Is Illinois attempted coup of State govt by Federal govt?

[uncommonsense]

I. HOW BLAGO CAN MAKE NANCY PELOSI PRESIDENT

The situation in Illinois seems to be nothing less than an attempted coup of a state government by the federal government.

The timing of this matter-between the election and appointment of the replacement senator—indicates that this is more about having the federal government usurp a state official so that it may effectively name its own federal official. The timing would indicate that if there was no deal with the governor for the replacement, that perhaps there was a deal with the federal prosecutor for the replacement. What did the prosecutor know and when?

This involves significant issues of federalism.

The governor has an ace in the hole: As the chief state executive, he has the power to have the Illinois state police arrest anyone interfering with official state business or giving false information to state officials, among many other options to have the federal officials involved, including the prosecutor and Obama, arrested and detained without bail, or with the requirement not to leave the state.

If the governor were to arrest Obama and not allow him to attend the swearing in, then Biden would have to be sworn in as president. Or the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would have to automatically become President in the line of succession.

We see that the incompetent hostile takeover of a state government conducted by the federal prosecutors in this case has given Blago not just the ability to appoint the next senator, but the next president.

This is actually one of the scenarios I have previously written about as the “sliver” of Constitutional power the executive branches still retain over the judicial branches even after Marbury. The executive branches can order mass arrests of legislator and judges, and there is nothing they can do about it until after their cases have been appealed and decided through the court systems.

For example, upon the nominal evidentiary requirement for “probable cause” of any crime, could have all the members of congress and all the members of the judiciary arrested. They could do nothing until their cases wound their way through the court system. In the meantime, the president could have replaced appointments who would then rule against those who had been arrested. This is essentially what Roosevelt did when he packed the court. Roosevelt should have been arrested or at the very least impeached. You can see how the Supreme Court was impotent to do anything in a legal situation that was not a case presented to them through the length appeals process.

Instead of packing the court, all the executive branch needs to do today is what they are doing in Illinois: arrest government official involved to remove him for such time as is needed to replace him with an unelected official appointed by other unelected officials. This scenario that I have previously written about is exactly what is happening here.

The states and the people can fight back against the federal government by doing two things: (and if you are a state official, and you don’t think this can happen to you or your state, you are wrong)


II. The Federal Government only has the “power of the purse strings,” not a police power. The police power is wholly reserved for the states.

Under what power is the federal government acting through its unlimited usurpation of the police power from the states? The Commerce Clause?

The states have the police power, not the federal government and yet we see here that the Federal government is attempting to use the police power it does not have on a state official. That is unconstitutional and it is criminal.

On this basis, the governor should immediately order the arrests of all the federal officials involved and all the documents involved in this case should be seized and searched by the state police.

The Constitution is law in this country. That makes violating it a crime. Anyone who violates it at any level of the federal government, can be subject to being arrested by state officials for the commission of the crime of breaking the highest law in the land—the U.S. Constitution.


III. The “Dormant” State Police Power, or the “Negative” State Police Power

As with the Federal Government’s commerce clause power, the state police power carries with it the power to revoke or invalidate those police powers that intrude upon this domain that has been reserved for the states, regardless of whether or not the states have legislated in this area.

We have police powers and criminal laws that are concurrently issued by the state and federal governments. The same crimes are the same crimes at both the federal and state level.

This is not the way it was supposed to be. As with the Commerce Clause, the State Police Power carries with it the logical inference that this Constitutional power is not supposed to be delegated equally, fully and concurrently to each the federal and state governments. That makes no sense and is contrary to the structure and original intent of the vertical and horizontal separation of governmental powers created by the Constitution. The “police power” is the domain of the state governments and the federal government should not be allowed to usurp the “police power” which has been explicitly reserved to the states.

The fact that the Founders intentionally did not set up a national police force, but rather literally wanted law enforcement to be conducted at the state and local level (wholly contrary to the recent establishment of the Dept. of Homeland Security) further corroborates how far the federal has gone beyond its Constitutional limits in the creation of both a federal police power and a national police force.


The only hope the people of America have at this point is through their state governments.

If the state governments’ powers can be eviscerated by the federal government through the actions we see today (which is the precise reason the founders did not want a national police force), then we will have done everything to destroy the intent of the Constitution to prevent the accumulation of power in a centralized, all-powerful federal government.

If the highest state official in a state can be taken down in this unconstitutional way by the federal government, then no one’s Constitutional rights anywhere are safe because:

1. The judicial branch has completed the usurpation and consolidation of the federal “horizontal” separation of powers into a single branch; and,

2. Now we see the process of the usurpation and consolidation of the federal “vertical” separation of powers being done as in this case.

3. Once the separation of powers has been destroyed horizontally across the 3 federal branches of government, and then destroyed vertically up and down the separation of powers among the state, local and federal governments, the Constitution will be dead and so will all your Constitutional rights.

[Rael]

Did you forget the Supremacy Clause?

Wikipedia: "In the legal system of the United States, preemption generally refers to the displacing effect that federal law will have on a conflicting or inconsistent state law. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, section 2) of the United States Constitution states that The Laws of the United States, (which shall be made in Pursuance to the Constitution), shall be the supreme Law of the land. Thus, when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, the federal law (subject to the Tenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment and other Constitutional Law) trumps – or "preempts" – the state law, according to this theory. The term is also sometimes used to refer to the displacing effect state laws might have on ordinances enacted by municipalities."

Also, this isn't a "coup". The federal government has no power to remove Blago from office. Even if he was imprisoned he could still theoretically govern. Unlike Senators when they are in session, state governors have no protection in the US Constitution from being arrested. Apparently Blago violated federal laws, which according to the Constitution are supreme to Illinois state laws

Furthermore, the federal government has no power to "appoint" a replacement. The senate can only refuse to seat who the governor chooses.

Also, your theory suggests that the Lieutenant governor, secretary of state who won't even certify the appointment (which he probably legally is required too) and most of the Illinois legislature are in on this.