America Again: A group looking to indict members of Congress who violate the U.S. Constitution

If you are not aware of America Again, please take a look at the below information and what their goals are. Every American should be aware of what they hope to accomplish and hopefully we can all get behind their efforts.

America Again Seeks SC’s Trey Gowdy as Chief Counsel


“Certain algorithms will be employed in order to determine whether a lawmaker has introduced unconstitutional legislation, co-sponsored it, passed it out of committee or voted for it.”


A step in the right direction and definitely a breath of fresh air!

“My brother and I have been praying for five years that God would send us a state prosecutor, who would be willing to give up his career… who loves the Constitution, and would fight for the Constitution…. Who can get on TV and look good and sound good, and who really likes going after bad guys,” Zuniga said. “Well, that’s Trey Gowdy!”

But then the wind is taken from the sails but hope is not lost!

According to Freedom Post, Gowdy spokeswoman Amanda Duvall said that Congressman Gowdy had already filed for re-election this year, so at this point, he wasn’t looking to get into the role that Zuniga is offering.

But America Again and the folks at the Freedom Post aren’t losing hope. They hope that once people learn about American Again’s plan and how Gowdy fits into that plan, his electorate will see the bigger picture and push him towards fighting for what is right.

More info about America Again...



Article Source

a reply to: freakjive

Start with Obama, cut the head off the snake.

He is in fact one of the biggest threats to the beloved constitution.

-SAP-

I'll get my hopes up once this group actually files the first indictment.

Until then, American Again is all hat and no cattle.

I would get my hopes up if these people even know what is in the Constitution, how it works and the role the courts play in it.

a reply to: freakjive

Uhm ok...

how do they propose to get around Article I, section Six, Clause 1?

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section VI, Clause I). The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress


...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The intended purpose is to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree.

A similar clause in many state constitutions protects members of state legislatures in the United States. Legislators in non-U.S. jurisdictions may be protected by a similar doctrine of parliamentary immunity.

Secondly any law that could possibly be unconstitutional has to be passed in order to be challenged. Any matter dealing with a law that is unconstitutional is reserved to the United States Supreme court.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: freakjive

Uhm ok...

how do they propose to get around Article I, section Six, Clause 1?

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section VI, Clause I). The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress


...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The intended purpose is to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree.

A similar clause in many state constitutions protects members of state legislatures in the United States. Legislators in non-U.S. jurisdictions may be protected by a similar doctrine of parliamentary immunity.

Secondly any law that could possibly be unconstitutional has to be passed in order to be challenged. Any matter dealing with a law that is unconstitutional is reserved to the United States Supreme court.

I see the valid and good protection that clause gives to our elected representatives and it makes perfect sense. I wonder if the congressional body could pass its own rules making it a punishable offence to violate their individual oaths to the constitution thereby getting around this clause which seems to be directed at outside influences.

Just a thought.........

a reply to: Phoenix

Since the constitution specifically spells out the speech and debate clause, you would need a constitutional amendment in order to "bypass" it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

But those laws shall, as established via Article I, Section 8, clause 18:

...be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The key words here are "foregoing powers" and "other powers vested by this constitution..."

The fact that we have allowed Congress (I care not of who is running the show) to create law and then test their expansion of power via the Courts (knowing that the legislation itself is outside the limits of their authority) is an affront to the Constitution itself.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Phoenix

Since the constitution specifically spells out the speech and debate clause, you would need a constitutional amendment in order to "bypass" it.

I think the constitution allows them to make their own rules governing the body - so no don't think it needs an amendment, just much pressure and will.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

A law does not become valid until it is passed though. How can there be a law that could hold people to account for proposing a law that could be illegal / unconstitutional.

To me they are ignoring that whole legal standing issue.


not to mention a law only becomes a law if its passed and then signed by the President (or if they do a veto override).

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Phoenix

Since the constitution specifically spells out the speech and debate clause, you would need a constitutional amendment in order to "bypass" it.

I think the constitution allows them to make their own rules governing the body - so no don't think it needs an amendment, just much pressure and will.

It allows both houses to establish rules that govern their behavior within the law and what happens if a member strays outside that line. The rules also allow the body to remove a member, however it comes along with criminal charges and other issues (including established by the constitution).

Trying to go after a member of Congress for attempting to pass an illegal law puts the cart before the horse. The law must be passed to have standing to challenge and the courts must determine if the law is constitutional or not. While I agree with the concept that Congress should only pass laws that are lawful, the problem is all laws passed by congress are lawful until a court says otherwise.

While I cannot stand government over reach, I don't care much for damaging separation of powers by trying to force something as unlawful before the act itself is even taken.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Except that violating the constitution should be considered treason(I believe it is treason).

If we are to allow a law that allows for the indictment / prosecution based on an action that is not in and of itself illegal (the outcome of the law makes it illegal) then we might as well accept the fact that we could then have a police department of future crimes.

Violation of the constitution is not classified as treason, although certain acts can be.
ETA - Article 3 Section 3 covers federal treason.

US Federal Definition of Treason -

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, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Their job is to present legislation that is in line with their foregoing powers; not test them. That is the reason for that clause.

By your logic, a representative could garner enough votes to pass that they have sole legislative authority; and while extreme, they are prohibited in executing such legislation regardless of passage based upon this clause and how the Federal government is structured.

While they could invoke the Debate and Speech clause to protect them from legal en-battlement, as purely speaking of an idea should never be punished; they are bound by the clause I posted in their execution of their positions; which is to ensure legislation they produce is within their delegated authority as prescribed in the Constitution.

ETA: I understand where you are coming from as I do not believe that by merely debating a point of view should be seen as grounds for breaking their Constitutional oath -- passing and creating legislation though, is much different.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

Speech and Debate aside -

If a member of congress tried passing legislation that made him sole dictator and President for life, assuming it ever saw the light of day on the floor of either body, assuming it passed both houses, and assuming the President signed it, would be a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. It would also be a massive law violation, but its already decided by the Constitution.

Determination on whether a law is constitutional or not constitutional is in their specific domain. The Legislative body makes laws, the executive signs them into law, and the judicial determines if they are valid.

A law like being described against congress would actually be unconstitutional since the prescribed manner for determining if a law is valid or not is already established by the constitution.

Indicting a member of congress for voting for a bill that has not been signed into law is not a law violation. No crime has been committed.

I am all for holding our government accountable, I just don't see this action as being any more lawful than the issue it targets.

A question -

Would a member of congress be held accountable under this law if he is to support / sign off / vote for legislation allowing the US military to perform law enforcement functions inside the United states, its territories or its commonwealths?

a reply to: Xcathdra

It would be unconstitutional regardless of the implied powers of the Supreme Court of judicial review as the legislation does not provide example of foregoing powers expressed.

I am not arguing for this associations views as presented by the OP; I am arguing for a strict Constitutional approach to creating legislation.

It has been through legislation that new "powers" were perceived and those "powers" were upheld via judicial review.

ETA:
In my opinion, you are giving one branch more power over the others with your view point. The judicial branch is not the "be all -- end all" for arguments. Each branch is to test itself against the Constitutionality of the legislation it is attempting to affect. This is the stance of the current Administration and that of those who support nullification.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

I think its dangerous to rely solely on the Congress to determine if their legislation is constitutional or not. Its asking them to assume a function that is not solely in their realm.

Legal review aside, this law suggests holding member of Congress accountable for their actions towards legislation that is not signed into law.

If the bill is voted on and fails, are those who voted for / against the bill accountable for "committing a crime"?

what happens if a law is passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses and signed off on by the President, only to be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional?

The manner in which this idea is presented....

"Anything else in the box Pandora?"

..............................................................is the thought that comes to mind.

ETA - was your response in general or specific to my question above about Military performing law enforcement functions?

They can be arrested for Felony charges.

Using the same convoluted leaps in logic it takes for a Fine (punishment for not following a law) to become a Tax (operating fees levied on the people for government use). Then a member of Congress (Representative or Senator) that violates the Constitution cannot be upholding their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Since these people are paid in taxpayer dollars to represent the people, that is fraud. Fraud involving taxpayer funds is automatically embezzlement which is indeed a Felony.

Hence failure to properly represent the people by not upholding the Constitution is a Felony. And thus ends their protection clause.

Maybe they should have read it before they defiled it.

a reply to: Ahabstar

But we come back to the question -

Is the act of voting for legislation illegal?
Is the act of voting for legislation that fails to pass Congree illegal?
Is the act of voting for legislation that passes congress and is veto'd by the President illegal?
Is the act of voting for legislation that passes congress and is signed into law by the President illegal?
Is the act of voting for legislation that passes congress and is signed into law by the President and the overturned / struck down by the Supreme Court illegal?
Is the act of voting for legislation that passes congress and is signed into law by the President and then challenged and upheld by the supreme court illegal?

If you don't like your rep in Congress, then vote them out of office. We have a system that allows the people of the United states to overthrow their government every two years.

This idea would bring the government to a halt as there will be challenges to every single vote depending on what party they belong to and who they pissed off recently.

finally - A determination if a member of Congress violates the Constitution / Law is reserved to the Judicial branch as it deals with guilt or innocence of a crime.