Post by TomLine on Nov 16, 2017 6:28:25 GMT -5
CONGRESS HAS OVERTHROWN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT
by Tom Lineaweaver
by Tom Lineaweaver
First these article...
Violation of Oath of Office and Walker v Members of Congress
In refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal income tax law but their oath of office (see below) as well. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 (see below) requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 (see below) which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 (see below) which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
Congress has never altered the Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact. That law specifies a convention call is peremptory on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the word “shall” to state this. The states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have asserted a veto power when none exists nor was ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the Constitution creates. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.
In addition, the members of Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office regarding an Article V Convention call. 5 U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of Congress to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The definition of the word “advocate” is to: “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”
The single intent of the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.
The word “peremptory” precludes any objection whatsoever by members of Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention. This peremptory preclusion certainly includes joining a lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution and it may be vetoed by members of Congress. That act not only violates the law of the Constitution but 5 U.S.C. 7311 as well. When the members of Congress joined to oppose Walker v Members of Congress their opposition became part of the court record and therefore a matter of public record. Thus, regardless of whatever arguments for such opposition were presented by their legal counsel to justify their opposition, the criminal violation of the oath of office occurred because the members of Congress joined the lawsuit to publicly declare their opposition to obeying the law of the Constitution.
foavc.org/01page/Articles/Violation%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office%20and%20Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.htm
Oath of Office for Federal Officials
Employees of the United States Government including all members of Congress are required to take the following oath before assuming elected or appointed office.
5 U.S.C. 3331:
“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’”
foavc.org/01page/Articles/5%20U.S.C.%203331.htm
5 U.S.C. 3333:
“…an individual who accepts office or employment in the Government of the United states…shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title.”
foavc.org/01page/Articles/5%20U.S.C.%203333.htm
Federal Law Prohibiting Federal Officials From Advocating Overthrow of Government
Federal law specifically prohibits any individual from accepting or holding any position (including elected office) in the United States Government if he advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.
5 U.S.C. 7311 (1):
“An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States of the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government…”
foavc.org/01page/Articles/5%20U.S.C.%207311.htm
Advocate:
advocate: To plead in favor of : defend by argument before a tribunal or the public : support or recommend publicly. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
Advocate: To speak in favor of or defend by argument. To support, vindicate, or recommend publicly. Black’s Law Dictionary
foavc.org/01page/Articles/Advocate.htm
advocate: To plead in favor of : defend by argument before a tribunal or the public : support or recommend publicly. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
Advocate: To speak in favor of or defend by argument. To support, vindicate, or recommend publicly. Black’s Law Dictionary
foavc.org/01page/Articles/Advocate.htm
Federal Criminal Penalty for Violation of Oath of Office
Federal criminal law is explicit and direct regarding a violation of oath of office by federal officials which includes all members of Congress. The law requires the removal of the office holder as well a prison term or fine for the offender.
18 U.S.C. 1918:
“Whoever violates the provisions of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government [and] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both.”
foavc.org/01page/Articles/18%20U.S.C.%201918.htm
Executive Order 10450
In order to instruct investigating federal officials such as the FBI as to what is a violation of the oath of office under 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 5 U.S.C. 7311, Executive Order 10450 was issued to serve as a guideline for determining what actions constituted a criminal violation of the oath of office by federal officials. The order affirms the law of 5 U.S.C. 7311 that is a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 1918 for a member of the government, which includes members of Congress, to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.”
Executive Order 10450 states (in part): “Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in…the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States… it is hereby ordered as follows:
(a) The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment…of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited, to the following:
(4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”
foavc.org/01page/Articles/Executive%20Order%2010450.htm
Okay, that should be enough. These articles are based on a lawsuit claiming Congress in "refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when required to do so," they are violating their oath of office. I believe they violate their oath of office in other ways where this Law would also apply.
The article talks about advocating "the overthrow of our constitutional form of government." It states, "Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment."
I maintain Congress has already overthrown our Constitutional form of Government with the myriad of unconstitutional bills along with their accomplice in the White House who signed those bills into Law. They have altered our form of Government illegally, without a Constitutional Amendment, and they should be held accountable.
Everytime a member of Congress is advocating for an unconstitutional bill, are they not advocating altering our Constitutional form of Government? Of course they are, and that is a Federal Crime.
For example when Congress advocated for and eventually passed laws regulating Education, and empowered a Department of Education, did they not illegally alter our form of Government?
What about all the gun control laws and a Federal Government agency to regulate Firearms, did they not overthrow our Constitutional form of Government?
What about the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Did that not alter our form of Government?
No, they didn't overthrow our Constitutional Form of Government with violence. They did it with legislation, which is just as much a Federal Crime.
When I am President, I will hold Congress accountable for the crimes they have committed. I will either empanel a task force, or select a special prosecutor, to investigate the crimes of Congress. It's time to end Congressional criminal activity.