A QUESTION OF LAW FOR SOLICITOR GENERAL
By Devvy Kidd
April 12, 2003
"It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people... ... the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions." -- Colonel David Crockett, Served twice in the U.S. Congress
I recently sent a letter to Theodore Olson, Solicitor General of the United States. My purpose in doing so was to try and get an answer to a legal question.
For those of you unfamiliar with what the Solicitor General of the United States does, a former SG, Seth P. Waxman, summed it up in part:
"...the Solicitor General has had two principal functions: to represent the United States in the Supreme Court and, with respect to the lower federal courts and state courts, to decide when the United States should appeal a case it has lost, when it should file a brief amices curiae, and when the United States should intervene to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Solicitor General to ensure that the United States speaks in court with a single voice -- a voice that speaks on behalf of the rule of law."
This unconstitutional war against Iraq has deeply divided the American people for a myriad of reasons. Regardless of one's opinion of whether or not the United States should invade a foreign country, only Congress has the power to issue a formal declaration of war.
That did not happen; they merely passed a "resolution," thereby violating the supreme law of the land. Again. However, as the wife of a retired U.S. Army Colonel and now that the troops are fighting for their lives (not defending our freedom or defending our shores), we pray that Almighty God will keep them safe.
Last week, President Bush asked and received from the United States Congress an additional $75 billion dollars from The People's treasury to fund the "rebuilding of Iraq." Seventy-five billion dollars, an impressive amount which is somehow going to magically appear in the public coffers. The people are again crying foul.
Art. 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to only legislate (and fund) in very specific and narrow areas: War, trade, commerce, copyrights, patents, to coin money (that congressional responsibility was unconstitutionally abrogated to the private central bank in 1913), establish post offices, promote (not fund) the arts and sciences and so forth.
No where in Art. 1, Section 8 of the supreme law of the land can I find where Congress has the authority to raid the public treasury to buy the favors of countries like Turkey or to "rebuild Iraq" or any other country. I highly doubt one could try to slip this grotesque plunder of the people's treasury by using the much abused "General Welfare" clause.
A constitutional researcher I am acquainted with provides a solid response on the General Welfare clause issue:
"Discussion of the general welfare clause of the Constitution by the courts relies upon the Federalist Papers. This term simply means: Taxation was to protect the individuals' life, liberty and ownership of private property. One can go to Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1 of the constitution to read the general welfare clause. Then one can do some history research and see what the Anti-Federalists had to say about this clause:
"That this clause conveys absolute power to the central government. Patrick Henry was very vocal in his opposition to putting this kind of language into the constitution. Madison, however, assured Henry and others that all the general welfare clause represented was a preliminary introduction prior to the enumerating the specific powers the delegates were about to grant to this new federal government and that the general welfare clause granted no new power to the government whatsoever. It was simply an introductory statement.
"The Anti-Federalists still weren't satisfied. Hamilton and Madison came back to re-state that if the general welfare clause conveyed absolute power to the government, why would they go on to list the specific powers they were going to grant the government? That wouldn't make any sense at all if they were going to give absolute power to this government. It was finally conceded by all at the convention that the general welfare clause conveyed absolutely no power to the government."
The American people can certainly feel compassion for the oppressed throughout the world, but we are a nation of laws, not emotions. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Either we have a Constitution or we don't. For millions of US, the alarm bells clanging 'tyranny' began long before 9-11.
In my letter, I asked Mr. Olson that if he had to defend this latest expenditure by the Congress, agreeing to spend $75 billion dollars out of already empty U.S. Treasury to rebuild a foreign country, could he please explain to me how the Congress could justify the constitutionality of such an action?
I can find no historical reference from any of the Founding Fathers, specifically James Madison who wrote the Constitution, that Congress would be given the power to simply throw billions of dollars at some foreign country to enrich companies in this country getting the contracts:
U.S. Quietly Soliciting Bids for Rebuilding Postwar Iraq Mar 10, 2003 (Nine days before America invaded)
"WASHINGTON [Dow Jones Business News] -- The Bush administration is preparing to award a contract valued at as much as $900 million to begin rebuilding a postwar Iraq, in what would be the largest government reconstruction effort since Americans helped to rebuild Germany and Japan after World War II, Monday's Wall Street Journal reported.
"The U.S. Agency for International Development quietly sent a detailed "request for proposals" to bid on the contract to at least five of the nation's infrastructure-engineering firms. All have already submitted bids or are preparing to do so.
"The work would form the core of a plan that Bush administration officials say is meant to demonstrate its resolve to immediately improve the quality of life in Iraq if, as appears increasingly likely, that country is invaded by U.S.-led forces."
Improve the quality of life in Iraq? Despite the massive propaganda effort coming out of the media, both mainstream and cable, this latest plundering of the American people isn't selling too well out there in America. This theft from the public treasury certainly doesn't fall under any definition of the term "war." Nor is building new roads, schools and protecting oil wells in a foreign country defined as war.
Nor can a permanent occupation of any foreign country be defined as war:
Colin Powell, January 26, 2003, World Economic Forum, Davos Switzerland:
"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we've done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives. And we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own... to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace."
Really, Secretary Powell? Either he is "out of the loop" or simply believes his own lies, but one only has to look at our troops still in Bosnia almost eight years after Billy Clinton unconstitutionally forced America into someone else's 1300 year old tribal conflicts.
On March 23, 2003, Mr. Bush announced his appointment of Jay Garner, a retired three-star general, to be the new "military governor" of postwar Iraq. Most Americans are Christians. It makes a heck of a lot of sense to strong arm your way into a foreign country and then shove a non-Muslim down the throats of the people who live there. Are we to believe Colin Powell that this new "military governor" is simply going to stay a day or two?
How about this one: A few days ago, Mr. Bush tapped a woman named Barbara Bodine as "director of relief and reconstruction for central Iraq", based in Baghdad. Is this Ms. Bodine also only going to Iraq for a day or two, Secretary Powell? As a side note, Ms. Bodine is not the favorite of the Pentagon who believe that as U.S. ambassador to Yemen, she blocked an FBI investigation into the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Nice, huh?
We the People are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This $75 billion dollars will have to be borrowed from the privately owned "Federal" Reserve and my daughter will be further placed into bondage as an indentured servant to the banking cartel in order to enrich the pockets of the powerful. I don't know about you, but I highly resent it.
There is no longer any pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in this country and hasn't been for the past 90 years. It is not my responsibility nor my daughter's or the man who lives on Main Street in New Orleans be saddled with more debt to rebuild some country half way around the world. The Founding Fathers and the thousands who gave their lives to birth this Republic must be spinning in their graves and wondering why they bothered. The American people have become little more than slaves on the plantation.
I closed my letter to Mr. Olson with the following two questions:
1. If you had to defend this latest expenditure by the Congress, agreeing to spend $75 billion dollars out of the empty U.S. Treasury to rebuild a foreign country, could you please explain to me how you could justify the constitutionality of such an action?
2. Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution it authorizes Congress to raid the people's treasury and hand it over to special interests PACs who buy Congress on a daily basis and local chieftains in some foreign country whether it be Afghanistan, Iraq or Haiti?
I believe the American people deserve an answer to these very relevant and important questions because it boils down a very serious question: Do we or don't we have a Constitution?
Time will tell if I get any response, but the people of this country should be screaming down the roof over this hideous plunder of our children's future. The question is will they, or will the people simply continue to docilely take whatever form of slavery Washington, DC shoves down their throats on a daily basis?
© 2003 Devvy Kidd - All Rights Reserved
Devvy Kidd is the founder and Director of POWER (Project on Winning Economic Reform). Has been a guest on more than 1500 radio shows, given hundreds of speeches and has run for Congress twice. Sales of her little booklets, "Why A Bankrupt America" and "Blind Loyalty" sold close to 2,000,000 copies. Devvy is a contibuting writer for www.NewsWithViews.com Devvy's web site is: www.devvy.com E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org