include_once("common_lab_header.php");
Excerpt for Throw All the Bums Out, Legal!; Explanation of the National "Vote of No Confidence" Amendment by , available in its entirety at Smashwords

Throw All the Bums Out Legal

Explanation of the National "Vote of No Confidence" Amendment

Jean-Marc LeBouquin



Copyright © January 10, 2018 Jean-Marc LeBouquin – illustration under same copyright.

Smashwords Edition, License Notes:

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite ebook retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for your very kind regard.

Table of Contents

Throw All the Bums Out Legal

Chapter 1 – Governance by Nemesis – an Orientation Overview

Chapter 2 – Conflict of Interests Contending with the Oath of Office

Chapter 3 – Obama's Claim Abolishing U.S. Sovereignty and Jurisdiction

Chapter 4 – Refusing to Read the List

Chapter 5 – Vote Quietly Put Aside

Chapter 6 – Participation in Crimes Against Peace

Chapter 7 – Ruse Over Oath

Chapter 8 – Gossiping Up a Resolution's New Name

Chapter 9 – Refusing to Acknowledge the List; Acolytes and Grievances

Chapter 10 – Explanation of Why a "No Confidence" Vote Cannot be an Impeachment

Chapter 11 – The Ninth Amendment

Chapter 12 – Bipartisan Establishment, State Legislated, National Voting Electorate Freeze Out

Chapter 13 – Current Notion of Unchallengeable Tenure

Chapter 14 – Outline of a "Vote of No Confidence" Amendment; Basic Parameters

Chapter 15 – Amendment as Applied to the Senate

Chapter 16 – Amendment as Applied to the Lower House

Chapter 17 – What Would a Ballot Look Like?

Chapter 18 – The "No Need" Option

Chapter 19 – Bi-Partisan Angry Resistance; Getting Reform Underway Regardless

Chapter 20 – Concluding Note on the Immediate Danger of Ongoing Proliferation

Chapter 21 – Some Concluding Notes on the Need for the Two Amendments

Chapter 22 – Further Observations on the Suggested Amendments



Chapter 23 – Excerpt of inventory listed on Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex

Chapter 24 – How (why) the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex was renamed "S/2015/546

Chapter 25 – Excerpt of the contents of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a inventory list. (Nuclear weapons associated inventories Iran is entitled to acquire under Resolution 2231.)

Chapter 26 – The Procurement Working Group and its mandate to expedite Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories

Chapter 27 – The Procurement Working Group mandate to prohibit the International Atomic Energy Agency from discovering, investigating, or reporting on Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated assets listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a – this in violation of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT); Article III; first clause

Chapter 28 – Secrecy arrangement concerning Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories

Chapter 29 – Documenting the Obama Administration's Intransigent refusal to transmit Security Council Resolution 2231 to the 114th Congress

Chapter 30 – Part of how the IAEA is prevented by the Security Council's JCPOA from reviewing "Activities Which Could Contribute to The Design And Development of a Nuclear Explosive Device







Throw All the Bums Out Legal

* * * * *

Chapter 1
– Governance by Nemesis – an Orientation Overview –

It would seem, in the United States of today, that there would be little controversy in beginning this writing with the contention that the Congress is inundated by a constant influx of lobbying groups pulling and pushing the Congress in various directions – this being a business tradition within the United States which had arrived at prominent status in the era immediately following the Civil War, developing and expanding further in the later 19th Century. During that period, the opportunity for a few to accumulate lavish concentrations of wealth became more evidently available, and there were those in a position to take substantial advantage.

That large scale business interests of expanded nature permeate the United States Government even today did not come about without origin of circumstance. Accompanying the development of extraordinary accumulations of wealth during the Civil War and the post Civil War period has been a development of some business practices evolving in the United States since that time. For example, the lobbying of the government by extremely powerful and influential moneyed interests really came to the fore in that era.

Nowadays however – and adding to that, powerful lobbying groups have become so diversified, often exerting their influences in directions conflicting with one another; that the Citizen might begin to develop the artistic impression that, on a certain level, a congressional politician might have secretly begun to feel confounded by the great diversity of influences from which to choose; and that politicians' publicly stated political platforms might have become confused with what the politician (distracted by the vast selection of lobbying interests) publicly claims these platforms to be; as opposed to the politicians' actual course of action undertaken at the caprice of the moment, possibly in response to some new unexpected trendy influence appearing from nowhere.

The same has been known to have happened to political parties whose public proclamations of good intentions have been regularly been subject to arbitrary reinterpretation by the partisans themselves in the often raucous and exuberant dash to satisfy themselves in pursuit of a political expediency suddenly brought on by a latest tempting external inducement;

The electorate might have long since begun to feel justified in guessing that the real, underlying unstated platform of the politician is to be discovered in the politicians' choices made in selecting which conflicting lobbying interests and influences the politician has chosen to seek out; pick out from the pile of the embarrassment of riches as it were; and then, having selected the desirable influence, adhere to the marvelous preference.

Such personal decisions concerning patronage could be the guiding light to many of the politicians' decisions, affording some assurance of financial security in future re-election campaigns, and general backing in meeting the challenges of a given term in office.

For a congressperson – choices between influences might be thought of as something like choosing stocks for one's portfolio. To clarify, I don't mean that the Congress person is literally buying stock in the companies that he supports or that support him. I consider that this is something more like a Congressperson's seeking and grooming powerful influences to assist and support the politician in some possibly legitimate manner.

What I'm seeking to describe would be more of something like a politicians seeking out and selecting powerful interests which would support the politician's political career; influences which could be thought of as placed in the personal favorite scrapbook portfolio of choice influential groups.

In general, partisan member of Congress might respond best to the influences and interests sought out and generally selected by the general party membership. The choice of which influence is to be responded to by a given political party could be thought of as the real underlying political party platform – reflective of a kind of unannounced political party Business Plan if you will.

As an analogy therefore, not intended to imply an illicit financial relationship a political party's preferences in choosing their sources of influence; this is an analogy which suggests something like the party's choosing of its own particular favorite photo album stock portfolio of selected influences; which can serve as reminder to the lower echelons partisan party line followers, which of the selected influences are thought most wise, agreeable, and desirable to attract, appease and focus attention on.

* * * * *

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) is the official United Nations Security Council name of Barack Obama's "Iran nuclear deal;" the document is not officially known as the "JCPOA," as many have been misled into believing. The JCPOA is only one part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. "JCPOA" is the misnomer applied to the resolution by the Obama administration. This misnomer has helped Obama acolytes to hide from the public many of the provisions incorporated into the Security Council resolution which do not appear in Resolution 2231: Annex A: JCPOA. These provisions all are weapons related; they embody a series of concession to Iran on nuclear, ballistic missile and conventional class weaponry.

The U.S. Congress has never openly discussed any of these concessions on the Congressional Record – not all of these concessions appear in Annex A: JCPOA; and the 114th and 115th Congress has worked very and been very diligent about avoiding public discussion, or even mention of the existence of the remainder of Resolution 2231.

The Congress has worked hard and done its damnedest, from 20 July 2015, early in the tenure of the 114th Congress through the tenure of the 115th Congress (through 2018, January 2019) to prove to the U.S. Citizen and to the World that the 114th and 115th Congresses were derelict national assemblies either too lazy and negligent to earlier read through and publicly comment on the entire Resolution 2231 – or later, too dishonest to openly discuss on record the concessions Obama made to Iran regarding U.S. sponsored and approved of sales to Iran of nuclear, and ballistic weapons associated assets which are not contained in Annex A: JCPOA of the resolution – but are found in Annex B: Statement of Resolution 2231.

The ruse of avoiding any public mention of Resolution 2231 – and all that is contained within it – has over a long period of time proven very effective in helping to seemingly maintain arguments in favor of Barack Obama's "Iran nuclear weapons deal" through the device of fraud by omission coupled with direct fabrication.

That the 115th Congress certainly knew about the nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons concessions granted Iran by the Obama administration is confirmed by a 115th House of Representatives vote taken in October 2017, almost unanimously favoring U.S. Government recognition of, and continuing approval of sales to Iran of nuclear and ballistic missile associated classes of weapons inventories. That vote will be examined and discussed in detail further on in this writing.

This writing, among other things, examines the nasty politics and current filthy political tactics undertaken when a U.S. Government attempts, or does, engage in the sport of contraband weapons racketeering in violation of Oath of Office, the U.S. Constitution, international treaty and international law. This writing later suggests two amendments to the Constitution which conceivably could be very effective in curbing the conceits, extravagances and corruption carried on with in a currently unrestrained Congress;

The writing explains the natural origins of these amendments, how they logically arise out of the Constitution; and how these work within the enumerated limits and conditions specified in the Constitution.

* * * * *

This following provision of Resolution 2231 does not appear in Annex A: JCPOA, it appears in Annex B of the Security Council resolution:

On 18 October 2020 this following provision of Resolution 2231; Annex B: comes into play:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2231); Annex B.

5. All States may participate in and permit, provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to approve: the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from or through their territories, or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, to Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems, as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, and the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related materiel described in this subparagraph.

This paragraph shall apply until the date five years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

If only President Trump would agree to remain in the "Iran nuclear deal" long enough – through 18 October 2020 – when, as gentle Barack Obama has provided for, potential conventional weapons sales might help benefit the pocket books of U.S. arms dealing interests. Then, if he decided to continue supporting Resolution 2231 after that; the then would-be known as an internationally helpful weapons purveyor Trump, should he be re-elected President in November of 2020, could keep on going with a clear and unencumbered conscience comfortable in the knowledge that he had kept Congress happy. And there would be all this business interest momentum gathered behind him to continue to support him. How lucky he would be if only he would learn to cooperate!

Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. for example; they've all got fast moving combat aircraft to sell. Any of these arms dealerships so dear to the defense of this nation might speculate that the aggressive Iran marketplace is suitable as an ideal venue wherein to sell these weapons. The Iranians have the money to buy what is needed, and so, it might be also certain as that the Iranian Government would not be timid to put such weapons advantage to good employ when or if the inclination was felt as wanted;

It could be reasonably speculated that there would eventually be need for maintenance assistance, replacement spare parts; and should occasional mishaps arise – there could be found a need for full replacement of an item entirely destroyed in actions conducted outside of warranty coverage.

This could turn out to be a very lucrative market indeed for the weapons purveyors!

If only the pro-weapons portfolio politicians could keep this President Trump guy in line long enough until someone possibly more malleable and sensitive to industry needs could have a chance to get elected; then we should have a President who more readily understood such things as what makes the world go 'round the Congressional way.

All the big arms dealers, as far as I've read, have said they will go along with whatever the President says about staying in, or getting out of the deal (damned right, they've got no choice). Nevertheless, I personally believe the sincerity of the statements.

But that doesn't mean our wealthy speculative psychic mind-readers in Congress, replete with their own personal stock portfolios, won't jump at the chance of guessing at what they imagine are the real shadowy heart-felt interests of the corporations; which may have been, unbeknownst to the corporate leaderships themselves, possibly conscripted into some of those members of Congress's personal favorite scrapbook stock folders, or incorporated into the partisans' respective political party's overall chosen portfolio interests.

Who's to say, as well; that the Congressional bi-partisan membership of the two party portfolio set, each part on its own, isn't involved in making empty promises to the arms dealing corporations – suggesting that these corporations do this or that and then the partisans of Congress will reciprocate by doing whatever?

Obama's "Iran nuclear weapons deal" certainly opens up the door for rearmament of Iran replete with all the modernized enhancements which oil money will buy – this is a major part of the "deal," the further documentation of which will be examined in more detail.

All the weapons development assistance flowing into Iran would not have been possible without Obama's intrusion into the affair. United States collusion and participation in the illegal (by international and domestic law) sales of contraband weaponry to Iran – would not have been possible without Obama imposing interference aggressively instigating the whole international weapons trading scheme – which for many might turn out to be quite profitable – and certainly assists Iran in its weapons development programs.

This Trump character claims to be a Republican. Nevertheless, he pulled the U.S. out of Obama's "Iran nuclear deal in early May 2018. What kind of a Republican does he think he is pulling U.S. out of such a potentially lucrative arrangement? Just look at him, he's an obvious traitor to his class. Why won't he acknowledge the business angle and potential; or at least try to see what's going on here?

Here's a whole new weapons market engineered by the previous Obama administration that he wants to cut and run out on. What is he? Is he so resentful that the Democrats thought the scheme up first – so now he wants to check out on possible big time arms dealing profits just because the plotting of it was cooked up by the other big time political party? Is he such a resentful "party line" enthusiast proponent that he'll pass up a good money making opportunity like this – or is he to be thought of as a genuine Spoil Sport?

THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS in Congress sure could tell what was going on, they knew what was at stake; were Trump to pull out of the deal; and this wasn't just about conventional weapons either.

On 26 October 2017, the House of Representatives voted in bipartisan near unanimity to pass a Lower House bill which was intended, if it were to be passed into law, to assert that the United States Government would continue to facilitate and approve of sales to Iran of nuclear and ballistic missiles associated assets conveniently bundled together into consolidated procurement packages.

This is what the United States Government was already doing. The Trump administration, in its first year in office was following through on the policy of facilitating these weapons transactions instigated by his predecessor Barack Obama – and so, at that time, the United States was still involved in the racketeering venture of selling contraband weapons to Iran. The House of Representatives clearly felt they wanted to try and make the U.S. government stick to the plan.

The United States, when in the deal, participated in the activities of the Procurement Working Group, a bureaucracy set up in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, the official name of Barack Obama's "Iran nuclear deal."

The Procurement Working Group developed a document; a sort of "Frequently Asked Questions" list to help venders world wide understand that sales to Iran of specific weapons associated inventories were permitted in this very flexible Resolution 2231 device that Obama and the Ministers of the Government of Iran had developed between themselves.

The Procurement Working Group set up its internationally publicized advertising campaign promoting, and encouraging international participation in this novel enterprise by its document "Information on the Procurement Channel."

Some specifications as to the nature of weapons class related assets allowed to be sold Iran under Barack Obama's deal with Iran are found under the heading: B. Further questions and answers; paragraph 18 of that document, as follows:

Information on the Procurement Channel

B. Further questions and answers

18. Can a proposal include items which are set out in S/2015/546 as well as in INFCIRC/254/Rev.13/Part 1 or INFCIRC/254/Rev. 10/Part 2?

A proposal may include items which fall both under S/2015/546, as well as one of the INFCIRCs. Such a proposal should be submitted for review as an activity falling under Paragraph 2 of Annex B of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). The Security Council will decide on such proposals based on a recommendation of the Joint Commission.

That paragraph is found in the United Nations issued document "Information on the Procurement Channel" which is recovered from the United Nations website page: http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/restrictions-nuclear.shtml

The page directly accessing the document in question is: https://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/pdf/Information%20note_EN.pdf

S/2015/546 refers to the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex; which is a comprehensive list of ballistic missile inventories and technologies which are presented with the admonition that distribution of such assets should be undertaken only after the most cautious deliberation.

INFCIRC/254/Rev.13/Part 1 or INFCIRC/254/Rev. 10/Part 2 are lists of nuclear weapons inventories, support services and technologies which are presented with a similar admonition as is attached to the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex. The Obama Iran nuclear deal ignores both cautions – and seeks instead to have these assets approved for sale to Iran through the bureaucracy of the Procurement Working Group.

[Appendix 01 – Excerpt of inventory listed on Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex; provides an extensive excerpt from the cited Equipment, Software and Technology Annex. [01]]

[Appendix 02 – How (why) the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex was renamed "S/2015/546"; explains the ruse of changing the name of the cited annex to suit the promotional purposes of the "Iran nuclear deal." [02]]

[Appendix 03 – Excerpt of the contents of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a inventory list. (Nuclear weapons associated inventories Iran is entitled to acquire under Resolution 2231.) It gives a large sample of nuclear weapons associated inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2. [03]]

Part of the Procurement Working Group mandate is to facilitate, expedite, and approve sales to Iran of nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets, while prohibiting the International Atomic Energy Agency from verifying that these are not somehow being diverted to use in the development of nuclear weapons capacity. Details of how this system is set up will be examined later in this writing.

Or, if the reader chooses, can be found in Appendix 04 – The Procurement Working Group and its mandate to expedite Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories [04];

And Appendix 05 – The Procurement Working Group mandate to prohibit the International Atomic Energy Agency from discovering, investigating, or reporting on Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated assets listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a – this in violation of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT); Article III; first clause [05]

This is all, naturally, in gross violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT); but why should Obama, or the leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council; or the Ministers of the Government of Iran, and Germany; States all sitting on the Procurement Working Group business board thinking-council-decision-making round-table care anything about nonsense like international treaty. This is the five permanent Members of the Security Council we're talking about – they're untouchable (so, they seem to believe); and they've taken the unquestionable lead here in their pretense of phony authority. (The fake authority claimed is that any Security Council determination is recognized to supersede the Charter of the United Nations or international treaty. We examine later that the Obama-era Security Council officially did assert the false claim more than once).

All indications seemed to be that Trump was at the time in his first year in Office seriously considering withdrawing the United States from the process; which as is well known, he eventually got around to subsequently doing in May of 2018 – as mentioned.

The process, provided for in Obama's Security Council Nations Resolution 2231, of assisting the non-nuclear-weapons-State of Iran in acquiring nuclear weapons capacity, violates international treaty made under the Authority of the United States. The members of the House of Representatives did know this, and voted to support the adventure. This following is their product they decided to vote for:

* * * * *

Their bill they voted in favor of; the Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698; contended that Iran would be permitted to violate international treaty by seeking to buy procurement packages of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile weapons assets in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – as long as this violation of treaty was carried out under corrupted United Nations auspices, it was to be endorsed by United States statute – or so these warped Congresspersons fantasized would assert. Following are the salient parts of the 115th Lower House Bill passed:

Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698

SEC. 2. SANCTIONS RELATING TO EFFORTS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN WITH RESPECT TO BALLISTIC MISSILE-RELATED GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGIES.

(f) SANCTIONABLE ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO BALLISTIC MISSILES.

‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL BALLISTIC MISSILE-RELATED GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGY.—

‘‘(iv) PROCUREMENT WORKING GROUP DEFINED.—In clause (iii)(I), the term ‘procurement working group’ means the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission established under Annex IV of the applicable provisions in Annex A of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).

Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698

SEC. 2. SANCTIONS RELATING TO EFFORTS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN WITH RESPECT TO BALLISTIC MISSILE-RELATED GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGIES.

‘‘(iii) EFFORTS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN WITH RESPECT TO BALLISTIC MISSILE-RELATED GOODS, SERVICES, AND TECHNOLOGIES DESCRIBED.— For purposes of subclauses (I) and (II) of clause i), efforts by the Government of Iran with respect to ballistic missile-related goods, services, and technologies described in this subsection are efforts by the Government of Iran to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, test or use allistic missiles or associated goods, services, or technology by the Government of Iran in violation of section 3 of Annex B of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), including efforts by the Government of Iran to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, purchase—

‘‘(I) goods, services, or technology listed on the Missile Technology Control Regime Equipment and Technology Annex of October 8, 2015, and subsequent revisions that have been acquired outside of the Procurement Working Group or not otherwise approved by the United Nations Security Council

The above describes, in "(iii)" the character of what is to be sanctioned. Subsequently in "(I)" it specifies what is to be sanctioned: " goods, services, or technology listed on the Missile Technology Control Regime Equipment and Technology Annex of October 8, 2015, and subsequent revisions…;" but adds that sanctions will placed on these items only if they are sold, "acquired;" "…acquired outside of the Procurement Working Group or not otherwise approved by the United Nations Security Council."

So it's definitely fine if the Procurement Working Group sells this stuff to Iran (at that time the U.S. was still in Obama's deal, and was a participant in expediting and approving this stuff for Iran); but it's out of the question if anyone else tries to set up their own independent shop attempting to do the same thing.

The 115th Congress, in its willingness to encourage Iran to violate treaty, and thereby "justify" United States Government violation of treaty in collusion with Iran; by corollary, simultaneously announced to the world that it applauded not only the sale of such inventories to Iran, but also the United Nations sponsored violation of international treaty and the Charter of the United Nations itself, by the institution allowing itself to be entered into such an arrangement.

Under the Obama plan, the United Nations guaranteed the sponsorship of a bureaucracy, assigned the task of expediting and approving of sales of nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets to Iran. As mentioned, this bureaucracy is known as the Procurement Working Group.

And this Procurement Working Group effectively acts as the best connected, most organized and efficient world wide syndicate officiating over expediting and approving of as defined by treaty, contraband arms sales to Iran.

So here we come to the conflict between expediting the political party portfolio, as opposed to adhering to the social contract.

There is no middle ground in this discussion. The decision for the members of Congress is to either remain loyal to treaty made under the Authority of the United States, or;

To violate treaty in order to facilitate the flow into Iran of Weapons of Mass Destruction presumably in the speculative hope that there will be financial gains to be won somewhere for someone further down the road. Here is one portion of the treaty the 115 House of Representatives membership showed themselves eager to violate:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

On 26 October 2017 the 115th House of Representatives voted to violate treaty, and hence knowingly formulated a proposed law repugnant to the United States Constitution. The Lower House voted almost unanimously to enact the Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698 which attempted to endorse by statute, sales to Iran of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets knowingly in violation of treaty and therefore the United States Constitution:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

[Clause 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

All members of Congress do know, or are required to know; that the Constitution is law unto them. Treaty made under the Authority of the United States is a piece of the supreme Law of the Land; Judges are bound to uphold it (as is the Executive and yes, even the Legislature) – and the Supreme Court is certainly not bound to uphold just anything the petty rule makers of Congress decide to impose upon the U.S. Citizen.

Reminding members of the fact might help the – frivolous, capricious, and utterly insolent partisans of the national assembly – to regard their rule-making authority in some sort of constitutional perspective. They can drop the pretense that they are something like the happy Gods and Goddesses of Mount Olympus who have the authority to assist in the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and spread despair upon the populations of the earth. They don't have the authority – and the Constitution of the United States; which they've demonstrated they so heartily disdain, prohibits them from doing – even if the Congressperson is under the impression that this program might or does help in the election.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, (NPT, or Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty) is law unto them.

The members of a malfeasant Congress had no business wasting the electorates time, and money, by entertaining and exercising the effort to pass a reprehensible statue intending to violate of treaty in order to justify with congressional recognition, U.S. Government continued support for the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to the foreign Prince, possibly also satisfying the designs of some domestic arms dealing interests.

We, the national level taxpayers, pay the salaries of the members of Congress – we should be able to fire these people, with a "Vote of No Confidence" for things like that. Any hard working American holding down a real job would expect to be fired for indulging such malfeasance.

The members currently pretend the luxury of the pretense that because they are rule makers, the Constitution somehow doesn't apply to them.

The members will enjoy this luxury they pretend only until the several electorates have their amendments asserting that the national level voter, as a unified whole, is given the right exercise a regularly scheduled "Vote of No Confidence" on whether the initial probationary tenures of members of Congress will be allowed to run full term – or whether these should be curtailed.

The moronic insolence of rule-makers wasting everyone's time by passing political distraction statutes which violate treaty; but might gain political points in the media by making it appear (to an often very gullible, not very thorough mainstream news media) as though it’s the President who's really bad for not wanting to maintain the violations of international law and treaty worked out between Obama and the Ministers of the Government of Iran.

* * * * *

Whenever voting to knowingly violate the Constitution, membership in Congress effectively votes in denunciation of their Oath of Office – this, by definition, theoretically automatically disqualifies them from the continued enjoyment of holding an Office of Trust Authorized only by the Constitution. They are effectively throwing out a challenge; daring anyone willing to come sue their doctrine in the Supreme Court.

It is an obnoxious practice. It is designed to argue that whatever unconstitutional measure they come up with – the Citizen will have to swallow or take it to Court; unless a President vetoes the bill. And in a case of a President vetoing a bill that President feels is clearly unconstitutional – an obstructionist and belligerently hostile Congress has created for itself an opportunity to raise a political stink in the press about how uncooperative a given President is – thus gaining partisan brownie points which may be good for the next campaign election..

The congressional politician – this time unequivocally voting in favor of U.S. continued involvement in selling Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to Iran – would, had the Congress placed their bill before the President, have another chance to argue in front of the media that the President succeeding Obama is a completely uncooperative turd. And the Congress could continue to argue, as has been done for over the last three years; that this whole Obama "Iran nuclear weapons deal" will prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapons.

The Congress could continue to argue that the President succeeding Obama is crazy not to go along with it – despite the fact that the 115th House of Representatives just voted almost unanimously to pass a bill attempting to place into U.S. statute; that the U.S. Executive was not to report to Congress if the ongoing sales to Iran of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets were being overseen by the Procurement Working Group.

The proposed law laid out by the bi-partisan, pro-nuclear weapons proliferation movement in the 115th House of Representatives didn't end up going anywhere, Congress chickened out of that ploy; it would have been too easy for the President to make a stink out of it had Congress tried. But if there had been a different President in the White House at the time, members might have tried to push it through, and succeeded.

The 115th House of Representatives ruse so disdainful of adherence to the Constitution – demonstrates the disloyalty of the membership to their Oath of Office, and the General Welfare. This effectively should theoretically curtail the tenures of members of Congress as they had effectively disqualified themselves from office.

Under the design of current law, such disloyalty to their Oath never comes with any rebuke, because there is no way to throw an entire Congress out of office just like that. Something like that would shut down the Government, and so be considered unconstitutional.

In considering a "Vote of No Confidence" amendment, one quickly realizes the very simple constitutional solution resolving that apparent complexity. That is part of what will be examined further on in this writing.

But for the moment, some further examination of principle behind the Oath of Office is due:

* * * * *

I offer a small portion of reading from Chapter XLIII of Justice Joseph Story's magnificent 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution; where he speaks to the relevance and importance of adherence to the Oath of Office – this will serve most handily in the examinations which follow in the course of this writing:

§ 969. That all those, who are entrusted with the execution of the powers of the national government, should be bound by some solemn obligation to the due execution of the trusts reposed in them, and to support the constitution, would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it. It results from the plain right of society to require some guaranty from every officer, that he will be conscientious in the discharge of his duty. Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those, who feel a deep sense of accountability to a Supreme Being. If, in the ordinary administration of justice in cases of private rights, or personal claims, oaths are required of those, who try, as well as of those, who give testimony, to guard against malice, falsehood, and evasion, surely like guards ought to be interposed in the administration of high public trusts, and especially in such, as may concern the welfare and safety of the whole community.

But there are known denominations of men, who are conscientiously scrupulous of taking oaths (among which is that pure and distinguished sect of Christians, commonly called Friends, or Quakers,) and therefore, to prevent any unjustifiable exclusion from office, the constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made instead of an oath, and as its equivalent.

None of the members of the 115th of the House of Representatives displayed the slightest bit of respect or concern for the Oath they took in support of the Constitution when they voted in favor of violating treaty and therefore the Constitution on 26 October 2017.

Their bill they voted in favor of; the Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698; contended that Iran would be permitted to violate international treaty by seeking to buy procurement packages of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile weapons assets in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – as long as this violation of treaty was carried out under corrupted United Nations auspices, it was to be endorsed by United States statute – or so these warped Congresspersons fantasized would assert.

The 115th Congress, in its willingness to encourage Iran to violate treaty, and thereby "justify" United States Government violation of treaty in collusion with Iran; by corollary, simultaneously announced to the world that it applauded not only the sale of such inventories to Iran, but also the United Nations sponsored violation of international treaty and the Charter of the United Nations itself, by the institution allowing itself to be entered into such an arrangement.

As mentioned, and filling in somewhat: under the Obama plan, the United Nations guaranteed the sponsorship of a bureaucracy assigned the task of expediting and approving of sales of nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets to Iran. As mentioned, this bureaucracy is known as the Procurement Working Group.

And this Procurement Working Group effectively acts as the best connected, most organized and efficient world wide syndicate officiating over expediting and approving of as defined by treaty, contraband arms sales to Iran.

This Procurement Working Group bureaucracy is protected by the corrupted organization of the United Nations – which is by no means some sort of sacred cow untouchable by the law – although it seems, under the current hierarchy running things over there – that the belief is that any arbitrary interest or adventure the United Nations hierarchy cares to undertake – such as the bundling of nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets for sale to Iran in violation of treaty can't be touched by law and must somehow be considered as out of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

If that is the belief, then it is a mistaken one.

Ideally, the leading functionaries of the United Nations are to adhere to the Charter of the United Nations; and when they don't, as in this case they allow the distribution of Weapons of Mass Destruction in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; when these top U.N. Functionaries involve the United Nations Organization in active participation in the War Crimes class, Crimes Against Peace the official definition of which I will briefly provide here (and will go into later in some further depth as the writing proceeds):

International Military Council: CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10

PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST PEACE AND AGAINST HUMANITY

1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:

(a) Crimes against Peace. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties, including but not limited to planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war of violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.

The involvement in the crime here consists of participation in a common plan for the accomplishment of assisting Iran in preparations for waging a war of aggression, or a war of violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances. It is very well known that Iran has long since pledged multiple times, the extinguishing of one of its neighbors and the overthrow of another. What better way to assist Iran's furtherance of its preparations to commence pledged for aggression than by favoring that country with assistance in gaining Weapons of Mass Destruction capability?

When the United Nations hierarchy commits itself to arming Iran in violation of Article I of the NPT:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

When the United Nations Hierarchy of top functionaries commit themselves to violating the fundamentals of the Charter of the United Nations by egregiously violating treaty:

The Charter of the United Nations;

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS

[Are] DETERMINED

[Clause 3] to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained …

When the United Nations hierarchy acts in violation of treaty; acts without any Authority under the Charter of the United Nations to violate the Charter of the United Nations; when the United Nations hierarchy indulges itself taking part in what must most reasonably be construed as Crimes against Peace;

Then the United Nations starts to lose some of that lustrous shine of credibility it once enjoyed;

And certainly its United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which is the official U.N. title of the Obama deal, and which is the actual "deal" that the international community is working off of despite the misinformation campaign that it is the JCPOA that was singularly approved by the Security Council on 20 July 2015;

It should be eventually found necessary that Resolution 2231 be brought to Court for confirmation that it was void upon conclusion, that it was unlawful to have ever put it into effect in the first place, and that it will be immediately shut down with all Parties involved being forced to bring their relations back into line with peremptory norm of general international law – and being forced to rectify their positions in paying damages (which would likely be substantial) and exposing the books to the public of what they've been up to – this at the very least.

This writing will cover to some extent issues of international law – but the main focus is with the Constitution and how to deal with a rogue, out-of-control universally corrupt Congress – and how to amend the Constitution so that the electorate on the national level are able to handle with the circumstance of the sort of corrupt national assembly as has been exemplified by the actions and behavior of the most disgracing 115th Congress – still currently extant in its tenure at the time of this writing.

* * * * *

On 14 July 2015, upon the announcement of the public "signing" of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in Vienna Barack Obama, speaking from the East Room of the White House, had promised the American People that:

over the course of the next decade, Iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted, including five years for restrictions related to arms and eight years for restrictions related to ballistic missiles.

There would be no eight year restriction on sales of ballistic missile associated weapons assets to Iran – these sales would commence the year after the vote in the Security Council accepting the decrees and provisions of what has come to be popularly known as the Obama "Iran nuclear deal" in the United States; approvals of sales of the like were permitted as of 16 January 2016.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2231); Annex B.

As provided by a resolution so deciding, the following provisions would apply on the date on which the IAEA Director General submits a report verifying that Iran has taken the actions specified in paragraph 15.1-15.11 of Annex V of the JCPOA [this means "JCPOA Implementation Day," which came into effect on 16 January 2016]:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2231); Annex B.

4. All States may participate in and permit the activities described below provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to permit such activity:

(a) the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to or from Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in S/2015/546* and of any items, materials, equipment, goods and technology that the State determines could contribute to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems

In approximately six months Obama's East Room declaration, the administration's "Iran nuclear deal" protocols would kick in allowing sales to Iran of ballistic Missile associated weapons to begin at that time. Iran hadn't been willing to make a deal that would tie it down for eight years – the Obama administration's story line was utter nonsense; as the facts bear out.

It would seem that Obama might have sensed eager beaver arms dealing interests didn't want to have to wait eight years for the chance to pounce on the potentially lucrative Iranian ballistic missiles associated inventories marketplace.

So it was clearly agreed between Russia, China, France, Germany, the U.K. and Iran that sales could start to go forward as of JCPOA "Implementation Day;" which was 16 January 2016. Due however, to initial logistical problems, no sales to Iran of such systems could be approved by the Procurement Working Group until November of the same year – small matter.

As mentioned, sometime during this period – the Procurement Working Group developed its "Frequently Asked Questions" list to help venders' world wide understand what was permitted in this very flexible Resolution 2231.

As mentioned, the Procurement Working Group set up its internationally publicized advertising campaign promoting, and encouraging international participation in this novel enterprise by its document "Information on the Procurement Channel."

Some specifications as to the nature of weapons class related assets allowed to be sold Iran under Barack Obama's deal with Iran are found under the heading: B. Further questions and answers; paragraph 18 of that document, as follows:

Information on the Procurement Channel

B. Further questions and answers

18. Can a proposal include items which are set out in S/2015/546 as well as in INFCIRC/254/Rev.13/Part 1 or INFCIRC/254/Rev. 10/Part 2?

A proposal may include items which fall both under S/2015/546, as well as one of the INFCIRCs. Such a proposal should be submitted for review as an activity falling under Paragraph 2 of Annex B of Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). The Security Council will decide on such proposals based on a recommendation of the Joint Commission.

As examined

INFCIRC/254/Rev. 10/Part 2 is the list of nuclear weapons assets posted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA warns that such assets should not be transferred: "…when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to such an activity, or when the transfers are contrary to the objective of averting the proliferation of nuclear weapons."

This is all very well known to vendors world wide – and especially well known to the nuclear weapons States of Russia, the United States, France, China, and the U.K. who are all in the best position to sell Iran many of the inventory items listed.

It's all very nicely and conveniently packaged. Vendors can bundle these nuclear and ballistic missile associated assets into one sales package intended for Iranian consumption – very cozy.

And the deal gets even better. The public is kept from knowing the actual contents of these packages as the United Nations Security Council has put into place its protocol which establishes that all Parties to the transaction must keep quiet, keep the contents of the packages secret. The details of this part of the arrangement are explained in Appendix 06 – Secrecy arrangement concerning Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories [06].

This all might sound pretty tasty to the aspiring arms dealerships, it almost couldn't get better. But wait! It does get better; on top of all that other gifting there's another added bonus thrown in to top off the deal!

The International Atomic Energy Agency is to be kept from reviewing any of the secretive material sold to Iran in these bundled procurement packages; in order to verify that these assets are not being diverted for use in a nuclear weapons program.

Appendix 05 – The Procurement Working Group mandate to prohibit the IAEA from discovering, investigating, or reporting on Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated assets listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 – this in violation of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT); Article III; first clause. [07]

This is a great arrangement for arms dealing interests – except that there's a small hitch.

This is all in egregious violation of the multilaterally signed international treaty: the NPT, or Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Examining Article I of the treaty:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

That being a starting point; let's examine the intention of the makers of the treaty; the main two players being the Governments of the United States and at that time, the Soviet Union. This following will be examined in slightly further detail later on – but in brief"

Clarification of the intent of the meaning, the definition, of control over such weapons is necessary. This is found in the correspondence of the two nations authoring the NPT – the then Soviet Union, and the United States.

On January 1, 1968, the United States and the Soviet Union presented a joint draft treaty on nuclear non-proliferation to the United Nations Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee; thus confirming that earlier efforts at consolidating differing points of view were not simply intended as political grandstanding marked by competitive one-upmanship – as has been so often the case – rather, the sincere efforts at cooperation were evidently the product of seriously frightened parties motivated by a deeply felt desire to avoid a perceived inevitable disastrous and irreversible harm to humanity and to the planet that could result from a single act of negligence, error in judgment, or madness.

It is through the documentation of the discussions relating to the development of a mutually agreed upon terms between the Soviet Union and the United States that one learns of part of the intention and meaning of Articles I and II of the NPT, and the meaning of control of nuclear weapons. This writing mentions two documents that it feels may be helpful to clarify the aspects of the intentions of the NPT, and the interpretation of those first two articles.

Four question between the U.S. and NATO allies were reproduced in a then classified document titled: Questions on the Draft Non-Proliferation Treaty Asked by U.S. Allies Together with Answers Given by the United States. This document is comprised of a set of four questions with corresponding responses. The questions and answers outlined the United States’ position on the first two proposed articles of the NPT. The document was considered classified at the time; these have since been declassified. The questions and answers contained therein were intended to be presented to the Soviet Union for correction or approval. These were presented on April 28, 1967 and met with no objection from the Soviet Union. The Questions and Answers follow:

Questions on the Draft Non-Proliferation Treaty asked by U.S. Allies together with answers given by the United States.

1.Q. What may and what may not be transferred under the Draft Treaty?

A. The Treaty deals only with what is prohibited, not with what is permitted.

It prohibits transfer to any recipient whatsoever of "nuclear weapons" or control over them, meaning bombs and warheads. It also prohibits the transfer of other nuclear explosives devices because a nuclear explosive device intended for peaceful purposes can be used as a weapon or can be easily adapted for such use.

It does not deal with, and therefore does not prohibit, transfer of nuclear delivery vehicles or delivery systems, or control over them to any recipients, so long as such transfer does not involve bombs or warheads.

2.Q. Does the Draft Treaty prohibit consultations and planning on Nuclear Defense among NATO Members?

A. It does not deal with allied consultation and planning on nuclear defense so long as no transfer of Nuclear Weapons or control over them results.

3.Q. Does the Draft Treaty prohibit arrangements for the deployment of nuclear weapons owned or controlled by the United States within the territory of Non-Nuclear NATO members?

A. It does not deal with arrangements for deployment of nuclear weapons within allied territory as these do not involve any transfer on nuclear weapons or control over them, unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which time the Treaty would no longer be controlling.

4.Q. Would the Draft prohibit the unification of Europe if a nuclear-weapon State was one of the Constituent States?

A. It does not deal with the problem of European Unity, and would not bar succession by a new federated European State to the nuclear status of one of its former components. A new federated European state would have to control all of its external security functions including defense and all foreign policy matters relating to external security, but would not have to been so centralized as to assume all governmental functions. While not dealing with succession by such a federate state, the Treaty would bar transfer of nuclear weapons (including ownership) or control over them to any recipient, including a multilateral entity.

The intentions of the makers of the treaty are definitely of interest to the Court in pursuing its investigation of this matter concerning the legality Obama's Resolution 2231 permitting egregious violation of Article I of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. And Obama's Iran nuclear deal is most explicit in it's declaration of intent that the Security Council will allow, induce, encourage, assist Iran in procuring ballistic weapons associated assets designed to intentionally "contribute to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems:"

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2231); Annex B.

4. All States may participate in and permit the activities described below provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to permit such activity:

(a) the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to or from Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories … of any items, materials, equipment, goods and technology that the State determines could contribute to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems

It's all there on paper. If the vendor State determines items it sells to Iran could contribute to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems – then the vendor State is to send the items through the Procurement Working Group mandated bureaucracy; so that the bureaucracy may see to it that these goods be properly expedited and approved of as genuine Iranian acquisitions of procurement packages consisting possibly of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile associated goods in egregious violation of treaty.

The Congress of the United States at the time didn't see anything wrong with that. In fact, the 115th House of Representatives overwhelmingly endorsed the measure in its 26 October 2017 115th House of Representatives almost unanimous vote to pass its Lower House bill the Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698 which hoped to have it that sales to Iran of ballistic missile weapons associated assets through Procurement Working Group channels would be endorsed by statute. By which the 115th House of Representatives meant that; in conformity with Procurement Working Group rules; nuclear weapon delivery systems were to be automatically included in the Procurement Working Group congressionally approved of, encouraged and endorsed, procurement packages – as well as the nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and services specified under Procurement Working Group guidelines.

And the 115th Senate, when the Lower House bill was sent up to it, read it twice on the record and transferred the embarrassing bill directly to committee to be disappeared of without a trace, never to be heard of again. Not one in the Senate dared speak out to the effect of something like: "don't bother wasting the Committee's time, this gadget is anti-Constitutional and an anathema, let's just dispose of it right now by vote and move on to getting some real work done."

The Senate wasn't about to rebuke the Lower House for its insulting misconduct by rending a negative vote in the Senate; it wasn't about to mention this disgracing display of disloyalty repugnant to the Constitution; this display carried on with for the benefit of assisting Iranian nuclear weapons associated purchases per the modes developed under Obama's iconic "Iran nuclear agreement."

Good luck imagining the current Congress is going to honestly monitor or rebuke its own behavior; possibly monitor its own disturbed behavior through the means of whatever virtuous window dressing "Ethics Committee" wants to get itself set up as a distraction in those quarters.

The universal culture of effective disdain for the Constitution is carried on with in both decision making Houses of Congress. Because of its universality, it cannot be addressed by the vehicle of the expulsion of a single representative.


Continue reading this ebook at Smashwords.
Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-29 show above.)