l 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l

page - 4 -

The Case of Bohemia

Regarding Bohemia, unconquerable by force of arms, Rome subverted by the power of interpretation of the law:

“The papal leaders, despairing of conquering by force, at last resorted to diplomacy. A compromise was entered into, that while professing to grant to the Bohemians freedom of conscience, really betrayed them into the power of Rome. The Bohemians had specified four points as the condition of peace with Rome: the free preaching of the bible; the right of the whole church to both the bread and the wine in the communion, and the use of the mother tongue in divine worship; the exclusion of the clergy from all secular offices and authority; and, in cases of crime, the jurisdiction of the civil courts over clergy and laity alike. The papal authorities at last ‘agreed that the four articles of the Hussites should be accepted, but that the right of explaining them, that is, of determining their precise import, should belong to the council—in other words, to the pope and the emperor.” –Wylie, b. 3, ch. 18. On the basis a treaty was entered into, and Rome gained by dissimulation and fraud what she had failed to gain by conflict; for, placing her own interpretation upon the Hussite articles, as upon the Bible, she could pervert their meaning to suit her own purposes.” GC 118.

Laurence Tribe Warns That Under Alito the Day Would Come When Fundamental Liberty Itself Would Be Only a Shell

 
Noted Harvard Professor of Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe, the author of his massive work, American Constitutional Law, opposed Alito on two grounds:

·        The narrowing of personal liberty

·        The expansion of Presidential power.

Tribe warned that if Alito is confirmed the day would come when fundamental liberty itself would only be a shell.

Judge Alito Would Allow Law Enforcement Power to Expand Threatening Privacy, Dignity, and Freedom

An associate professor from Yale, Ronald Sullivan, gave an excellent testimony regarding the threat that Alito poses to the individual’s right to freedom from government intrusion. Alito would allow law enforcement to expand, declared the associate Yale law professor.

In one project at Yale, the law professors examined 415 cases by Alito. In another project, the Jamestown Project, many other cases were examined. This professor warned that the right to privacy, dignity, and freedom of the individual from the government intrusion would be threatened by Alito’s confirmation.

Another witness declared that Alito has shown that he does not believe that there is a right of privacy in the Constitution.

Strip-search Case

The President of the National Bar Association testified that Alito has 85% of the time reversed Civil Rights. He cited even Homeland Security Department Chertoff, with his record, which opposed Alito’s support of the strip-searching of a ten-year-old girl.

Later, a representative of People For the American Way, called Alito a walking Constitutional Amendment. He declared that America is at the third critical juncture in the last century. Jonathan Turley, a noted Constitutional scholar, has also come out opposing Alito.

Turley’s Testimony

Later Turley testified in a hearing in the House: Turley testified regarding the torture memo that it states that the President has the right to order his underlings to violate law.

Signing Statement

The President used a “signing statement” when he signed the torture law, and thus reserved the right to violate the law if he deems it necessary.

No branch can govern alone. Wiretapping illegally is a crime. What the President ordered was a crime, declared Turley. You can go to jail for five years. We have to deal with that. It is an alarming circumstance. The president goes into a press conference, announces that he has violated the law 30 times, and that he intends to continue to do so.

The Claim to Have Inherent Authority to Violate Federal Law and the Constitution

It is claimed among other claims by those advancing the President’s case, that the President has inherent authority to violate federal law and the 4^th Amendment. The president is committing crimes under the claim that he has the authority, said Turley. Turley called this a “test of faith.” Something has to be done about this.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Section 1809 is the applicable law. Turley said what this president is doing constitutes High Crimes and Misdemeanors. When a President says, whatever the statute says, I trump it with my authority, that is impeachable, said Turley. This is a Textbook Example of impeachable activity, according to Turley. Just as the illegal wiretapping issue is heating up, suddenly, conveniently for the advocates of illegal wiretapping, another message appears from Bin Laden threatening attacks on the US, giving additional force to the fears that call for removal of liberty.

Lack of Limiting Principle; Constitutional Avoidance

The lack of a limiting principle is critical. That is the concept that there is nothing to limit the President’s power. The president has refused to recognize any limiting principle on his power. When asked, the President simply said, “I am not a dictator.”

Another issue is Constitutional avoidance. The argument goes like this from the President: Because I consider a law to be an ambiguity, you have to avoid a conflict with me. This is about as expansive an expression of power as there can be. And this with respect to the FISA law. In addition, the FISA law is about as specific as it can be, Turley said. Under these powers claimed by the President, he could decide alone, and privately, as to whom is connected to terrorism.

Judge Scalia Rules That the President Can Disregard Laws He Regards as Unconstitutional

The Jesuit-trained Supreme Court Justice Scalia ruled in 1991, that:

“Thus, it was not enough simply to repose the power to execute the laws (or to appoint) in the President; it was also necessary to provide him with the means to resist legislative encroachment upon that power. The means selected were various, including a separate political constituency, to which he alone was responsible, and the power to veto encroaching laws…or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.”

-Justice Scalia quoted in Media Watch, “The Unitary Executive,” 9-19-2004.

If America Becomes a Tyranny, It Would Be a Total Tyranny—There would Be No Way of Fighting Back

If this government ever became a tyranny, it would be a total tyranny; there would be no way of fighting back, because of the power of technology, declared James Bamford citing senator Church. Bamford is no stranger to the danger of NSA. He is noted author of The Puzzle Palace, and Body of Secrets, both books on the NSA.

This Time Has It Gone Too Far?

The problem facing the hearing was great about what to do about a president who is violating the Constitution, engaging in criminal and impeachable behavior. The executive branch, including the Justice Department and the Attorney General, are under Presidential control. The House of Representatives is firmly under the almost complete control of his party. The Senate has a majority from his party. And now, the nation is on the point of having the Judiciary under his control.


When the Party Rules

We are in a situation like in Nazi Germany where the party controlled the nation. There seems to be no power for the check and balances of the Constitution to be implemented, for the party has taken over everything, and the party is accomplishing Rome’s agenda.

Judge Samuel Alito is a strategist of Rome to accomplish Rome’s goal for the Romanizing of America, rolling back and eliminating privacy, expanding executive power and expanding police power. He believes in the incremental approach.

Alito supports the Unitary Executive theory. If there is a Supreme Court that upholds, in a 5-4 decision, the theory of unitary executive, placing the executive above the law, Rome’s goal of having an imperial presidency is gained as Constitutional right.