Dear gc70:
I have been busy, and just checked back in and read your comments.
I am indeed consumed with something, and it ain't apathy. You think there is no basis for my "rhetoric".
But I ask you to consider this. I think the Constitution says what it says about the signing (or returning) of a bill by the President for a specific reason. And nobody has even addressed it that I saw.
Government Employees such as President Bush (and Federal Judges inventing law from the bench) are continually allowed to try and make us believe they have powers which they do not have, precisely due to our allowing them to chip away at the method of government that was agreed to at the founding of the nation. (Another example of stepping out of bounds by the President, can be found at
www.spp.gov)
But taking such leave from their powers, is what has led to such subversions of our system of government as "plea bargain" agreements, and Presidents signing treaties, without approval of Congress. (
www.spp.gov)
Nowhere is it Constitutionally allowed for a criminal trial be heard by a Judge without a jury. Those plea bargains take away the right of the people of public trial (granted under the VI Amendment) to insure that fair judgement and penalty is rendered, and that it be in open court, not by a "bargain" set out by a government employee, without chance of jury nullification.
If you read the VI Amendment closely, you will see that not only is it a guarantee of an individual to have a speedy trial, you will see (if you read it without prejudice, and bear with me on it, just go back and read it in total and you may understand what I am trying to point out) it was intended to guarantee the public was not screwed by partial judges or District Attorneys making decisions about punishment of criminals, without any oversight by the PEOPLE just to boost their conviction ratios and look good during election time.
Obviously, it is easier to pay off one government employee, than it is to pay off twelve jurors, and the judge at the same time. That is why the Founders wrote into the VIth Amendment, that we the pople, were entitled to a speedy trial, and that the trial will be BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY.
By taking away the jury powers to be present and deal out the proper punishment you take away the power FROM the people, and GIVE it to government employees.
The obvious intention of the Amendment, written in clear, plain language, has been slowly bastardized by an inarguably Unconstitutional power grab by the courts, until such time as they control the very most important power we had, which is the control of the Judiciary, Executive, and the Legislative. (As you can see, we have lost control of the Judiciary, and it is not valid that we do so, I don't care what a Judge tells you. If a government is to be a governemnt of the people, you cannot exclude them from it totally, which is what a plea bargain arrangement is)
But due to our allowing this to occur, we see State Web Sites listing three time convicted child molesters living down the street from us, because some Judge "felt" light terms were in order or a District Attorney who was looking for a method of increasing the number of "convictions" he "serves the public" with, went in front of the Judge and told him he had cut a deal. The Judge allows it each and every time, because he wants the D.A.'s support come election time.
The rights of not only persons, but the rights of "the people" are continually chipped away due to allowing Government Employees we elect, or aallow to be appointed by the ones we do elect, to simply expand their powers until such time as you have a President who feels he can sign a treaty with two countries, and not even consider discussing it with Congress. (
www.spp.gov)
It continues because we are always told "Well, Nixon did it" or "Roosevelt did it" and it therefore becomes accepted. Or "that little note written on that bill, later printed (the declaration of intent not to consider it law, and allow torture) in the Federal Register, or to simply not question anyone at all why Bush signed the "North American Partnership" contract/agreement/treaty with Mexico and Candada, with no 2/3rd required vote of Congress.
Another person asked why I am "concentrating" on impeachment. The reason is, that is what the Constitution prescribes to resolve it, not another law that defies it, or allows EVEN MORE power to be granted to the Senate than is Constituionally allowed.
This may not be currently recognized as an important matter, because it doesn't "really count" as law.
However, that does not change the fact that the Constitution states verbatim what the President is to do should he not agree with a bill. This one, (and others) have violated the power, and the oath, and if something is not done soon, when Hillary or Rudy, or John McCain get in, there is not telling what encouragement they will gain from (1) A President declaring in writing on a Bill itself, that portions are not law (2) A President signing a treaty called the "United Nations Small Arms" treaty which will outlaw totally, your right to keep and bear arms.
Just consider what allowing continual subversion of (and disreagard for the duties set forth in) the Constitution by Government Employees currently in power has been:
No intention whatsoever to secure the border (regardless of the promise in the Constitution to protect do for any and all states)
Mass Gun Confiscations (ordered by one government employee)
Forced Relocations of peacable citizens
Allowing armed Mexican troops to conduct operations in Texas, driving up Interstate 35 in Texas while fully armed and displaying .50 calber machine guns
"Executive signing statements" designed to allow the torture of suspects in direct defiance of the very Federal Law a President had just signed
"Trilateral Networks" of police agencies being announced (
www.spp.gov)
North American Partnership treaties setting up a "EU" arrangement (
www.spp.gov)
Yeah, I guess you are right. I am consumed. But I don't think it is with "rhetoric".
I would just call it a deep concern for protecting the continuation of our representative republic system of government. The actions listed directly above, sure don't seem to me to be a good way to ensure it.
