franzwohlgemuth
franzwohlgemuth's JournalA Case Against the GOP
The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"
, is one of the two major political parties in the United States. It was founded in 1854 by opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories. The party supported economic reform and classical liberalism while opposing the expansion of slavery. After 1912, the Republican Party began to undergo an ideological shift to the right. Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the party's core base shifted, with Southern states became more Republican in politics. The election of Republican Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016 marked a populist shift in the Republican Party.
Around 100 years ago, Democrats and Republicans switched their political stances. During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, committed to an ambitious expansion of federal power, funding the transcontinental railroad, the state university system, settlement of the West, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures.
Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936.
A influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power, up until that point, a Republican stance. But Republicans didn't adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. For a couple of decades, both parties promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice, Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its opposition to the New Deal. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy of the federal help that had previously gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance - favoring federally funded social programs and benefits - while Republicans were gradually driven to the opposite view of hands-off government. Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties did switch, their core supporters didn't. The Republicans remain the party of bigger businesses; it's just that before they wanted want bigger government and later they didn't. In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.
When Democrat Woodrow Wilson w
on the presidency, the Republican Party turned against many of his progressive reforms, which they believe expanded government's power too far. When Republicans regained power and held it throughout the '20s, they became the party of business. They thought prosperity for business alone was good for America.
That worked out well for them throughout most of the 1920s, but then the economy crashed in 1929 and the Great Depression began, because of how they governed, with the mind set of businesses first.
Republicans believe that free markets and individual achievement are the primary factors behind prosperity. Republicans advocate in favor of fiscal conservatism during Democratic administrations; however, they have shown themselves wantonly increasing federal debt when they are in charge (the implementation of the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 are examples of this willingness). Modern Republicans advocate the theory of supply-side economics, which holds that lower tax rates on the wealthy increase economic growth.
Historically, leaders in the Republican Party supported environmental protection. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt was a conservationist whose policies eventually led to the creation of the National Park Service. Republican President Richard Nixon was not an environmentalist, he signed legislation to create the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and had a comprehensive environmental program. Since then, Republicans have increasingly taken positions against environmental regulation, with some Republicans rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change. From 2008 to 2017, the Republicans changed from "debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist", according to The New York Times.
In the following the Civil War, the Republicans grew more supportive of immigration, as it represented manufacturers in the Northeast (who wanted additional labor) whereas the Democratic Party came to be seen as the party of labor (which wanted fewer laborers to compete with). In the 1970s, the parties switched places again, as the Democrats grew more supportive of immigration than Republicans.
Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, many in the party have supported neoconservative policies with regard to the War on Terror, including the war in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The George W. Bush administration took the position that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to unlawful combatant.
There were not highly polarized differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party prior to the Roe v. Wade 1973 Supreme Court ruling (which made prohibitions on abortion rights unconstitutional), but after the Supreme Court ruling, opposition to abortion became an increasingly key national platform for the Republican Party. Again, ignoring personal liberty and science, for votes.
Virtually all restrictions on voting have in recent years been implemented by Republicans. Republicans, mainly at state level, argue that the restrictions (purging voter rolls, limiting voting locations, and prosecuting double voting) are vital to prevent voter fraud despite peer reviewed research that has indicated that voter fraud is very uncommon. Many of these restrictions enacted by Republicans have been successfully challenged in court, with court rulings striking down such regulations and accusing Republicans of establishing them with partisan purpose.
Rarely has there been a large and significant transformation than that of the Republican Party, from a moderately conservative party to something it was never intended to be.
The idea that the Republican Party would be a force for ethnic and anti-immigrant animus and racial division would appall original Republicans, even as far back as the 60s, because they cared about integrity in governance and personal rectitude. They believed in the independence of Congress. Its need to provide a check and balance against corruption in the executive branch, whether the president was from their own or the opposite party. They were unable to transfer those values to succeeding generations however, or to the rise of manipulative leaders, and the influence of extremist media. The Republican Party's fall from those values came before Donald Trump. In recent years, the GOP has thrown away its values and embraced its darkest impulses. It has destroyed long-standing norms in the Senate; sat idly by allowing rank corruption in the White House; accepted the politicization of the DOJ and lies from the attorney general; avoided any oversight of misconduct; and failed to curb attacks on the independence of inspectors general and whistleblowers.
It has the last administration separate children from their parents at the border (and stick them in cages), mistreated asylum seekers, didn't even try a meaningful response to a hurricane in Puerto Rico, attacked science, and opened new avenues for waste materials in our air and water. It did nothing about Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and is actively blocked efforts to combat it happening in 2020. It has refused to pass a new Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder eviscerated the legislation, which had passed the House unanimously (including the GOP min you). It refused to deal in any fashion with climate change, immigration, global competition, hunger, medical catastrophe, and poverty. It confirmed nominees who lied to the Senate, who inflated resumes, and who failed to meet minimum qualifications for a job. It confirmed judges who were unanimously rated unqualified by the American Bar Association.
The party jammed through a tax cut (without much support from the people) at a time of low unemployment and low economic growth, leaving little flexibility to deal with the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic. It slashed the budget of the CDC, delivering an 80 percent cut to global-health programs designed to fight pandemics, and leaving the agency without the resources necessary to battle COVID-19. It has said nothing about the reckless responses of Trump to the pandemic, which has resulted in half a million deaths that should never have happened. Remained silent when we learned that Russia offered bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers.
A reshaped GOP could be very conservative, but not radical. It would believe in limited government, but a government ran by people of ethics, morals, principles, standards. Respecting data and science, and operating fairly. It would believe in actual fiscal discipline. It would believe in the integrity of our institutions and insist that those in office adhere to ethical standards. It would respect the fundamental values of decency and equal treatment. It would work to broaden its base across racial and ethnic lines, not use division and voter suppression to keep power.
What happens to democratic societies when conservative parties become radical in their defense of the status quo? Harvard political scientist Daniel Ziblatt (co-author of How Democracies Die) argued in a 2017 book that "The importance of conservative parties in democratic systems has been largely underappreciated. Democracies tend to evolve in the direction of more equality, and how a society responds to those changes determines how healthy and stable it is over time. Since it's often the conservative parties that dictate this response, how they're organized and what they do (or don't do) is hugely consequential.
The key thing is that conservative parties are governed by career politicians who have a stake in the continuation of the political system. That's more important than whether conservatives win elections or not. So you can imagine a situation like late 19th-century Spain or late 19th-century Germany where conservatives do really well in elections, but it's because the elections are rigged, and you have state officials tampering with the election and repressing the vote so that conservatives win."
One of the frightening parallels between the current GOP to the Weimar era is that the leading figure in the German nationalist scene in the mid-1920s (Alfred Hugenberg), who had no political career. He was a businessman. But slowly, he built up a media empire. He owned movie theaters and newspapers and even the official German wire service, which provided news to local newspapers.
As this media infrastructure was developing, he was pushing a total nationalist agenda, using nationalist themes. And he then got selected as the head of the German Conservative Party in 1928. He was uncharismatic and a failure as a politician, but he helped turn the political debate in a more nationalist direction. Any of this sound familiar?
Today, it's more complicated because the media infrastructure is so all-encompassing. I've seen people draw parallels to the end of World War I where you had a narrative emerge in Germany that said Germans were under assault by liberals and Jews and communists, that they didn't really lose the war. This myth was perpetuated after 1918, and spread throughout the political system. As people retreated more into mythology, they started to believe what today we'd call "alternative facts." Remember, "Those who do not know history"". Again, any of that sound familiar?
Why has the Republican Party become so thoroughly corrupt? The reason i
s historical as it goes back many decades. The party is best understood as an insurgency.
Today's Republican Party has a base of ever older, whiter, more male, more rural, more conservative voters. Demography can take a long time to change but it isn't on the Republicans' side. They could have tried to expand; instead, they've walled themselves off. This is why, while voter fraud knows no party, only the Republican Party overstates the risk (to the point of outright lies) so that it can pass laws to limit the ways that have a partisan impact.
Taking away democratic rights (extreme gerrymandering; blocking an elected president from nominating a Supreme Court justice; voting suppression; creating spurious anti-fraud commissions; misusing the census to undercount the opposition; calling lame-duck legislative sessions to pass laws against the will of the voters) is the Republican Party's main strategy
Republicans have chosen authoritarianism because, unlike the Democrats, their party isn't a coalition of interests. Its behavior is ideological. The Republican Party we know is a product of a series of insurgencies against the established order. Several of its intellectual founders-Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham, among others-were shaped early on by Communist ideology and practice (you read that right, the GOP we have today is because of communist ideals), and their Manichean thinking, their conviction that the salvation of Western civilization depended on the devoted work of a small group.
It took only 16 years, with the election of Ronald Reagan, for the current party to merge. During those years, conservatives hammered away at the institutional structures, denouncing the established ones for their "treacherous liberalism", and building alternatives, in the form of right-wing foundations, think tanks, business lobbies, legal groups, magazines, publishers, professorships. When Reagan won the presidency in 1980, the products of this "counter-establishment" (from the title of Sidney Blumenthal's book on the subject) were ready to take power.
But conservatism remained an insurgent during the 1980s and '90s, and the more power it amassed the more it set itself against the web of established norms and loved breaking them.
The second insurgency was led by Newt Gingrich, with the avowed aim of overthrowing the established Republican leadership and shaping the minority party into a fighting force that could break Democratic rule by destroying the "corrupt left-wing machine." Gingrich liked to quote Mao's definition of politics (again, communist influence) as "war without blood." He made audiotapes that taught candidates how to demonize the opposition with labels such as "disgrace," "betray," and "traitors." When he became speaker of the House, Gingrich announced, "There will be no compromise." How could there be, when he was leading a crusade?
The third insurgency came after the election of Barack Obama. The Tea Party. Eight years later, it culminated in Trump's victory, an insurgency within the party itself-because revolutions tend to be self-devouring ("I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals," Gingrich declared in 1998 when he quit the House). In the third insurgency, the facets of the original movement surfaced again, but more grotesque than ever: paranoia and conspiracy thinking; racism and other types of hostility toward entire groups; innuendos and incidents of violence, all to prey upon kneejerk reactions of fear and ego. Their new leader is like his authoritarian counterparts: illiberal, demagogic, hostile to institutional checks, demanding and receiving complete acquiescence from everyone, and enmeshed in the financial corruption that is integral to the political corruption of these regimes. Once again, Democrats failed to see it coming and couldn't grasp how it happened. Neither could some conservatives who still believed in the US.
The corruption of the Republican Party in the Trump era set in with breathtaking speed. It took more than a half century to reach the point where faced with a choice between democracy and power, the party chose the latter. Its leaders don't see a dilemma, they have the view of, and democratic principles are disposable, sometimes useful, and sometimes inconvenient. The higher cause is conservatism.
Politicians in Washington are looking out for themselves and their donors instead of serving the people they represent. This kind of corruption has become the norm under President Donald Trump's White House and the Republican-controlled Congress. Congressional Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) (Which no one wanted, but they passed anyway), which gave hundreds of billions of dollars to the lobbyists and corporations who contribute to their campaigns (read as, bribe government officials). Working Americans pay the price because all the problems they are facing-from higher drug costs to lower wages-are ignored.
Nationally, special interest groups representing Wall Street, pharmaceutical industry, oil and gas, and more are seeing a great return on their bribes to their favorite members of Congress. The cost of corruption is growing, but luckily, we have the receipts.
Recently there is been an uptick in extremism in the GOP. Since Trump announced his bid in June 2015 he has drawn praise and formal backing (and worship) from some of the country's neo-Nazis, white supremacists, (fake) militia supporters, and other extremist groups. They include the head of the American Nazi Party, three former Ku Klux Klansmen, four people involved in a recent armed standoff against federal authorities at an Oregon wildlife refuge, and at least 15 individuals affiliated with organizations described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Trump denounced none of them.
Racial hatred (that has always been there) helped fuel the rise of Donald Trump. Since the end of the civil rights movement, Republican strategist Lee Atwater's "Southern strategy" used racism as cudgel against Democrats. The Republican Party has played a welcoming host to racial tensions and fears.
"We have a wonderful OPPORTUNITY here folks, that may never come again," wrote Rocky J. Suhayda, the head of the American Nazi Party at a rally. "Donald Trump's campaign statements, if nothing else, have SHOWN that 'our views' are NOT so 'unpopular' as the Political Correctness crowd have told everyone they are!"
Others among Trump's extremist endorsers have advocated a violent overthrow of the US government, expressed hatred for blacks, Latinos, Muslims, and Jews, and threatened to "level and demolish every mosque across this country."
Let's take a look at other endorsements Trump has received"
Praise for Trump from former Klansman David Duke attracted widespread media attention, eventually spurring Trump to distance (but not denounce) himself from the Louisiana political figure.
Publisher of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, "Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: it's time to deport these people," Anglin said in a June 2015 endorsement. "He is also willing to call them out as criminal rapists, murderers and drug dealers."
Alex Linder/Vanguard News Network, "Only Trump can turn back the brown tide, and thinking Whites know this," stated a VNN post in February 2016. "Is Trump the ideal man? Nope, but he'll do until the ideal man gets here." VNN has also described Trump as "the Last Hope for Whites Before America Turns Brown and Non-Western."
Don Black, Former KKK grand dragon and founder of the white supremacist website Stormfront, In a 2015 interview with New York, Black said Trump "resonates with many of our people, of course, and with white, middle America, which has been seething for many years now about the immigration issue. It's been ready to boil over for a long time."
August Kreis III, Former KKK member and former Aryan Nations Minister of Information and Propaganda, Kreis praised Trump publicly in the courtroom during his November 2015 trial for sexual misconduct with a child: "I will always hate the Jew. This government is run by an evil group of people, and, please, vote for Trump!" (He was convicted and sentenced to 50 years.)
Rachel Pendergraft, National organizer for the KKK-affiliated Knights Party, in a December 2015 Washington Post interview, Pendergraft said for the first time that Knights Party members were behind Trump: "They like the overall momentum of his rallies and his campaign" They like that he's not willing to back down. He says what he believes and he stands on that."
Peter Brimelow, Founder of the white nationalist website VDARE, "They are stunning!" Brimelow said of Trump's immigration policies in an August 2015 podcast. "This is the most explicit any presidential candidate has ever been." James Edwards, White nationalist host of the Political Cesspool radio program, "Our people just needed a viable candidate and they've identified Trump as that man," Edwards said on Political Cesspool in March. "There is no doubt that Trump's populism and nationalism is galvanizing our nation and may change the course of American history for the better right before our very eyes."
Brad Griffin (pen name Hunter Wallace), Founder of the white nationalist website Occidental Dissent, "The signal has gone out to join the Trump campaign and to openly organize in the mainstream under the banner of the Republican frontrunner to take down the hated cuckservative establishment."
Matthew Heimbach, Leader of the white nationalist Traditionalist Worker Party, and training director of the neo-Confederate group League of the South, "The fires of nationalism, the fires of identity, the fires of anger against the corrupt establishment are arising all around Europe, all around America, all around the entire world," Heimbach said in a May 2016 Radio Aryan podcast. "So we just need to strap in, because the future is gonna definitely be interesting, and I believe we could have a switch in our direction even more"Hail, Emperor Trump! And hail, victory!"
Gregory Hood, Book author and blogger for the white nationalist websites Radix Journal and American Renaissance, "The survival of the current political, economic, and cultural system is a death sentence for the European-American population," Hood wrote in July 2015 Radix post. "Trump creates an opening to disrupt that system."
Jared Taylor, Founder of the white nationalist American Renaissance website, "I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America," Taylor said in a January 2016 robocall. "We don't need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture."
Trump and the GOP denounced none of them. Let that sink in.
Given that some of the types of people mentioned above stormed the capital building in a treasonous act, you can also put them down as supporters of terrorism.
On Saturday, October 10 2020, the Taliban (world recognized terrorist organization, guilty of the 9/11 attack, for those that may have forgot) did endorse Trump's re-election in an interview with CBS News. Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the group, told CBS that the Taliban's leaders "hope" Trump wins in November.
"We hope he will win the election and wind up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan," Mujahid said. The spokesman pointed to a recent tweet from the president promising that U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2020.
"Trump might be ridiculous for the rest of the world, but he is sane and wise man for the Taliban," a senior Taliban leader told CBS News.
One has to ask, when Nazis, Terrorist Organizations, White Supremacists, Nationalists (Nationalism is an ideology by people who believe their nation is superior to all others. This sense of superiority often has its roots in a shared ethnicity.), and Fascists agree with the party and its people, what does that say about said party and people? What does it say about the Americans that support said party and people when they agree with them?
The GOP started as an anti-slavery, pro people group, and has fallen to a group baked by Nazis, Terrorist Organizations, White Supremacists, Nationalists, and Fascists. That alone means they are a threat to our nation.
A case Against the Executive Branch of the United States of America
A core tenant of our nation is that no one—not even the president—is above the law. The Take Care Clause commands that a president shall “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and the president is required to take an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President” to assure that happens. But over the centuries, presidential power expansion and abuse of power have been growing. It’s not a recent trend appearing with Trump, and is not subject to only one party.
Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, FDR’s “internment” of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Japanese, Andrew Jackson’s removal of the Cherokees from their homeland in the southern Appalachians to Oklahoma, The often overlooked intervention of Theodore Roosevelt in Colombia, Trump Inciting an insurrection (just to give a few examples)…
The unitary executive theory is a theory of United States constitutional law which the President possesses the power to control the entire executive branch. The doctrine is rooted in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the United States in the President. The Vesting Clause of Article II provides, "The executive Power [of the United States] shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Supporters of the unitary executive theory argue that this language, along with the Take Care Clause ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." , creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President.”. The general principle that the President controls the entire executive branch was originally innocuous, but extreme forms of the theory have since developed. Former White House Counsel John Dean explains: "In its most extreme form, unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters." The phrase "unitary executive" was discussed as early as the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, referring mainly to having a single individual fill the office of President, as proposed in the Virginia Plan. The alternative was to have several executives or an executive council, as proposed in the New Jersey Plan and as promoted by Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason.
According to Hamilton, the unenumerated executive powers that are vested solely in the President "flow from the general grant of that power, interpreted in conformity with other parts of the Constitution, and with the principles of free government."
Those other parts of the Constitution include the extensive powers granted to Congress. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to make laws, which the President then must execute, provided that those laws are constitutional. Article I, Section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution known as the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution all Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". The Constitution also grants Congress power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." The theory of the unitary executive can only be legitimate insofar as it allows Congress to wield its constitutional powers while ensuring that the President can do the same.
Loyola Law School professors Karl Manheim and Allan Ides write that "the separation among the branches is not and never was intended to be airtight," and they say the President's veto power is an example of the executive exercising legislative power. They also cite other examples of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial power being exercised by the executive branch, as necessary elements of the administrative state, but they contend that ultimately all administrative power belongs to Congress rather than the President, and the only true "executive" powers are those explicitly given in the Constitution..
David Barron (a federal judge) and Marty Lederman have also criticized the strong version of the unitary executive theory. While they acknowledge that there is a case for unitary executive within the armed forces, they argue that the Constitution does not provide for a unitary executive outside the military context, and that the Commander in Chief Clause would be superfluous if the same kind of unitary authority resulted from the general constitutional provision vesting executive power in the President.
Since Watergate, there has been a consensus that presidents may not use their official powers to interfere in the administration of justice to protect themselves, place themselves above the law, or target their political opponents. The Constitution — in two places — requires the president to act in good faith to enforce the laws. It’s long overdue that it is enforced.
“The executive power in our government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period.”― Thomas Jefferson, Democracy in America
The executive branch has undergone drastic changes over the years, making it vastly different from what it was under George Washington. Today's executive branch is much larger, more complex, and more powerful than it was when the United States was founded, let alone, intended.
When the founders were initially deciding what powers and responsibilities the executive branch would have, they were influenced by their experience with the British government under King George III. Having seen firsthand the king and other European leaders abuse their powers, the writers of the Constitution wanted strict limits on the power that the president would have. At the same time, they wanted to give the president power to conduct foreign policy and to run the federal government without being hampered by the squabbling of legislators from individual states. The framers wanted to design an executive office that would provide effective and coherent leadership but never become a tyranny. Article II of the Constitution. The specific powers given to the president are few, and the language that is used to describe them is often brief and vague. Specifically, the president has the authority to be commander in chief of the armed forces; to grant pardons; to make treaties; and to appoint ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and other government officers. As well as the president is responsible for making sure "that the Laws be faithfully executed" (§ 3), though the Framers did not specify how the president was to accomplish this goal. The Framers made no specific provisions for a staff that would assist the president; the Constitution says only that the president 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" (§ 2).To make sure the president could not become too powerful, the Framers made many powers dependent upon the will of Congress. For example, the president is given the power to make treaties with foreign countries, but those treaties must be approved by the Senate by a two-thirds majority. The Framers did not divide powers among the branches, they required the separate branches to share power, resulting in a complex system of checks and balances that prevents any one branch from gaining power over the others.
Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius in The Federalist Papers, argued that “t has been mentioned as one of the advantages to be expected from the co-operation of the Senate, in the business of appointments, that it would contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of that body would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint. A change of the Chief Magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so violent or so general a revolution in the officers of the government as might be expected, if he were the sole disposer of offices. Where a man in any station had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new President would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a person more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that a discountenance of the Senate might frustrate the attempt, and bring some degree of discredit upon himself. Those who can best estimate the value of a steady administration, will be most disposed to prize a provision which connects the official existence of public men with the approbation or disapprobation of that body which, from the greater permanency of its own composition, will in all probability be less subject to inconstancy than any other member of the government.”
The real growth is in the 20th and now the 21st century. You have the great expansiveness of the size of government. Most of that's in the executive branch, and so the president has more means, many more staff, many more people to help him carry out his preferences, not the will of congress or the people.
And you also have, over time, the delegation of great amounts of power to the president by Congress, including things that are specifically delegated to the Congress by the Constitution, trade power, for example.
In other areas, presidents have sort of pushed hard to try to take over the war power, for example. And Congress on the whole has been pretty lax about that (The U.S. has not declared war since WW2, yet we have been in constant conflict in areas that has nothing to do with WW2).
For the last quarter century, the checks and balances of American government have been usurped by the merger of two powerful currents. One is the gathering concentration of power in the hands of the federal executive. Both Democratic and Republican, although at different rates of acceleration have been guilty. The second has been the campaign of the right wing of the Republican Party since 1981 to steer the national government toward the fulfillment of a conservative social, economic, and foreign policy agenda. Together, the growing executive power and the campaign for partisan dominance have produced aggressive presidents largely immune to legislative control or judicial review. This constitutional storm has put our democratic republic at risk, upending many of the practices that have helped to sustain the checks and balances in our national government, at least since the end of World War II.
It is the legal theorists working for our most recent Republican Administrations who have most vigorously championed presidentialism as an accurate reading of what our constitutional framers historically intended. The historical record does not show presidentialism as good practice, however. We frequently find that unilateral presidential authority prompts a narrowness in consultation, and a rigidity in outlook that break down the quality of executive decision making. Presidentialism operates in a way that undermines other values, such as allegiance to the rule of law and respect for coequal branches and divergent political outlooks.
But how did we get here? Congress has been ceding its traditional authorities to the executive branch. One example is the exercise of emergency powers, an executive branch activity that has become unchecked. At the moment, there are nearly three dozen declared emergencies and Congress has only voted on one of them, with the longest-running emergency dating back to 1979. A declaration of national emergency can give the president more than 100 different powers derived from a variety of laws. Administrations that are hyper-partisan have been able to use emergency powers with little to no input from Congress. Given the number of emergency powers available and how impactful those powers can be, congressional oversight of them is vital.
In short, emergency powers can make the presidency imperial if unchecked. To complicate things, the mechanism that allowed a congressional majority to end an emergency was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1983, thereby effectively the check on executive authority in the law. Congress never reviewed an emergency until 2019. Rather than allowing emergencies that are no longer necessary to lapse, successive administrations have routinely and serially renewed ongoing emergency declarations.
The Brennan Center for Justice has compiled a list of 123 statutes that enable the president to circumvent ordinary lawmaking processes upon the declaration of a “national emergency,” That is asking for authoritarian/dictatorial rule.
Congress has been steadily losing its power for generations. The reason is the growth of the executive branch from a small operation as intended by the framers of the Constitution into permanent military operations, extensive departments and regulatory agencies, and a large staff that attempts to direct it. Throw in a hyper-partisan congress and the result is that politics becomes more focused on counting wins or losses for the party of whoever is president at the time.
Congress has freely allowed its own authority to lapse or crumble—on impeachment, on war powers, on oversight and on budgetary matters. And that power has shifted to the executive branch. Congress, by failing to enforce its own prerogatives, is effectively rewriting the Constitution.
But while history has tolerated initiation of military conflicts without formal declarations of war by the legislative branch, Congress is not out of the war-making. The Constitution gives Congress the power to appropriate money to the military. There was no standing army or navy at the time the Constitution was ratified, so a president of the early 1800s would have had to consult Congress to use military force, a formal declaration of war. According to a study conducted at Brown University, the United States has “spent and obligated” nearly $5.9 trillion in post 9/11 wars, which have contributed to approximately 500,000 civilian and military deaths. The U.S. has been fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan without interruption for 18 years and while its activities have expanded to 39 percent of the world’s nations. Congress has let this happen.
Congress has also weakened itself by allowing the president to flout its appropriations power by simply declaring a national emergency, and then diverted funds appropriated for other purposes.
Because congress has relented and subjugated itself to ones it is not supposed to (see my article A case against the Congress of the Unites States of America), we have opened the door to presidents who crave power, control, and are subject to avarice, and hyper-partisan politics instead of what is best for us. Every subsequent executive has stressed and strained what the previous one has, further building a power that was never intended to be there.
We need an executive branch that believes in a limited executive branch. Without one, our nation has the highest debt/deficit, bloodiest history (been in military conflict for 225 out of the 244 years it has existed), and a presidency that is more about optics than what is actually needed. We need a presidency that remembers it works for us, not the party, personal interest, the people.
https://www.opednews.com/articles/A-case-Against-the-Executi-by-Franz-Wohlgemuth-American-Exceptionalism_American-Republic_American-Unity_Executive-Orders-210223-597.html
A Case Against the Judiciary System of The United States of America
If a judge does not follow the law and makes rulings and decides cases according to that judge's own personal, political or religious views, then that judge is not fair and impartial. If a judge is not fair and impartial, then all parties involved are denied their fundamental constitutional right to due process. It breaks down public confidence in the rule of law, which leads to more disorder. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should be faithful to the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, theocratic ideals, public clamor, or fear of criticism. With a judge being neutral and impartial, that would mean they have no Political, Party, or Theocratic leaning. Yet we have a SCOTUS and lower courts that are largely comprised of Judges that have those said leanings.
Per “Code of Conductor for United States Judges:
(C) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
The role of the United States Supreme Court is to have complete authority over nearly all cases decided in the federal court system. The Supreme Court also hears appeals from state high appellate courts that involve a national question, such as turning over federal statutes or issues under the Constitution of the United States Their pivot point in the required neutrality is the Constitution, with further context provided by the Federalist Papers as well as the founder’s letters and speeches (showing their intent). . To inject their own opinion, political, or religious beliefs, proves them to be no longer neutral and impartial. Which in turn means they are unfit for the bench and should be removed immediately.
Other flaws in the American system of having courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) act as checks on the Executive and Legislative branches; because their lack of ability to immediately impose said check on the other branches. Since they must wait, sometimes for years, for a case to come to them (and IF they decide to take said case to even begin with), their ability to restrain other branches is severely weakened. Some Court decisions have been criticized for injecting the Court into the political arena. Deciding elections, making way for oblivious partisan views or actions…
SCOTUS is a dysfunctional body. I say that with no regard to the correctness of its past decisions (statistically, it will make proper decisions from time to time). It simply cannot ensure consistency of interpretation of the law across the country or that the law is justly applied because of its tendency to political bias within the chamber.
The courts have too much power to radically remake our nation with no check to stop them.With the latest Trump appointment to the Supreme Court, the 6-3 far-right majority on the Supreme Court would have the power and opportunity to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (in the middle of a deadly pandemic), Roe V. Wade, Gay Marriage, further gut voting rights, and rollback anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ and Black and brown Americans and people of several religions, while continuing to give police departments and immigration officials lack of accountability for systemic violence and racism against people of color. This concentration of power without sufficient accountability is a threat to democracy – and to the ability of our communities to thrive.
They have been weaponized to wield political power and shield extreme conservative coalitions from accountability. Conservative jurists and their aligned partisans in the states and the Congress have radically shifted the terms of political power in the country to corporations and away from working class communities. Black and brown communities in particular.
They have attacked organized labor through “right-to-work” laws and union-busting rulings based on a corporate-friendly reading of the first amendment. They have destroyed the promise of free and fair elections by gutting the Voting Rights Act from the bench, giving way for rampant state-based policies that suppress the votes of Black and brown Americans. They have allowed extreme gerrymandering by ruling that federal courts are powerless to stop politicians from rigging the next election, and opened everything to dark money controlling our politics.
The strategy is, rig elections to win legislative power in states and in the Senate. Use that leverage to pack the courts with partisans; and then use those packed courts to further rig the electoral process and to block rival legislation, all in an attempt to gain and keep power. These moves amount to election fraud and usurpation of the people.
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton said the judiciary is “the least dangerous” branch, because it held neither the purse strings of the Legislature nor the force of the Executive; the judiciary wielded “merely judgment,”. So it had to be protected from outside influence by providing safeguards to its independence. Importantly, Hamilton also said in Federalist No. 78 – presaging Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, it was the duty of the courts “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” The judiciary was to protect the guarantees set out in the Constitution by having the power to say no to the Legislature and the Executive when they overstepped their constitutional powers. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed: “The Constitution tries to insulate judges from the public pressures that may affect elected officials. The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law.”
“Judges must follow the law, the Constitution and precedent, not our own political or philosophical predilections. We are expected to approach each case with an open mind and render unbiased judgments; we must be impartial and non-partisan. Judicial independence consists of the “intellectual honesty and dedication to [the] enforcement of the rule of law regardless of popular sentiment,” and the ability “to render a decision in the absence of political pressures and personal interests.” Chief Justice Rehnquist called judicial independence “one of the crown jewels of our system of government today.”
Today, we have, not just a SCOTUS, but a full judicial system that is bent on partisan judgments, and injects its own personal views into every case. The justice system is neither neutral nor impartial. It is invalid.
Per Reuters (Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench, By MICHAEL BERENS and JOHN SHIFFMAN in MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, Filed June 30, 2020, noon GMT), “In the first comprehensive accounting of judicial misconduct nationally, Reuters identified and reviewed 1,509 cases from the last dozen years – 2008 through 2019 – in which judges resigned, retired or were publicly disciplined following accusations of misconduct. In addition, reporters identified another 3,613 cases from 2008 through 2018 in which states disciplined wayward judges but kept hidden from the public key details of their offenses – including the identities of the judges themselves.
All told, 9 of every 10 judges were allowed to return to the bench after they were sanctioned for misconduct, Reuters determined. They included a California judge who had sex in his courthouse chambers, once with his former law intern and separately with an attorney; a New York judge who berated domestic violence victims; and a Maryland judge who, after his arrest for driving drunk, was allowed to return to the bench provided he took a Breathalyzer test before each appearance.
The news agency’s findings reveal an “excessively” forgiving judicial disciplinary system, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who writes about judicial ethics. Although punishment short of removal from the bench is appropriate for most misconduct cases, Gillers said, the public “would be appalled at some of the lenient treatment judges get” for substantial transgressions.”
Our judiciary is out of control. We have judges that violate their oath. We have a Senate that pushes through judges solely because of politics and not actual law. Many, many judges are completely unfit for the bench, from the top down. All judges that have been guilty of misconduct, partisan, party, or theocratic behavior must be removed from office and all past judgements scrutinized (and reversed if needs be). If we don’t have a viable and ethical legal system that actually upholds the law, we have no legitimate rule of law, we have nothing to secure our society.
https://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Case-Against-the-Judicia-by-Franz-Wohlgemuth-American-Civil-Liberties-Union_Judges_Judiciary_Judiciary-Corruption-Crime-210220-236.html
A case against the Congress of the Unites States of America
This article is organized according to the following four headings:
1) The legality of our current Congress
2) The fact that Political Parties are a large part of the problem
3) A few reasons why our current congressional make up is useless
4) Redress of grievances
1) "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. (The last part added by the Judiciary Act of 1789)"
That is the legally binding oath all members of Congress (both chambers) make when starting their term. In this oath, they swear to the Constitution. Not to the party, lobbyist, self-interest, current or former president. By upholding and defending any of the previously mentioned, they are violating their oath of office. Said constitution that they swear an oath to, describes their job as representation of the people, legislation while representing the people, constituency service (helping continuance solve problems), education, oversight. To do anything else would be to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. So by doing the bidding of the party, lobbyist, self-interest, current or former president, they are changing our constitutional form of government. In fact, 5 U.S.C. 7311 makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office). 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311, which include: (1) removal from office and (2) confinement or a fine.
Today, we have a congress that votes party line, does the bidding of whatever lobbyist pays them, views their own re-election/future office election as priority, or (as the GOP have shown) does the bidding of another branch of government (or individual). All of which change our Constitutional form of government, making Congress guilty of the federal crime specified. Because part of the punishment of said crime is removal from office, the majority of congress (especially the GOP) are there illegally. They have no legal right to be there.
2) "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." - George Washington.
"Let me warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party." - George Washington, Farewell Address, 19 September 1796.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson, 2 October 1780. In Charles Francis Adams (ed.), The Works of John Adams, Vol. 9, Boston, 1854, pp. 510-11.
"We are attempting, by this Constitution, to abolish factions, and to unite all parties for the general welfare." - Alexander Hamilton, Debates in the Convention of the State of New York on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Tuesday, 25 June 1788. In Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., The Works of Alexander Hamilton (Federal Edition), Vol. 2, New York, 1904, p. 57.
"Party knows no impulse but spirit, no prize but victory. It is blind to truth, and hardened against conviction. It seeks to justify error by perseverance, and denies to its own mind the operation of its own judgment. A man under the tyranny of party spirit is the greatest slave upon the earth, for none but himself can deprive him of the freedom of thought." -Thomas Paine, The Opposers of the Bank, 1787.
The founders of this nation warned us against political parties. They knew that what has happened would happen.
On June 21, 1788, the Constitution became the official framework of the government of the United States of America. The first political party appeared in 1789. That means our constitution was not meant to work with or for parties. That is why our government doesn't work. That is why the USA is far behind the rest of the world. All because Congress would rather play party politics, one-upsmanship, or kowtow to people other than those to whom they should. It's also why no impeachment has ever resulted in removal from office. Congress put party politics over the good of the nation (again, changing our constitutional form of government).
3) The Congress envisioned by the founders has been replaced by a weakened legislative branch in which debate is strictly curtailed, party leaders dictate the agenda, most elected representatives rarely get a say and government shutdowns are a regular threat due to chronic failures to agree on budgets. It has changed into one that functions more as a junior partner to the executive, or doesn't function at all when it comes to the country's pressing priorities. For example, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declined to allow debate on a proposal that sought to limit foreign influence in U.S. elections. Saying to colleagues such a bill could become a two-week ordeal. Instead, the Senate spent most of the next three months confirming President Donald Trump's judicial and administrative nominees.
Junior senators have fewer opportunities to wade into the issues of the day, largely because Senate leaders limit the number of votes on amendments to proposed legislation. The number of such votes had shrunk to an all-time low under McConnell, less than 20 percent of all roll calls, down from 67 percent 12 years ago. Executive branch agencies now make law, not Congress.
There is rampant misrepresentation of the people. About 1 percent of all Americans are millionaires, but roughly 46 percent of those serving in Congress have a net worth of $1 million or more. 33.1% of congress is over 65 when the US population over 65 is only 19.75%. 77% of congress is white when only 72.4% of the population is. 81.3% of congress is Christian when only 69% of the population is. 76.4% of congress is male when only 49.2% of the population is.
We have a Congress that does not reflect the population, doesn't do the will of the population, and is more concerned about image than their job. That is why the US lags behind the rest of the developed world. Congress is in the way.
4) We need a congress. Not only because the constitution requires it, but also because it would be chaos without one. But the people in congress are the issue. Yes, their party politics, selfish means and ends, image, greed, and avarice. They are in our way.
To use the Declaration of Independence…
Congress has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.(By playing party/lobbyist/self-interest politics)
Congress has forbidden his Governors (of the states) to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, has utterly neglected to attend to them. (over stepping in state affairs, like this most recent election, for example)
Congress has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. (Implementing immigration and refugee policies based on fear and ego instead of thought and humanity)
Congress has obstructed the Administration of Justice. (Both Trump impeachments, conducting investigations into falsehoods in an attempt to simply drum up voter approval)
Congress has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: (the GOP essentially allowing foreign interference in our affairs and elections, colluding with foreign agents to influence our elections, conducting business with foreign lobbyists…)
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (They pass spending bill after spending bill with no concern of our debt/deficit and if the people actually want what they are proposing)
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (playing semantics, ignoring the people, and changing/removing/adding laws because it fits with the party agenda)
Congress has excited domestic insurrections amongst us. (Jan. 6 2021…)
In every stage of these Oppressions We have petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. (The people write to congress, call, attend the sparse town halls that happen, and have been ignored)
A Congress whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. (Because of everything this piece says)
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. (They care nothing for the people, this nation, our laws, or our constitution)
The members of congress, are the problem. They ignore the will of the people (unless it’s an election year), you spout platitudes, promises they never intended on keeping (How many times have they promised term limits and have never lifted a finger to make it happen?), play semantics with our founding documents and put themselves/party over the nation. They are illegitimate. False. A fraud upon the American people. A burden, hindrance, weight, and obstacle. Consider this a petition of redress of grievances from an actual patriot of the United States.
To cut off any victim playing by congress, I have at no point made any threats in any way, shape or form. I have simply called them out for what they are.
https://www.opednews.com/articles/A-case-against-the-Congres-by-Franz-Wohlgemuth-Congress_Congress-Democrats_Congress-Failed-Oversight-Democracy_Congress-House-Legislation-210218-656.html
I have a question
If the government is by/to/for the people, how does someone with no experience in office get elected? I hold no standing with any party, I haven't held any office. Yet I want to make a difference. I'm tired of beating my head against a wall, yelling from the mountain top and being ignored......
So frustrated
I am currently employed, but hate my job. Been trying to find another one (More pay, better benefits...)... Nothing...
In my 40s with over 20 years of call center experience. And no one says I'm qualified... It's like pounding my head against a cement wall.....
New guy here...
40 plus years old from Columbus Ohio, studying political science for 27 years, human behavior for 23. To be honest, I infuriate both sides of the aisle, but mostly the right. To be honest even more, I bend no knee to party or personality, but I am left of center. Laid back, easy going, educated, pagan, goth/metal head...
Any tips, tricks, are welcome.
Outside of that..... HI!!!
A case to be made... (LONG post...)
An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before assuming the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or organization. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremony connected with the taking up of office itself, or it may be administered privately. In some cases it may be administered privately and then repeated during a public ceremony.
Some oaths of office are statements of allegiance and loyalty to a constitution or other legal text (e.g., an oath to support the constitution of the state, or of the federal). Under the laws of a state/nation, it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.
In the United States, the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War–era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
Or the President is specified in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The oath may be sworn or affirmed (in which case it is called an affirmation instead of oath). Although not present in the text of the Constitution, it is customary for modern presidents to say "So help me God" after the end of the oath. For officers other than the President, the expression "So help me God" is explicitly prescribed, but the Judiciary Act of 1789 also explains when it can be omitted (specifically for oaths taken by court clerks): "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath.”
The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) also specifies:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, newly elected or re-elected Members of Congress – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]
The original 1787 text of the Constitution of the United States makes three references to an "oath or affirmation": In Article I, Senators must take a special oath or affirmation for the purpose of sitting as the tribunal for impeachment; in Article II, the president is required to take a specified oath or affirmation before entering office (see oath of office); and in Article VI, all state and federal officials must take an oath or affirmation to support the US Constitution. A fourth appears in Amendment IV, all warrants must be supported by evidence given under oath or affirmation.
On Friday, March 4, 1853, Franklin Pierce became the 14th President of the United States and has been the only president to date who affirmed rather than swore to the office.
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, federal judges and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.
So what does taking an oath mean? Why even do it? The reason is simple – public servants are just that – servants of the people.
The Oaths are relatively straightforward, but what do they mean? The oath has 3 important aspects. First, they swear to support and defend the Constitution against enemies. Second, they swear allegiance to the Constitution. Finally, the employee promises to do their job well.
One thing that federal workers often hear is a career supervisor or political appointee talking about loyalty to the agency or the boss. One purpose of the Oath of Office is to remind them that they do not swear allegiance to a supervisor, an agency, a political appointee, or even to the President. Other laws have been enacted that support that view. For example, in 1939, Congress passed and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Hatch Act (which no one in the federal government has the spine to enforce). We call it that today, but the actual name of the law is “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities.”
The Oath does not remove ambiguity and it is not always easy for an employee to know what to do. Here are a few examples:
• Lawful orders. Let’s say someone in authority gives a federal worker a lawful order that s/he does not agree with. That disagreement might be for ethical reasons, differences in policy direction, or other reasons. Federal employees are required to follow lawful orders, even if they disagree with them.
• Unlawful orders. 5 USC 2302(b) (9)(D) gives employees the right to refuse with respect to unlawful orders. Refusing an unlawful order is not easy. The employee may face significant pressure to carry out an order that s/he knows is unlawful. Most employees never have the experience of being given an unlawful order. In the few cases it has happened to me, an explanation to my boss that what I was asked to do was illegal was sufficient and the matter was dropped. If it had not been enough, my only acceptable course would be to refuse to carry out the order. Doing something illegal because you are “just following orders” is not a viable defense.
• Regulatory violations. What happens when an order violates a regulation or rule, but is not technically illegal? A 2015 Merit Systems Protection Board decision directly answered that question. MSPB outlined the issues in the case, writing “Specifically, the appellant asserted that the agency violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) (9)(D), which protects employees from retaliation “for refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) (9)(D). He alleged that the agency improperly stripped him of particular job duties and gave him a subpar performance rating for disobeying an order that would have required that he violate (1) a Federal Acquisition Regulation that limits the authority of a contracting officer’s representative (COR), and (2) “PA296: How to be a COR,” the agency’s training course for COR certification, which further clarifies the limitations to this authority.” MSPB’s final decision said “…we hold that the right-to-disobey provision at section 2302(b) (9)(D) extends only to orders that would require the individual to take an action barred by statute. Because the appellant in this case contends that he disobeyed an order that would have required him to violate an agency rule or regulation, his claim falls outside of the scope of section 2302(b) (9)(D).” That means a manager could discipline or even remove an employee for failing to carry out an order that violates a regulation but not a law.
• Other situations. The oath of office and most case law do not grant any protection for deciding that an order is a bad idea, bad policy, or morally wrong. In fact, the oath does not grant any protection from anything. It is an oath of allegiance and a promise to do good work. Employees who believe they are being ordered to act in a manner inconsistent with their oath of office may pursue other options, such as whistleblower complaints, contacting their Senators or Representatives or their organization’s Inspector General, or any other avenue provided by law or regulation. Disobeying direct orders is generally not one of the available options. That means an employee who wants to argue that s/he is adhering to the oath of office by disobeying orders has a very tough hill to climb. There is also the option of going to the press, but that can bring its own set of risks. It is up to individual employees to decide how much risk they are willing to assume.
Federal workers are accountable to the people, not to politicians. Whether an employee was a Trump supporter or Clinton supporter, a supporter of another candidate, or someone who chooses not to vote at all is not relevant to the oath of allegiance to the Constitution.
At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the Members and Delegates who afterward appear, previous to their taking their seats.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Eightieth and each succeeding Congress shall cause the oath of office to be printed, furnishing two copies to each Member and Delegate who has taken the oath of office in accordance with law, which shall be subscribed in person by the Member or Delegate, who shall thereupon deliver them to the Clerk, one to be filed in the records of the House of Representatives, and the other to be recorded in the Journal of the House and in the Congressional Record; and such signed copies, or certified copies thereof, or of either of such records thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States, and shall be held conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath of office in accordance with law.
(R.S. § 30; Feb. 18, 1948, ch. 53, 62 Stat. 20.)
Notice how it says “records thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States, and shall be held conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath of office in accordance with law.”
There is a reason for that. Said oaths are legally binding. So, if they are legally binding, that means there is a punishment for violating them… Let’s take a look.
The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
Members of Congress, for example, promise this: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
The president has a similar oath.
Is there a high-profile politician whom you would swear has never violated that oath, never failed to defend the Constitution or evade his or her responsibilities in order to serve party over country?
For more than 200 years, Congress operated largely as the country’s founders envisioned — forging compromises on the biggest issues of the day while asserting its authority to declare war, spend taxpayer money and keep the presidency in check.
It has been replaced by a weakened legislative branch in which debate is strictly curtailed, party leaders dictate the agenda, most elected representatives rarely get a say and government shutdowns are a regular threat due to chronic failures to agree on budgets, being more concerned with party agenda over the people’s agenda.
The political center has largely evaporated, party leaders have adhered to the demands of their bases, while rules and traditions that long encouraged deliberative deal making have given way to partisan gridlock.
More and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. The legislature is weak. The more it happens, the less oversight there is. Executive branch agencies now make law, not Congress.
The result is a Congress that is primarily just there to confirm the president’s selections and personnel business. Which violates the enumerated powers in the constitution that they swore to uphold and defend.
The initial culprit is well-known: political polarization in a (purposefully) divided nation. Each side, seeing the chance of claiming the majority in the next election, focuses first on trying for the political wins by driving up turnout from their most loyal partisans. Not what’s actually best for the nation, they want power, and to keep it.
Now remember, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
If the role of the House of Representatives is to do the will of the people, pursuant to the constitution and their oath, doing the bidding of a Political Party, Lobbyist, or even the Executive branch, is an attempt to overthrow our constitutional form of government by subverting their constitutionally prescribed roll in favor of answering to someone else. Our constitution requires the House (and the senate, given the 17th amendment) do the bidding of the people. Only the people.
The infamous “Trump Tax Cut’ was not popular with the majority of the U.S. populace. The GOP held House and Senate passed it anyway, defying the will of the people, but bowing to Party and President. “Trumpcare” was despised by everyone, the GOP house passed it anyway, defying the will of the people. Mitch McConnell admitted publicly that over 400 bills passed by the house (many of them bi-partisan) were dead in the water because they came from the Democrats. Impeding the normal flow and function of congress, and the will of the people. During the Pandemic, the people crying out for help and aid, and the Senate GOP were more concerned about passing judges for Trump (most of them unfit for the bench), instead of actually functioning as the constitution prescribes, and ignoring bi partisan bills passed by the House on aid for the American people.
During Trump’s impeachment for willfully violating federal law, House GOP cared more about political grandstanding than actually enforcing the law. The Senate GOP were worse. Not allowing evidence, allowing the President to willfully ignore/defy congressional oversight… Even to the point of admitting that Trump did violate the law and violated his oath, but said he should still be in office (knowing he has and would further violate the law and constitution they swore to uphold).
Their allowance, and in some cases encouragement, of constitutional violations alone are a violation of their oath. Their incessant capitulation to the Executive branch, party, lobbyists, and refusal to perform their constitutionally prescribed rolls all prove their violations of oath.
Now with every facet of law (SCOTUS (twice), all 50 states, DHS, Cyber Security, AG William Barr (another guilty of violating their oath), the Electoral College…) has all shown that the election was legally binding and that Biden is going to be the next President. GOP from both House and Senate are going to defy law and the will of the people. Not because there is actual cause. But because they don’t like Biden, and are capitulating to party and personality. At this point, without a valid reason to overturn the Biden presidency (aka: overthrow), the house and Senate GOP along with Trump himself are attempting Sedition and Treason. Both are definitely violations of their oaths.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
In short, conditions in this country have not been this bad since 1932 at least, and the political situation has not been this bad since 1860. The logical endgame of the rapidly-accelerating Republican attempt to destroy democracy while the country burns would be civil war.
All members of Congress swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which establishes a republican form of government. The whole point of a republic is that contests for power are conducted through a framework of rules and democratic elections, where all parties agree to respect the result whether they lose or win.
The Constitution stipulates that insurrectionists who violate their oath are not allowed to serve in Congress. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written to exclude Confederate Civil War traitors, says that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress … who … having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same[.]"It's insurrection plain and simple.
But it's not hard to see where the current conservative trajectory is headed. While Republicans have tried to overturn the election using increasingly blatant lies and subversive methods of intimidation/threats/violence, top conservative pundits are mulling the idea of secession, all with Trump egging and encouraging it (also violating his oath, yet again, by inciting sedition and treason). The lie that Biden stole the election is now official GOP dogma. We also have the Republican Party ignoring the deadly pandemic (if not actively spreading the virus as was revealed with their intent on herd immunity) while they try to overturn the Constitution. They feel they can safely ignore the welfare of the American people, because they are not accountable to them. All proving the legal necessity for their immediate removal from office.
It is time our government works FOR the people. Not the party. Not a lobbyist. Not for the favor of someone from another branch of government. It’s time our government follows the law and constitution they swore to uphold and defend. It’s time people are held accountable for undermining our government, nation, law, and the people.
https://theweek.com/articles/954673/constitution-answer-seditious-members-congress
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-congress-stopped-working
https://www.inaugural.senate.gov/vice-presidents-swearing-in-ceremony/#:~:text=I%20do%20solemnly%20swear%20(or,that%20I%20will%20well%20and
https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-oath-office?highlight=WyJjb25zdGl0dXRpb24iLCJjb25zdGl0dXRpb24ncyJd#:~:text=The%20official%20reciting%20the%20oath,Affirmation%20to%20support%20this%20constitution.%22
https://www.opm.gov/blogs/Director/oath-of-office/
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2019/05/18/oath-office-congress-lie/3709831002/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
http://foavc.org/01page/Articles/Violation%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office%20and%20Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.htm
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Oath-of-Office/
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm#:~:text=I%20do%20solemnly%20swear%20(or,that%20I%20will%20well%20and
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2019/10/the-oath-of-office-and-what-it-means/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30725.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/25
A case to be made... (LONG post)
An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before assuming the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or organization. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremony connected with the taking up of office itself, or it may be administered privately. In some cases it may be administered privately and then repeated during a public ceremony.
Some oaths of office are statements of allegiance and loyalty to a constitution or other legal text (e.g., an oath to support the constitution of the state, or of the federal). Under the laws of a state/nation, it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.
In the United States, the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War–era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
Or the President is specified in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The oath may be sworn or affirmed (in which case it is called an affirmation instead of oath). Although not present in the text of the Constitution, it is customary for modern presidents to say "So help me God" after the end of the oath. For officers other than the President, the expression "So help me God" is explicitly prescribed, but the Judiciary Act of 1789 also explains when it can be omitted (specifically for oaths taken by court clerks): "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath.”
The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) also specifies:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, newly elected or re-elected Members of Congress – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]
The original 1787 text of the Constitution of the United States makes three references to an "oath or affirmation": In Article I, Senators must take a special oath or affirmation for the purpose of sitting as the tribunal for impeachment; in Article II, the president is required to take a specified oath or affirmation before entering office (see oath of office); and in Article VI, all state and federal officials must take an oath or affirmation to support the US Constitution. A fourth appears in Amendment IV, all warrants must be supported by evidence given under oath or affirmation.
On Friday, March 4, 1853, Franklin Pierce became the 14th President of the United States and has been the only president to date who affirmed rather than swore to the office.
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, federal judges and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.
So what does taking an oath mean? Why even do it? The reason is simple – public servants are just that – servants of the people.
The Oaths are relatively straightforward, but what do they mean? The oath has 3 important aspects. First, they swear to support and defend the Constitution against enemies. Second, they swear allegiance to the Constitution. Finally, the employee promises to do their job well.
One thing that federal workers often hear is a career supervisor or political appointee talking about loyalty to the agency or the boss. One purpose of the Oath of Office is to remind them that they do not swear allegiance to a supervisor, an agency, a political appointee, or even to the President. Other laws have been enacted that support that view. For example, in 1939, Congress passed and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Hatch Act (which no one in the federal government has the spine to enforce). We call it that today, but the actual name of the law is “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities.”
The Oath does not remove ambiguity and it is not always easy for an employee to know what to do. Here are a few examples:
• Lawful orders. Let’s say someone in authority gives a federal worker a lawful order that s/he does not agree with. That disagreement might be for ethical reasons, differences in policy direction, or other reasons. Federal employees are required to follow lawful orders, even if they disagree with them.
• Unlawful orders. 5 USC 2302(b) (9)(D) gives employees the right to refuse with respect to unlawful orders. Refusing an unlawful order is not easy. The employee may face significant pressure to carry out an order that s/he knows is unlawful. Most employees never have the experience of being given an unlawful order. In the few cases it has happened to me, an explanation to my boss that what I was asked to do was illegal was sufficient and the matter was dropped. If it had not been enough, my only acceptable course would be to refuse to carry out the order. Doing something illegal because you are “just following orders” is not a viable defense.
• Regulatory violations. What happens when an order violates a regulation or rule, but is not technically illegal? A 2015 Merit Systems Protection Board decision directly answered that question. MSPB outlined the issues in the case, writing “Specifically, the appellant asserted that the agency violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) (9)(D), which protects employees from retaliation “for refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) (9)(D). He alleged that the agency improperly stripped him of particular job duties and gave him a subpar performance rating for disobeying an order that would have required that he violate (1) a Federal Acquisition Regulation that limits the authority of a contracting officer’s representative (COR), and (2) “PA296: How to be a COR,” the agency’s training course for COR certification, which further clarifies the limitations to this authority.” MSPB’s final decision said “…we hold that the right-to-disobey provision at section 2302(b) (9)(D) extends only to orders that would require the individual to take an action barred by statute. Because the appellant in this case contends that he disobeyed an order that would have required him to violate an agency rule or regulation, his claim falls outside of the scope of section 2302(b) (9)(D).” That means a manager could discipline or even remove an employee for failing to carry out an order that violates a regulation but not a law.
• Other situations. The oath of office and most case law do not grant any protection for deciding that an order is a bad idea, bad policy, or morally wrong. In fact, the oath does not grant any protection from anything. It is an oath of allegiance and a promise to do good work. Employees who believe they are being ordered to act in a manner inconsistent with their oath of office may pursue other options, such as whistleblower complaints, contacting their Senators or Representatives or their organization’s Inspector General, or any other avenue provided by law or regulation. Disobeying direct orders is generally not one of the available options. That means an employee who wants to argue that s/he is adhering to the oath of office by disobeying orders has a very tough hill to climb. There is also the option of going to the press, but that can bring its own set of risks. It is up to individual employees to decide how much risk they are willing to assume.
Federal workers are accountable to the people, not to politicians. Whether an employee was a Trump supporter or Clinton supporter, a supporter of another candidate, or someone who chooses not to vote at all is not relevant to the oath of allegiance to the Constitution.
At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the Members and Delegates who afterward appear, previous to their taking their seats.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Eightieth and each succeeding Congress shall cause the oath of office to be printed, furnishing two copies to each Member and Delegate who has taken the oath of office in accordance with law, which shall be subscribed in person by the Member or Delegate, who shall thereupon deliver them to the Clerk, one to be filed in the records of the House of Representatives, and the other to be recorded in the Journal of the House and in the Congressional Record; and such signed copies, or certified copies thereof, or of either of such records thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States, and shall be held conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath of office in accordance with law.
(R.S. § 30; Feb. 18, 1948, ch. 53, 62 Stat. 20.)
Notice how it says “records thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States, and shall be held conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath of office in accordance with law.”
There is a reason for that. Said oaths are legally binding. So, if they are legally binding, that means there is a punishment for violating them… Let’s take a look.
The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
Members of Congress, for example, promise this: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
The president has a similar oath.
Is there a high-profile politician whom you would swear has never violated that oath, never failed to defend the Constitution or evade his or her responsibilities in order to serve party over country?
For more than 200 years, Congress operated largely as the country’s founders envisioned — forging compromises on the biggest issues of the day while asserting its authority to declare war, spend taxpayer money and keep the presidency in check.
It has been replaced by a weakened legislative branch in which debate is strictly curtailed, party leaders dictate the agenda, most elected representatives rarely get a say and government shutdowns are a regular threat due to chronic failures to agree on budgets, being more concerned with party agenda over the people’s agenda.
The political center has largely evaporated, party leaders have adhered to the demands of their bases, while rules and traditions that long encouraged deliberative deal making have given way to partisan gridlock.
More and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. The legislature is weak. The more it happens, the less oversight there is. Executive branch agencies now make law, not Congress.
The result is a Congress that is primarily just there to confirm the president’s selections and personnel business. Which violates the enumerated powers in the constitution that they swore to uphold and defend.
The initial culprit is well-known: political polarization in a (purposefully) divided nation. Each side, seeing the chance of claiming the majority in the next election, focuses first on trying for the political wins by driving up turnout from their most loyal partisans. Not what’s actually best for the nation, they want power, and to keep it.
Now remember, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
If the role of the House of Representatives is to do the will of the people, pursuant to the constitution and their oath, doing the bidding of a Political Party, Lobbyist, or even the Executive branch, is an attempt to overthrow our constitutional form of government by subverting their constitutionally prescribed roll in favor of answering to someone else. Our constitution requires the House (and the senate, given the 17th amendment) do the bidding of the people. Only the people.
The infamous “Trump Tax Cut’ was not popular with the majority of the U.S. populace. The GOP held House and Senate passed it anyway, defying the will of the people, but bowing to Party and President. “Trumpcare” was despised by everyone, the GOP house passed it anyway, defying the will of the people. Mitch McConnell admitted publicly that over 400 bills passed by the house (many of them bi-partisan) were dead in the water because they came from the Democrats. Impeding the normal flow and function of congress, and the will of the people. During the Pandemic, the people crying out for help and aid, and the Senate GOP were more concerned about passing judges for Trump (most of them unfit for the bench), instead of actually functioning as the constitution prescribes, and ignoring bi partisan bills passed by the House on aid for the American people.
During Trump’s impeachment for willfully violating federal law, House GOP cared more about political grandstanding than actually enforcing the law. The Senate GOP were worse. Not allowing evidence, allowing the President to willfully ignore/defy congressional oversight… Even to the point of admitting that Trump did violate the law and violated his oath, but said he should still be in office (knowing he has and would further violate the law and constitution they swore to uphold).
Their allowance, and in some cases encouragement, of constitutional violations alone are a violation of their oath. Their incessant capitulation to the Executive branch, party, lobbyists, and refusal to perform their constitutionally prescribed rolls all prove their violations of oath.
Now with every facet of law (SCOTUS (twice), all 50 states, DHS, Cyber Security, AG William Barr (another guilty of violating their oath), the Electoral College…) has all shown that the election was legally binding and that Biden is going to be the next President. GOP from both House and Senate are going to defy law and the will of the people. Not because there is actual cause. But because they don’t like Biden, and are capitulating to party and personality. At this point, without a valid reason to overturn the Biden presidency (aka: overthrow), the house and Senate GOP along with Trump himself are attempting Sedition and Treason. Both are definitely violations of their oaths.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
In short, conditions in this country have not been this bad since 1932 at least, and the political situation has not been this bad since 1860. The logical endgame of the rapidly-accelerating Republican attempt to destroy democracy while the country burns would be civil war.
All members of Congress swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which establishes a republican form of government. The whole point of a republic is that contests for power are conducted through a framework of rules and democratic elections, where all parties agree to respect the result whether they lose or win.
The Constitution stipulates that insurrectionists who violate their oath are not allowed to serve in Congress. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written to exclude Confederate Civil War traitors, says that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress … who … having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same[.]"It's insurrection plain and simple.
But it's not hard to see where the current conservative trajectory is headed. While Republicans have tried to overturn the election using increasingly blatant lies and subversive methods of intimidation/threats/violence, top conservative pundits are mulling the idea of secession, all with Trump egging and encouraging it (also violating his oath, yet again, by inciting sedition and treason). The lie that Biden stole the election is now official GOP dogma. We also have the Republican Party ignoring the deadly pandemic (if not actively spreading the virus as was revealed with their intent on herd immunity) while they try to overturn the Constitution. They feel they can safely ignore the welfare of the American people, because they are not accountable to them. All proving the legal necessity for their immediate removal from office.
It is time our government works FOR the people. Not the party. Not a lobbyist. Not for the favor of someone from another branch of government. It’s time our government follows the law and constitution they swore to uphold and defend. It’s time people are held accountable for undermining our government, nation, law, and the people.
https://theweek.com/articles/954673/constitution-answer-seditious-members-congress
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-congress-stopped-working
https://www.inaugural.senate.gov/vice-presidents-swearing-in-ceremony/#:~:text=I%20do%20solemnly%20swear%20(or,that%20I%20will%20well%20and
https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-oath-office?highlight=WyJjb25zdGl0dXRpb24iLCJjb25zdGl0dXRpb24ncyJd#:~:text=The%20official%20reciting%20the%20oath,Affirmation%20to%20support%20this%20constitution.%22
https://www.opm.gov/blogs/Director/oath-of-office/
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2019/05/18/oath-office-congress-lie/3709831002/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
http://foavc.org/01page/Articles/Violation%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office%20and%20Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.htm
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Oath-of-Office/
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm#:~:text=I%20do%20solemnly%20swear%20(or,that%20I%20will%20well%20and
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2019/10/the-oath-of-office-and-what-it-means/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30725.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/25
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Columbus, Ohio
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Dec 24, 2020, 12:01 PM
Number of posts: 65
