as Congress did not meet year-round then as it does now. The use of this provision by recent presidents, Bush most notably (but not exclusively), to install cronies, may meet the "letter" of the law, but not its spirit.

6) He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...

This was intended to be in writing, not a speech. And that huge budget the administration submits about the same time, usually in January? That's what modern presidents do when they "recommend to their consideration...." In other words, it's barely worth the paper its printed on, and the only reason it's considered IS partisan.

7) He may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect tothe Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper....

Okay, this is important. Say Congress has put in its three months, but the president gets word that Morocco has sent an Armada our way. Then it would be prudent for him to call Congress back so that CONGRESS may deal with the problem, and declare war if necessary.

8) He shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers...

This pretty much goes with #4 above. In other words, remember on The West Wing how Bartlet would ceremonially welcome new ambassadors in the Oval? That's what this refers to.

9) (Finally,) He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. (THE END.)

Now this is his (or her) charge to run the bureaucracy, and commission military officers, which were usually always available even if the militia was not in readiness. In fact, Congress is ordered in Article 1 that no militia shall be "standing" (in readiness). It's this kind of gray area that allowed presidents to create institutions like the DOD and the CIA. Okay, well Truman. Again, not a violation of the letter of the law, but certainly a perversity of its spirit. (And I actually admire much of what Truman did. But not so much the way the DOD was created, nor the conversion of the OSS to the CIA.)

You will also notice that there is no mention in this section that a president may write signing statements indicating which laws he likes and which he doesn't. (That GWB actually thinks he can state whether or not a law is Constitutional in these statements shows just how ignorant of the Constitution he IS.) He may write statements discharging instructions. He may write Executive Orders with regard to the administration of the activities the bureaucracy. For example, he may declare a Federal Holiday for administration employees, as Lincoln did for Thanksgiving. As a courtesy, the country usually follows suit. But as we saw with Martin Luther King Day (unfortunately), it is NOT required. It is NOT a law. Only Congress makes those.

And for those who want to learn more about Congress's job description in Article 1, you will also learn that the executive veto serves ONE purpose. If the bureaucracy can execute the law, the president signs the law. If not, he vetoes it and sends it back to Congress. If Congress really wants this law enforced, it must override the veto by two-thirds and provide the resources necessary to ALLOW the executive to enforce the law. (This my friends, is why the judiciary balks at the line-item veto, in case you wondered. Based on modern conventions, one would think the line-item veto a useful thing, but it's not Constitutional at the Federal level. It can be useful in States where the Governors generally have more power to interact with legislatures.)

Now when you compare these nine duties with the 30-odd duties of Congress/the People, you will understand why the framers never even considered the branches co-equal, and they are not. As for the Judiciary (Article 3), we can discuss that more another time, but it basically has the dual role of Constitutional and statutory oversight and adjudicating law enforcement issues - most of which actually occur at the state level. So the judiciary at the Federal level is not co-equal either.

All three branches and the Fourth Estate (citizen oversight, generally via the press) are all equally essential to ensuring the proper functioning of a Democratic Republic, by overseeing each other's acts. That's as far as "co-equal" goes. And, oh yeah, before I forget No. 2 Pet Peeve, the president is NOT automatically "Commander-in-Chief." He is named CinC by Congress when Congress declares war, and that's assuming that Congress has confidence in naming him to the position.

If the citizens had really understood the job description of the executive, they would have seen that GWB does not have the resume to do the job, and he would not have been hired by the Sovereigns.

Oh, wait, I forgot. HE WASN'T. He was installed by an overreaching SCOTUS, and "re-elected" by partisan conflicts-of-interest. If it weren't for those two pesky problems, he could never have passed muster. You know, maybe he really is a likeable guy. (He wasn't when I knew him, but that was years ago, and people do change.) He certainly seems like the go-to guy if you want to buy a used pickup truck or a new chainsaw for clearing brush.

But president? Nah, not even close. And he's proven this. Every day for over five years.

Campaign Financing

While this is not strictly a Constitutional issue, Clean Campaign Financing is critical to preserving the Constitution. I'm sure if the framers could have foreseen multi-national companies setting up lobby shops on K Street and actually writing legislation (not to mention the revolving door for government officials becoming lobbyists - something that was ILLEGAL when I was a civil servant), they would have written a provision into the Constitution that none of the branches may be influenced by nor take money from anyone other than the individual sovereign citizens. There would have been a provision that corporations and other large organizations do not get the same treatment as the individual sovereigns.

It's part of the spirit of the document, and is validated by the rationale the framers wrote in their various personal papers and in the Federalist Papers.

I suspect they would be horrified to see our elected representatives spend half their election-year days on the phone or visiting with campaign contributors so they can get contributions to run expensive sound-byte TV ads. In other developed democracies, TV ads are forbidden, and TV exposure is limited to pro bono time of no less than five minutes where the candidates may detail their platforms and positions.

[That's something that would do the wishy-washy Dems some good, frankly. Force them to buck up, stop whining about the Repugs and their wedge politics, and set some firm goals of their own. The Dems must start standing up FOR the People, not against the Repugs. They must ignore the negative, emotional, and divisive strategies of the Repugs and focus on their positive accomplishments, past and future. (Present accomplishments are debatable, although there is a core group that really is trying to do positive things.) Of course standing up takes political courage: Look at what happened to war hero John Kerry when he was "swift boated": It knocked all the wind out of his windsurfer, and he didn't have the gumption to tell them where to shove it. So political courage is obviously in very short supply these days in DC. That's another reason why the States may end up being our saving grace on these issues.]

In these other democracies, the PEOPLE pay for the campaigns. They are publicly financed. It's ironic that the one democracy in the world where the People are specifically designated as the Sovereigns of the nation (that's right, we're the honchos) is the one where corporate money has the most influence, and the people the least. Sure, we cast the votes, but not based on personal investment. We cast votes based on the best corporate public-relations money can buy. And if we're using a Diebold machine, chances are our vote is going to the Diebold candidate, regardless of the vote WE cast.

But some states are cleaning up. As with the movement to repudiate the Unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act and the movement to begin grassroots impeachment, some states are setting rules about conflicts of interest. (No more Bush state campaign chairs like Harris and Blackwell also running the state's voting apparachik.) Some are getting very careful about their voting equipment and raising the issue at the National Governor's Association that all Federal elections should follow the same rules from state to state. Some are establishing campaign finance rules. Some are creating funds to start contributing public money to campaigns, to begin the drive toward publicly financed elections.

Vermont suffered a bit of a set back with SCOTUS yesterday:

High Court Strikes State's Campaign Fund Limits

But something notable was NOT challenged by SCOTUS. Vermont established its rules for the express purpose of challenging the idiotic idea that money equals free speech. Anyone with a speck of common sense (something Vermonters are known for, even if they are a bit eccentric), anyone who is unencumbered by a sense of superiority or entitlement (i.e., having a chip of superiority on his or her shoulder), KNOWS that money cannot equal speech. If money equalled speech, then ALL of us could have done what Warren Buffet did this week when he contributed $30+ BILLION to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And everyone would have equal ability to run for office.

Money is a used in quid pro quo exchange. Speech is freely given. They are apples and oranges. And in political campaigns, the difference is that candidates cannot run for office on a level playing field, and voters cannot discern the good candidates from the bad ones because all we hear is expensive propaganda paid for with corporate money. (Unless we happen to be among the few who actually follow the voting records, sponsorship, and committee activities of our delegations.)

My Campaign Finance / Clean Campaign hero is Doris "Granny D" Haddock. Visit her website to learn more about how one senior woman has awakened a sleeping giant - the Progressive movement of this country - to the fundamental necessity for clean campaigns. We cannot have a true democracy without them, we cannot achieve the goals WE THE PEOPLE seek as long as corporations have the upper hand. We simply cannot use our Constitution as our framers intended. There is NO more fundamental impediment to our democracy today than K Street.

We can't have it both ways: Choose. Oligarchy or Democracy?

Granny D and Clean Campaigns

Impeach Cheney

You will find me discussing impeachment often on this blog, because I'm here to write about the Constitution, and impeachment is Constitutional redress for criminal behavior among those who govern. Nine states have started a state-based grassroots impeachment process because Congress is failing to do its job. Much like the hundreds of communities and states that have repudiated the Patriot Act and established strict Campaign Finance Reform (see the links to the right), states are doing what Congress is failing to do.

It is tiresome that politicians are so afraid of a process that was emphasized five times in the first three Articles of the Constitution. The framers were adamant that we not have a King. And these politicians claim we should let the voters decide, because impeachment would be too partisan. (Yeah, right, as if we can trust our voting system when we can be pretty sure that insiders helped swing key states to Bush in both 2000 and 2004.) These "legislators" fail to grasp the fact that political parties are not discussed in the Constitution, but impeachment is.

Which brings me to Dick Cheney. For all the worries about impeaching Bush or both Bush and Cheney (we can't afford to tick these people off, we can't risk having a President Cheney, etc.), no one seems to consider that the administration will become toothless without its kingmaker. It would be a compromise that would give the country and the Constitution a fighting chance.

I knew the Bush family as a kid, and there's no love lost there, but, strangely enough, I actually think GWB is well-intentioned. He's being guided by evil, however, so his good intentions are paving a road to hell. Get rid of the evil, and he might pull himself out of the muck.

I will be writing quite a bit about Cheney's aspirations and wrongdoings in upcoming posts, but in the meantime, I urge you to read this article:

Vice President Cheney, Chef in Chief

I'm proud that one of my Senators is leading the investigation, and I hope he sticks with it. If so, and if we get more Dems in Congress in November, we might actually be able to take all this criminal activity and turn it into Articles. Not that GWB doesn't deserve the articles John Conyers has waiting for him, too, but writing up and indicting Cheney first could be way around that pesky "partisan" foolishness. Then we'll see if GWB shapes up and demonstrates that he really does have good intentions. If so, we'll know that we've rid ourselves of the real troublemaker and we will give GWB a chance to hobble through until 2008.

Bank Data Secretly Reviewed by U.S. (New York Times, 6/22/06)

An Open Letter to George W. Bush

MR. BUSH:

You will cease and desist this intrusion into the private lives of my neighbors and myself. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You want to investigate terrorists, fine. Anyone who has ever done investigation knows the importance of following the money. But here's the catch: You MUST go to Congress or to FISA. That is how you get permission to look at our personal data. PERIOD. I know Mr. Cheney got his damn nose all out of joint because the People took back their power - rightfully and Constitutionally - from the equally power-hungry Richard Nixon, but Mr. Cheney is only one of BILLIONS of sovereigns, and believe me, you have put the noses of BILLIONS OF US out of joint with your Nixonian power-grabs. You will soon find that our pique outweighs Mr. Cheney's by TONS. You people do not get to just vacuum up data for your convenience. (You say it isn't a "fishing expedition" but I know the old bureaucrat's trick, I used to work for the government. Only I did it LEGALLY.)

You are not God, you are not King, you are not a dictator (in spite of your ambitions otherwise), and you most certainly are not the Daddy of the American People. YOU WORK FOR US, and you must abide by OUR laws. We are the Sovereigns, we are the bosses, and Congress makes our laws FOR US because we HIRE IT TO REPRESENT US. We do not need you to "protect" us, we do this for ourselves through Congress.

If you actually read the Constitution, you'd see that Congress is listed first for a reason, and that its job description is much more complex than YOURS for a reason. You have a job description that takes exactly two sections of one article, and when we hire you to do that job, we do not hire you to go out-of-scope. This is why so many of us are so furious at your powergrabbing. YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO HAVE THE KIND OF POWER YOU SEEK - The Framers were CRYSTAL CLEAR about this, and the Federalist Papers explain it. But, in a nutshell, IMPEACHMENT is described IN DETAIL FIVE TIMES in the first three articles of the Constitution because the framers wanted an limited executive presence. They had had enough of Kings, especially King George.

I'm sure it's easy to forget that you actually have a real job to do where you answer to US, your real bosses. (And it's too bad that half of the American People could not get it through their heads that you have never actually worked a real job, let alone done a good one, EVER. Instead, they persisted in thinking that they had to hire you just because you seemed like a good guy to go out for beers after work. I think they're over it now.)

After all, with all your wealthy campaign contributors asking you for favors and patting you on the back, it's easy (too easy) to think these contributors are your bosses. Which would account for you working with Congress to put the economy in the toilet so your "base" (your word) gets richer the rest of us are LUCKY to live paycheck to paycheck (a concept you could never grasp, you entitled so-and-so). Our country is almost $10 TRILLION in debt, and over half of that is to CHINA. You don't think this is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, you dolt???

You think you're PROTECTING US??? Humans are incredibly self-deluding creatures, and you are about as delusional as they get. Your contributors on the other hand know exactly what they are doing - stealing our country - which is why we need to kick them the hell out of Washington.

And by the way, did you know that your little war in Iraq increased terrorism by 95 percent? That's right ... the numbers are in and it's 95 percent. So the need to even track terrorists has been increased by a factor of almost 100 thanks to your administration's Through the Looking Glass attitude about the American People and the world. Following the money is a good way to track criminal activity, but thanks to your administration's Cold War mentality and stupidity, you're following a lot more money then you ever had to.

Control freaks focus on everyone but themselves, sticking their noses in the business of others without attending to their own. They're called CODEPENDENT. I know this because I grew up in a house that was full of it. Just like the White House. I vowed I would never put up with that kind of dysfunction again. That's why I continue to support impeachment of your entire administration.

The American People have the good quality of trying to see the best in others, and but the flip side is we're easily exploited. And you and your administration did indeed exploit the good will of too many People for your own greed and powermongering. The American People are onto you now (especially now that they know just how many convicted and indicted felons are working for you), and they're feeling betrayed. You will see in November and the months that follow how angry the People get when they discover they have been exploited and betrayed. You'll be hoist on your own petard but good, and for the over-half of us who already knew 2000 what kind of evil you could bring to the White House (and having all our fears realized since), we CAN'T WAIT. We just pray that this amazing document, the Constitution, which has served us so well for over 200 years, will be used again to stop you people peacefully, without a Revolution.

If it happened with Nixon, we do pray that it will happen with you too.

Tough Week for the Constitution

I urge anyone who passes this way to check out the following links about the SCOTUS decisions this week:

The Worst Ruling of the Week

Center for Constitutional Rights

I am also adding some links to the links list to the right. I will return soon with my thoughts on our current Constitutional Crisis.

The Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It....

This blog will be dedicated to all matters associated with our Charters of Freedom and the U.S. Code.

As the administration roughly half of us hired and the lawmakers who represent us continue to pretzel-twist the legacy of our founders and all those who followed and added Constitutional Amendments, I could not stand by any longer. I have some strategic ideas to share that Americans may find useful in tightening the leash on our hired employees, which will be forthcoming.

(The latest indignity is the attempt to turn the administration end runs around FISA - which are ILLEGAL - retroactively legal. No, Congress is not investigating why the FISA court wasn't used to begin with, or why it was necessary to collect phone records for John and Jane Smith from Anytown, USA. They are trying to undo the amazing work done by the Church Committee, which provided very lenient guidelines for warrants in cases of imminent danger to National Security. But no, like so many other laws, it's just too much trouble for the Boy King to bother.)

In the meantime, remember this: Every bobble-head inside the Washington Beltway works for US. This country is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, and the PEOPLE are sovereign. We don't have a king for reasons the framers made crystal clear. And we don't need a boy king - no matter how well-intentioned - telling us that he needs to take care of us as if we are children. One person is not qualified to make decisions for all Americans. That's why we have Congress.

Bottom Line: WE ARE THE BOSS. PERIOD. Now we have a job to do. Don't wait for anyone to do it for us. Don't wait for a miracle in November. Democrats and Republicans are both too beholden to special interests and spend too much time shilling for campaign contributions. Republicans are running our economy into the ground, and Democrats have decided to become wallpaper. The list goes on, but in the spirit of the blog, I'll keep the focus on how we hold our government accountable to us according to our founding charters. I am an Independent. I vote for candidates, not for parties, and I will not belong to a party. (I have voted for candidates of all parties in my voting history.)

Your blogmistress, Elizabeth, is a progressive independent from the Heartland. In case the MSM had you brainwashed into thinking that progressivism is some kind of monstrous belief system just this side of communism, let me set the record straight. Progressives believe in PROGRESS. We have equal parts Conservativism (conserving the economy and the environment), Libertarianism (Big Brother, get your taps off my phone), and Populism (which simply means that THE PEOPLE are in charge, not wealthy elites).

Over time you will hear about my personal beliefs, some you may share, some you may not. But the important thing is we are all AMERICANS. If you were to assign me a color, it would be some shade of purple, a color I feel sure I share with most other Americans. Our shades may vary, but our core beliefs are probably pretty similar. And we are all responsible for seeing that our country is governed responsibly. Right now, it's a horrible mess.

So we have a mission. We need to start by re-acquainting ourselves with our founding documents. Please see the links. The reading is very easy, do not be intimidated. (Be sure to link to transcripts, that makes the reading easier.)

Among the issues I will raise in future posts include the importance of various concepts addressed by the framers. First up: The Current Constitutional Crisis and thoughts on what we can do about it, based on the guidelines our framers provided.