The Roundhead Watch - The Ashcroft Papers; the John Ashcroft Nomination - "The framers of our constitution certainly supposed they had guarded, as well their government against destruction by treason..."

"Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem"

"The framers of our constitution certainly supposed they had guarded, as well their government against destruction by treason, as their citizens against oppression under pretense of it [treason]; and if these ends are not attained, it is of importance to inquire by what means, more effectual, they may be secured." Thomas Jefferson, 1807

The Roundhead Watch
January 16, 2001
S. Cleve Ensey

THE ASHCROFT PAPERS
The John Ashcroft Nomination
For Immediate Release:

Official Statement on the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States.

The Roundhead Watch, and the S. Cleve Ensey family, strongly oppose the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Ashcroft is unfit to serve in the position. The reason(s) for Mr. Ashcroft being unfit for the position of Attorney General of the United States, is outlined below:

While John Ashcroft was serving as United States Senator from Missouri, Ashcroft and other members of the radical right who are in the United States Congress, did willfully and knowingly conspire to violate 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' clauses of the United States Constitution. The story and charges are as follows: Radical right promoted and backed Congressional Bill's, continue to be put forth in the United States Congress that are a direct violation of the First Amendment 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' republican principles. These republican principles are a necessary part of the US Constitution's Article IV, Section 4 guarantee of a 'Republican Form of Government.

The 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' opening clause of the First Amendment demands of Congress, and those in it, that "Congress shall make no law...," which abridges and/or misconstructs the basic republican principles enumerated within the First Article of the US Bill of Rights. This 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' opening clause of the First Amendment is not being adhered to, followed, or supported by radical right members of Congress [this includes the former US Senator John Ashcroft].

The 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' opening clause of the First Amendment, is a direct constitutional order and demand of all members of the United States Congress, that "Congress shall make no law…," which in any way, interfere's with, abridge's, misconstruct's, or abuse's the basic guarantees of the republican principles embodied within the First Amendment. The term in the First Amendment, 'make no law,' means just what it says, and it includes the making of any Bills and/or other type of Legislation that would in fact create law. [See Congress shall make no law]

United States case law on the Constitution:

Any attempt to do that which is prescribed in the Constitution in any manner other than that prescribed, or to do that which is prohibited is repugnant to that supreme and paramount law and is invalid. (16 AmJur 2nd, 82)

No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guaranties of the Federal Constitution.
(16 AmJur 2nd,70)

No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution. (16 AmJur 2nd, 71)

Neither emergency nor economic necessity justifies a disregard of cardinal constitutional guaranties.
(16 AmJur 2nd, 81)

From United States Senate Report; S. REPT. 105-298:
As Charles Fried, Solicitor General under President Reagan, testified in 1990: "Principles are not things you can safely violate 'just this once.' Can we not just this once do an injustice, just this once betray the spirit of liberty, just this once break faith with the traditions of free expression that have been the glory of this Nation? Not safely; not without endangering our immortal soul as a nation. The man who says you can make an exception to a principle, does not know what a principle is; just as the man who says that only this once lets make 2+2=5 does not know what it is to count."

From United States Senate Report; S. REPT. 105-298:
The Washington Post observed in a July 5, 1998 editorial: "It would, in effect, turn the 'no' in the hallowed phrase 'Congress shall make no law' into an 'almost no'--which is a singular erosion of the principle for which the first Amendment stands. This principle has survived and enriched this country through periods in which unfettered expression caused great political stresses. Why should it be compromised now..."

Radical right members of the United States Congress, like the former US Senator John Ashcroft, have in the past, and will in the future, unless they are stopped, continue to do whatever they want to with the United States Constitution. Ashcroft and other radical right members of Congress, have shown little, if any regard for the legally bound restraints placed on them by the 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' provisions of the United States Constitution. There is more than enough evidence in the United States Congressional Record, and elsewhere, to verify the correctness and validity of these allegations and charges against former Senator Ashcroft, and other radical right members of Congress.

This First Amendment constitutional restriction placed on members of the United States Congress, further affirms the constitutional 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' mandate to Congress, under Article VI of the Constitution, that all members of Congress, are to "support," and therefore obey the provisions of the United States Constitution, and they are to do this without any question, hesitation, or waiver. Anything other than following the demands of the United States Constitution to the letter, for whatever reason, including religious conviction's, is disloyalty to the United States of America. Members of both Houses of Congress are under a strict constitutional Oath or Affirmation to support, and therefore obey, protect, defend, and preserve, the United States Constitution.

Any member of the United States Congress who has put their religious consciousness, convictions and own religious agenda, beliefs, and religiously based moral dogmas above that of their constitutional neutral obligation and duty not to do so, have failed in their required and 'declaratory' obligation to "support" the Constitution of the United States of America. The former US Senator John Ashcroft, is one of many radical right members of the United States Congress, who have failed to adhere to and follow, this required constitutional obligation.

"I solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of __________________, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

John Ashcroft has made it abundantly clear, on more than one occasion, that following religious beliefs and principles, are far more important than adhering to, and following the letter and intent of the law, and the United States Constitution. Anyone that would like to question the validity of these remarks and statements by Ashcroft, can pull up the CNN news tapes for December 7, 2000, and review the tape on Ashcroft, and hear the remarks and statement for themselves.

As a member of the radical religious right, Ashcroft has one set of primary loyalties, and those are owed to the agenda and central doctrine of the radical right. In the radical religious rights own words, their agenda and doctrine is focused on making the Christian God and Bible the "...dominant influence on the whole culture" [society].[ A Reconstructionist Manifesto, Nov. 1998, by Reverend Andrew Sandlin, Chalcedon, Inc.]

These hostile violation's of the US Constitution by John Ashcroft and others in Congress, amount to a willful and flagrant violation of their constitutional Oath to 'support,' and therefore, obey, uphold, and preserve the US Constitution, and laws of the United States of America. I swear to this by Affirmation, and am willing and ready to present direct evidence of these violations, allegations, and/or charges, to the US Congress and/or a Court of law, in order to resolve them.

Are these hostile acts against the US Constitution, by the radical religious right, treason, or is it just simply a case of religious error on the part of the perpetrators? Based on what Jefferson had to say, I would say that if it is not treason, then what else can it be!

There is no constitutional provision allowing for censure in the case of treasonable acts committed by any member of Congress against the US Constitution, and therefore against the people's republican form of government. In the words of Thomas Szasz an American psychiatrist, "If he who breaks the law is not punished, he who obeys it is cheated. This, and this alone, is why lawbreakers ought to be punished: to authenticate as good, and to encourage as useful, law-abiding behavior. The arm of criminal law cannot be correction or deterrence; it can only be the maintenance of the legal order."

"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error."
Thomas Jefferson, 1788

"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market."
Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order."
Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

Can we the American people, and the posterity of the founders of this great Nation, trust John Ashcroft to do the right thing, and not interfere with or override the US Constitution, as Attorney General, and not lead us into situation's which will propagate overt acts against the peace and good order of the United States? Because of John Ashcroft's ties with the radical right, and the rights acknowledged solidarity and allegiance to making the Christian God and Christian Bible first and foremost, and placing the US Constitution into a second place status, and under authority of Biblical law's, then no, we can not trust John Ashcroft to do the right thing when it comes to our laws and the United States Constitution.

How can we expect Ashcroft to uphold the law as Attorney General of the United States, when he and others in the right, continue to flagrantly and openly ignore the law!? How can we expect, or even put our trust in Ashcroft, to uphold the United States Constitution and the 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' provisions in the Constitution? The truth to both questions, is we can't trust Ashcroft to do what is right. john Ashcroft's record proves that his loyalties and alligence are with the right and their doctrine first, and not with the best interests of the US Constitution or America, or its masses of people.

NO "ad libitum" POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS

Congress also continually uses the excuse of Article I, Section 8, the last clause, to shore up and bolster their position, that Congress is entitled to create and/or make any necessary and proper laws that they want in order to provide for the general welfare of the United States. What Congress has done and continues to do, is to give themselves an unrestrained ad libitum, to re-interpret, and do with the Constitution and the rights in it as Congress sees fit, and the Constitution and the peoples rights are of no concern to them. It has become for Congress; the Constitution and people be damned, we will do whatever we please with them in any manner that we see fit. This is not exactly what Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers had in mind when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was authored. In fact, it is quite the opposite of what they intended.

Article I, Section 8, the last clause in Section 8 affirms that Congress is, To make all Laws which shall 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 Office thereof. This clause affirms, that Congress only has the limited powers necessary to develop laws for putting into affect the provisions enumerated to in Article I, Section 8 only, nothing more nor less. Thomas Jefferson wrote on this issue several times, and each time Jefferson stressed that Congress had not been given "ad libitum for any purpose they [Congress] please," and Jefferson further affirmed that Congress is "To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, 'to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.' For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they [Congress] please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." Thomas Jefferson, 1791.

Again in 1791, Thomas Jefferson went on to further affirm the powers of Congress in regards to the powers of Article I, Section 8: "They [Congress] are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument [the Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they [Congress] please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them [Congress]. It was intended to lace them [Congress] up strictly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote more on the subject of Congress and Limited Powers, and on the subject of what words in the Constitution meant; "The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,' and 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,' goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument."

Thomas Jefferson further affirmed again in 1817, that there are no broad powers intended for Congress to have, and/or to delegate: "Our [the framers of the Constitution] tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was meant that they [Congress] should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."

So, by the framers own definition of intent and meaning, over the issue of Congress having the broad power of ad libitum, to do whatever it pleases to provide for the general welfare of the people, is not a constitutional power which has been specifically delegated to Congress, by the US Constitution. Therefore, when Jefferson made this opinion on the Constitution in 1799; "I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal Constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies;" can only mean that those who did not want to comprehend the 'declaratory' and 'restrictive' clauses within the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, as they were accepted and ratified by the people, upon the founding of the United States of America, because the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not suit their own personal beliefs or desires, therefore, by virtue of these actions, became enemies to the people, the Constitution, and the government of the United States of America. There is no legally viable constitutional authority granting broad based powers to Congress, that allows Congress and/or its members therein, to use any ad libitum power and authority over the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights of the United States, and therefore over the people and the government of that US Constitution.

So, in the end, there are no excuses for what John Ashcroft and other radical right members of Congress have done, unless of course, the United States Constitution stands for nothing and the guarantee of a Republican Form of Government is a hollow and baseless lie.

Do we have a republic or a lie for a government? Confirming Ashcroft as Attorney General proves we have a lie. Allowing the radical right to continue with their pursuit unchecked, proves we have a lie, and at that point, proves we are in some real serious trouble with no one in government left to help us, or left to protect the US Constitution.

S. Cleve Ensey
The Roundhead Watch & One of America's Founding Families

Supplemental:

14th Amendment Equal Rights -
The recent and highly questionable decision by the US Supreme Court, basically winning the 2000 Presidential Election for George W. Bush, may have serious and far reaching results no one could have expected, or anticipated.

The US Supreme Court decision, simply put, said that the Florida Supreme Court decision was null and void because the Florida Court had overstepped it's authority in a constitutional matter, and violated the provisions of a 'shall not/shall make no' provision of the Florida State Constitution, and establishing new law where there was none. "Any attempt to do that which is prescribed in the Constitution in any manner other than that prescribed, or to do that which is prohibited is repugnant to that supreme and paramount law and is invalid." (16 AmJur 2nd, 82)

Question: If the 'shall not/shall make no' provisions of a Constitution are so sacred to the 'rule of law,' and those in the radical right, then why do radical right members in Congress, continually, and therefore in a hostile manner, ignore those sacred provisions in the US Constitution, and more specifically, the First Amendment? This is an answer that the masses of American people deserve a direct answer to, and it is an answer that does not need to be sidestepped or ignored.

Answer: America is waiting for the answer.

Bibliography:

For an explanation of what 'restrictive' and 'declaratory' clauses are in the US Constitution, and the important function that these clauses serve, go to http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor1.html and read the information on the Preamble to the United States Bill and Rights.

The agenda that John Ashcroft and other radical right members adhere to and follow, requires that their first and foremost duty is to the central doctrine of that agenda, and that loyalty goes to the radical right and that agenda first, before anything else, including the United States Constitution. See The Roundhead Watch, January 15, 2001, two part article at http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/round002.html for more details on the doctrine of the radical right. This is not speculation or 'here say,' the article is closely based on published works authored by the forces of the radical religious right.

Presented here, is just part of the evidence available on John Ashcroft:

John Ashcroft & S.1868, the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/redress03.html

John Ashcroft & The Christian Coalition
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/redress03.html

John Ashcroft & S. J. RES. 40; In the United States Senate
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/redress02.html

John Ashcroft & The Religious Morals Issue
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/redress02.html

The full and complete petition for a redress of grievances is located at: http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/redress.html

The Roundhead Watch
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/round.html

The F.A.C.T.S. Directory
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/333.html

All United States and other International Copyright Laws apply to any and all material on these and all the other web pages at F.A.C.T.S.
Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, F.A.C.T.S. & Sherwood C. Ensey