Within the U.S., in 1992 and into 1993, a widespread belief persisted that the incoming administration of U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton would be favorably inclined to drug policy reform, being of a generation generally more tolerant towards illicit drugs, and hence that a Clinton Administration could mean some sort of Cannabis decriminalization. Furthermore, because of prohibition’s iron law of favoring more concentrated dangerous substances, I saw the theoretical potential for his wife Hillary becoming interested in an objective official look at differing medicinal substances, including Cannabis and Coca, given her stated interest in health care.
An example of this optimism was a letter by D.P.F. President Arnold Trebach dated November 11, 1992, days after the end of the 1992 D.P.F. conference and the election of William Jefferson Clinton as President of the United States of America: There is an historic opportunity to reverse our destructive drug policy... It is going to take an aggressive effort on our part to ensure that positive steps are taken in drug control during this time of change in political leadership. Among the projects we are planning are:
- A seminar for the new members of Congress elected this year which will feature leading speakers for the reform of drug policy; - Renewal of our Drug Policy Reform series on Capitol Hill- plans include six forums on key drug policy issues in 1993; - The publication of an expanded National Drug Reform Strategy which will outline alternative policies which could be implemented both in the near future and the long term. In addition to these specific projects the Foundation will be continuing all of the work it has been doing over the last six years. The Foundation will be regularly writing columns to be published on the editorial pages of the country, meeting with editorial boards to discuss alternatives to current policy as well as with reporters who cover the drug issue to ensure that the reform viewpoint gets the attention it deserves. We must reach the media with reform message. Our television series, “America’s Drug Forum,” will be advertisements on the drug issue. In short, we will expand the level of debate on the drug issue.
It was from the November, 1992 conference that the Washington, D.C. City Paper included a photograph of myself was snapped waiting to speak with Ethan Nadelmann at this photo’s center, talking to a third person whose back is turned to the camera, uncaptioned as to our identities, but with the three of us beneath a Drug Policy Foundation banner, within its --- issue article upon the drug policy reform movement, titled “Just Say Whoa!”
This photo’s juxtaposition with the caption “D.P.F. to White House: “can we talk” could appear to prophesize a D.P.F. delegation including its readily identifiable figures Nadelmann and myself being received at the White House to discuss drug policy issues. (I would have looked forward to explaining how the drug laws distort drug use.)
The Administration of U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton would ultimately prove to be a major disappointment to anyone expecting any significant change in the drug prohibition laws, with Clinton himself justifying his support for their continuation by stating that he believed that prohibition had spared the life of his brother who had been described as a heavy drug abuser of cocaine powder: an analysis disregarding the iron law of prohibition in popularizing such concentrated forms of drugs. With his 1992 Democrat Party platform calling for legalizing nothing, and hiring 100,000 new police officers to enforce the existing laws!
More visible initially was the Clinton Administration’s cutting of the size of the “Drug Czar’s” office (Office of National Drug Control Policy) from 146 to 25. Yet his $13.1 billion drug war annual budget presented in March 1993 was virtually the same as what the preceding U.S. George Bush Sr. proposed in 1992, including a 70% allocation of funds to law enforcement.
Some of his appointees would exhibit some variance on drug policy. One of the first official acts of Janet Reno, Clinton’s appointee for Attorney General was to order a review of mandatory minimum sentences upon the criminal justice system. This report, completed by September 1993, but not released until January 1994, found over 20% of all federal inmates were low level non violent drug prohibition offenders, with over 67% of these serving at least 5 or 10 years, with higher proportions for the State prisons because most drug offenses are prosecuted at the State level. Meanwhile, by November 1993 Clinton had public ally endorsed a new crime bill with additional mandatory minimum sentences. In the time since, Janet Reno has said far less about anything regarding any changes to drug related policy. `
Another such figure was Jocelyn Elders, Clinton’s appointee for Surgeon General, confirmed by the U.S. Congress September 7, 1993, who was first reported as the appointee for the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and who willingly faced controversy by publicly endorsing sex education and prescribed cannabis (marijuana) for medicinal purposes. In office, one of her earlier acts was to direct the U.S. Public Health Service to start a review of the preceding Bush Administration’s policy prohibiting even “compassionate” medical cannabis (marijuana): a position contradicted by the Clinton Administration’s Drug Enforcement Agency’s defense in the U.S. Court of Appeals of the statutory definition of cannabis (marijuana) as having no medical value. Her stated open mindedness to drug legalization would bring Clinton to have her reigned into the drug war party line, following her December 1993 exchange with reporters after a speech about violence, where, she responded to a reporter’s question by noting that: 60% violent crime was drug, or alcohol, related, much of it 'to get money to buy drugs', and that such crime therefore might be significantly reduced 'if drugs were legalized' (San Francisco Examiner,1993).
She noted that she did not 'know all the ramifications of [legalization]', but thought 'we do need to do some studies' (Baltimore Sun, December 8,1993; cited in Drug Policy Letter,1994, p.9). Within hours the White House repudiated Dr. Elder's position with a statement by Drug control Director Lee Brown:
'The President is against legalizing drugs, and he's not interested in studying the issue' … legalization is a formula for self destruction' that would inflict 'terrifying damage' (San Francisco Examiner, 1993).
President Clinton immediately afterwards forbad Dr. Elders from making any public statements supporting the idea of studying drug legalizations, or medical marijuana. Within 2 weeks, authorities issued and executed an arrest warrant for Dr. Elders’s 20 year old son, Kevin on a drug charge on an event that occurred in July 1993 while she was going through her U.S. Senate confirmation hearings. It alleged that he sold 1.85 (slightly more then 50% of an “eight-ball”) grams of cocaine hydrochloride powder to a friend turned police informer Calvin Walraven. This charge had a ten year sentence in prison under the mandatory minimum sentencing laws of the State of Arkansas. This prosecution was notable not only for the 5 month gap between the “offense” and the arrest warrant, but also for its amount of effort and timing. Little Rock Police would spend 3 months watching the son (who was known by police to be a user of alcohol and cocaine), of the prospective surgeon general (with the Little Rock Police inducing Calvin Walraven to induce Kevin to sell him the 1.85 grams of cocaine powder on July 29, 1993. On July 28, 1994, Calvin Walraven was found dead with a bullet hole in his head; the death was ruled a suicide.
Dr. Elders has since said little about these topics, and failed to publicly comment on the 1992-3 Alternative Coca Reduction Strategies in the Andean Region report by Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress, report, with the O.T.A. being disbanded only a few years later. After serving 105 days in prison, he was released last December 15th. As Elders has described this: "He had a year of intensive treatment before he went to prison," says Elders. "Kevin now has a job selling cars, and he goes to AA every day. I'm not saying it's right that my son used or bought drugs, but the arrest may have been God's way of saving him."
Elders publicly maintains a positive attitude towards Clinton. By 1994’s end, Clinton had requested and received Elder’s resignation. Reportedly, this was his response to a political outcry from members of the opposition Republican Party to Elder’s answer at a December 1, 1994, United Nations-sponsored conference on AIDS to a question about combating the spread of AIDS through discussing masturbation: " to masturbation, I think that it is something that is a is a part of human sexuality, and it's a part of something that perhaps should be taught." As such, it should be a part of a "comprehensive" sex education program at a school-age level. " With billions annually spent on a drug war and treating AIDS, masturbation would be the issue used by Clinton to end any White House dissent about drug policy.
Less visibly in the U.S., the Clinton Administration would furthermore continue the policies of previous Republican and Democrats in foreign affairs, by stymieing any research that did not conform to the law’s assumptions, with its diplomats bringing pressure to suppress such.
now, Harper's getting down to brass tacks: bolstering the profits to be made from the renewed efforts on 'criminalization' & the joy of intimidating Progressive citizens.
From theCouncil for Responsible Genetics, Patenting of life forms should be considered unethical because: - it fosters biopiracy of indigenous resources - turns life forms into commodities to be used for profit - hinders the free-flow of scientific research - destroys economic sustainability of developing nations
Let's be honest here: BigPharma & AgriBiz want nothing more than DNA ownership & to develop OUR dependence on the corporate entity. John Tory: Can't reach out to Canadians, can't show up for 'Make Poverty History' event, either. so tell me, are we Canadian citizens? shareholders? *customers* or do we actually have a say in our own country? hell no, not when corporations are calling the shots for us... we don't need no stinking healthcare... we need care for our health, which we're not gonna get from the Progressive Conservatives, are we? they're only out for their corporate gains. I'm not alone, drive around your neighbourhoods & ask yourself: why is it that the richest cocksuckers in the country have PC candidate signs? they know where THEIR bread is buttered.
Dr. Martin says he's all for increasing penalties for people who sell illegal drugs, including gangsters, but wonders why the Tories would want to target users when he says similar strategies in other countries haven't worked.
"I can't understand why the Conservatives are embracing a war-on-drugs approach that has proven to fail," he said.
"By all means, go after the pushers. By all means, absolutely go after the organized crime gangs that are the real parasites in this situation," he added.
THE CANADIAN PRESS, September 29, 2007 at 4:50 PM EDT OTTAWA — Health Minister Tony Clement will announce the Conservative government's anti-drug strategy this week with a stark warning: "the party's over" for illicit drug users.
"In the next few days, we're going to be back in the business of an anti-drug strategy," Mr. Clement told The Canadian Press.
"In that sense, the party's over."
Shortly after taking office early last year, the Conservatives decided not to go ahead with a Liberal bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.Vancouver police check a person's identification in Vancouver's downtown eastside in 2005. (Lyle Stafford/The Globe and Mail)
Since then, the number of people arrested for smoking pot has jumped dramatically in several Canadian cities, in some cases jumping by more than one third.
Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Halifax all reported increases of between 20 and 50 per cent in 2006 of arrests for possession of cannabis, compared with the previous year.
As a result thousands of people were charged with a criminal offence that, under the previous Liberal government, was on the verge of being classified as a misdemeanour.
Police forces said many young people were under the impression that the decriminalization bill had already passed and were smoking up more boldly than they've ever done before.
Mr. Clement says his government wants to clear up the uncertainty
"There's been a lot of mixed messages going out about illicit drugs," Mr. Clement said in an interview Saturday after a symposium designed to bring together Canada's arts and health communities to combat mental health issues.
There's also a health-care cost element to suggesting to young people that using illicit drugs is OK, the minister said.
"The fact of the matter is they're unhealthy," Mr. Clement said. "They create poor health outcomes."
For too long, Mr. Clement argues, governments in Canada have been sending the wrong message about drug use. It's time, he says, to take a tougher approach to dealing with the problem.
"There hasn't been a meaningful retooling of our strategy to tackle illicit drugs in over 20 years in this country," Mr. Clement said.
"We're going to be into a different world and take tackling these issues very seriously because (of) the impact on the health and safety of our kids."
The Conservatives' wide-ranging $64-million anti-drug strategy is expected to combine treatment and prevention programs with stiffer penalties for illicit drug use, and a crackdown at the border against drug smuggling.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day will join Mr. Clement in announcing the plan as part of a range of initiatives to be unveiled by the Tories surrounding next month's throne speech.
Mr. Clement said treatment and prevention programs were his key priorities for the health element of the drug strategy.
"Yes, there's a justice issue to that," he said.
"But there's also a treatment issue, there's also a prevention issue."
Mr. Clement has suggested in the past that he opposes so-called harm reduction strategies for combatting illegal drug use, including safe-injection sites where nurses provide addicts with clean needles and a safe place to use drugs.
At a Canadian Medical Association meeting last month, he was quoted saying "harm reduction, in a sense, takes many forms. To me, prevention is harm reduction.
Treatment is harm reduction. Enforcement is harm reduction."
The following day, a petition signed by over 130 physicians and scientists was released, condemning the Conservative government's "potentially deadly" misrepresentation of the positive evidence for harm reduction programs.
Vancouver's Insite safe injection clinic is facing a December 31 deadline for the renewal of a federal exemption that allows it to operate.
Critics of the Conservative government's approach to illicit drug use say the federal government would be making a serious mistake by failing to renew the exemption.
"I think there's very little chance that Mr. Clement will extend the safe injection site's permit to continue," says Dr. Keith Martin, a British Columbia Liberal MP and former substance-abuse physician.
"But in doing that they will be essentially committing murder."
Advocates say safe-injection sites help to prevent the spread of serious diseases, including AIDS and Hepatitis by preventing users from sharing needles while opponents say the sites simply promote illegal drug use.
Dr. Martin says he's all for increasing penalties for people who sell illegal drugs, including gangsters, but wonders why the Tories would want to target users when he says similar strategies in other countries haven't worked.
"I can't understand why the Conservatives are embracing a war-on-drugs approach that has proven to fail," he said.
"By all means, go after the pushers. By all means, absolutely go after the organized crime gangs that are the real parasites in this situation," he added.
"But for heaven's sake, treat the user as a medical problem and adopt the solutions that have proven to work in other countries."
GARDASIL® for PROFIT?: Health Ontario & "CorpWatch: Merck's Murky Dealings: HPV Vaccine Lobby Backfires"
“There is no Dypraxa, never was, never will be. I know of no wonder-cure for TB that has recently been launched on the African market or any other - or is about to be - so with Luck I shall not be spending the rest of my life in the law courts or worse, though nowadays you can never be sure.
But I can tell you this. As my journey through the pharmaceutical jungle progressed, I came to realize that, by comparison with the reality, my story was as tame as a holiday postcard.” - John Le Carré,The Constant Gardener, Author's Note, 2001.
okay, look: I have an academic background in HealthCare... I'm not some troglodyte or freak who thinks there is no benefit to sound HealthCare practises & preventative medicine. But I'm not stupid, BUT, BigPharma has an ugly research ethics closet... & nobody can argue that. Judge recesses: Pfizer's Nigerian experimental malpractice suit So, when I hear that GARDASIL® is the most expensive vaccine to date... & that *everybody* should be injected... & that all this HYPE is running around about a pretty new vaccine... I ask myself aren't we being a bit HASTY in deciding ALL YOUNG WOMEN should get a series of HPV shots? I mean... its not as if we've had decades of unbiased research on these shots. The research is *all* done by the companies. No bias THERE, eh?
so why is the only argument about who sticks what in our daughters... about sex & not about BigPharma?? nobody's worried about a generation of women getting *permanently fucked*?
I've no problem with boys, women or even infants receiving strong healthcare & preventative medicine, yes, even for sexually transmitted diseases, BUT:
I'm not saying they *don't work*... I'm saying... aren't we getting a bit giddy in all these 'manditory vaccines'? & I gotta ask myself... maybe they whork... but there aer some *serious* side effects to Guardasil... but Ontario Health is pumping like mad to have everyone injected. Yes, I know there is an indicated correlation between HPV & bladder cancer or infertility... but, being a BAD disease doesn't make GARDASIL® a GOOD healthcare plan... especially rolled out to *everyone* with so few years of research...
Just a few years ago, we were told 'only healthcare workers, the aged or immunologically compromised' should get the 'flu' shot... now *EVERYBODY* should? that's convenient for BigPharma, isn't it?
gotta ask yourself... how many provincial politicians & mandarins have invested their futures into BigPharma stock? How many supporters of politicians work for BigPharma or are invested in the outcome of high stock performance?
Thursday, 29 June 2006 The FDA appears to have learned nothing from recent catastrophic disasters. The disasters are due to the agency's approval of unsafe drugs--such as Merck's anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx.
The FDA hastily approved Merck's HPV vaccine which is designed to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts in sexually active women. However, the vaccine has not been proven safe and effective in clinical trials. The trials are being criticized for using a placebo containing aluminum adjuvant (whose adverse reaction profile makes the vaccine appear safer than it is), rather than using a non-reactive saline solution polacebo.
Here's how: the vaccine triggered adverse event reports in 90% of the test subjects within 15 days--hardly an indication of safety. However, the controversial placebo formula triggered 85% adverse event reports. How does the FDA know what long-term adverse effects the vaccine might produce? Have we learned nothing from the disastrous DES effects on the daughters of women who took the hormone during pregnancy triggering cancer and genital deformaties. See: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/DES .
The HPV vaccine is being promoted for use in girls 9-15 years of age.
National Vaccine Information Center president, Barbara Loe Fisher, says "Merck's pre and post-licensure marketing strategy has positioned mass use of this vaccine by pre-teens as a morality play in order to avoid talking about the flawed science they used to get it licensed. This is not just about teenagers having sex, it is also about whether Gardasil has been proven safe and effective for little girls."
When the science becomes politicized--whether from the conservative right or from the liberal left--don't trust ANYTHING that's being said.
Absent scientific evidence demonstrating the safety of the HPV vaccine, there is no guarantee that this will not prove to be a disaster for the next generation. === Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav, 212-595-8974 veracare@ahrp.org
"It used to be that funding for research was provided by government," says Canavan, the Maine legislator. "But now it comes from private corporations that stand to gain and the information can be - I won't say skewed - but made to work for the company."
What is clearly not working for Merck are the controversies around Gardasil that have derailed corporate plan to make vaccination mandatory and to capture the market before Glaxo releases its own vaccine.
The last few years have not gone smoothly for one of the world's biggest drug companies. On September 30, 2004, after it became known that Vioxx was doubling the rate of heart attacks and strokes, Merck withdrew the painkiller and saw its stock plummet nearly 27 percent. Taking the drug off the market wiped out $2.5 billion in annual sales.
In 2005, Merck's new chief executive officer Richard Clark announced a plan to cut the company's world-wide work force by 11 percent or 7,000 jobs and to close or sell five of its manufacturing facilities. The company's 2005 sales were down four percent and its net income had fallen by 20 percent. The company's financial woes will not be eased by the fact that its patent for cholesterol drug Zocor, with $5 billion in sales, expired in 2006, while patents on other best selling drugs, including, Folsom and Cozaar, are nearing expiration.
Merck's also announced on February 14 that it had signed an agreement that essentially brings to a close the U.S. Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) examination of the company for the period 1993-2001. Under the agreement, the final net cash cost to Merck is expected to be approximately $2.3 billion which covers federal tax, net interest after federal tax deductions and penalties." Merck, noted the "reasonableness" of the IRS settlement and said that it had reserved the funds so the payment would not impact 2007 earnings.
"As CEO, my priorities are clear," says Clark, "meeting the needs of patients and building shareholder value."
Those priorities are particularly hard to juggle given America's love-hate relationship with pharmaceuticals. In 2004, 82 percent of the U.S. population reported that they had taken at least one prescription drug, over-the-counter medication, or dietary supplement in the previous week; 30 percent of respondents reported using five or more, according to a study by the Sloan Epidemiology Center at Boston University. Even kids are consuming drugs in great quantities. In 2005, according to an analysis performed by Medco Health Solutions for the New York Times, "approximately 1.6 million U.S. teenagers and children (almost 300,000 of whom were under 10) were given at least two psychiatric drugs in combination."
At the same time as they are popping pills, Americans are widely distrustful of a pharmaceutical industry that has a long record of marketing wonder drugs with misleading advertising and dangerous side-effects. A 2007 health poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that fewer than 18 percent of Americans "say they can trust what pharmaceutical companies say in their ads most of the time." Some 70 percent "agree that drug companies put profits ahead of people."
By choosing to promote making Gardasil mandatory, Merck fell deep into the chasm between the public's desire to see drugs as the cure for all ills and its profound skepticism that pharmaceutical companies put the public's interests before profits.
"When we lose trust in company like pharmaceuticals or a group like Women in Government," said Canavan from her home in Maine, "we start to become suspicious about everything. We need to have public dialogue. The point is not that the vaccine is bad, but that the public agenda has all been company-driven."...
Its all about good parenting & the safety of the children... isn't it? There is a rather effective means to protecting one's daughters from cervical warts. USE A FREAKING CONDOM. a little communication & sex education goes a LOOONG way, right? I guess jabbing a few needles with longterm effects & dubious side-effect research is infinitely easier on the parenting effort... Opulent Ethics: feeding the Beast
Website:http://www.MoveToAmend.orgMission:We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Company Overview:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, The People rule.
I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent
A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.
B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.
C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.
D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.
E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.
F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.
G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.
H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.
I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.
J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.
K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.
L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.
II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States
A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.
B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.
C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.
D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.
E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.
F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.
III. Independent Branch
A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.
B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.
C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.
D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.
E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.
F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.
IV. Prosecutorial Branch
A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.
B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.
C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.
D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.
E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.
V. Judicial Branch
A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.
B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.
C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.
D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.
VI. Legislative Branch
A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.
B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.
C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.
D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.
E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.
F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.
G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.
VII. Executive Branch
A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.
B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.
D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.
E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.
F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.
G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.
H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.
I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.
J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.
K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.
L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.
M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.
N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.
O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.
P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.
Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.
Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?
Trying to train the next generation of diplomats what the issues that they will face are, how to survive the coming hard times and how to conduct themselves so that they, unlike most of their role models, DO THE RIGHT THING. They are inheriting a neocon Klusterfuck, are ill prepared and need whatever help they can get.
