NOTE FROM WOLF

Gail Combs is still having intermittent trouble both editing and posting on WordPress. This is her draft, fixed up and key-worded as best as I could, on short notice.

W

Gail Combs:

At first I was going to do a round-up of all of POTUS Trump’s picks via screen shots and then realized it would be WAY too long. Also the images would eat up too much time loading and possibly overwhelm Steve’s internet service. Therefore I am going to delve into some of the concerns raised. (If people are interested I can do the Trump picks as a separate article or possibly series of article to chronicle this Historic Post Election period.)

Given the skuttlebutt about Biden pardons, this maybe of interest:

Protect Democracy Org — Checking the Pardon Power: Constitutional Limitations & Options for Preventing Abuse

Note: Protect Democracy promotes the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections (CSSE) – InfluenceWatch 

“CSSE was established in June 2022 by members of the William J. Brennan Center for Justice, the Elections Group, Protect Democracy, and the R Street Institute.”

Checking the Pardon Power’s Image for Authoritarian Threat – Response

I do love boomerangs…

…

One QTreeper linked to this Gateway Pundit article recently:

INGRASSIA: America’s Political Tradition Comes From The Constitution: The Trump Mandate Calls For A Restoration Of Its Original Meaning And Preeminence

The author, Paul Ingrassia, is a Constitutional Scholar so it is worth reading in it’s entirety.

…The second branch of the government – aptly outlined under Article II, is the executive. The executive branch, under the Constitution’s very explicit original formulation (which, contrary to the overwhelming sentiment in today’s Washington, is an article that has not undergone emendation…) is vested entirely (in noticeable contradistinction to “mostly” or “largely”) in a (again, singular, one) President of the United States (“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America” …the executive branch is the only one under our Constitution – which, again, is the law of the land – that is vested in a single individual….

In official duties, the President – or Chief Magistrate – is tasked with law enforcement. He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, ensuring civilian control over the military — not, as our latter-day betters would have us believe, something to be outsourced to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Pentagon, or lobbyists and consultants working for Raytheon.

Being singular or unitary, the President appoints cabinet secretaries and federal judges. The latter [Should be former -GC] answer to him alone. And while Congressional approval, in some cases, is needed to fulfill the President’s constitutional obligation for nominations, the President – as the Unitary Executive – has full discretion over the tenures of each and every one of his underlings within the executive department…

As for the agencies (and the larger bureaucracy), the acute observer will find – well, problematic – that no such fourth branch of government exists within the text of the Constitution…

Ingrassia makes the case that the federal bureaucracy is UNDER the executive branch, that is the PRESIDENT and therefore should be answerable to him. “…the President – as the Unitary Executive – has full discretion over the tenures of each and every one of his underlings within the executive department….” The following article from The Congressional Research Service (.gov) shows how Congress has gradually taken control of the executive from the President and turned it into an unelected, unfireable autocratic government aka The Deep State or Shadow Government.

Federal Labor Relations Statutes: An Overview

This article deals with the ‘Head of that Snake’ THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE

….

The president is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces but even here the Cabal, via congress, has encroached on his powers.

Duke Univ: Can Presidents ‘fire’ senior military officers? Generally, yes…but it’s complicated

…A little history: up until the end of the Civil War, the President exercised virtually unconstrained power to dismiss military officers.  However, in 1865 Congress passed legislation which purports to limit that power.  That legislation was essentially the same as that found today codified in 10 USC § 1161(a).

The legitimacy of Congress imposing statutory restrictions on the authority of the President to remove military officers was initially “subject of doubt and discussion.”  It remains controversial even today, particularly since there doesn’t seem to be a case precisely on point as to the constitutionality.

Nevertheless, the better view does seem to suggest that Congress has the power to set some limits on the President’s dismissal authority – at least in times of peace….

The BETTER VIEW? In whose view? The Cabal’s? Note that article was written AFTER Obama’s Purge of around 200 top Military Officers. See List Of Military Elite Purged And Fired Under Obama and Obama purged military of those who sought victory

Ingrassia says:

To continue our analogy from above, the President is roughly akin to a British King – a comparison made both favorably and unfavorably throughout the Federalist Papers, that handbook to aid constitutional interpretation and explanation, devised by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

Thus we can go to The Federalist Papers, IF you can find them, to see what our founders actually meant… If you have any doubts. I had to use Yandex to actually find the papers.

[Listing of papers: https://www.federalistpapers.org/2012/12/federalist-papers.html]

FEDERALIST No. 23. The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union & No. 74. The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive.

…THE President of the United States is to be “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.” The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand…

Given Obama’s purge of the military and the loss of the smarter officers during the Clot Shot debacle, I think this is a very important part of POTUS Trump’s executive powers. Can You Really Be Recalled to Active Duty at Any Time? [YES!]

Q even say in Drop 2658

….PANIC IN DC?
WHY?
WHAT WAS LOST?
POWER OF THE PURSE.
COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY.
POWER TO REPLACE SENIOR OFFICIALS WITHIN CRUCIAL GOV POSITIONS (DEPT’S) WHO CAN THEN REPLACE SR+MID+LOW POSITIONS (TRICKLE_DOWN REPLACEMENT).
POWER TO APPOINT SC JUSTICES.
(What if HRC won and appointed 2+ crooked SCJs?)
(The Last Resort)
POWER TO DIRECTLY UNDO HUSSEIN/PREV EO’S WHICH HARMED-GREATLY LIMITED THE US IN MANY VITAL/NEC WAYS.
POWER TO REBUILD THE UNITED STATES MILITARY (BACK) TO A GLOBAL SUPER POWER.
(CHINA PAYOFFS (BRIBE $) FAILURE)
POWER TO ENACT LAWS BY EO TO COMBAT AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE.
POWER TO SHIFT FOREIGN POLICY THEREBY REDUCING OUR ENEMIES ABILITY TO PROSPER AND SOMEDAY REIGN.
(IRAN DEAL – PARIS ACCORD – CHINA TRADE – SYRIA – ………………….)
POWER TO DECLAS CRUCIAL DOCS TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC W/ THE TRUTH (TRANSPARENCY).
POWER TO GIVE BACK POWER TO THE PEOPLE (AS INTENDED BY OUR FOUNDERS).
LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.…

….

Ingrassia also cites Article III dealing with the establishment of the federal courts: the Supreme Court and the other federal courts. So let’s take a look at this branch of government since it is responsible for enforcing US law and the Constitution…. But IT HAS NOT! We pay attention to the DC government but most often over look the long term damage done by the corrupted judiciary.

U.S. Constitution – Article III | Constitution

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office….

Section 2

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed…. [We now have trial by JUDGES or BUREAUCRATS and not juries BTW. – GC]

Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason…

So can Trump fire federal judges? NO, not according to Publius Huldah. I am a BIG FAN of this lady and I hope POTUS Trump finds a use for her, perhaps in JAG.

From her ABOUT page.
“…Publius Huldah” is the nom de guerre of Joanna Martin, J.D., who is a thoroughly nice person, in addition to all the above.  And if you hear otherwise, consider this from Socrates, who reportedly said, “When the debate is lost, slander is the weapon of the loser” [Boy, haven’t we seen the truth of that ancient wisdom! Also, if some one is slandered by the MSM, that means they are a threat to the Deep State in IMHO, – GC]

right out of law school & newly commissioned US Army JAGC

To the Department of Homeland Security:

I am delighted to  learn of your intense & increasing interest in learning the original intent of Our Constitution!  Please feel free to browse around to  your hearts’ content.

The comments are worth reading BTW

A search for the word “Judge” on her site turns up some real goodies — LINK. She has a similar opinion of the Supreme Court and judges to mine.

Defeat “COVID” Mandates by restoring the Genuine Meaning of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses

Someone asked me why I write on the US Constitution when the US Supreme Court won’t enforce it.

This is why:  Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the self-evident Truth that Rights come from God, and that they are unalienable.  Accordingly, there are certain areas of your life which are off-limits to government regulation – you have an “immunity” from governmental regulation of these areas.

But since the federal and state governments are refusing to recognize our Rights, it falls on us to boldly step up to the plate and insist that our Rights be respected.  You have no lawful, moral, or religious duty to submit to a government when it violates our Constitution and seeks to take from you the rights God gave you.

Governments do not have constitutional authority to force you to take the COVID JAB.

And in this paper I show that the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses of the US Constitution prohibit the federal, state, and local governments from requiring you to be “jabbed” or putting you into a concentration camp if they assert that you are at “high risk” of getting infected [i.e., those who are 65 years of age or older]….

Why Supreme Court opinions are not the “Law of the Land”, and how to put federal judges in their place.

PLEASE READ!!! Huldah is a Constitutional scholar and lawyer. Her evisceration of the judiciary and Congress is Epic. [COSP =Convention of States Project, Mark Levin is an advocate BTW and thus a viper. I noticed after I pointed that out years ago at OT, the web page disappeared. ]

One of her foot notes from another article: Transgenders in the Military – Who Decides: Congress, the President, or Federal Judges?

⁴ I trust you see why Hamilton is viciously smeared. The relentless attacks on our Framers have a purpose: Take them down – and our Foundation is destroyed. Hamilton wrote most of The Federalist Papers, which Madison and Jefferson recognized as the best evidence of the genuine meaning of our Constitution.  What effect do these constant attacks on Hamilton have on peoples’ respect for The Federalist Papers? Beware of false friends who undermine our Foundation; and of jealous men whose claim to fame is that they attack Hamilton. [In looking up various Federalist Papers on Brave, I have come across some doozys but could not find the actual papers, just commentary. — GC]

This is her conclusion in her article on Transgenders in the Military.

Conclusion

Let us put the federal courts in their proper place! Congress and the President have the recognized power to refuse to go along with unconstitutional or ultra vires acts of the Judicial Branch; and their Oaths of office require them to do so. Congress also has the power to rid us of usurping federal judges via the impeachment process.

You could also apply this reasoning to Biden using the US Military as guinea pigs for targets of a BIOWEAPON. She addresses that too in the first article I cited: Why Supreme Court opinions are not the “Law of the Land”

1. First Principles

Let’s analyze COSP’s silly argument. We begin by looking at First Principles:

♦The Judicial Branch was created by Art. III, §1, US Constitution. Accordingly, it is a “creature” of the Constitution. ¹

♦The federal government came into existence when the States, acting through special ratifying conventions held in each of the States, ratified the Constitution.²

Since the Judicial Branch is merely a “creature” of the Constitution, it follows that it is subordinate to the Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms. It may not annul the superior authority of the States which created the Judicial Branch when they ratified the Constitution; ³ and as a mere “creature” of the Constitution, it may NOT change the Constitution under which it holds its existence! ⁴

….we elect to Congress people who don’t know our Constitution or The Federalist Papers; and they are unaware of their Duty – imposed by their Oath of office – to function as a “check” on the Judicial Branch by impeaching federal judges who violate our Constitution.

The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare

… we delegated only a very few powers to the federal government.

Accordingly, Congress has strictly limited legislative powers over the Country at large. These powers are listed primarily at Art. I, §8, clauses 3-16, and are restricted to war, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & roads. Several Amendments delegate to Congress some power over civil rights.

These enumerated powers are the only areas where the federal government has lawful authority over The States and The People in The States.  In all other matters [except those listed at Art. I, §10]the States and The People retain supremacy, independence, and sovereignty. Go here for a complete list of all of Congress’ Enumerated Powers.

Obamacare is altogether unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the legislative powers We granted to Congress.  Nothing in Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to control our medical care (or to exercise the other fearsome powers in the Act)...

The Oath Of Office: The Check On Usurpations By Congress, The Executive Branch, & Federal Judges.

… it is a President’s sworn duty to refuse to enforce any unconstitutional “law” made by Congress. And contrary to the misinformation with which we are constantly bombarded, judges are not vested with exclusive authority to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional.

The Truth is that a President, the States, local governments, and individual citizens, together with the courts, all have the Right &Duty to overrule – to spurn & cast out – unconstitutional laws made by Congress. For it is a fundamental [though long suppressed] Principle of our Founding that an unconstitutional “law” is no “law” at all – it is a “mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such”…

I am going to detour to what I consider an important topic in my old notes, JURY NULLIFICATION. It is the American citizens FINAL SAY on the laws passed by our representatives. From 2015:

A pamphlet told the juror what his Constitutional rights and obligations were. This is information the JUDGE should be clearly stating to EVERY JURY. INSTEAD He was arrested for handing out literature. LINK

In fact this is becoming a LAW in some states thanks to the groups handing out the pamphlets.

This is perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT move any American can make to protect our freedom. WE as Jurorists have the RIGHT and duty to judge not only the case by the LAW itself. We as Jurorists CAN set aside laws passed by Congress! This is the ultimate power of the people over the government and the Elite want to keep it hidden!

SEPTEMBER 30, 2007

WHAT JUDGES & LAWYERS WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT JURIES

…On appeal, however, the jurors’ action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts — to nullify the law if it chose — became part of British constitutional law.

It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law.

The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system’s best kept secrets.

Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous…

FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.

Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous, for it takes only one person aware of the right in order to hang a jury. In Washington, DC, where the concept was discussed in connection with the Marion Barry trial, a local television station reported that the US Attorney was worried that a jury might nullify the law in that case……

Far from being an unintended side-effect, jury nullification is explicitly authorized in the constitutions of 24 states. State Language on Jury Nullification

“…Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous…”

Publius Huldah gets into WHY prosecutors become nervous and what has been done to our legal system.

The Trial of The Lawsuit Against The State of Arizona: Must Supreme Court Judges Obey The Constitution?

…The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-88 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, to explain the proposed Constitution to The People and to induce them to ratify it. Thus, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the genuine meaning of Our Constitution.  And at a meeting of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825 at which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were present, the following resolution selecting the texts for the Law school, was passed:

…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83)  [emphasis added]

So! Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, Father of The Constitution, acknowledged the high authoritative status of The Federalist Papers.  They saw The Constitution as having a fixed meaning which one could learn by consulting The Federalist!

2. But supreme Court judges soon refused to submit to The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers. In 1907, former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, “…the Constitution is what the judges say it is…”.  Judges thus rejected the objective standard provided by The Federalist, and substituted their own subjective interpretations. Law schools embraced this subversion:  Instead of teaching The Constitution as a set of fixed principles explained by The Federalist, they taught supreme Court opinions which say Congress may do whatever it pleases. They also taught that supreme Court judges have unbridled authority to say what the Constitution means. Law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers & judges who have been indoctrinated with the monstrous Lie that Our Constitution means whatever judges on the supreme Court say!  And because these lawyers failed in their sacred duty to think, and uncritically accepted what they were told, Our Country is on the brink of destruction….

Of course our John Dewey Progressive School System made DARN SURE Americans are completely ignorant of our Constitution, rights and remedies, the better to turn us into good little Marxist slaves.

On last,
Publius Huldah’s article on calling forth the militia.

Our Constitution provides two separate & independent methods for the federal government to “call forth the Militia” to suppress Insurrections

Because of its excellence and relevance to the insurrections being fomented in our cities by the Marxist organization “Black Lives Matter”, Antifa, and other revolutionary organizations; I sent the recent paper by Edwin Vieira, JD., Ph.D., titled, “The President’s Authority To Suppress Insurrections” [link], to my lists.

In response, some objected that the riots in the cities are local issues to be handled (or not) by the State and local governments – that they are not “federal” issues over which the federal government has jurisdiction. Some also asserted that Article IV, §4, US Constitution prohibits the President from sending the National Guard into a State to quell such disturbances, unless & until the Legislature or the Governor of the State requests it.

Those objections are not well-founded.

First: What’s going on in our cities is not something which can be prudently brushed aside. It is a classic manifestation of a Marxist revolution – see, e.g., this article from “Workers’ World”. Furthermore, as shown below, the President of the United States has constitutional and statutory authority to exercise his own judgment as to whether he should send in the “Militia” to suppress the uprisings.

Second: Our Constitution provides two separate and independent methods for the federal government to suppress such uprisings.

Dr. Vieira’s paper sets forth the other method of “calling forth the Militia” – the method provided for at Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution. That provides for the intervention of the Militia within a State at the initiative of the federal government, regardless of whether the State requests it.. ¹

I hope you enjoyed my tour through some of Publius Huldah’s articles and will continue reading her excellent commentary. I am now going to look at a few other articles of interest by others.

Security Clearances and Presidential Authority

….a recent Congressional Research Service report explains. “The criteria for election or appointment to these positions are specified in the U.S. Constitution, and except by constitutional amendment, no additional criteria (e.g., holding a security clearance) may be required.”

In fact, the security clearance system itself is an expression of presidential authority. Its scope and operation are defined in an executive order (EO 12968), and its terms can be modified by the President at will.

And if the President wished to grant access to classified information to a family member, for example, there would be no legal barrier to doing so…..

So that kills THAT objection by RINOs and Demonrats when it comes to ratifying POTUS Trump’s picks.

08/01/19 The Hill:

Senate Democrats demand Trump order review of White House Security Clearances

…Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson wrote in a letter to the senators earlier this month that he could not begin a review of the security clearance process without direction from Trump or one of his “designees” because “the authority over access to classified information ultimately rests with the President of the United States.”…

Of course the Senate has ZERO jurisdiction over Security Clearances so this is just more encroachment on the executive.

Matt Gaetz

So You CAN appoint a private citizen as a Special Counsel, and they can begin their important work WITHOUT a Senate confirmation hearing or vote?

June 11, 2021 Justice Dept. to probe secret subpoena for Schiff’s records on Trump’s watch

Jan. 25, 2023 Kevin McCarthy kicks Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell off intel panel

From Brian Cates: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1863237024204927401.html

H/T TradeBait2 for the Cate’s links.

Now Adam Schiff is going to be come a senator. I wonder if POTUS Trump will deny him a security clearance…. OR WORSE?

Added by Wolf…..

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Tuesday assailed President-elect Donald Trump’s suggestion that he and other former members of the defunct House Jan. 6 committee be imprisoned.

Trump advocated that those on the former panel who investigated the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot and his role in overturning the 2020 election should “go to jail.”

“I don’t think the incoming president should be threatening his political opponents with jail time,” Schiff told reporters on his first full day as a senator. “That’s not the kind of talk we should hear from the president in a democracy, nor do I think that a pardon is necessary for the members of the Jan. 6 committee.”

President Joe Biden is weighing preemptive pardons over fears Trump may seek retribution against Schiff and other high-profile members of the bipartisan panel, including former Chairman Bennie Thomson (D-MS), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and former Rep. Liz Cheney. Biden is also considering pardons for other political foes who could come under Trump’s microscope.

“We are proud of the work we did in that committee,” Schiff continued. “It was a fundamental oversight obligation to investigate the first attempt to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power in our history.”

Trump said in an NBC Meet the Press interview that aired over the weekend that he would not direct Justice Department officials to bring charges against the committee members but accused them of engaging in unspecified criminal activity.

“For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail,” Trump said.

In a separate portion, Trump said that “retribution will be through success.” He’s also vowed to pardon those charged with and convicted of crimes related to the Capitol riot.

Let’s see what happens to Pencil-Neck Shifty Schiff!