"The Continuity of Government and Its Implications"
During the hurried discussions surrounding the Patriot Act, political officials emphasized the significance of "continuity of government". This concept described a post-9/11 government that could operate and maintain itself independently of the elected representatives of the people.
The intelligence and homeland security systems established after the Patriot Act's enactment essentially created a bureaucratic administrative state that operated without elected officials at the helm. This raises a critical question: Can a constitutional republic function without elected officials controlling it?
This question is central to our current predicament and is the core of this "new American democracy" that seems to be misunderstood by many. The straightforward answer is that it cannot. Since the Patriot Act, we have been grappling with this three-headed intelligence community monster, comprising the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and the Department of Justice - National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).
This reality is the underlying reason why Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Special Counsel charges against Trump. It is also the framework behind the Supreme Court's recent reaffirmation of the President's plenary power over the executive.
"Post-9/11 Changes and Their Impact"
The post-9/11 system birthed by the Patriot Act fractured our Constitutional Republic. It placed systems and structures in charge of the government under the guise of "continuity of government". From that point forward, elected representatives no longer had authority or oversight over the national security apparatus. Instead, the Patriot Act inverted the traditional system of democratically elected representative government.
The result was that our elected officials became subordinate to the institutional interests of unelected agency officials, or as Senator Schumer refers to them, "the six ways from Sunday" coalition.
This reality is evident when individuals like former Attorney General Bill Barr claim that the President does not have unilateral authority over the DOJ. It is also reflected in the Lawfare narrative that a President is not the ultimate authority in governing power. Both these assertions are constitutionally incorrect, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
"Understanding the Root of the Problem"
This is the root of a problem that was always present, albeit silently, within our institutions before 9/11. After the Patriot Act was passed, this problem fully spread and infiltrated the bloodstream of American governance.
What was previously a bag of institutional snakes, held in check by a fragile constitution, was unleashed by the Patriot Act. Everything that has happened since, including the constant attacks from the weaponized bureaucracy, is a result of that moment.
This is the "new American democracy", where unelected officials and administrators within institutions hold power. Under the framework established by the Patriot Act, representative government - the executive branch, legislative branch, and even the judicial branch - are subordinate to those who use national security as a shield. This is the direct result of creating a system for the "continuity of government".
"Supreme Court's Affirmation and Its Implications"
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has shown signs that it understands what has transpired. The Court recently affirmed that only the President of the United States has the authority to control the Executive Branch. Consequently, only the President can address the core issue that has corrupted our constitutional intent.
Every element vested in the "continity of government" as a manipulation of the constitution is now aligned to eliminate the threat President Donald Trump represents.
We have one chance. Vote as if your freedom depends on it, because it does.
"Bottom Line"
Read the Supreme Court's opinion, not from President Trump's perspective, but from the viewpoint of what it allows him to do in his second term and what invisible constraints it removes that were a threat during his first term.
While impeachment is a political process within the Legislative Branch, and the Supreme Court is extremely hesitant to overstep their role therein, the High Court did clearly express in the opinion about immunity that "The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution."
Congress cannot criminalize the conduct of the President simply for carrying out his core executive branch duties. Removal of Executive Branch officials is a core duty, an official act, carrying absolute immunity.
This affirmed reality is exactly why the Deep State and Lawfare crowd are very alarmed.
What are your thoughts on this article? Share it with your friends and engage in a discussion. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6pm.
"The Continuity of Government and Its Implications"
During the hurried discussions surrounding the Patriot Act, political officials emphasized the significance of "continuity of government". This concept described a post-9/11 government that could operate and maintain itself independently of the elected representatives of the people.
The intelligence and homeland security systems established after the Patriot Act's enactment essentially created a bureaucratic administrative state that operated without elected officials at the helm. This raises a critical question: Can a constitutional republic function without elected officials controlling it?
This question is central to our current predicament and is the core of this "new American democracy" that seems to be misunderstood by many. The straightforward answer is that it cannot. Since the Patriot Act, we have been grappling with this three-headed intelligence community monster, comprising the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and the Department of Justice - National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).
This reality is the underlying reason why Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Special Counsel charges against Trump. It is also the framework behind the Supreme Court's recent reaffirmation of the President's plenary power over the executive.
"Post-9/11 Changes and Their Impact"
The post-9/11 system birthed by the Patriot Act fractured our Constitutional Republic. It placed systems and structures in charge of the government under the guise of "continuity of government". From that point forward, elected representatives no longer had authority or oversight over the national security apparatus. Instead, the Patriot Act inverted the traditional system of democratically elected representative government.
The result was that our elected officials became subordinate to the institutional interests of unelected agency officials, or as Senator Schumer refers to them, "the six ways from Sunday" coalition.
This reality is evident when individuals like former Attorney General Bill Barr claim that the President does not have unilateral authority over the DOJ. It is also reflected in the Lawfare narrative that a President is not the ultimate authority in governing power. Both these assertions are constitutionally incorrect, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
"Understanding the Root of the Problem"
This is the root of a problem that was always present, albeit silently, within our institutions before 9/11. After the Patriot Act was passed, this problem fully spread and infiltrated the bloodstream of American governance.
What was previously a bag of institutional snakes, held in check by a fragile constitution, was unleashed by the Patriot Act. Everything that has happened since, including the constant attacks from the weaponized bureaucracy, is a result of that moment.
This is the "new American democracy", where unelected officials and administrators within institutions hold power. Under the framework established by the Patriot Act, representative government - the executive branch, legislative branch, and even the judicial branch - are subordinate to those who use national security as a shield. This is the direct result of creating a system for the "continuity of government".
"Supreme Court's Affirmation and Its Implications"
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has shown signs that it understands what has transpired. The Court recently affirmed that only the President of the United States has the authority to control the Executive Branch. Consequently, only the President can address the core issue that has corrupted our constitutional intent.
Every element vested in the "continity of government" as a manipulation of the constitution is now aligned to eliminate the threat President Donald Trump represents.
We have one chance. Vote as if your freedom depends on it, because it does.
"Bottom Line"
Read the Supreme Court's opinion, not from President Trump's perspective, but from the viewpoint of what it allows him to do in his second term and what invisible constraints it removes that were a threat during his first term.
While impeachment is a political process within the Legislative Branch, and the Supreme Court is extremely hesitant to overstep their role therein, the High Court did clearly express in the opinion about immunity that "The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution."
Congress cannot criminalize the conduct of the President simply for carrying out his core executive branch duties. Removal of Executive Branch officials is a core duty, an official act, carrying absolute immunity.
This affirmed reality is exactly why the Deep State and Lawfare crowd are very alarmed.
What are your thoughts on this article? Share it with your friends and engage in a discussion. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6pm.
