[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor) The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding! Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025 LadyX Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show 1963 Chrysler Turbine 3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report $200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030 Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis Fooling Us Badly With Psyops The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why) Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them America Is Reaching A Boiling Point The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: BREAKING: regarding the sergeant-at-arms method.
Source: Daily Kos
URL Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/21/161427/572
Published: Mar 21, 2007
Author: "daeros"
Post Date: 2007-03-21 17:18:08 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 197
Comments: 13

BREAKING: regarding the sergeant-at-arms method.

by daeros [Subscribe]
Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:17:49 PM PDT

regarding using the house sergeant-at-arms

I just got off the phone with a staffer of the house judiciary where I was calling about using the sergeant-at-arms if the DOJ refuses to enforce the subpeona's against karl rove and hariet miers. A staffer there informed me that they are looking into using this to enforce it. So it looks like even if they try to deflect this to the courts, they're screwed. Woohoo!

Small update: I'm a tad skeptical too as noted in the comments thread. But the beautiful part about it is that if we do this it leaves the courts unable to do much but sit there and cry. It's the house using it's own court empowerments to enforce it's own directive. This would mean that the WHITE house would have to be the one to file to the SCOTUS instead of us filing to them against the DOJ for contempt, they'd be filing against us. By then it's too late, just like they tried to do to us.

As to the question of if the sergeant at arms could break through white house security, He wouldn't come alone, there would be a truckload of capital police.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: All (#0)

Coming to a White House near you, one nasty sergeant at arms.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-03-21   17:18:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm reminded of the scene in Dr. Strangelove where Army troops take the Air Force base.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-03-21   17:19:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Man... I really hope that Meiers, and Rove are grilled, but because of what I've seen for the last 20 years, I'll be pleasantly surprised if it comes to be.

I've become so cynical over the last 6 years, and have been wrong twice about people getting their comeuppances. I'm hoping that I'm wrong again in this case.

Just so you understand, and anyone else who's reading my posts I'm not hateful, or painting everything black, I'm just pointing out that people really shouldn't hold out much hope that good people in our government will do what is right and just, because frankly, there aren't any good people in our government left in any capacity to amend what is wrong.

Let's hope for the best in this case.

Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2007-03-21   17:23:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

and anyone else who's reading my posts I'm not hateful, or painting everything black, I'm just pointing out that people really shouldn't hold out much hope that good people in our government will do what is right and just, because frankly, there aren't any good people in our government left in any capacity to amend what is wrong.

that's reality.

christine  posted on  2007-03-21   17:35:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just so you understand, and anyone else who's reading my posts I'm not hateful, or painting everything black, I'm just pointing out that people really shouldn't hold out much hope that good people in our government will do what is right and just, because frankly, there aren't any good people in our government left in any capacity to amend what is wrong.

I always thought anarchists were crazy until I saw this government in action. Now I get it. Boy, do I get it.

It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2007-03-21   17:44:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm just pointing out that people really shouldn't hold out much hope that good people in our government will do what is right

You might have seen the testimony about the censorship of govt scientists the other day. I nearly got sick. The guy from the White House made the argument that EVERYONE ANSWERS TO THE PRESIDENT. He got elected, you have to do what he says. No matter how stupid. And they've put laws into effect that put you in jail if you DON'T do what the president says. Working for the government means you no longer have an opinion, no longer have freedom of thought or speech, no longer even have freedom of association.

Somehow, I don't think that was the original plan.

Mekons4  posted on  2007-03-21   17:50:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

there would be a truckload of capital police.

think lovely thoughts

"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi

angle  posted on  2007-03-21   18:21:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There is zero chance of this happening. This whole attorney issue is what Burkeman1 would call kabuki theatre for the rubes, in the same why as the Klintoon impeachment was.

The Democrats are not going to send the sergeant-at-arms to the White House because the "decider" would tell them to get bent. Now I'm no lawyer, didn't play one on TV, nor did I sat at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it seems to me that if Bush did not recognize the authority of the sergeant-at arms it would set up a constitutional crises of a magnitude never seen in our lifetime, if ever. This would force the Democratic Party to actually do something, a situation which I do not believe they are interested in being in. That something would include, at the very least, taking the issue to the Supreme Court. With the new Bush appointees, there is no guarantee of the outcome, and if the SC ruled against the Congress, it could forever dimish their power. The Congress would rather eat their young than lose power, so I don't think they would want to put themselves in the situation.

They may also decide to try to impeach Bush, but I don't think there will be enough votes for that, and if there is, I suspect it would end up just like the farce that was the Klintoon impeachment.

But you're the lawyer ari. What are the legal ramifications of executive branch blowing off the sergeant-of-arms?

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2007-03-21   19:15:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

But the beautiful part about it is that if we do this it leaves the courts unable to do much but sit there and cry. It's the house using it's own court empowerments to enforce it's own directive. This would mean that the WHITE house would have to be the one to file to the SCOTUS instead of us filing to them against the DOJ for contempt, they'd be filing against us. By then it's too late, just like they tried to do to us.

As to the question of if the sergeant at arms could break through white house security, He wouldn't come alone, there would be a truckload of capital police.

WooHoo is right!

"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

robin  posted on  2007-03-21   19:17:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why don't you take a look at the history of what happened in England in 1642-3?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-03-21   19:26:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why don't you take a look at the history of what happened in England in 1642-3?

You really believe it would be serious enough to cause a civil war? If so, then that's just one more reason why the Democrats won't do it.

You're welcome to your opinion of course, but I don't see it happening. You have more faith in the American people than I do. I don't think the American people have it in them to rise up against the government, regardless of the tyrannical notions of King George.

Bush has complete control of the military. The Congressional Republicans are so partisan that they would back Bush if he came out of the WH sporting horns and a red tail, so they have no help there. If the Democrats attempted to raise an Army, Bush would have them arrested and tried in a kangaroo court and that would be the end of it. Of course the U.S. could become a republic in name only, much like England was during the rule of Cromwell.

Then again, some would say we already are a republic in name only.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2007-03-21   19:51:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why don't you take a look at the history of what happened in England in 1642-3?

I'll take the bait.

The English Civil war was preceded by decades of tyranny by James I and Charles I, who attempted to raise money extraconstitionally through forced loans and "ship money." When the Scottish and Irish rebelled, the position of Charles I was weakened considerably, and eventually Parliament stepped into the power vaccuum with its own army. The rebellions of the Scots and Irish forced Charles I to call a parliament and ask for money, but Parliament demanded concessions, such as regular parliaments, in return, and at one point Charles I tried unsuccessfully, with soldiers, to arrest five members of Parliament. The roundheads and cavaliers were at war not long afterwards.

There are parallels: the GWOT seems to have weakened Bush; Bush has claimed unconstitutional powers; etc.

But the tyranny of the English monarchs provoked the civil war because it touched upon the source of their power: money.

The coming "constitutional crisis" does not touch upon vital powers of Congress in the same way. They can tax and spend no matter how many AG's are fired by Bush.

Also, as weakened as Bush is, he does not have his entire armed forces tied up abroad, like Charles. There are plenty of forces at home.

leveller  posted on  2007-03-21   21:42:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Bush has complete control of the military.

Have you been reading the news about Walter Reed?

Have you been reading the news about Iraq?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-03-21   23:44:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]