Impeachment current update!
the latest:
If you read this, you'll see why the US has a problem: People in positions of authority aren't quite in tune with their legal obligations:
http:// shonbrunreport.blogspot.c...mpeachment.html
Don't lose hope, there is a chance to consider other options: Petitions calling for the House to remove the Speaker, and make way for impeachment:
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.co...- candidate.html
Remember, this is an education process. To those who were baffled by the council's responses, don't lose hope. Your stonewall is a lesson for others:
- The type of clarity needed when presenting arguments
- What to emphasize
- Developing other options, outside the current effort to call on Congress to impeach.
Most of all, please send your regards to the blog and those who attempted to get the city council to act. Then share with your friends the lessons, and apply them to efforts to remove the DNC leadership. This can be done before the next election.
Apply the lessons from this setback to this effort:
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.co...- candidate.html
Rohnert Park Vote Leaves Impeachment Activists Dumbfounded
By Phil Burk, impeachbush.tv, and Donna Norton, Sonoma County PDA
An unusually large group of citizens showed up at the Rohnert Park City Council meeting on a rainy Tuesday night to ask the City Council to pass a resolution urging Congress to Impeach George Bush and Richard Cheney. At the end of the meeting, those who attended were left scratching their heads and wondering what had happened.
A banner containing signatures of 400 citizens supporting the petition was displayed before the council. Somewhere around 20 people spoke. Once the session got underway, many who had initially not planned to speak ended up filling out cards to participate because they felt compelled to stand up and say something.
Speakers included members of the business community, historians, attorneys, students, activists, and ordinary citizens all demonstrating a clear knowledge of the impeachment process. Testimony was given describing the impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney. Several speakers pointed out that every elected official from Town Councils to the President takes an Oath of Office to protect and “defend the Constitution.” Abuse of powers as well as violations of laws and treaties as documented. Many explained how the crimes Bush and Cheney have committed are a local issue because the illegal war and occupation has negatively impacted the community.
At the end, a 20-year veteran said she had come just to listen but was moved by the other speakers. She said soldiers are not allowed to question their Commander in Chief, but she condemned Bush for what he had done—to the military and her fellow soldiers. She urged the council to vote for the resolution.
After the speakers were finished, the council members gave their response. IT WAS AS THOUGH THEY HAD HEARD NOTHING.
The first member explained he had studied the Constitution and could not vote for the resolution because the right to impeach was given to the House of Representatives, and not to city councils. The audience began to exchange puzzled looks at this point. The second member reiterated the opinion of the first and urged the crowd to become “more educated voters” because that was the best way to avoid situations such as this. The crowd gasped in amazement. “Do you think we voted for Bush?” one asked.
The remaining council members continued in the same vein. These are among the points they raised as to why they could not act on the resolution:
• Only Congress can initiate the impeachment process, a city council cannot •
• They can only act within the parameters of their office, and this falls outside of that scope •
• It is not their role or a function of their office to act on national issues * (And get this one, spoken by the Mayor herself) It is not in their oath of office to get involved in Constitutional matters. (Has she read the oath she took? “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . ..”) •
• It falls outside their “jurisdiction” and they must avoid this, as it could result in legal problems •
• If they act on this, they could be violating the Constitution because it was outside their jurisdiction •
At this point, the crowd was apoplectic. Phil Burk raised his hand, insisting on addressing the legal issue that had been raised. He was invited to the podium and allowed two minutes. He explained the resolution was not asking the council to directly impeach Bush and Cheney. The resolution was a petition urging Congress to impeach. He explained it’s a standard practice, and the notion that Rohnert Park has no right to petition the federal government is legally incorrect. They looked stunned and didn’t get it. Phil cited references and laid it all out. They looked stunned and STILL didn’t get it. They seemed not to grasp the meaning of “jurisdiction” and why it did not apply here. They were not being asked to pass a law. They were being asked to petition Congress.
They refused to entertain further objections. At this point, the Council unanimously rejected the resolution on the grounds that the Constitution did not grant them the power to impeach.
It was astounding to those present. The disbelieving crowd noisily gathered in the lobby and tried to assess what had happened. “Did they simply misunderstand the resolution?” one asked. Some felt the council was simply unaware of its own rights. Others suspected the council was merely trying to hide its real reasons for not supporting the resolution. It was even more frustrating to those of us who had fought to get impeachment on the council’s agenda because prior to the hearing we had provided each member with a small packet of carefully selected materials covering all the points they seemed to be so painfully unaware of.
A number of us gathered in a nearby restaurant to attempt to sort out the details and determine what should be done next. We decided the rejection had to be challenged because it was based on a number of faulty premises. Perhaps a visit to the offices of the city officials (city manager, city legal counsel, etc.) would be in order. The citizens deserve to be heard by a council that understands what’s being asked and the nature of the process available to them. If they’re going to reject the citizens’ proposal, then it needs to be because they feel the acts of Bush and Cheney do not constitute a threat to our system of government—not on the faulty premise that the Constitution does not grant the council the right to impeach and that petitioning Congress is outside the council’s “jurisdiction.”
Editor's note: The Rohnert Park City Council's refusal to hear its citizen representatives and the voices of 400 petitioners comes as no surprise to this editor. At a meeting of Sonoma County progressive city council members, so-called progressive councilmen from Rohnert Park, Jake McKenzie and Tim Smith took a similar head-in-the-sand position when asked to lend support for an Out of Iraq Resolution presented to the Sonoma City Council. Mckenzie's behavior was particularly rude and obnoxious, indicative of his disdain for addressing issues outside what he and others on the RP Council consider outside the purview of their little bailiwick. This in total disregard of the hundreds of cities, large and small, across the nation that had passed resolutions urging withdrawal from Iraq within a year's time. This was in 2006. The short-sighted and imbecilic stance adopted by these stalwarts of the people's business, using the dodge that it's not a local issue, flies in the face of reality and just plain common sense. Just recently the Press Democrat ran an article showing the tax burden felt by all citizens of Sonoma County in paying for the war and occupation. Sonoma County hospitals are in deep financial trouble as are its schools and infrastructure. This is a direct result here and elsewhere of taking local and state taxes and pouring them down the deadly hole that has become Iraq occupation.
It is incomprehensible that county city councils are unable or unwilling to see the connections between local effects and national issues when it comes to matters like Iraq or impeachment of executive branch criminal activities. Hopefully county voters, progressive or otherwise, will remember such cowardly and dismissive behavior by recalcitrant politicians who blatantly refuse to listen to local voices. Some of these local pols have made a comfy career ensconced on councils at the people's expense, and it's high time to limit their terms.
Will Shonbrun
2 comments:
[Info at C&L Relates to impeachment/Speaker Removal: Repost of Comment 85, which may be deleted. ]
Bob Mullholland appears to not have an adequate response to the effort to change the DNC leadership. On the table are the following, which Bob Mullholland appears to have not adequately “staffed” for:
1. Speaker Pelosi’s Removal, Clearing Way For Impeachment
Here are Summary links of the sample proclamation and precedents for this to happen. You’ll see — as with the State effort to call on Congress to impeach, or the “House 603 effort” — the DNC leadership apparently has no legal basis to thwart any state legislature from calling on the House to formally discuss removing Pelosi, to make way for impeachment.
2. Congressional Candidate Support for Pelosi Removal
You'll notice at this link the Speaker and DNC have a problem: the public can well digest, respond, and field candidates who support the Removal of the speaker — now, before the 2008 election. Mullholland has no strategy to dissuade any Member of Congress from joining the calls to have the Speaker ousted, and replaced with someone marginally more interested in the rule of law. Arguably, Mullholland is an alleged co-conspirator in an effort to engage in alleged unlawful rebellion against the rule of law; and has allegedly no plan to defend the Constitution against his alleged co-conspirators on the Congressional staff.
3. An entrenched, already organized group behind these proclamations to call on Congress to remove Pelosi
Here is the list of groups which are extremely knowledgeable of the House Rules, and power of the States to Pass Proclamations calling on the House to act. You’ll note that there are a majority of states who well understand the power of the State to openly discuss removal of Pelosi as Speaker. More than half of the States’ citizens have well researched, acted, and have openly discussed proclamations.
Big Clue For Bob Mullholland And the Alleged Lazy DNC-GOP Congressional Staff
5 USC 3331 oath of office compels all Members of Congress — and their professional staff — to fully assert their oath, use all lawful options to defend the Constitution, and have no mental reservations about defending the Constitution against domestic enemies. The Speaker and DNC well heard the 2006 voter mandate. That mandate was clear: Hold the leadership to account. This Congress — both the DNC and GOP leadership — have defied We the People. There is no requirement for We the People to remain loyal to a Congress which puts “something else” before its oath to the US Constitution.
We the People have options. Congressman Kucinich made it very clear that the House had a duty to act. For whatever reason, the House — the majority of the Members of Congress in the House of representatives — voted to support Kucinich, and forward the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. There it sits. The DNC-GOP leadership in Congress are but one faction. We the People are the sovereign, and we have the lawful power to deploy, use, and lawfully use other faction to assert Our Will. Bob Mullholland and others in the Congressional Staff office must decide: Whether you are for the rule of law and accountability now; or whether you wish to have the rule of law — as a principle — imposed on you later. Either way, Our Will shall prevail.
On the table are serious allegations related to the laws of war, prisoner abuse, FISA violations. The issue — at this juncture — is not to count the votes in the senate before they are cast; but to ask whether the leadership who took the oath will permit any vote in the senate to occur. We the People would be pleased if there was a vote in the Senate. Soon. To get there, Bob Mullholland and others can either cooperate; or they can watch their leadership challenged. Openly. The issue is simple: Whether the Speaker, as an elected Member of Congress, will permit fact finding; or whether she will refuse to ensure all obstructions to that fact finding are cleared from the table. The Speaker appears to be part of the obstruction, not the fact finding. That is her problem to reconcile with her legal counsel. She knows the law, her oath, and her legal obligations to the Constitution. We the People have not taken an oath to anything; We the People compelled this oath to bind you and others to do what is difficult, so that you will act when inaction is easy.
Inaction is not an option. It is not allowed. Action compels the Congress to lead. We the People have attempted to well discuss our concerns, our hopes, and our dreams of defending this Constitution. This Congress does not appear interested. Despite. The. Clear. Voter. Mandate. This is unfortunate. We have attempted letters; we attempted action at the voting booth; and we also attempted to support resolutions calling for impeachment. This Congress — in alleged contravention to their oath — defied Our Will, blocked our efforts, and refused — as required — to act. We the People have opened formal discussions in all fifty states, and begin caucus discussions between the DNC and GOP allies who put their oath before their loyalty to the President and his alleged Rebellion against the rule of law. Our mandate is not a new requirement; it is one that compels We the People and the States to join forces and Act. Our Will compels us to defend this document. The way forward is to join We the People in removing the Speaker, and clearing the way for the impeachment investigation.
This is not a negotiation. Either the Speaker will clear the way for the impeachment investigation; or Nancy Pelosi shall be confronted with the expanding effort to remove her as Speaker. Those are your options. Choose.
What Is On The Table
There are two things readers can do:
1. Discuss this proclamation in your local communities, and apply learn the lessons from this effort;
2. Share with your friends the growing body of American people who well understand proclamations calling on the House To act; and the legal foundations and precedents of the House permitting the States to pass proclamations calling on the House to remove the Speaker.
These links will be important when you consider these lessons learned: there are solutions to removing roadblocks to the Speaker’s removal. Heed the lessons of the House 603 effort; and ensure your friends well understand who you are up against: People who are allegedly putting “something else” before their oath, Our Will, and the Constitution. Their excuses for inaction or open defiance are contrary to reason. This does not ensure the law — based on reason — is preserved, but thwarted. That is not permissible.
The message is simple: We the People have options. This Congress is the problem. The issue is the failure of the Congress to challenge the President and Vice President. We the People are asserting our power to challenge the DNC leadership and the Speaker herself. Time for her to wakeup. The Support for Kucinich was, in part, fueled by the simple recognition by We the People that we had the power to compel the Congress — through resolutions — to confront the issue of impeachment. The majority of the House — for whatever reason — are open to accepting that premise. That assumption is one that We the People shall assert lawfully to compel this Congress to respond to Our Will. If the Congress refuses, We the People shall expand the proclamations to call on Congress to impeach others. Inaction is evidence of alleged mental reservations in re one’s oath of office.
This is not a negotiation. This is an effort by We the People to collect evidence:
Members of Congress and their Staff are allegedly, through inaction, exposed to direct prosecutions for alleged oath of office violations, and complicity with grave breaches of Geneva and the Supreme Law.
A. Does this Congress respond to its oath; or does it refuse to put its loyalty to rebellion and “other things” before its oath to the Supreme Law; and
B. Do the Members of Congress and their staff — individiually — well demonstrate to the Grand Jury, among other things (1) they have mental reservations, and (2) they have abused legislative immunity, which should be revoked.
Adverse inferences can be made. This would open the door to direct prosecutions of Members of Congress and their staff for alleged breach of their oath, and alleged unlawful support of domestic enemies who have put rebellion and “other things’ before the Supreme Law. This it not permissible. We the People shall expand our lawful, non-violent opposition to the Congress and its Staff.
The rule of law, and the Will of We the People shall prevail. We the People can, without notice, revoke this Constitution and through a solemn ceremony, revoke and redelegate powers. All of them. Any. Time. We. Choose. Powers which Congress will not assert are not perpetual grants. They are conditional. Conditions have changed. The rules shall be used to compel you to act; or lawfully used against you to punish you for alleged domestic rebellion against the Constitution, the Supreme Law. You shall lose. Choose wisely.
Direct prosecution of Members of Congress, their staff, and the Congressional Staff counsel. Is. On. The. Table.
Kucinich announces support for NH State proclamation calling on Congress to investigate and impeach the President: ( Details )
Post a Comment