 
### Throw All the Bums Out Legal

Amendment for a National Vote to Suspend Given Legislators' Re-election Eligibility

Jean-Marc LeBouquin

Author of:  
"Congress Jerks the General; the Citizen too"–

"Ignoring Zelenskyy, an Impeachment Lark and Contest"–

"Bluster Strike and Beyond; Notes on the Impeachment Trial of the Decade"– Etc.

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 _INFCIRC_ s. 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_. []]

[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." []]

[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_. []]

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_ [];

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_ []

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; or at least bar any one of them from re-election to the same office in the term that follows; we should be allowed to prohibit re-entry into the specific Office for one term; this with a "Vote of No Confidence." We should be allowed this electoral response for such extreme personal or group malfeasance; or even for simple reason that the electorate has "No Confidence" in a member or members of Congress. This is not a trial – this is an election.

It worthy of note that the political movement which had succeeded in getting these Contraband weapons sales to Iran was led by one of the two major political parties in control of this Nation. The whole affair was, is, an organized group partisan effort. There is very little, if anything in the Constitution which restrains organized political partisan malfeasance and its implementation malicious doctrine menacing to the People, and to the General Welfare.

A "Vote of No Confidence" could put a direct halt to such extreme antics being that the electorate could exclude for one term, all members of the offending Party from re-entry into the identical office they individually previously held. A "No Confidence Vote" could work as a practical deterrent; or a formidable and effective form of retribution.

AS IS WELL KNOWN; we, the entire People of the United States are taxed to pay for the upkeep of these politicians, and consequentially for the maintenance of the political views and practices of the chiseling combined membership of a rogue political party in power.

Currently the view of those in power is that they would like to continue to maintain sales of contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction assets, and the other things, to a belligerent government which calls us its enemy. No matter their evasive denials and the false claims made to the opposite; this political movement in control of the current day national level Democratic Party maintains its policy of favoring assistance the international effort advancing nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle-East by enhancing the development of nuclear weapons capacity in Iran.

ALL MEMBERS of Congress, once entered into the Congress of the United States – are no longer officials of whichever individual State they were sprung out of; they are now officials of the Federal Government, receiving their paychecks from all taxpaying Citizens nationwide.

Yet a paradox of the Constitution is that wealthy members of Congress are not at all answerable to the entire plenary whole of the national electorate; which incidentally pays for their upkeep.

The inequity and bias of the arrangement gives rise to intolerable situations such as the one currently faced by the People and the Nation.

Everyone in Congress – like almost everyone else in the Country – knows very well that the vast majority of U.S. voting Citizens, whether voting independent or registered to whatever Party, strongly oppose the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction to any State, much less Iran.

Nevertheless, the People of the United States are being taxed to support; and are forced to accept from a United States Congress which is been, and has been since the beginning, entirely immune from any rebuke or restraint that might be imposed – regardless if the Congress holds to and supports a perfidious policy of nuclear weapons proliferation which violates treaty and deplores the General Welfare.

As things stand now; the Congress may do as it pleases – this tightly organized bunch is not elected by the people entire. Each individual member is elected only by a tiny fraction of the nation, and is in no way answerable to all the Citizens of the Nation.

When assembled together, these individual members each elected by only a tiny fraction of the Nation's eligible population; have the opportunity to organize themselves into a cohesive, tightly knit cabal capable of devising schemes which may serve to profit their politicians' class; yet which are terribly detrimental, and menacing to the General Welfare – such as this novel scheme of the pro-contraband weapons political movement which has unambiguously taken control of the Democratic Party since the rise of the Obama administration; this scheme of attempting to hide from the Citizen, the ongoing international sales to Iran of nuclear weapons associated assets bundled with ballistic missile associated goods, services and technologies.

The People have no effective constitutional means of countering the organized partisan demagogic menace of such Cabals once they get started. The Cabal need not be overly concerned if many, or even a majority of the national electorate refuses to be confused by the intentional misinformation campaign promulgated by the congressional membership; the Citizens of the United States on the national level have no vote to restrain whatever mischief a corrupted Congress may lead the United States into. This was overlooked in the original formulation of the Constitution.

Although they are Officers of the Federal Government making some of the most consequential decisions effecting the entire population of the United States – members of Congress are not federally elected. The Congress is not answerable to the interests of all the Citizens, and have no need to represent or concern themselves with these interests – and this current Congress certainly doesn't show itself as feeling any pressing need to attend to the overwhelming desire of the People of the United States that the United States Government not involve itself in selling Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities to Iran per the Provisions written out in the very text of Resolution 2231; Obama's "Iran nuclear deal."

If People of the United States don't want the U.S. Government spreading the nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology around; that certainly shouldn't matter to this malevolent gang manifested in the Congress. They are not answerable to all Citizens.

Their only worry is to lie and keep their own tiny constituencies duped long enough to get themselves voted back into Congress next time around.

As far as serving the interests of special constituencies goes; what can evidently mean a great deal to this bunch is a personal or group preoccupation with serving the large scale domestic contraband arms profiteering interests of speculative investors or domestic arms manufacturers.

The Constitution does assert the concession which provides that members of Congress are required to take an Oath of loyalty to the Constitution. This in itself suggests that there is something in the Constitution which declares and Orders members of Congress to be answerable to the People. There is!– And it blandly stares these aloof and disinterested Congresspersons directly in the face from the Constitution's very first sentence.

THE PREAMBLE to the United States Constitution stipulates: " _We the People of the United States ..._ _do ordain and establish_ _this Constitution for_ _the United States of America_."

The People of the United States have ordained that the Constitution is to be the Rule of Law for the Nation as a whole –the Rule of Law organizing the Government and defining the obligations and restrictions placed upon the Officers of Nation.

It is clear that this Constitution is not a proposal, it is not a suggestion box – it is the law. Anyone who has studied the origins of the Constitution knows how it came to be, and knows exactly that this indeed a Constitution which arose from the People, was decided upon by the People. It was subject to much debate and criticism in parts – but it was in no way handed down from some on-high autocratic authority.

We shall examine in this writing – the manner in which many, if not most of the Amendments to the Constitution, also arose from the People. We will also examine and discover the various constitutional forms through which an amendment may be bought to life;

It will become clear that developing and bringing into existence a "Vote of No Confidence" Amendment – as it would apply to the Constitution, is by no means implausible. And this is not in any way forbidden in the Constitution.

There are, however, some few restraints on the construction of such an amendment. These are subtle and perhaps implied in some cases. And they are quite interesting in the context of the logic of the Constitution – but they do not present any real obstacle to the objective. These simply must be attended to and obeyed. Returning to the immediate topic under discussion:

That single sentence of the Preamble refers what the Constitution evolved from and explains the character and nature of the kind of Government the People of this United States had chosen for themselves:

" _We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union_..."

This phrase refers to the imperfections and pitfalls associated with the preceding "Articles of Confederation" which the Constitution replaced. Continuing:

"... _in Order to ... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."

Here the People have characterized the nature of the kind of Government they wanted for themselves – a Government which we, generations later, would also like to enjoy. This would be a Government put in place to establish and maintain Justice and the Rule of Law. Ideally, this being the case, we would have a Government which would in large part insure domestic Tranquility.

The Government is to provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and to secure in justice and the law; the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and Posterity.

THE PEOPLE, on their part, agree to set aside a portion of their goods or earnings to support and maintain this chosen form of Government which presumably will insure protection of the larger portion of the fruits the individuals' labors.

Yet without adequate representation of the national level Citizen in the National Assembly – the assurances proposed by the original authors of the Constitution, are easily tossed aside, as has often been shown in different ways throughout United States History.

The Cabal in control of the current version of the Democratic Party machine is evidently dissatisfied with the form of governance preferred by the Citizen. The Constitution of the United States includes as a piece of the highest Law of the Land – the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty; therefore the Constitution is an impediment which must be tossed aside if the ambition to promote the proliferation of contraband nuclear weapons associated arsenals in the Middle-East is be suitably accomplished.

Had Trump not been elected President; the U.S would still be involved in this concerted ongoing international effort to violate treaty – we must give credit where credit is due; Trump put an end to the enterprise for the time being.

The Democratic Party machine would have it that Trump should be a one-term President. By the end of January 2019 the Democratic Party had produced its Democratic Party platform for election year 2020. In speaking on Iran and the "Iran nuclear deal" the party machine mocked:

We support the nuclear agreement with Iran because ... **it verifiably cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb**... We reject Donald Trump's view that we should have walked away from a deal that peacefully dismantles Iran's nuclear program...

The Democratic Party means to run for election on the basis of the same worn out, feeble lie they have consistently held to over the almost last four years, regardless; that all facts prove the phony assertion quoted above to be a specious fraud, and despite that larger portions of the U.S. population have learned and are learning that the pernicious claim is entirely bogus.

To paraphrase Thomas Paine – this manifestation of the "Democratic" political party is a partisan movement governed by no ethical principle whatever. It can make evil good, or good evil, just as it pleases. It by definition is an arbitrary political movement which would assume power on the basis of complete fabrication.

The proponents of the "deal" make it out to be a good. But in truth, and they know it very well, the Iran nuclear deal, with all of its provisions to assist in enhancing Iranian nuclear weapons capacity; is understood by virtually all Citizens knowing of these provisions, as an evil. Its intention was always in large part to promote domestic contraband arms profiteering by manufacturing and financial speculative interests.

Therefore, withdrawal from the "deal," while frustrating to domestic corporate and private interests, is necessarily understood as a good, and a benefit to the overall General Welfare.

Were any of the Democratic Candidates, all in favor or in some manner regaining access to the weapons markets opened up by Obama's nuclear deal, then the Congress could jump back into action as they had in October of 2017.

On 26 October 2017, the House of Representatives passed, with unanimous support from the Democrats and almost unanimous support from the Republicans, its Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698, which sought to legalize U.S. expediting and facilitating, and possibly sales to Iran of ballistic missile assets under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group.

As documented at the beginning of this chapter; sales to Iran of ballistic missile associated inventories must necessarily be bundled with nuclear weapons associated assets. This is all in violation of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ ;

The 115th House of Representatives couldn't be less concerned with details such as that.

The bill didn't go very far after that; it was passed up to the Senate where it was read twice on the floor and then disappeared into Committee. Senators probably concluded that Trump would make an incredible stink were such a bill to land on his desk to be signed into. And the stink could be so bad that it could easily politically backfire on Congress. Here then, the 115th Congress would be publicly admitting for the first time ever, that it knew very well about the workings of the Procurement Working Group in violation of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ , and that it supported these efforts. There could be no future recourse to pleading innocence by virtue of ignorance.

But it was already too late. They've already revealed their true inclination just by recording on the Congressional Record the overwhelming vote in favor assisting Iran in its acquisition of nuclear and ballistic missiles. Here follows the salient portions of the House of Representatives bill:

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.

(e) 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.

''(I) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of clause (i), and except as provided in subclause (II) of this clause, 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 ballistic missiles or associated goods, services, or technology by the Government of Iran, including efforts by the Government of Iran to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, purchase—

''(aa) 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 115th Congress openly confessed its true intentions in support of domestic contraband arms racketeering and profiteering manufacturing and speculative interests. So at this point it doesn't matter what cock and bull nonsense fabrication the Democratic machine tries to put across that these Democratic Party Hawks are just meek little progressive lambs trying to keep the U.S. out of trouble.

Were a Democratic Candidate to be elected President in 2020, the Congress could jump right back in and resume work on trying to pass laws dedicated to violating treaty by justifying and involving the United States further in the carnage of the Security Council Resolution 2231 international weapons distribution scheme.

The law would, when challenged, be necessarily thrown out by the Supreme Court. But challenges to a series of laws of this sort would be enormously expensive and time consuming.

Were we to already have a "Vote of No Confidence" amendment in place – it would be highly unlikely that such a situation as this would have arisen in the first place; as will be explained shortly.

As a result of not having the national "Vote of No Confidence," as a result of the national electorate having no constitutional means of restraining the Congress – we are stuck with an effectively unelected, genuinely unprincipled national assembly, not answerable to the national electorate or to the Constitution (because neither the Judiciary, nor the Executive has the Authority to prevent or impeach the kind of collective abuses carried out – as described by this writing);

This is a national assembly making national decisions on issues affecting the entire electorate, and doing this with the impunity and disregard characteristic of an elite class which knows it is entirely immune from restraint.

It is true that Congresspersons can theoretically held accountable to the districts from which they sprang – but this little crumb of a concession does not address the problem.

Individual districts are entirely incapable of addressing the entire Congress.

The national assembly can concentrate and assert itself in collective malfeasance as it has in this case through the Cabal's sustained lie which characterizes the Iran nuclear deal as an arms control deal when the facts tell the true story – that the "Iran nuclear deal" is an measure supporting the interests of would-be domestic contraband arms racketeering profiteers; and appeasing the belligerent warring ambitions of the foreign Prince.

The "Vote of No Confidence" would empower the entire electorate, enabling the Citizen with option to restrain and dismiss the corrupt Cabal before it managed to develop to the menacing point that it has.

The restraint which could be imposed by the national electorate, barring a congressional politician from re-election to the identical office for one term is an enormous deterrent to some. The individual Congressperson would be far less likely to throw their reputation on the line in support of this idiot story grossly misrepresenting Obama's pernicious and imbecile Security Council Resolution 2231 over the past four years.

The "Vote of No Confidence" could easily disqualify the entire Congress from re-election in the subsequent term. And this would in no way effect the Quorums necessary to conducting legislative business – because the jobs would be filled by others.

The very possibility of a Congressperson being barred from office for one term and have another, more able and honest person fill their position – could be fatal to the political careers of some.

The very possibility of being swept up in the net of angry voter response to universal Congressional malfeasance could be enough to deter individual Congresspersons from simply acquiescing in silence to the extravagant misdeeds prevalent in a given assembly.

Not wanting to be associated with an obvious scam; Congresspersons would be far more inclined to turn their backs on the Old Boys and Girls partisan Clubs; refuse to fall and muster in group goose-stepping formation; and instead choose to rejoin humanity and loyalty to the Constitution, and start publicly squawking about what really is underway in Congress. The malevolent practice and influence of political party-line "whips" and party-line coercion would become more and more a thing of the primitive political past in the face of this new political reality.

Without the "Vote of No Confidence" Amendment, the unintendeddesign of the effectively unelected legislature allows it to be easily converted into the most corrupt branch of Government.

With the Amendment – the Congress functions as originally intended.

It is evident that the Constitution always intended that the Legislature always be answerable to its constituency at home – and to the national constituency. The mandatory Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution stipulates that it is intended that Congress members also should be answerable to the electorate nationwide.

The fact that there was no means of enforcing this was overlooked – with all of the other things under discussion in the development of the Constitution; the question was not much reflected upon.

But given the outrages and extravagances corruption of the 115th Congress – which will undoubtedly be carried forward into the 116th – the time to consider the proposition has noticeably arrived.

* * * * *

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 _INFCIRC_ s. 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_ [].

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_. []

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.

Here then, is another factor in this issue: the Oath of Office, and violation of international treaty has been shown by the 115th Congress as that it is no longer to be taken seriously or thought of as a credible institution; possibly because there's always something more exciting afoot to keep people in Congress interested.

The members of national assembly, although constitutionally considered as national level federal office holders, and although their salaries are paid for by the national level taxpayer, and not directly paid by the local constituencies;

Despite those things – the members of the national assembly don't have to answer a peep to the national level constituency. And we witness what the Congress, under the current design, is capable of getting away with.

The _Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698_ openly violates the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ was never even brought up as an issue in discussing when it moved forward on its vote promoting HR-1698. The membership of Congress demonstrated that none of them could care less. Not one member of the House of Representatives came forward to speak up and defend the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and hence the Constitution. Not one participant in the vote cared to go on the Congressional Record at least to acknowledge the existence of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and, or even the Constitution; in the House of Representatives; unconstitutional exercise of 26 October 2017.

This is the culture of the Congress which decides on how we should live and what rules of the assembly we should suffer under; the membership of the current day Congress present themselves in their misdeeds not as reflective men and women upon whose minds Oaths of Office have the significance of a solemn obligation imposing a deep sense of accountability upon the minds of these people. These persons instead are the caricature personalities who effectively mutter their Oath as a ceremonial function that everyone in Congress just does for the sake of some lost and forgotten meaningless tradition.

The shallow hypocrites of the Congress boast about how concerned, progressive and humanitarian they are; and then they're off and running trying to get a law passed which might pressure the United States Government into on some level continuing participation in Procurement Working Group activities; or at least preventing the Government from taking any legal action against this travesty fiasco before the International Court of Justice (action which will inevitably have to be taken up to put a halt to, and effect reversal of, the harm of, the weapons development scheme instigated by the Obama administration. This writing discusses how works further on).

Through their actions and decisions of the national level, membership in the Congress exhibit themselves as not really preoccupied with their duty to the Constitution;

But instead, far more obsessed with and compelled by their preoccupation with something else; perhaps with the exigencies of maintaining good relations with their respective partisan party selected powerful influences marked in partisans' portfolios.

* * * * *

I maintain that this two party portfolio system of influenced governance does not work well for the United States. The two party portfolio system promotes a Congress inevitably at some point preoccupied with the interests of prominent entities prioritized in the respective Democratic and Republic Party "A-List" choice stock folders.

These entities, when listed, are represented in that their voices are heard; the whining complaints of the powerful entities are heard and caringly responded to.

The nationwide electorate – forced to pay taxes to support the upkeep and wherewithal necessary to sustain the arguments of the two political party powerhouses – has no real national level voice in the national level debate conducted by Congress.

Electorates do not yet vote nationally for or against the entire Congress. The voice of the People then naturally goes unheard. The voice of the People can never, under the current system, be gathered together in response to a malfeasant outlaw Congress as a whole.

There is no national level vote, a "Vote of No Confidence," which would empower the electorate with the right to impose a very sticking rebuke; the power to vote "No Confidence" and bar re-entry into office (for the subsequent term) of many in Congress in one swoop. Without a no confidence vote; the concerns of the national electorate remain as easily dismissed as they most recently have been.

As we have witnessed in the case of Citizens nation wide concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran – the Congress has responded to the People by lying. The Members of Congress say of course they're all very concerned as well...

And then the 115th House of Representatives openly votes, effectively unanimously, promoting this proliferation as long as this violation of the NPT is carried out under U.N. auspices. It's complete garbage – and the Senate's response to the embarrassment of the vote is also, like the House of Representatives vote, on the Congressional Record as well.

Enfranchisement of the electorate with the "Vote of No Confidence" would cause members of Congress to work a little bit harder to avoid frivolously maintaining that the United States Government should remain in a deal which imposes upon the United States to, along with the other players, approve of sales to Iran of Weapons of Mass Destruction;.

The no confidence vote might help to discourage the Congress from working so hard trying to support and to promote the proliferation of such arsenals as the documentation shows the 115th Congress to have done.

When the Congress as a whole dismisses the Constitution in order that the membership, whenever it arbitrarily chooses at any given moment, to expedite its own favorite national level topics in defiance and disregard of the Constitution; then this disregard properly becomes a national level issue, which should be dealt with by the national level electorate and cannot be properly addressed by one local level electoral district at a time.

Over the last three and a half or so years, as we shall examine in this writing – the Congress has acted, regarding the Obama "Iran nuclear deal," on the basis of publicly repeated malicious falsehoods and evasions, spouted out continually, initially primarily by the Democratic Party membership, and then eventually imitated by the Republican Party membership which might have figured at one point that this tactic of habitual mendacity might be good for reelection prospects.

When disregard and dismissal of the Constitution becomes the universally recognized as expedient and preferred mode of doing business in Congress, when being bound to the Oath of Office, which is required to qualify a Congressperson in the first place, is no longer of any concern to a cynically corrupt Congress;

Then this becomes a national problem most properly dealt with on the national level by national vote of the entire electorate. This national, collective plenary vote of the electorate nationwide is simply is not provided for in the Constitution – it was overlooked, or the need it hadn't really occurred to the framers of the Constitution at the time; or perhaps the States were still often thought of by many as individual nations; or for whatever reason.

However, it having happened that the Congress has gone too far in its advocating for the distribution of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity, presumably in part, as an appeasing gesture to a State which repeatedly declares the United States its mortal enemy and is so petty as to slur this country with the moniker "The Great Satan," obviously to stir up some enthusiastic fanatical belligerent internal or international hatred for the United States;

And it having happened that the Congress, steadfastly insolent in its assurance of its current immunity, has in one way or another persisted in this advocacy;

Once it has happened that a Congress knows that if it acts as a unit it can get away with advocating and carrying on with the worst possible conduct; having learned full well that neither the President nor does the Court, nor do the People have any constitutional response for the universal active contempt shown by the Congress for the Constitution and the Oath of Office;

Once the Congress has learned the extent of what the membership can get away with; and the up and coming politicians have all been brought along the learning curve, and understand what they are expected to consider to comply with when their senior colleagues decide they should get away with it;

Once enough of the younger generation of politicians can be counted upon to take advantage of the circumstances; and once in office, to act up pretty much how their political party pleases they should, then the lesson and the teaching is complete. It is now no longer to be the Constitution which counts – it's what can be got by playing along with the rules of the portfolio holders that's got everyone's attention.

Perhaps Deans of University level Departments of Political Science should consider teaching undergraduate and graduate level courses to students aspiring to become U.S. politicians – educating them in the level of corruption expected of them should they receive the benefits of being elected as a junior member of either the House or the Senate.

* * * * *

Once the universal understanding of how the game should be played is old news;

Then it's time – like just about now – to share out some remedial education among these white collar thugs; give them something that might scare up some cooperation and somewhat reasonably better behavior out of the swindlers; help them to unlearn all those nasty things they thought they were taught in hot-shot political opportunism school.

And the one thing I can think of that might really terrify membership in Congress into thinking a little bit about trying to make some sort of positive contribution (if any of these people even has the capacity to conceive of one);

The one thing that I can think of to scare up some friendly constructive interest in Congress; and replace to some extent the overall penchant for scheming about how best to be an obstructionist impediment – could be to force each of them to contend with the concerns of some 200 million eligible nation wide voters at scheduled two year intervals;

Some 200 million eligible nation wide voters not likely to be impressed by stunts like the not very bright elitist trend supporting distribution of nuclear weapons capacity to a State which continuously decries the United States as its mortal enemy.

The individual voting districts simply have no capacity to respond to universal corruption in a Congress. One individual voting district cannot affect a universal congressional culture of corruption. This is a national level issue to be dealt with by the electorate on the national level.

We don't have the "Vote of No Confidence" yet; but having it might help alleviate this downward spiral into utter malfeasant pulchritude of the Congress, which seems to appreciably worsen the more time passes.

* * * * *

This writing will outline a proposal for a regularly scheduled national level "Vote of No Confidence" which would enfranchise the electorate with the power to toss large swaths of the population of Congress out of office for periods of time, while still conforming to the requirements specified in the Constitution which prevent an entire revolution in the Government taking place all at once.

Such an amendment would seem on the face of it, and without adequate explanation and description; to be impossible to reconcile with the requirements of the Constitution.

Actually, further study and reflection on the matter reveals that it is fairly simple to design such an Amendment coinciding with the design and intentions, and the specifications laid out in the Constitution of the United States. One has to understand these rules first, before considering the design of such an amendment.

Therefore, before going into prospective amendments to the Constitution, of which two are presented in this writing, both complimentary to each other and both approaching two different aspects of the problems posed the nation by the current two party portfolio driven system of governance; some substantial amount of general background, and background on the Constitution is best introduced to the reader so that by the time the pages are reached describing the amendments – the logic, simplicity, equity and coherence of the amendments will more immediately be understood. Aspects presented will include

– The fundamental underlying principles from which the Constitution of the United States was derived; including thoughts on the origins of a representative Constitution as opposed to governance by a body of dictates handed down from a despotic power, a discussion which includes: the underlying distinction identifying the difference between despotism and usurpation on the one hand; as opposed to a constructive government formulated by the People, and representative of the People.

– Origins, and the bringing into being of the United States Constitution; this without touching upon its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation developed previously by the various American Provinces become independent States.

– Constitutional recognition of the necessity of providing for amendments to that instrument.

– Some few Constitutional restrictions placed on the content of a proposed amendment

– The modes of making an amendment and bringing it into being;

– The status of an amendment within the Constitution.

These issues once having been touched upon, in some cases however briefly, the writing proceeds to description and explanation of the two amendments proposed.

* * * * *
* * * * *

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

Who is being influenced – and who does the influencing? It might be assumed that there is a huge insider trading advantage to the stock holding wealthy members of Congress to make their own laws favoring their own choices of selected "A Listed" corporate conscripts to individual or party line portfolios. This most certainly would seem to give a speculative edge to the unpredictable rule makers.

The rule makers evidently wanted – and they might have had huge incentive to do so, to keep the Iranian market place in conventional weapons open to the U.S. investors. Earlier as mention, from 18 October 2020l; U.S. Arms dealerships could begin to sell, without restriction, conventional class weapons to Iran.

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.

Should that provision remain in place and available to access by U.S. arms dealerships, U.S. rule making Legislative Power could have paid off very nicely in diplomatically persuasive dividends of gain to interested investors and to individually held scrap book portfolios; possibly of some of our wealthy, or aspiring members of Congress (or their friends) – had our members of Congress been able to take advantage of such an adventure.

Sadly for any would be wealthy members of Congress grousers wanting to protest in favor of powerful interest groups (not their own, of course); sadly for grousers who otherwise still would have an appetite to complain – spoil sport Trump pulled the rug out from any such potential scheme by withdrawing U.S. Government support for operations involving contraband distribution of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to Iran.

So for the time being, no more speculation on U.S. Government supported and approved of sales of contraband weaponry to Iran by U.S. corporations or affiliates thereof – and that's that.

And the Congress of the United States of America hasn't a legal leg to stand on in any attempt at altering Trump's decision.

* * * * *

I can't know with any certainty, as a mere member of the public, who is influencing whom in this game of international trading in contraband weaponry.

Is it the arms dealerships that are influencing Congress? Or is it the Congress which is putting pressure on arms dealerships to be more aggressively competitive in racing forward to take risks on selling weapons to Iran on the basis of Obama's "deal," which could easily be brought before the International Court of Justice at any time, if not by Trump, then by an alliance of States all Party to the NPT and fed up with Resolution 2231 – which many feel might threaten their very existence;

This thing could be brought before the International Court of Justice and tossed out by the Court on the basis of its numerous violations of treaty and of international law, and by the menace it poses to international law and world security.

So is it the arms dealerships who are all eager beaver to jump in and maybe get creamed by the Court; or is it a portfolio preoccupied Congress that's so eager to have these dealerships take the risk?

The Congress knows all about United Nations Security Council Resolution; Paragraph 5 of _Annex B: Statement_ , If the membership of a portfolio preoccupied and driven Congress weren't licking their chops in eager anticipation, trying to hold the United States in the deal awaiting that possibly lucrative date if 18 October 2020 and beyond it; then why would the Congress be so fervently passionate to maintain United States Government participation in a deal which involves the expediting and approval of sales to Iran of Weapons of Mass Destruction assets and capabilities?

What is it then? Maybe there's something else I'm missing. Congress members don't explain their motives. So it seems reasonable to wonder at what the motivation might be of these professional politician members of Congress; if it's not all about the lowest, self-centered form of greed, grasping at personal gain.

Many American Citizens might begin to wonder if maybe an explanation of what this is about isn't owed the people of the United States.

WERE RESOLUTION 2231 to be brought in petition before the Court – and if the International Court of Justice threw the whole thing out (very likely, given the various egregious violations of treaty the instrument relies upon as functional basis for that Security Council arms trading agreement), then this would eliminate any contracts made with Iran which are found to be in violation of international treaty (this is explained in detail later in the writing).

Anything invested would be a dead loss – regardless of any phony assurances Barack Obama might have made in his Resolution 2231.

Regardless of any promotional fever in Congress; how willing and eager are weapons dealerships to take such a chance? That's a matter of speculation.

* * * * *

The Congress, in its 26 October 2017 vote in favor of maintaining U.S. partnership in the arrangement made between France, Russia, China, the U.K., and Germany in efforts to expedite and approve of sales to Iran of procurement packages containing bundled nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons assets – and to further induce U.S. arms dealing interests; encouraging the industry to go deeper into the international trafficking in the contraband weapons market.

The original inducement came from the Obama administration – with its Resolution 2231. which the 114th Congress had failed to vote on that in September 2015 – the excuse being that Obama hadn't transmitted the Security Council resolution to Congress*, and so no one bothered to take an interest in discovering what it actually was that Obama had passed on to the Security Council.

*See Appendix 7 – _Documenting the Obama Administration's Intransigent refusal to transmit Security Council Resolution 2231 to the 114th Congress_ [].

Now, with their _Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698_ , the 115th House of Representatives would reassert itself and make its own opportunity.

The 115th House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bundling of nuclear and ballistic missile weapons assets in procurement packages intended for sales to Iran.

As mentioned – it is my opinion that this 26 October 2017 vote is a prominent and conspicuous of the enormous capacity for corruption is made more easily possible by that thing that is missing in the Constitution as it stands without further amendment.

The Congress – once it unites to back international and U.S. sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction to a State hostile to the United States; so that some of that big oil money in Iran might filter back to the United States, or for whatever reason;

The Congress – once it is united in its cynicism and neglect, once the membership of Congress has universally agreed, in practice, to forgo any loyalty of a united congressional membership to its Oath of Office – as it has done in this case;

Once the entire membership of Congress has descended to the amoral level of the War Criminal as defined under _International Military Council: Control Council Law No. 10_ , whereby almost the entire 115th House of Representatives has indulged itself in pursuing an attempt to formulate a statute which they might have thought would possibly put pressure on the President to continue in assisting Iranian preparations for its long since pledged waging war of aggression, or war in violation of international treaty, agreements or assurances – as it has.

Once the entire membership of Congress is so completely corrupt, with the membership having descended to the amoral level of the War Criminal; once it has become so corrupt as to urge continued United States participation in internationally defined and codified _Crimes against Peace_ – as the 115th Congress has, in its attempts to further the doctrinaire policies of the Hawk Obama administration;

Then the Congress goes about its business of trying to encourage, endorse and support the documented weapons transactions, as best the Congress can.

Whatever few paltry safeguards against this kind of universal outrage currently exist in the un-amended Constitution – these are not nearly adequate in addressing a problem of such national existential concern.

Throughout this writing we review expository arguments from the past explaining how the Constitution arises from the people, and that the Constitution is there to protect the General Welfare,; and when it is no longer able to do so in a current form of a current period – then it can be amended to adjust to later needs or a later perception of a deficiency overlooked in the circumstances of the Constitution's speedy development.

Currently, the Constitution leaves it primarily to the individual Houses of Congress to expel a member from Congress. Early Supreme Court Justice Story writes, in Chapter XII of his _Commentaries on the Constitution_ :

§ 419 **.** ... The next clause is, "each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members " for disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence of " two thirds, expel a member."

No person can doubt the propriety of the provision authorizing each house to determine the rules of its own proceedings. If the power did not exist, it would be utterly impracticable to transact the business of the nation, either at all, or at least with decency, deliberation, and order. The humblest assembly of men is understood to possess this power; and it would be absurd to deprive the councils of the nation of a like authority. But the power to make rules would be nugatory, unless it was coupled with a power to punish for disorderly behaviour, or disobedience to those rules. And as a member might be so lost to all sense of dignity and duty, as to disgrace the house by the grossness of his conduct, or interrupt its deliberations by perpetual violence or clamour, the power to expel for very aggravated misconduct was also indispensable, not as a common, but as an ultimate redress for the grievance.

But such a power, so summary, and at the same time so subversive of the rights of the people, it was foreseen, might be exerted for mere purposes of faction or party, to remove a patriot, or to aid a corrupt measure ; and it has therefore been wisely guarded by the restriction, that there shall be a concurrence of two thirds of the members, to justify an expulsion. This clause, requiring a concurrence of two thirds, was not in the original draft of the constitution, but it was inserted by a vote of ten states, one being divided. A like general authority to expel, exists in the British house of commons ; and in the legislative bodies of many of the states composing the Union.

Justice Story, in the above, is writing in the context of maybe a single, or two or three Congresspersons acting out. In this case, however, we have a whole Congress gone "amoral as the War Criminal," and the currently disenfranchised U.S. Citizen is expected to accept this;

The U.S. Citizen can't complain on the national level about a Congress wherein every member on some level has chosen to act up in violation of the Oath of Office.

It has already long since been settled in the Constitution that adherence to the Oath is required for qualification to serve in the Congress – any who won't adhere is by definition unfit to serve in a Government Office of Trust.

Nevertheless, the experience of Barack Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" has taught everyone in Congress that once united in their defiance of the Constitution; the national electorate can't touch the immunity currently enjoyed by that branch of Government.

A universally corrupt Congress is an issue of national concern which can only be dealt with by a national level response from the national electorate – hence the need for a national "Vote of No Confidence."

It has become conspicuous in our day that the power to make rules can easily be turned to extremely corrupt and destructive ends. This combined with the universal disdain for the Oath of Office displayed by the 115th Congress may give rise to a national assembly which poses a serious menace to the welfare of the United States itself.

The situation can't be effectively dealt with by the divided, partitioned individual electoral districts or regions as for example many individual electoral districts or regions might like their particular amoral War Crimes inclined elected "representative" and might not like the idea that the entire national electorate should vote that person out of office.

Such a thing as a local representative being from re-election to the identical office for one term by the national electorate might seem to be an unfair imposition on the local electorates.

I understand the sentiment, and suggest that two aspects be considered in this question; the nationwide guaranteed right to a Republican form of Government (meaning a representative – _Res Publica_ – form of government), and the quality of character of the representatives themselves. Proceeding to further examination

* * * * *
* * * * *

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

Obama's Security Council Resolution 2231 has many provisions in it – let's look into one of the provisions of Resolution 2231

Resolution 2231; Annex A: JCPOA specifies how U.S. Ports, believe it or not, should be opened for doing business with Iranian financial interests supporting Iranian sponsored terror. The facts of Obama's arrangement with Iran are all there on paper and this following illustrates how far Obama was willing to go to get his arrangement with the foreign Prince done so that the former President could rush home and grab up the glorious accolades sure to be waiting for him for having come to any agreement at all.

Before Trump pulled the U.S. out of the "deal," as of 18 October 2023 – this following was intended to be put into effect:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex V - Implementation Plan

D. Transition Day

19. Transition Day will occur 8 years from Adoption Day [which was October 18, 2015] or upon a report from the Director General of the IAEA to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the UN Security Council stating that the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier.

21. The United States will:

21.1. Seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, the statutory sanctions set forth in Sections 4.1-4.5, 4.7 and 4.9 of Annex II;

Continuing to Annex II; section 4.9:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex II – Sanctions-related commitments

B. United States

4. The United States commits to cease the application of, and to seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, all nuclear-related sanctions as specified in Sections 4.1-4.9 below, and to terminate Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622 and 13645, and Sections 5-7 and 15 of Executive Order 13628, in accordance with Annex V.7.

4.4. Shipping, shipbuilding and port sectors

4.4.1. Sanctions on transactions with Iran's shipping and shipbuilding sectors and port operators including IRISL, South Shipping Line, and NITC, and the port operator(s) of Bandar Abbas10 (TRA [37] Sections **211(a)** and 212(a); IFCA Sections 1244(c)(1) and (d); 1245(a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(C)(i)(I)-(II), (a)(1)(C)(ii)(I)-(II) and (c), 1246(a) and 1247(a); Section 5(a) of E.O. 13622 and Sections 2(a)(i) and 3(a)(i) of E.O. 13645); and

The TRA represents the "Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012" referred to a few paragraphs above. That act does currently place sanctions on providing financial support for Iranian sponsorship of its foreign terrorist organization proxies. Obama wanted and wants those sanctions done away with. Following is the offending portion of the Act – Section 211(a):

**Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 [FOOTNOTE** ]

Title II — Expansion of Sanctions Relating to the Energy Sector of Iran and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction by Iran

Subtitle B — Additional Measures Relating to Sanctions Against Iran

SEC. 211. Imposition of Sanctions With Respect to the Provision of Vessels or Shipping Services to Transport Certain Goods Related to Proliferation or Terrorism Activities to Iran.

(a) IN GENERAL.— Except as provided in subsection (c), if the President determines that a person, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, knowingly sells, leases, or provides a vessel or provides insurance or reinsurance or any other shipping service for the transportation to or from Iran of goods that could materially contribute to the activities of the Government of Iran with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or support for acts of international terrorism, the President shall, pursuant to Executive Order No. 13382 (70 Fed. Reg. 38567; relating to blocking of property of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters) or Executive Order No. 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 49079; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism), or otherwise pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of the persons specified in subsection (b) if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.

President Obama was interested in terminating the provision requiring a President to take notice of such activity. This was like a cultural template for members of the 115th House of Representatives to follow in their _Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698_. The 115th House of Representatives wanted President Trump to turn a blind eye to Procurement Working Group activities related to distribution of Weapons of Mass Destruction assets – just like Obama wanted a future President to turn a blind eye to infiltration into U.S. ports by terror supporting financial interests.

* * * * *

Reviewing our _Commentaries on the Constitution_ we examine and learn that our Justice Story have had a thing or two to say about that kind of thing back in 1833; reading from Chapter XXXVII – _Executive Powers and Duties_ :

§ 777 **.** The power " to make treaties " is by the constitution general ; and of course it embraces all sorts of treaties, for peace or war ; for commerce or territory ; for alliance or succours ; for indemnity for injuries or payment of debts ; for the recognition or enforcement of principles of public law ; and for any other purposes, which the policy or interests of independent sovereigns may dictate in their intercourse with each other.

But, though the power is thus general and unrestricted, it is not to be so construed, as to destroy the fundamental laws of the state. A power given by the constitution cannot be construed to authorize a destruction of other powers given in the same instrument. It must be construed, therefore, in subordination to it ; and cannot supersede, or interfere with any other of its fundamental provisions. Each is equally obligatory, and of paramount authority within its scope ; and no one embraces a right to annihilate any other.

A treaty to change the organization of the government, to annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form, or to deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void ; because it would destroy, what it was designed merely to fulfill, the will of the people. Whether there are any other restrictions, necessarily growing out of the structure of the government, will remain to be considered, whenever the exigency shall arise.

Barack Obama clearly showed that he either didn't understand this, or couldn't care less about it. On April 17, 2015, in a Joint Press Conference between himself and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi conducted from the East Room of the White House; Obama assertion that the vote in the Congress with regards to Obama's "Iran Nuclear Deal" was really about a contention over:

"... an issue of presidential prerogatives. ... This is not a formal treaty that is being envisioned. the President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, traditionally has been able to enter into political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval..."

[This quote is archived and can be found at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/17/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-renzi-italy-joint-press-conference]

Obama was not to be impeded or duped by the constraints of his Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He asserted and imposed his Resolution 2231 instead. Barack Obama exactly did design an agreement with the Ministers of the Government of Iran which would (had it been sustained) "... _annihilate its_ [the Constitution's] _sovereignty_ , _...overturn its republican form, ...deprive it of its constitutional powers_ ...;" doing precisely what he is forbidden to do as President – and he did so by the example of the following:

To the pleasure of the foreign Prince – Obama dictated in his Resolution 2231 that as of 18 October 2023 (JCPOA Transition Day), the previously cited Subtitle B; Section 211; paragraph (a), by Obama's sole edict would be terminated. The Ports were to be opened to any of foreign contraband financing interests previously prohibited by the Government of the United States.

Obama had usurped an authority not granted a president by the Constitution. He had declared it was in his power to proclaim, at his whim and on the spur of any given moment, that United States statute not to his pleasure (or perhaps, in this case, not to the pleasure of his foreign Prince) may be dispatched with at any time by a President's arbitrary directing edict pronouncing the statute null and void.

It didn't matter that the statute had been voted upon and enacted by the Legislature – and subsequently ratified, signed into law by a President. Obama didn't care about that or who that President was.

As a point of historical interest, let's look into it and discover who that president might have been.

The title of the Act under discussion: _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_ , tells us that the instrument was ratified in 2012 during Barack Obama's tenure in the White House.

Such being the case that it was ratified in 2012 during Obama's tenure, it was therefore ratified by Obama. Obama here is informing us; although not openly in a speech – but through his actions; that in his learned opinion he is justified by the fact of his elected Office, that he has a "traditional presidential prerogative" to change laws at arbitrary whim regardless of whatever the Constitution has to say about that.

Obama would change his mind at whatever expediency to suite the ambitions of his true clientele; the Ministers of the Government of Iran and the foreign Prince.

And Obama had so much more to offer the U.S. Citizen in the way of capriciously turning away laws. His approach in this following is novel:

THE JCPOA ORDERS TERMINATING any part of the _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 - H. R. 893_ , which has to do with prohibitions against assisting Iran in obtaining nuclear weapons

The decree is found following this trail of JCPOA provisions:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex V - Implementation Plan

D. Transition Day

19. Transition Day will occur 8 years from Adoption Day [October 18, 2015] or upon a report from the Director General of the IAEA to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the UN Security Council stating that the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier.

21. [At this time....] The United States will:

21.1. Seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, the statutory sanctions set forth in Sections 4.1-4.5, 4.7 and 4.9 of Annex II;

From that point we are directed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; Annex A – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; JCPOA _Annex II; section B_ ; **United States** ; paragraphs 4, subparagraph 4.9, and subparagraph 4.9.1 of the JCPOA Annex II:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex II – Sanctions-related commitments

B. United States

4. The United States commits to cease the application of, and to seek such legislative action as may be appropriate to terminate, or modify to effectuate the termination of, all nuclear-related sanctions as specified in **Sections 4.1-4.9** below, and to terminate Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622 and 13645, and Sections 5-7 and 15 of Executive Order 13628, in accordance with Annex V.7

On to 4.9 and 4.9.1 ...:

4.9. Nuclear proliferation-related measures

4.9.1 _Sanctions under the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act_ on the acquisition of nuclear-related commodities and services for nuclear activities contemplated in the JCPOA [are to be terminated as stipulated in subparagraph 21.1 documented above], to be consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT.

[The above refers to the _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013_ – the Obama administration couldn't even get the name right, which is confusing; but that aside...]

In the final phrase of the provision 4.9.1: "... _to be consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT_ ...;" Barack Obama demands that Iran be given a new status by the United States Government; The Government of Iran is to be thought of as any other non-nuclear-weapon State – perhaps such as Switzerland, or Sweden, or perhaps Nepal.

And somehow, the sanctions which Iran demands be terminated in that Act remain undefined. There is the vague notion that somehow whatever "... _consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT_ ..." is going to be defined and clarified somewhere down the line. By who is not really clear;

So which are the nuclear weapons associated provisions Iran would like done away with? – It's anyone's guess; but upon examination of the Act (incidentally, another one of those famous acts earlier ratified by Obama – this one in 2013); I submit that here are some possible candidate provisions for what could have been on the chopping block.

Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 - H. R. 893 (113th Congress)

**SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ''Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

it shall be the policy of the United States to fully implement and enforce sanctions against any person, entity or country that assists the proliferation activities or policies of Iran, North Korea, or Syria. [The Ministers of Iran want it gone – Barack Obama writes it into the JCPOA that this is dispensed with as of JCPOA Termination Day, 18 October 2025.]

SEC. 3. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN FOREIGN PERSONS

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the day of the enactment of this Act, the President shall impose, for a period of not less than two years, the sanctions specified in subsection (c) with respect to a foreign person if the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the person—.

(1)(A) on or after September 1, 2007, transferred to or acquired from Iran, North Korea, or Syria—

(i) goods, services, or technology listed on—

(I) ... Guidelines for Transfers of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Material, and Related Technology (published by the International Atomic Energy Agency as Information Circular **INFCIRC/254/Rev. 3/Part 2** , and subsequent revisions);

(ii) goods, services, or technology not listed on any list specified in clause (i) but which nevertheless would be, if such goods, services, or technology were United States goods, services, or technology, prohibited for export to Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be, because of the potential of such goods, services or technology to contribute to the development of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or of ballistic or cruise missile systems or destabilizing types and amounts of conventional weapons;

(2)(B) with respect to the transfer of goods, services, or technology, knew or should have known that the transfer of goods, services, or technology, to Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be, would contribute to the ability of Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be, to—

(i) acquire or develop chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or related technologies...

(6) on or after August 10, 2010, provided a vessel, insurance or reinsurance, or any other shipping service for the transportation of goods to or from Iran, North Korea, or Syria for purposes relating to the nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or ballistic or cruise missile development programs of Iran, North Korea, or Syria, as the case may be.

In the section presented above; sanctions are placed on "Certain Foreign Persons" in any way assisting Iranian attempts to acquire nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies, services, etc.

Nobody has thought to put sanctions like that on "Certain Foreign Persons" in any way assisting Swiss, Swedish, or Nepalese attempts to acquire nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies, services, &c. So therefore this distinction must be presumed to be indignantly thought of by Iran as clearly discriminatory against Iran. It should probably have to have been made to go away – but nobody can really be sure because nothing is explicitly declared.

To give a further idea of what else might have been candidate for termination, some titles of further offending sections of the Act could have been:

SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH COUNTRIES AIDING PROLIFERATION BY IRAN, NORTH KOREA, OR SYRIA.

SEC. 6. IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES THAT ENABLE PROLIFERATION TO OR FROM IRAN, NORTH KOREA, OR SYRIA.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES ASSISTING PROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES BY IRAN, NORTH KOREA, OR SYRIA.

SEC. 9. EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF SENIOR OFFICIALS OF FOREIGN PERSONS WHO HAVE AIDED PROLIFERATION RELATING TO IRAN, NORTH KOREA, AND SYRIA.

Here another lot of provisions from the _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of_ _2013_ which Iran might have liked done away with:

Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013 - H. R. 893 (113th Congress)

Sec. 10. Prohibition on certain vessels landing in the United States; enhanced inspections.

''(a) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—

''(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of enactment of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013, before a vessel arrives at a port in the United States, the owner, charterer, operator, or master of the vessel shall certify that the vessel did not enter a port in Iran, North Korea, or Syria during the 180-day period ending on the date of arrival of the vessel at the port in the United States.

''(2) FALSE CERTIFICATIONS.—The Secretary shall prohibit from landing at a port in the United States for a period of at least 2 years—

''(A) any vessel for which a false certification was made under section (a); and

''(B) any other vessel owned or operated by a parent corporation, partnership, association, or individual proprietorship of the vessel for which the false certification was made.

''(b) ENHANCED INSPECTIONS.—The Secretary shall—

''(1) identify foreign ports at which vessels have landed during the preceding 12-month period that have also landed at ports in Iran, North Korea, or Syria during that period; and

''(2) inspect vessels arriving in the United States from foreign ports identified under paragraph (1) to establish whether the vessel was involved, during the 12-month period ending on the date of arrival of the vessel at the port in the United States, in any activity that would be subject to sanctions under the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013.''

In Obama's fantasy view of the Constitution it is probably the President; justified by one of those mysterious "traditional presidential prerogatives" which Obama never specifically points out and identifies; It is the President who ought to be the one who decides what the definition of "... _consistent with the U.S. approach to other non-nuclear-weapon states under the NPT_ ..." should be. After all, it's Obama who changed the organization of the U.S. Government to suit the needs of his arrangement with the foreign Prince.

But by the same logic; Iran, an essential player, a directly interested Party; which having such a big stake in the question being the main partner in Obama's agreement with Iran;

It is by rights likely Iran which might have to have a say in the matter of defining for the United States what the U.S. approach to non-nuclear-weapons-States should be re-defined as so as to better suit the agreement.

* * * * *

It's sometimes hard to remember what things used to be like before maverick Obama took control. But actually, back in the old days it used to be the Congress, the assembly theoretically representative of the People, which was empowered to make decisions like that:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article I - The Legislative Branch

*Section 8 - Powers of Congress

[Clause 10]

[The Congress shall have Power] **To define and punish** Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and **Offenses against the Law of Nations** ;

Now that maverick Obama had done so much to reorganize the perception of what the powers of the three major departments of government should be – some confusion arises as to the distribution of powers and what United States sovereign jurisdiction Iran actually allows the United States Government to enjoy.

As to the sovereignty of U.S. jurisdiction over U.S. ports; Barrack's arrangement with Iran allows some domestic U.S. nominal control over the day to day affairs of shipping interests – as long as this does not impede or interfere with interests associated with terror related shipping – as is clarified by Obama's arbitrary decision to do away with Section 211(a) of the _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_.

Section 10; paragraph (2 – FALSE CERTIFICATIONS _of Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013_ ; which declares that the Secretary is to, for example, investigate whether a vessel landing in a U.S. port was involved "... _during the 12-month period ending on the date of arrival of the vessel at the port in the United States, in any activity that would be subject to sanctions under the_ _Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 2013_.''

Obama and Iran never got around to clearly defining what Obama should determine the U.S. definition of would necessarily be. But the two groups had decided that the U.S. Government would, and eventually did, participate in expediting sales to Iran of nuclear and ballistic missile associated assets. This was an overt example of Obama's usurpation of an authority he did not have, the power to define what U.S. policy regarding Offenses against the Law of Nations ought to be – regardless of the fact that the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty has already long since defined that in regards to nuclear weapon.

And as an earlier Congress had enacted approval of the NPT, under the enumerated Power of Congress (Authorized under the previously presented Article I; §8; Clause 10) " _To define_ [what the United States considered to be]... _Offenses against the Law of Nations_ ;" and an earlier president had ratified that approval.

The definition of United States policy towards nuclear weapons proliferation; from the time Obama was but a little boy, and long since before Obama ever became president; the definition of U.S. policy towards the proliferation of nuclear weapons has long since been defined by U.S. adherence to the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_.

But that wasn't good enough for Barack Obama. For him, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the United States Constitution was an impediment to his deal with the Agents of the foreign Prince. One of charlatan Obama's public solutions was to substitute treaty and the Constitution with a fiction of "traditional Presidential prerogative."

Obama never did publicly point out or identify any specific listing of any mysterious "Presidential Prerogatives" he was referring to. He simply invented the mythology and proceeded to formulate with the Ministers of the Government of Iran a method for transferring Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to Iran at the pleasure of his foreign Prince and in violation of the United States Constitution and international treaty.

The 115th Congress, responding nicely to the new charlatan mode of doing business; proceeded to invent its own "Traditional Congressional Prerogatives" and voted overwhelmingly in favor of the sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction associated assets to Iran when these sales were made under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group. Nobody in Congress has talked about the ongoing activities carried out by the Procurement Working Group before or since that vote, or the violations of treaty this entails.

* * * * *

Returning to the integrity of United States Ports:

There are five major ports of commercial shipping activity in the U.S. (naturally there are others). These five hail out of four States: the port of Seattle (Washington); the ports of Oakland, and San Pedro (California); the port of New Orleans (Louisiana); and the port of New York.

It is well into the fourth year since Resolution 2231 was accepted by the Security Council; and not one member of either the Lower House or the Senate representing any one of those States has uttered a peep about the opening of their ports Iranian terror shipping interests as defined by the Security Council resolution. This is what currently passes for States' "representation" in Congress at this time in the United States.

Are the electorates in these States to believe that any of those elected charlatans from their home States really do represent them – when those fakes all strenuously withhold information and lie by omission about what Obama's "Iran nuclear agreement" means to the integrity of the constituencies' local U.S. ports?

Had Trump, or anyone else allowed Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" to remain in place; that issue of assigning and guaranteeing terrorist shipping interests priority, or a safe harbor for carrying on with activities – this probably wouldn't have done much for world wide good reputation for the security rating of U.S. Port's.

In all this time not one member of either the Lower House or the Senate even mentioned on the Congressional Record anything about the Port Concessions to Iran – or even mentioned Obama's assault on U.S. sovereignty and jurisdiction in this regard. Obama got his deal and that was accepted; either vociferously or silently by the Congress; and the Congress sat by and ignored the issues.

Both issues: U.S. participation in assisting Iranian acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction capability, and the opening of U.S. ports and to terrorist related shipping interests; both of these are national issues; which can only be dealt with by the national level electorate.

The strenuous universal withholding from the various electorates nationwide of essential information by the entire Congress is a national issue.

That the preoccupation of the entire Congress with the selected favorite fashion of the day influence – arms dealing to Iran; had taken precedence over the integrity of U.S. shipping interests is a national issue – until the President succeeding Obama pulled the plug on it; that even today remains a national issue in that...

The demonstrated universal preference of all politicians in Congress is to exult in partisan interests which conflict with their Oath and duty to the Constitution. The prevalence of this inclination in Congress is of serious national concern.

This obsessive preoccupation of the Congress, granting private interests precedence over the Constitution in my opinion proves itself to be the number one menace facing the U.S. It is the domestic menace which encompasses all external menaces; this is a national level issue which can only be, and is most properly dealt with by the Citizens' plenary vote.

Returning to his, _Commentaries on the Constitution_ ; Book III; Chapter II, our Justice Joseph Story observes:

§ S6352 ... the preamble emphatically speaks of it [the Constitution], as a solemn ordinance and establishment of government. The language is, " We, the people of the United States, do _ordain_ and _establish_ this constitution for the United States of America." _The_ _people_ do _ordain_ and _establish_ , not contract and stipulate with each other. The people of the _United States_ , not the distinct people of a _particular state_ with the people of the other states. The people ordain and establish a " _constitution_ ," not a " _confederation_.''

It is the People of the United States who have ordained and established the Constitution as a law to the Government. The Constitution is the law which governs the behavior of the Legislature (This concept will be examined further and in more detail in the writing.)

When the entire assembled, both entrenched and junior politicians of Congress gang together to suppress information attempting to keep their bad behavior from the several constituencies – I maintain that these persons occupying seats in Congress are a collective of encumbrances; obstructionist fakes who represent their own personally or party line sought out choices of influence; and do not represent their own constituencies.

This time around the Congress determined its favorite and most popular chosen interest to be arms dealing to the exclusion of any interest in the security and integrity of U.S. commercial ports and shipping.

Give my minions access to your ports – approve sales to Iran of contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity in violation of your own law; and in return we might let you sell your conventional class weapons over here if you can find buyers willing to deal with the "Great Satan."

That was the choice the foreign Prince offered Obama, and the choice to which Obama, and subsequently a bi-partisan, Congress collective obediently yielded to.

The universal malfeasance and influence peddling of Congress; the refusal of the Congress to deal with the People's Constitution, and to adhere to it as the law which they by Oath have sworn to be governed by – rather than being governed by the ambitions the foreign Prince which the collective 115th Congress had decided to yield to;

This fundamental and egregious disdainful contempt of the People of the United States and the People's Constitution is most properly to be dealt with by the entire voting electorate on the national level.

The Congress pays attention to the voices of its chosen influence; the voice of the people is ignored because it has no teeth. The voice of the people is uttered only in local level summaries – and is nothing to be taken very seriously at all really.

A national level "Vote of No Confidence" which could banish many congressional politicians all at once from re-entry, for one term of office, into the particular office previously held, would suddenly need be taken seriously. The members of Congress and the political parties would be forced to reassess priorities. The national level "Vote of No Confidence" would also necessarily impede to some extent the influence and power of the political party fundraising machines by sudden changes in Congressional membership.

* * * * *

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is essential – but remains merely a request, easily ignored by Congress. Once the national level electorate would be enfranchised by a "Vote of No Confidence," a petition for redress of grievances by the electorate would no longer be something to ignore.

If the national level electorate, already empowered with the "Vote of No Confidence," were polite enough to petition the Government for redress of grievance before simply beginning voting people out of office – then members of Congress might breathe a sigh of relief and even thank the electorate for the courtesy voluntarily extended by the public.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 4  
– Refusing to Read the List –

The 115th Congress knew about the list – but by best evidence, hadn't bothered to read it. The 115th Congress was pushing the President into continuing with ongoing United States Government participation in approving nuclear and ballistic missile weapons sales to Iran carried out on an ongoing basis under the auspices of Obama's "Iran nuclear deal." So the membership of the 115ht Congress must have known something about Resolution 2231 – or they wouldn't have known about provisions relating concessions to Iran that ballistic missile weapons associated inventories could commence as of JCPOA "Implementation Day," occurring 16 January 2016.

That the negligent membership of Congress knew about that, and had attempted to later approve it by vote indicates that someone in the assembly had read something about Obama's deal with Iran. Nevertheless, it doesn't appear anyone in Congress had taken the time to read, or read very far into what was on the list of things being handed out Iran by the Procurement Working Group.

The 115th House of Representatives had dreamed of the possibility; and had attempted to possibly force this continued participation in Procurement Working Group activities upon the Executive branch under the pretense that the President was legally bound to continue Government ongoing involvement in violation of treaty and international law; legally bound to continue approving nuclear and ballistic missile weapons sales to Iran

As previously noted, Barack Obama, devised alongside the Ministers of the Government of Iran; a scheme to institute the novel bureaucracy known as that _Procurement Working Group_ , which had been given its mandate, devised evidently primarily between the Obama administration and the Ministers of the Government of Iran, to carry out specific acts in utter disregard and in violation of the restraints such as are imposed by the international treaty that both State Parties were and are signatories to; that treaty being the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_.

The Procurement Working Group had been granted license, by those not authorized to grant any such license, to determine when it should be found necessary and proper to violate international treaty order to approve Iranian acquisitions of nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets conveniently bundled together in procurement packages which the International Atomic Energy Agency would in no way be allowed any form of access to for purposes of verifying that the materials being sold were not being diverted for use in the development of a nuclear weapons arsenal..

As noted previously, the Procurement Working Group set up its internationally publicized advertising campaign promoting, and encouraging international participation this novel enterprise in 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 _Information on the Procurement Channel_ ; heading: _B. Further questions and answers_ ; paragraph 18, as follows:

Information on the Procurement Channel

B. Further questions and answers

18. _Question_ ; 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?_

_Answer_ : A proposal may include items which fall both under _S/2015/546_ , as well as one of the _INFCIRC_ s. 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.

It is well-known to vendors world-wide; that the alpha-numeric code " _S/2015/546_ " refers to the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_.

THE MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME – Equipment, Software and Technology Annex, referred to in the Procurement Working Group advertisement as _S/2015/546_ ***** is a general lexicon of 21st century weaponry, primarily dealing with ballistic missiles and delivery systems; and with other weapons technologies associated with ballistic missiles. This list was developed by the international Missile Technology Control Regime association. The Equipment, Software and Technology Annex was assembled as a list of weapons inventory the M.T.C.R. association considers should be controlled.

*[Appendix 1 Presents a substantial excerpt of the list []]

Appendix 2 explains how that " _S/2015/546_ " name came into being [[10]]

For a detailed description of the association's purpose and activities the interested reader may refer to the Missile Technology Control Regime website: http://www.mtcr.info/english/The Missile Technology Control Regime; or, possibly better, http://www.mtcr.info/.

* * * * *

The other document referred to in the Procurement Working Group world-wide advertisement is the INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 list of nuclear weapons assets posted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 is the most recent updated version of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2;

As hinted, this is the IAEA list of nuclear weapons associated inventories. 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_."

In this case there most certainly is a pronounced risk, if not a promise, that such assets will be diverted to the development of nuclear weapons capacity in Iran, as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is prohibited under United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, former United State President Barack Obama's perversely destructive "Iran nuclear deal," from reviewing, accounting for, or accounting for any chain of custody for the purposes of verifying that the sale to Iran of these nuclear weapons associated assets, including material goods, support services and technologies such as we shall discover under examination, may consist of: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." as listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2.

Appenix 05 [] details the "Iran nuclear deal" provision barring IAEA inspection in this area.

The IAEA admonishes, concerning the contents of the list:

IAEA Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 (Date: 13 November 2013);

GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFERS OF NUCLEAR-RELATED DUAL-USE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED TECHNOLOGY

OBJECTIVE

1. With the objective of averting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and preventing acts of nuclear terrorism, suppliers have had under consideration procedures in relation to the transfer of certain equipment, materials, software, and related technology that could make a major contribution to a "nuclear explosive activity," an "unsafeguarded nuclear fuel-cycle activity" or acts of nuclear terrorism. In this connection, suppliers have agreed on the following principles, common definitions, and an export control list of equipment, materials, software, and related technology. Suppliers intend to implement the Guidelines in accordance with national legislation and relevant international commitments.

And some of the Basic Principles are:

BASIC PRINCIPLE

2. Suppliers should not authorize transfers of equipment, materials, software, or related technology identified in the Annex:

– for use in a non-nuclear-weapon state in a nuclear explosive activity or

– in general, 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, or

– when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to acts of nuclear terrorism.

VERY GOOD, so now we are introduced to and aware of some of the contents of two of the documents salient to this portion of the examination. Proceeding to review that the 115th House of Representatives, on 26 October 2018 voted almost unanimously in favor of the consequences of the Procurement Working Group advertisement seeking out vendors world-wide to make available for sale to Iran, procurement packages combining nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons assets:

The 115th House of Representatives asserted that no such activity, conducted under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group, should be required any review by the President of the United States. Such activity was thereby to be _ipso facto_ considered approved, or consented to by the Government of the United States – regardless of violation of international treaty and law.

This proposition parroted Barack Obama's Resolution 2231 stipulation that Paragraph _211(a)_ of the _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_ – requiring and empowering the President to take action against, and to prevent, foreign financial interests in support of terrorist activities, intruding on U.S. Ports facilities and shipping in order that these facilitates and legitimate shipping interests might be co-opted to the benefit of financing groups in support of organized terrorism – as explained and documented previously.

Obama's intention to terminate the _Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012_ ; paragraph 211(a) – removing from the Executive Branch the enforcement power necessary in dealing with one aspect of the intrusion of foreign terror onto U.S. jurisdiction; is very much mirrored in the 115th House of Representatives' _Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698_ which attempted to force the President to turn a blind eye to the activities of the Procurement Working Group in its expediting and approving of sales to Iran of Weapons of Mass Destruction capability in violation of international treaty and law.

The House of Representatives' _Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act – HR 1698_ followed suit with the Obama administration's futile attempt to defeat any future President's effort to put pressure on financiers of international terror attempting to expedite their own agenda's in areas under United States jurisdiction;

The 115th House of Representatives was simply following through on a concept developed in the Obama administration.

* * * * *

It was outlandish. The Congress was asserting that the United States would look the other way whenever it would be that it was the United Nations which allegedly sponsored actions carried out in violation of treaty, and would look the other way when it would be the United States Government which participated in these activities violating treaty under United Nations alleged "sponsorship."

The position taken by the bill passed in the Lower House, was that when it was the United States Government which is actively engaged in violating treaty on an ongoing basis; when it is the United States Government that justifies its violations as being done under United Nations auspices, then that makes everything just fine.

This decision by the House of Representatives exhibits the universal ignorance of the Charter of the United Nations exhibited by the Congress, and also a complete disdain for the United States Constitution.

In fact – the Charter of the United Nations does not authorize violation of treaty – the prevalence of Articles imposing restraints on and against international belligerence are ubiquitous and spread throughout the Charter of the United Nations. So it wasn't alright to engage in these practices under the phony pretence of acting under "United Nations auspices."

An entirely ignorant Congress insolvent of any recollection of history seems completely incapable of adding one plus one – or putting basic ideas into some sort of coherent ordering.

I submit for the readers' consideration this excerpt from the Preamble with the purpose in mind to give some sensibility of the Charter of the United Nations:

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 ...

Apparently no one in Congress has ever shown interest enough to try and imagine what the origins of the Charter of the United Nations might be associated with.

Obviously, the Charter of the United Nations arose from the experiences of World War II. It was formulated primarily by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the then Soviet Union.

Can anyone in Congress imagine that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or Prime Minister Winston Churchill would fail to consider treaties as constituting solemn compacts of binding obligation among nations – that solemn adherence to treaties are fundamental in guaranteeing and securing peace among nations?

As far as the Soviet Leader Uncle Joe Stalin – he was certain to take the concept of treaty extraordinarily seriously by the end of World War II. Stalin thought he had a deal with Hitler. As everyone knows, the Nazis blew into the Soviet Union nonetheless.

The Nazis overran the western Soviet Union; they slaughtered millions – military and unarmed civilians alike. Those hopelessly attempting to flee were cut down and left to rot in the fields; and left to rot in the villages they had been trapped in and had once inhabited; villages that the Nazis either burned to the ground or converted to rubble if it was decided by advancing forces that there was time enough to take the trouble to bother.

There were to be no prisoners taken – no quarter given – the Nazis weren't going to be slowed by such formalities.

The Nazis left a charnel house in the wake of their penetration into the degenerate "Slavic" Soviet Union – and if the Soviet Red Army ever had the chance to retake any ground whatsoever; the Nazis could take satisfaction that they had spread terror, and that they would indeed be back to spread more and to inflict greater.

The framers of the Charter of the United Nations did not neglect to assert that treaty and international law is foremost in maintaining the peace; the Charter of the United Nations imposes multiple Articles designed to restrain international belligerence.

The Security Council is absolutely not authorized by the Charter of the United Nations to act upon, or implement any Security Council resolution which violates treaty or, and, international law.

Only a most notorious collection of ignorant and imbecile fool "lawmakers" in Congress could tolerate Obama's moron fabrication that anything about this egregious violation of treaty could possibly be considered as Authorized under the Charter of the United Nations; any more than it could be considered as Authorized under the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution does not authorize violation of treaty once it has made under the Authority of the United States; the United States Constitution declares treaty as a piece with the supreme Law of the Land; and the United States Constitution is the rule of law which the Congress is bound to adhere to:

The 115th House of Representatives knew that the Procurement Working Group had already been carrying on with the activity of approving Iranian acquisitions of such assets since November 2016 – but the 115th Congress wanted to nail down the position of the United States as endorsing this activity – and then perhaps get U.S. Government approval of this activity ratified into U.S. Law.

By its I _ran_ _Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act_ , The Congress wanted the President of the United States to turn a blind eye when it was the Procurement Working Group carrying on with egregious violations of the NPT. But if any other entity tried the same thing, the President damned well better report it.

So the House of Representatives wanted to pass its legislation protecting the Procurement Working Group monopoly on expediting sales to Iran of contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction associated acquisitions while preventing any other competitor from trying to cut in on a piece of the action. This would mean that Congress approved when the Procurement Working Group breaks with treaty – as long as no other Party does without Security Council permission.

Trump pulled out of participation and cooperation with the activities of the Procurement Working Group.

The Congress failed to overcome Trump's obstinacy at that time. Nevertheless, the ambitious 115th House of Representatives succeeded in letting the world to know where the 115th House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America absolutely stood through its act coming out energetically cheering the ongoing adventure.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 5  
– Vote Quietly Put Aside –

Had Trump remained in Barack Obama's "Iran nuclear deal," speculation of U.S. arms dealers on sales to the Iranian open market on conventional weapons, as of 18 October 2020, might have been further encouraged.

The October 26, 2017 House of Representatives vote clarifies that bi-partisan portfolio interests take pride of place above and beyond the Constitution and international treaty; that continued U.S. Government participation in facilitating Iranian acquisition of nuclear and ballistic missile associated assets was shown to be of far more importance to Democratic and Republican fundraising machine policies than any consideration of treaty or the Constitution.

It may be tempting to feel a bit relaxed knowing that vote didn't go anywhere. Yet the vote didn't go anywhere because the Congress lost its nerve going in that direction that time around. The Congress decided upon different strategies for convincing the public that Trump should remain in the deal. One of these was the 13 March 2018 SASC interview of a U.S. General, essential in his position, to national security interests.

* * * * *

The 13 March 2018 interrogation of General Votel Commander of CENTCOM was just the tool for the bi-partisan political party portfolio driven Democrats and Republicans of Congress to entertain themselves with in pursuit of finding a way to convince the Public that Trump should stick with Obama's "Iran nuclear deal."

A palpable concern is unmistakably there that the Iranian conventional weapons marketplace is around the corner; it is, or was, hanging out to become available for access in October 2020, and a lot of portfolio speculative doctrinaire might not have wanted Trump to go about spoiling things and end up squandering what might be a brilliant financial speculative opportunity by pulling out of the deal.

On 13 March 2018, the Senate Armed Services Committee conducted an interview with four Star General Joseph Votel Commander of Central Command (CENTCOM) operations.

the In their 13 March 2018 "examination" of General Votel, the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee could easily discover that the General, even by March of 2018 had not been made aware either by President Obama, President Trump, or the 114th or 115th Congress, and not by anyone in the "intelligence" community, including any military "intelligence" brigade or department the Citizen might be under the impression exists as having any idea of what it's doing – the General apparently had not been made familiar with the details of the carryings on of the Procurement Working Group.

Which means, in essence that the United States Government has failed the General – but not just the General. The United States Government has failed the General's Command.

The United States Government has failed all of those young people, those young men and women volunteers who had slapped that flag on the shoulders of their uniforms and took that Oath of loyalty to the Constitution; an Oath that can only be honored as heartfelt because they're not just talking, they're offering to put their asses out there on the line to defend the Constitution and this nation if worse comes to worst.

The United States Government has failed all of those young people; and their families, and those close to them on the outside, by trying to keep everyone in the dark about what the U.S. Government has been involved with.

And as for those young soldiers who had been orphaned early, who've got no family outside the military – they've been betrayed, left hanging out to dry, left in the dark too.

It is an injustice which the United States Government, especially the remorseless lawmakers of Congress; show no indication of feeling the least bit scandalized by.

The General seemed completely unaware of the compliment of bundled procurement packages of ballistic missile and nuclear weapons associated assets which theoretically had been made available for sale to Iran as of 16 January 2016 – but the approval of such procurement packages; of which contents no one in the United States can be clearly confident of; and certainly no one ad yet has come out publicly voicing any knowledge of;

The transfer of these unknown assets has been going on since November of 2016; throughout the last few months of Obama's tenure in office.

Easily aware of the General's apparent innocent simplicity in the matter, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) interviewers made easy political sport of General Votel. Democratic Party Senator Jack Reed and "Independent" Senator Angus King of Maine restricted themselves to asking of the General only blank simplistic questions. They requested if the General thought President Trump's proposed pull out from United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 might adversely affect national security interests in the region. That's about it.

Neither of those two pro-nuclear weapons proliferation political party portfolio guided Senators dared publicly ask the General how ongoing United States Government active approvals of sales to Iran of procurement packages potentially containing stuff like: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." might adversely impact the General's theatre of operations;

Or even what the General might think of United States Government participation in sales to Iran of dedicated procurement packages bundling ballistic missile and nuclear weapons associated assets the exact contents of which only a very few know about – and the International Atomic Energy Agency is certainly kept in the dark about.

The SASC weren't interested in any opinion the General might have about something like that, or if knowledge of those aspects of the Obama "Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal" might somewhat alter the General's opinion on whether or not the United States Government should remain as a participant in the deal.

In summary, Votel answered the evasive simplistic questions with a simple apolitical noncommittal answer:

**General Joseph Votel** :

_I think about how we intended to address that particular threat_ [Iranian nuclear weapons threat] _, if it was not being addressed through the JCPOA..._

* * * * *

Perhaps for the sake of whatever influences they had chosen to be guided by – or for whatever incoherent reason, the Congress had universally turned its back on the Constitution; and attempted in its 26 October 2017 vote, and in other ways, to pressure this new green President Trump to go along with the assault on treaty and the Constitution perpetrated to the benefit of the satisfaction the weapons development ambitions of the foreign Prince.

The episode and its potential further consequences brings to my mind another bit of writing offered by early Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story. This following excerpt quotes Chapter IV – _Who is the Final Judge or Interpreter in Constitutional Controversies_ ; from Justice Story's _Commentaries on the Constitution_.

§ 164 ...in the course of the discharge of the functions of any one, or of all, of the great departments of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The officers of each of these departments are equally bound by their oaths of office to support the constitution of the United States, and are therefore conscientiously bound to abstain from all acts, which are inconsistent with it.

Whenever, therefore, they are required to act in a case, not hitherto settled by any proper authority, these functionaries must, in the first instance, decide, each for himself, whether, consistently with the constitution, the act can be done. If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act.

So if a proposition be before congress, every member of the legislative body is bound to examine, and decide for himself, whether the bill or resolution is within the constitutional reach of the legislative powers confided to congress. And in many cases the decisions of the executive and legislative departments, thus made, become final and conclusive, being from their very nature and character incapable of revision. Thus, in measures exclusively of a political, legislative, or executive character, it is plain, that as the supreme authority, as to these questions, belongs to the legislative and executive departments, they cannot be reexamined elsewhere.

Thus, congress having the power to declare war, to levy taxes, to appropriate money, to regulate intercourse and commerce with foreign nations, their mode of executing these powers can never become the subject of re-examination in any other tribunal. So the power to make treaties being confided to the president and senate, when a treaty is properly ratified, it becomes the law of the land, and no other tribunal can gainsay its stipulations.

Yet cases may readily be imagined, in which a tax may be laid, or a treaty made, upon motives and grounds wholly beside the intention of the constitution. **The remedy, however, in such cases is solely by an appeal to the people at the elections ; or by the salutary power of amendment, provided by the constitution itself.**

The above writing, referring to several different aspects, speaks in large part concerning instances which may appear novel, perhaps ambiguous in their nature; where nevertheless a decision must be made.

Overall the above excerpt tends towards responding to questions which may appear ambiguous, in some way or another, to those in the immediate event seeking some justification or solution – for example:

Justice Story observes: "... _If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act_ *****."

***** (The clear sentiment observed by Justice Story is that any action contemplated by a President; must be tempered by humility, and an overwhelming concern for conformity to Constitution.)

Although the above was written in the context of an uncertainty as to whether to perform or not to perform; the message applies in equal measure both to questions of uncertainty, or of certainty. To act consistently in conformity to the Constitution is the duty in either case, not just the duty of the President – but also of each and every member of Congress.

In the case of President Trump's withdrawal of the United States Government from further participation in Obama's mandate to the Procurement Working Group, the current President succeeding Obama was duty bound by his Oath to the Constitution to decide on:

If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, **he is not only authorized, but required** , to decide for himself, whether, **consistently with his constitutional duties** , he can do the act.

President Trump decided that it was inconsistent with his constitutional duties to defy international treaty, and hence the Constitution of the United States, by maintaining United States participation in the activities of the Procurement Working Group.

The evident purpose of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), in regards to maintenance of Obama's delicious arrangement with Iran – was not to gather intelligent insight from the General. The mission of regarding the Iran deal was to trick the General into saying something nice about that deal which could be used to put publicity pressure on the President to go against his own conscience and what the general Citizen considers as Common Sense.

Generally, the U.S. Citizen trends against the proliferation of nuclear weapons – and not one person in Congress has dared explain or justify publicly the maintaining of such a policy by explaining to the U.S. citizenry how mistaken the electorate is to be so opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons – and to be so singularly opposed to the distribution of nuclear weapons particularly to Iran.

Instead, the puerile imbecile Congress has universally persistently knowingly lied to the public about the enterprise, continuingly absurdly characterizing Obama's, some might think of as potentially lucrative to some interests, "deal" as permanently preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Trump, like any half-decent person with a little bit of spine in that position, refused to cave in to the SASC pressure.

And the membership of the SASC interrogation committee presented themselves as so infantile and lacking in capacity, that not one of the smug, self-righteous little assholes would inform the General of what the Procurement Working Group was (is) up to, even when this is essential information vital to producing a reasonable assessment of perils to national security. That behavior is what passes for high quality of character, and is considered as what passes for a communal sense of patriotic duty to the General Welfare, among the current U.S. entrenched political elite hogging seats in the Congress of today.

* * * * *

There is no uncertainty in this situation, the activities undertaken under the Procurement Working Group mandate are in direct egregious violation of the very first, basic Article of the NPT (among other parts discussed further on).

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**.

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 touched upon earlier in this writing.

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.

IN A LETTER, DATED APRIL 10, 1968 from Under Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach to Secretary of Defense Clark M. Clifford, Mr. Katzenbach indicated that:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Before you go to The Hague for the Nuclear Planning Group meeting on April 18-19, I believe you should be familiar with the US interpretations of Articles I and II of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regarding alliance arrangements for nuclear defense...

...The language of Articles I and II of the NPT was chosen in order to protect alliance consultations on nuclear defense as well as on nuclear defense deployment arrangements. These are not explicitly sanctioned by Articles I and II, since the USSR was not prepared to provide such an endorsement of NATO arrangements.

In Secretary Rusk's October 10, 1966 talk with Foreign Minister Gromyko, it was clearly understood that Articles I and II of the NPT deal only with what is prohibited and not what is permitted. Article I of the NPT prohibits the transfer of ownership or control of nuclear weapons (understood to mean warheads and bombs and not delivery vehicles). It does not mention alliance consultations or deployment arrangements not involving a transfer of nuclear weapons. We worked out interpretations on these and other aspects of Articles• I and II with our allies (and in particular the FRG [Federal Republic of Germany, the nation of then divided West Germany]) which were presented to the Soviets on April 28, 1967 in the form of answers to questions posed by our allies (Tab A). *****

***[** This letter and related correspondence can be found under: FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 1964–1968 Volume XI, Arms Control and Disarmament, Document 232. Document 232 refers to the particular letter, Volume XI provides related items of interest. **]**

This excerpt from the April 10 letter confirms that Russian Foreign Minister Gromyko, and hence the Soviet government, understood the U.S. position as early as the end of April, 1967. As previously mentioned, 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. This Joint Draft between the US and the USSR (presented long after the April 28, 1967) supports that the Questions and Answers document presented to the Soviet Union was considered an appropriated interpretation of Articles I and II by both parties.

A facsimile of the full April 10, 1968 letter is reproduced on following pages for the readers' interest (the Addressee's name, Clark Clifford, is listed on the bottom of page 1). The reproduction of the Questions and Answers document follows. Both documents were considered sensitive at the time, but they have long since been declassified. And so, as unclassified government documents, they are in the public domain. These documents are presented following:

With that background – the examination proceeds.

So it is clear that _HR 1698_ does very egregiously violate the treaty and therefore is repugnant to the United States Constitution.

And the Procurement Working Group mandate is not only about giving Iran whatever it wants to pay for in terms of hardware – it's about giving that belligerent non-nuclear-weapons-State anything it wants pertaining to the development of a well-rounded world-class nuclear weapons program of the first order.

It's about every kind of transfer of technology and services to Iran. Iran can theoretically access and buy anything it wants off of the INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 list – any asset it feels that might be useful to it; including support services and step-by-step instruction booklets if they're there to be bought.

The "definitions" section of INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 explains it:

International Atomic Energy Agency; [information Circular] INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2

Annex – List of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software, And Related Technology

DEFINITIONS

"Technical data" --

"Technical data" may take forms such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories.

"Technology" --

means specific information required for the "development", "production", or "use" of any item contained in the List. This information may take the form of "technical data" or "technical assistance".

"Technical assistance" --

"Technical assistance" may take forms such as: instruction, skills, training, working knowledge, consulting services.

Note: "Technical assistance" may involve transfer of "technical data".

Naturally the Ministers of the Government of Iran wanted the best they could get out of the Obama administration – and what they got was very good from their point of view. Among the many concessions Obama handed out in his frantic effort to give away the farm, was permission for Russia, China, maybe even the United States or whoever else; to transfer to Iran, for whatever return consideration: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." as listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2.

But the Ministers of Iran got much more than simply goods, services and technologies.

It is well known that Iran regularly threatens some its neighbors with destruction – and has openly pledged the future destruction of at least one nearby State. United States Government participation in Iranian contraband weapons systems development programs must be most reasonably considered as being at the same time United States continuing participation in an Iranian preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty or international assurances;

United States Government (at the time) continuous ongoing participation in expediting and approving sales of contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction associated assets to Iran must be understood as an acknowledgment to the Iranian Government, of U.S. tacit approval granting that State tacit permission to wage war of aggression in violation of international treaty or assurances, which might result in the extinguishing of neighboring populations Iran understood to be obnoxious to Iran.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 6  
– Participation in Crimes Against Peace –

In 1947 Presiding Justice James Tenney Brand, handing down the opinion of the Court in Nuernberg Trial III, observed as follows:

This is but an application of general concepts of criminal law. The person who persuades another to commit murder, the person who **furnishes the lethal weapon** for the purpose of its commission, and the person who pulls the trigger are all principals or accessories to the crime.

Unquestionably the 115th House of Representatives voted almost unanimously in support of furnishing the lethal weapon to Iran in its shaming Lower House 26 October vote favoring _HR-1698_.

The denizens of both Houses of Congress, of both political parties – and the "independents" too, all have lied and continue to lie by omission in support of Obama's arrangement with Iran by, among the other things, absolutely refusing to discuss or mention parts of the agreement such as the allowance that States are enabled to sell to Iran such information such as nuclear weapons associated: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc."

As is well known and admitted to by everyone in Congress; Iran is a State Sponsor of International Terror, and has continued to very publicly pledge the destruction or overthrow of neighboring nations – with the possible collateral consequence of the regrettable need to extinguish the odd population center or two.

Iran is the State the 115th House of Representatives voted in their Lower House Bill _HR-1698_ "Bill" to, to submit that their anti-constitutional partisan doctrine, once formulated and enacted as a "Bill" (infringing upon and unauthorized by the Constitution), might be somehow foisted upon the President succeeding Barack Obama;

The House of Representatives was determined that President Trump should be pressured to continue colluding in the vicious doctrine of his predecessor by perpetuating the implementation of Barack Obama's signature policy in order that the 115th Congress could enjoy the satisfaction of pushing the point that the 115th Congress had the political clout to singularly exonerate from international treaty ongoing approvals of Iranian trades in nuclear weapons associated assets while the International Atomic Energy Agency (was) is to be concurrently prevented from verifying that inventories purchased are not being diverted to the development of nuclear weapons capacity in Iran.

Returning momentarily to Justice Story's observation: "... _If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act_."

The President decided he wasn't going to continue with what amounts to handing off nuclear weapons capacity to Iran.

President Trump was not forced to confront any ambiguity in his choice to withdraw from Obama's "Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal;" the constitutional mandate had long since been made clear. It's part of the President's job to uphold treaty, and Trump would be in violation of his Oath to support and defend the Constitution were he to allow himself to go along with the demands of the grasping, self-serving opportunist hawk politicians of the 115th Congress.

* * * * *

No previous Congress of the United States had ever thought or acted to violate the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ in order to bestow the privilege of assisting in the development of the potential nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities of Switzerland, or Nepal, or Japan or any other State; none of the those States, or any other had ever openly asked for such assistance.

Iran has asked and Iran was picked by the 114th and especially the 15th Congress to be the singular beneficiary of this historic Congressional success story to be.

Iran is different from those other nations mentioned above; Iran has pledged the destruction of some of its neighbors. Maybe that explains some of the motivation behind the peculiar determinations of this historic; and sometimes enigmatic 115th Congress.

Repeating here again what I've covered in other writings; the codified international definition of the War Crime, _Crimes against Peace_ :

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 115th Congress, especially the House of Representatives in its HR-1698 vote favoring United States Government approvals of Iranian acquisitions of Weapons of Mass Destruction elements; this to a State well-known for its pledges vowing to destroy those of its neighbors it finds obnoxious;

The 115th Congress had jumped in aggressively eager on record to maintain United States participation in the international open " _common plan or conspiracy_ " (by definition) to participate in assisting Iranian preparations for Iran's pledged _initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war of violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances_.

This President Trump has been vilified for pulling the United States out of the deal;

But international law indicates that the United States should never have been in the deal or instigated the deal in the first place.

International law thoroughly justifies any view in the electorate that the pro-proliferation demagogue politicians of the Congress are to be thought of as the very best real true to life example of a collection of amoral, yet empowered by public office, elitist corrupt politicians; brashly exhibiting their amorality as conforming to the international definition of the War Criminal falling under the category of _Crimes against Peace_."

The 115th Congress collectively lied to the electorate;

Both political parties alike consistently have omitted to mention that support for the Obama "deal" involves the sale to Iran of nuclear weapons associated: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc.;" among all of the other things mentioned.

The agitation by pro-proliferation portfolio politician demagogues favoring the Obama "Iran nuclear deal" goes on and on; and what these proponents of the "deal," scrounging for favorable re-election returns are really effectively advocating is affording material assistance and spiritual assent approving that Iran be given the discretion to carry out its belligerent pledge – giving Iran the discretion to exterminate populations at choice of opportunity, or chance immediate inclination, or pretended provocation without interference from, and with the assistance of the United States Government.

Why these members of Congress would choose such course of action remains uncertain. A person could ask them about it. But it is unlikely that anyone in the public, or perhaps even any of their closest family members, could get a straight answer out of any of them.

Given their refusal to be clear, the public is left with only the recourse of reasonable conjecture to speculate on.

Were it that the had been a "Vote of No Confidence" already in place at the time when the 115th Congress voted in favor of maintaining the U.S. practice of assisting and approving Iranian bundled packages of nuclear and ballistic missile assets; then tight-lipped members of Congress, refusing to discuss their motives for voting in that direction would simply have to have somehow sommon a far-fetched faith that the national electorate might allow that not all individuals voting in the manner they did, would be barred from subsequent re-elction (for one term) to the office they previously held.

The elitist bi-partisan platform of the Congress, inhabited by those presenting themselves as of the most select and superior man and women, is the very platform organized to "furnish the lethal weapon" to the nation of Iran which has publicly declared that it intends to spread carnage.

The membership of select superior men and women populating the current 115th Congress are the very ones who promote that the U.S. Government maintain its position as a State which should furnish the lethal weapon so as to aid preparations of the Iranian Government in its pledged waging of war of aggression.

Referring once again to Justice Story's comment: Chapter IV – _Who is the Final Judge or Interpreter in Constitutional Controversies_ ;

Yet cases may readily be imagined, in which a tax may be laid, or a treaty made, upon motives and grounds wholly beside the intention of the constitution. **The remedy, however, in such cases is solely by an appeal to the people at the elections ; or by the salutary power of amendment, provided by the constitution itself.**

I maintain; that in this current era we citizens do not have adequate enfranchisement in election to rebuke the Congress for universal breech of the Oath of Office.

We do, however, have the constitutional right to demand amendment to the Constitution that would give the Citizens very effective ability and means to respond to the flagrant abuses of corruption and negligence perpetrated and continued ongoing by the entrenched political groups controlling the rulemaking powers in this country.

Had there been a "Vote of No Confidence" already in place at the time, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee could have been more careful about trying to make a fool of the General and the Citizen in their insulting course of questioning.

Had there been a "Vote of No Confidence" already in place – the 115th House of Representatives would have been more careful, might have thought twice before pulling their cheap trick publicity stunt 26 October 2017 hoax on the Citizen. The vote which pushed for continued United States Government participation in the internationally defined and codified _Crimes against Peace_.

The partisans of the two party portfolio driven Congress might think twice about pushing a President to continue promoting egregious violation of treaty; pushing a President to continue in what must be most reasonably construed as the exercise of participating in the odious and long since internationally defined and codified War Crime of _Crimes against Peace_ ;

The Congress with all its mischief making and fooling around trying to promote the pro-nuclear weapons proliferation agenda it's got itself snagged on, is seriously wasting time.

Most in Congress, in both parties, have staked their political credibility on the "Iran nuclear deal," yet none explain how their House of Representatives almost unanimously in favor U.S. involvement in participation Procurement Working Group mandated activities expediting, approving, and escalating sales to Iran of Weapons of Mass Destruction associated assets in any way prevents Iran from ever attaining a nuclear weapons.

While the product of these Procurement Working Group activities continues in aggregate to expand through time, not one in Congress, not one of those who have staked their political credibility on the "Iran nuclear deal" promoted as preventing Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons capacity, has dared mention any suggestion that this arrangement with the Ministers of the Government of Iran was really about appeasing the foreign Prince by assisting in the ambitious aspiration of that Government's attaining Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities.

The Congress is wasting time – it is vilifying the President for doing part of the right thing in this instance – while at the same time attempting to obstruct or obscure the full course of action necessary to redeem the situation to some extent.

The President can't stop at just withdrawing from the arrangement. President Trump must attempt to correct the situation as much as possible by forming an alliance with other aggrieved States which will, gathered together, petition the International Court of Justice to confirm that the Security Council resolution was void from the time it was voted on in the Security Council.

Without that, the Procurement Working Group continues in its activity of studiously expanding Iranian nuclear weapons capacity unabated.

And while this world-wide concern continues to click against the clock, these self-seeking, self-righteous members of Congress, needing to be collectively kicked out of office for the sake of the security and safety of the United States, for the sake of Nations world wide, and humanity as a whole; this Congress continues to bicker and obstruct and jockey for perceived political gain in a period of extreme menace which the United States Government itself has instigated and brought upon this nation.

While Procurement Working Group activities are still underway; while many in the electorate already know this; an insular and insolent Congress insists on playing dumb, refusing to discuss the issue publicly – and refusing to admit that whatever Russia, France, Germany, China and the U.K. continue in whatever it is they do is beyond the control of Congress – and the only way to put a stop to this contraband arms trading is for the President to petition the International Court of Justice on behalf of welfare of the United States and of nations world-wide.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 7  
– Ruse Over Oath –

The chosen mode of suppressing information in this "Iran nuclear deal" affair is to simply not talk about the issues and pretend like nobody's ever heard anything about it.

Surely it is long since no longer to be believed that not one member of Congress in either of the influence portfolio driven societies of the Republican and Democratic political Parties had never heard of the fact that under the "Iran nuclear deal," on 18 October 2020, open market conventional weapons trading on the Iranian exchange begins in earnest.

In order to not be locked out of the venture – the bi-partisan portfolio system in Congress must somehow ensure that the United States Government continue to participate in Procurement Working Group efforts to expedite and approve of sales to Iran of nuclear and ballistic missile associated assets conveniently bundled in procurement packages which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is prohibited from reviewing for the purposes of verifying that these are not being diverted for use in the development of nuclear weapons capacity.

In return for this service rendered to the weapons development ambitions of the foreign Prince – U.S. proponents of the "Iran nuclear deal" could anticipate that Iran would allow U.S. arms dealing interests access to the potentially burgeoning Iranian conventional weapons market opening on 18 October 2020. This could be very lucrative for those U.S. arms dealing interests lucky enough to find buyers in Iran willing to do business with these U.S. arms dealerships based in the land of the "Great Satan."

To accommodate any chance of U.S. arms dealing interests entering into, and possibly profiting from the Iranian conventional weapons market opening up a little less than a month before the national election for the next President of the United States; the current President Trump should be pressured into remaining in the "deal,"

Trump would have to somehow be bulldozed, either through news media disfavor; or in some other way; into accepting the violations of treaty and the indulgence in the practice of assisting a belligerent State in its preparations for pledged waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty and international assurances – all of which remaining in Obama's Iran deal would entail.

In order to stay in the ball game long enough to get in on the potentially lucrative future Iranian open market on conventional weapons returns of sales to and from Iran, the 115th Congress had to try and force new green President Trump to remain in the deal and thereby continue branding himself as being of the amoral character of a war criminal falling under the category of the War Crime, _Crimes against Peace_ ; this by approving sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the first place – and then by further compounding the felony by approving these sales to a State which has pledged the destruction or overthrow of some of its obnoxious neighbors.

Hence the 26 October 2017 vote in the 115th House of Representatives.

Again returning to _Commentaries on the Constitution_ ; Chapter IV – _Who is the Final Judge or Interpreter in Constitutional Controversies_ as response to that vote:

§ 164 ...So if a proposition be before congress, every member of the legislative body is bound to examine, and decide for himself, whether the bill or resolution is within the constitutional reach of the legislative powers confided to congress...

It has become a current fashion of the day that members of Congress teach themselves well to become experts at various techniques of shifting personal responsibility on to others.

However, among other things implicit in his writing, Supreme Court Justice Story in the above is admonishing that, as it is true to life, every member of Congress is entirely bound by Oath of office to "... _examine, and decide for himself, whether the bill or resolution is within the constitutional reach of the legislative powers_ ..."

When almost every member of the House of Representatives advocated for continued participation in the War Crime, _Crimes against Peace_ , by attempting to "legitimize" through an act of Congress, continuing U.S. approval of defined as contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction sales to Iran, in violation of treaty and therefore in violation of the United States Constitution;

Then it must be concluded that every member did indeed "... _examine, and decide for himself, whether the bill or resolution is within the constitutional reach of the legislative powers_ ...;" and they, expected to know that their bill was not within the constitutional reach of the legislating powers, had evidently decided each and everyone of them, jointly and severally, that every individual in the collective assembly couldn't care less.

And no member of the 115th House of Representatives has expressed any joy in taking any responsibility for the vote or for what they advocate. Everyone has refused to talk about the vote since. The whole thing was hushed up as perhaps potential bad publicity.

And then the Senate later went on to screw with the American People, and the General too, in the 13 March 2018 SASC interview of General Joseph Votel.

On that day, any member of the Senate present could have come out and asked the General of real concerns issuing out of the menacing provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 – any one of them could have chosen to be good citizens concerned with the General Welfare.

Upon learning that the General in Command of the CENTCOM theatre of operations – which includes Iran – was unfamiliar with the ongoing (at the time) United States Government approvals and sponsorship of sales to Iran of contraband weapons capacity;

Instead of being good citizens and using the credibility of their offices to lend some weight to the information they could share with the General; instead of engaging in concerned discussion intending to inform the General in this area which the General was clearly unaware of – and thereby performing their duty to their Oath of Office and their moral pledge to honor, defend and protect the General Welfare;

The useless Senate membership of the SASC decided they didn't want to be good citizens. They kept their mouths shut on the issue and chose instead to continue in support of Obama's iconic arrangement with the Ministers of the foreign Prince and the speculative returns this support might bring somewhere down the line to the chosen "A Listed" priority influences exonerated by chosen inclusion in the Democratic and Republican Party portfolios;

You can't drag these people into Court for being assholes about it, as is implicit in the following:

§ 164 ... congress having the power to declare war, to levy taxes, to appropriate money, to regulate intercourse and commerce with foreign nations, **their mode of executing these powers can never become the subject of reexamination in any other tribunal** ...

...Yet cases may readily be imagined, in which a tax may be laid, or a treaty made, upon motives and grounds wholly beside the intention of the constitution. **The remedy, however, in such cases is solely by an appeal to the people at the elections ; or by the salutary power of amendment, provided by the constitution itself.**

It becomes gradually more evident, on further consideration of the issue; that the Oath of Office is intended as a thing which obliges the reasoning office holder as a reminder, to consider it in the daily course of conduct, as binding the logic of the various components of the Constitution which is known and understood as law to those acting in governance.

It is the living compulsory assurance pledging the forthright active concern of the individual engaged in the responsibilities of upholding a system of representative government.

In no way can the shallow, vacuous and cynical politicians manifest in the 115th be accredited, when they actively pursued their indulgent betrayals of the Constitution and of their social compact pledging to protect the General Welfare; in no way can these indolent impositions on the national electorate be construed or accredited as either upholding their Oaths of Offices.

These densely unaware cynics have treated their Oaths, the very thing which qualifies them to even participate in governance in the first place; as though that mysterious thing were merely the tattered ancient relic wall hanging, merely a remnant left behind only as a quaint artifact reminding of the obscure superstitious beliefs of a lost antiquity which modern political thought in the United States has so thoroughly outgrown in its maturity.

The respective organized party machine selected influences, and the individual partisans' expedient maneuverings, as every practical politician knows, are the means to accomplishing the more modern ends of supporting the underlying necessary unified platforms upon which monopolistic Republican and Democratic control units depend – and to which any sane politician knows to conform. No thought or loyalty need be given to antiquated incomprehensible ceremonial forms such as an "Oath of Office."

What these throwback regressive politicians have yet to exhibit themselves as being capable of acknowledging, is that retreat from their Oath of Office is a retreat back into the mode of governance which led to the American Revolution.

It is a retreat back into rule by whatever arbitrary expedient seems subjectively handy and fashionable to the Ruler at any given moment.

This might be mistaken by members of Congress as a more modern and practical approach – but it actually is the return to the most regressive methods of the absolutist monarch, who proceeds without a care and is answerable to no one; and in this wise, proceeds to pursue the dumbest, most destructive avenue discovered possible.

Members of the Congress have managed to establish a very convincing case for themselves; that by simply ignoring an issue, refusing to acknowledge its existence by avoiding any discussion of it – this approach is proven as a very effective tool, a very useful device to employ when a need is felt to suppress public information.

The congressional politician is aware that there is an automatic mystique associated with someone having been elected to office – so when not one member of the national assembly will discuss a given issue; then the issue must not be there.

A tiny little author like Jean-Marc LeBouquin, in that circumstance, is just a sidelined lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist; or would be except that when I present the case, I present the case with the facts as published in official U.S., U.N., IAEA, etc. documents.

When the partisan politicians promote Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" they propose the unsupportable fabrications endorsed by their political party. Take as an archetypical example the Senator from California, Diane Feinstein – professional pretend progressive who surreptitiously promoted – while she had the opportunity – maintaining U.S. collusion and participation in Procurement Working Group assistance of Iranian acquisitions of Weapons of Mass Destruction capability.

Democratic Party ranking leader in the U.S. Senate; California Senator Diane Feinstein; hard-line United States proponent of the project dedicated to the expediting and approving of Iranian acquisitions of defined nuclear weapons associated assets in combination with ballistic missile technologies; on 26 April 2018, avoided the publicly unmentionable issue of approving sales to Iran of nuclear weapons associated " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." and substituted the fact of this menace with her bland assertion of this following intentional counterfeit:

The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region.

[Source: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 164; No. 68: (page S2456), WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2018]

It didn't matter that Senator Feinstein wouldn't share her opinion of how sales to Iran of " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc.," "... _blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon_ ...etc.;" because she doesn't need to. She doesn't even feel the need to mention anything about the existence of that ongoing sales activity. She's got a whole political party there backing up her unsupportable declaration; not backing it up with any facts – which the proliferation proponents refuse to talk about – but backing it up by virtue of weight of numbers and access to the news media.

A "VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE" scheduled at intervals could help to train our wayward presences in politics, when they do things like continue to go off half cocked endorsing the promotion of continued sales to Iran of contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction associated goods, technologies and support services – probably in large part because our pompous stuff shirt elite partisan demagogues as a collective are too frightened to admit to the public that they were wrong from the beginning to ever have allowed U.S. engagement in Obama's iconic "Iran nuclear weapons transfer scheme" in the first place;

A "Vote of No Confidence" could work as a deterrent when the attentions of Congress are overly drawn to partisan preferred, selected influences – and when thereby a Congress sublimates the Constitution and any pledge of adherence to it in favor of Party portfolio options and promises;

A "Vote of No Confidence" could be very beneficial as a wake up call from the electorate – ordering the Congress; telling each and every member something to the effect of:

"Consider it – we the electorate have just sent a bunch of your colleagues home for a chance at an extended vacation "time out" to think about it; so you'd better clean it up and take that living Oath to the Constitution seriously, or you could be next – and those famous select influences in your partisan portfolios, with which you've been probably relying on to protect the stability of funding stamina to be infused into your reelection campaigns in support of your ongoing careers in Congress; those will now be beyond your reach as you are sent back to ride the bus returning you to your own privileged luxury accommodations."

* * * * *

Had there been a "Vote of No Confidence" already in place in 2015 when Obama pulled his nasty little publicity stunt of never transmitting United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which is the actual "Iran nuclear deal" that the rest of the international community has put into action and is working off of – then the 114th Congress might never have dared simply settling for what crumbs of it Obama had transmitted for the Congress to vote on in September 2015.

Had there been a "Vote of No Confidence" at that time; even a lethargic, negligent, complacent and malleable Congress such as the 114th manifestation of the assembly proved itself to be; possibly would have felt forced in the immediate event to make at least a minor nominal ceremonial stink to the high heavens about Obama's tasteless and uncivil little ruse of never transmitting United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to the Congress.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 8  
– Gossiping Up a Resolution's New Name –

This chapter is a short narrative telling the story of how the official title of the Security Council resolution which is the entire Obama "Iran nuclear deal," got renamed by gossip.

The official Security Council name of the Obama "Iran nuclear deal," is United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231(2015) – it is not the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action," (JCPOA) which is only Annex A of the resolution.

The motive for devising the renaming ruse was very simple, it was to keep the Congress and the public from looking at the whole resolution – which includes weapons transactions not mentioned in the JCPOA Annex;

And the ruse worked; as Obama, himself having emerged from the Senate, must have fairly confident it probably might work. Obama, knowing or believing that the current day politicians herded into Congress, is an assembled collection of hypocritical personalities who really aren't as interested in issues as they pretend, for necessary publicity's sake, to the public that they are;

And those herded inmates self-incarcerated in either House of Congress, turn out to not really be very perceptive, or diligent in their review, of documents;

And when members fail to review a document – they are nevertheless, as long as they are on the floor of Congress, free to claim that – "I've read it thoroughly over and over."

The gossipy renaming gambit worked – and no one even brought up Obama's weapons concessions to Iran contained in parts of his "Iran nuclear deal" which are not mentioned in Annex A: JCPOA of his "Deal."

* * * * *

Everyone is aware of this following obvious factor in our society: nationwide broadcasting is a great tool for spreading gossip and false rumor.

One aspect of how this applies to politics is that a charismatic President, such as Obama was during his Office tenure; could say things, or have his gremlin minions say things, which immediately are taken as true without needing any further investigation.

One simple example, recounted in greater detail in Appendix 07 - Chapter 29 [10B], is when on 19 July 2015, the Sunday before the Security Council had even looked at or voted on the Obama "Iran nuclear deal," President Obama had his gremlin minion spokesperson John Kirby declare that the White House had transmitted everything relating to the " _Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action_ " to the Congress.

This had to be one of the stupidest political ruses of all times – United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 didn't even yet exist when Kirby declared that Obama had transmitted everything about his "Iran nuclear Deal" to the Congress – Obama hadn't even transmitted the deal itself to the bone-head disinterested 114th Congress; And Obama never would. And the 115th Congress never showed any public signs of ever having cared to figure that out – or acknowledge it publicly or discuss it publicly at any time during the tenure of the 114th Congress.

Obama, the author, knew very well that the JCPOA portion of Resolution 2231 was by no means the entire Obama "Iran nuclear deal" arrangement which Obama had organized between the United States, Iran

As indicated, the completely disinterested and lethargic 114th Congress swallowed the story down hook, line and sinker – with not one member of either of the two entirely negligent House of Congress bothering to simply go to the Security Council website and download a copy of Resolution 2231 to discover that this was actually the real version of Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" which had been withheld from them.

The 114th Congress couldn't be bothered to look into the curious matter of charismatic Obama claiming to have transmitted something which at that time was nonexistent. The Congress, brought up perhaps believing in giving too much weight to fairy-tales, simply accepted whatever spokesman Kirby said.

The point of the ruse clearly was to give the impression that whatever resolution was passed in the Security Council the day after Kirby's announcement of 19 July 2015; the next day being 20 July 2015; that would be the same document as was transmitted to the Congress earlier in the preceding week; and clearly Resolution 2231 is much more than what had been passed off on Congress before the Security Council voted on the entire Obama "Iran nuclear deal."

The success of the ruse depended on the ruthless imbecility of the 114th Congress, so completely gullible that in its endless capacity for stupidity and negligence, it would simply take Kirby's word that he had sent the Assembly something which didn't exist yet, and which the Congress knew didn't yet exist when Kirby said he sent "everything."

Obama had judged the level of the idiocy and apathy of the 114th moronic Congress precisely accurately. His judgment was confirmed as no one in Congress bothered to look into the strange supernatural wizardry Kirby implied was under his own command – that Kirby could pluck things out of thin air and magically transmit these at will to serve the awaiting pleasure of Paleolithic troglodytes inhabiting the 114th Congress.

The troglodytes of the 114 National Assembly inadvertently ended by making Obama's ruse a truly successful event through its dramatic display of universally indigenous idiocy; which has resulted in the Congress giving credibility to this rumor that the JCPOA is the "official name" of the actual "Iran nuclear deal;" when, as a matter of fact, the JCPOA is only a part of the official United Nations authenticated United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).

And these are the types rumors that get spread nationwide on account of the indolent negligence of politician nitwits glamorizing themselves as the best and the brightest.

Were the electorate enfranchised with the "Vote of No Confidence" enabling the national level voter to respond to the smug complacency and negligence of a disinterested Congress – then members of Congress would have to wake up and be a little more attentive, or risk losing the privilege of returning to the office previously held.

* * * * *

As a consequence of the debacle carried on with by the 114th Congress in September 2015, there has never been a vote in Congress, either for or against United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; which I repeat for emphasis **is the actual "Iran nuclear deal" the international community is working off of**.

The only group that simply won't acknowledge it is the genius elite collective populating the Congress of the United States – this even well into the fourth year after the 20 July 2015 Security Council vote on the matter.

Earlier – on 19 July 2015 – the gossip mouthed by spokesperson John Kirby was spread all across the airwaves that the Congress has the "JCPOA" in hand and they're going to vote on it soon. This is exactly the kind of trash which many in the big time mainstream news-media can be expected to gobble up without any investigation as soon as these media moguls have managed to attach their sympathies to the latest Media Darling prejudicial and uninformed fixed idea preoccupation.

As mentioned, when September 10 and 11, 2015 roles around; the completely gulled 114th Congress debated and voted on only a portion of Barack Obama's "Iran nuclear deal."

The mainstream news media at the time came to the fore in its judicious clamoring analyses naturally looking only so far as to absorb its attention on the usual suspect; that the September 10 and 11, 2015 votes on the JCPOA fell along party lines – that was the brilliantly observent analysis commonly broadcast;

Not one (that I've found) of these mainstream news media gumshoes or blood sniffing hounds attached to any of the big time mainstream United States News Reporting Media outlets rankled themselves to pull out the spyglass and do the simplest research, which would have been to simply pull down the damned Security Council resolution which everyone in the world knew had been voted into existence on 20 July 2015; pull it down from the Security Council website and discover – "Oh, my Gosh" – on September 10 and 11, 2015, the Congress voted on the wrong document!

What a publicity squall might have ensued along the Great Presidents' portrait wall from the open expression of such an insight!

Just one half-assed reporter could have scooped the imbecile story; publicly breaking it wide open and thereby perhaps, changing the course of future escalating events occurring down the line. Sadly – the regressive culture of the United States mainstream news media seems to have retreated from anything like such transcendental approach to basic research.

And it would have been easy – all anyone would have to do would be to have both documents in hand and just take a glance at the first pages of each – and you immediately know that these aren't identical documents.

Reading a little further; even without catching all the tricks and pitfalls, one realizes very quickly that Security Council Resolution 2231 must be taken in its entirety to understand what's going on in the instrument.

So even going into the fourth year after the 10 and 11 September 2015 votes, this phony rumor is still circulated by politicians; still going around in the media, and treated even in "scholarly" texts; that the JCPOA is the official name of the Obama "Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal" when it is not; and for anyone believing the phony rumor would naturally assume _Annex A: JCPOA_ of Resolution 2231 to be the entire "Iran nuclear agreement," when naturally that gossip is untrue and the result of an intentional scam pulled on the Congress and the Public by the Obama administration.

* * * * *

I can't say that I can understand that United States got anything positive out of all these approvals of weapons transferals to Iran.

To me it looks like a large part of the domestic result of the activity has been the escalation of an easy style of corruption in a Congress populated by a membership so emotionally, morally and intellectually cowardly as to be, at best, too frightened to subsequently be capable of admitting an initial mistake;

So much so that these members of this singular Congress would descend to the level of advocating in favor of violating a most fundamental treaty on control of nuclear weapons dissemination; and descend to the amoral level of the war criminal – rather than admit that Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" is not an instrument designed to prevent Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons capacity – but rather that it is what it is: an instrument designed to appease the foreign Prince in granting U.S. approval of ongoing installations of nuclear weapons capacity in support of the Government of that foreign Prince.

BARACK OBAMA sure got the bubbling accolades his extraordinarily venal persona appears to have sought. His acolytes have from the first, sought the same or similar accolades in their nascent and then subsequent ongoing support for United States Government continuing approvals assisting in installing nuclear weapons capacity in Iran.

Barack Obama had shown, in his negotiation with Iran, that he would not negotiate his deal with Iran honestly. Obama abandoned treaty, the United States Constitution, and international law, disdaining these as impositions upon his pushing through an agreement with Iran in support of assisting Iran in developing its Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities – as is documented.

The arrangement he made with Iran would undoubtedly gain him accolades at home were he to figure out a way to put a positive face on it. He put out a good news-media hyped fairy tale which did get him the accolades.

The focus in the mainstream news-media was on the fact that he had concluded an agreement with Iran. There was no substantial publicized national focus on any serious study of what was in the agreement by most in the mainstream U.S. national news-media; and so the weapons transactions went completely ignored – and the legend retold in the Press was believed for a time to be true – and it still is in some quarters.

The promotion campaign advocating the "Obama nuclear agreement" was to be, and was, an exercise in flash and glamour without any review of substance. This is the perfect environment in which the falsehoods of the charlatan politician may best flourish.

Obama's habit of twisted story telling had evidently convinced many in his political party that this was the manner in which public approbation could be easily won. Even still in the 115th Congress, the acolytes of the Obama doctrine of selling Weapons of Mass Destruction capability to Iran resorted for their own peculiar political needs, to characterizing Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" as something else other than what it is, regardless that documentation tells the story of what Obama's deal is really about.

DURING September 2015 congressional discussions on the merits of Barack Obama's "Iran nuclear deal," which Obama withheld from review by Congress; 114th House of Representatives dynamo-free-spirit Democratic Party leader Nancy Pelosi was beside herself in her expressed admiration and enthusiasm for the; not reviewed, un-researched, untold of, and concertedly withheld from public knowledge of, (and which she had evidently not read); fruits the Messianic Prophet Obama had brought back with himself, and with his entourage of famed courtiers in tow, from Iran.

Pelosi's commentary follows:

* * * * *
* * * * *

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

On 10 September 2015 [Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 114th Congress, First Session; Vol. 161, No. 130 page H5900 – (https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/09/10/CREC-2015-09-10.pdf)]

Ms. Nancy Pelosi, reknowned House of Representatives representative from San Francisco, California, famously gloated:

For over 20 years, I have served as a member of the Intelligence Committee both as a member of the committee, as the top Democrat on the committee, and as the Speaker and leader ex officio over the years, longer than anyone in the history of the Congress. I went to the Intelligence Committee because I had a major concern which sprang from my district, which was a very big interest there in stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

But I mentioned my credentials because I brought that experience to make a judgment on the agreement after it was negotiated. Of course we were briefed, as members of the committee and members oft he leadership, on the ongoing as to the progress that was being made in negotiations. Again, having been briefed all along the way, I still was pleasantly pleased to see what the final product was. What the President negotiated was remarkable. It was remarkable in several respects.

One was that the P5, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus one—that would be Germany—the P5 nations negotiated this agreement with Iran: China, Russia, France, the U.K., and the United States. This is quite remarkable,

The party portfolio opportunist politician Pelosi expressed approving amazement that the five permanent Members of the Security Council had been gathered together by Barack Obama in a concerted effort to expedite sales to Iran of assets enhancing Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile weapons capabilities. Regressive perverse Pelosi, clearly showing little regard for treaty, like the others, lauded the accomplishment as being an amazing achievement in the progress of human affairs.

House Democratic Party leader, Ms. Nancy Pelosi; from the start a leading promoter of Obama's "Iran nuclear agreement;" subsequently later in the 26 October 2017 vote, naturally did go along with all the others of the 115th House of Representatives in favor of granting the chartered monopoly to the Procurement Working Group attempting to empower it with exclusive United States Government approval in its carrying on expediting and approving sales to the non-nuclear-weapons-State of Iran the sought after nuclear and ballistic weapons associated inventories.

[Her vote appears on Page H8254; Proceedings and Debates of the 115th Congress, First Session; _Vol. 163_ ; _No. 173_.]

Little Ms. Sweet and Innocent Nancy Pelosi, hailing out of super progressive pacifist San Francisco, California – is certainly to be commended for having served for over 20 years: "... _as a member of the Intelligence Committee both as a member of the committee, as the top Democrat on the committee, and as the Speaker and leader ex officio over the years, longer than anyone in the history of the Congress_ ;"

Her seniority acknowledged, it can't be ignored that the senior Top Dog Intelligence Chief has failed to publicly share her experienced, highly attuned opinion on what she thinks the value might be in selling to Iran nuclear weapons associated information such as: "... _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions_ ...etc.?" She might like to do that some time if her boasted seniority is to be considered as counting for anything at all.

* * * * *

Pelosi is only symptomatic of the larger trend.

ON 10 JANUARY 2018 (page S128 of the Congressional Record of that day) Congressperson Republican Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma says:

...Since Kim Jong Un took power in 2009, he has already conducted more than 80 ballistic missile tests. That is far more than his father and his grandfather conducted.

North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests of increasingly powerful weapons. The latest test was in September of last year. The major test actually came after that, and that was on November 28. On November 28, he demonstrated that he had the range of the United States and the central part of our country. In other words, it was stated by others who observed that he now has the capability of reaching any target in mainland United States...

Here is the scary part of this. Those who are not wanting to believe that the threat is real and the threat is there are saying: Well, we don't know that the missile he demonstrated on November 28 could have reached that range if it had a full payload, a load of a nuclear warhead.

_We don't know if they had one or not, but that doesn't give me much comfort. They_ [analysts] _also questioned whether or not it could sustain the reentry back into the atmosphere._

The point is that they now have that capability, and that is something we have to keep in mind as we are making decisions, because we have decisions to make...

In the above, Mr. Inhofe seems concerned about issues of proliferation, or at least presents himself to the public as though he is. Nevertheless he certainly doesn't exhibit the level of concern that might motivate him to consider perhaps looking in to the contents of the INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 list of nuclear weapons associated assets which the United States Government was at that time approving for sales to Iran – for example:

ON PAGE 12 of the _Presentation by the Coordinator of the Procurement Working Group on the Procurement Channel_ – presented and published on 14 July 2017 – the Procurement Working Group lists several classes of inventory procured by Iran under the explanation: _Spectrum of current Proposals_. The first class of inventory listed is " _Machine tools_." Although, due to the Secrecy Arrangements (documented and explained in Appendix III – _Secrecy arrangement concerning Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 listed inventories_ [11] – Rev. 9 is the predecessor list to the more recently upgraded Revision 10), naturally the _Coordinator of the Procurement Working Group on the Procurement Channel_ presentation won't furnish exact details on where these acquisitions are exactly headed – these are acquisitions destined, in general, possibly to be directed to the " _Automotive Industry_."

[The July 14, 2017, presentation is found on http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/briefings-by-the-facilitator.shtml; document file: http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/pdf/PWG_PC_Presentation-14%20July%202017.pdf]

Let's have a look at part of what's listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a regarding machine tools:

International Atomic Energy Agency; [information Circular] INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a

Annex – List of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software, And Related Technology

1. INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

1.B. TEST AND PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

1.B.2 Machine tools, as follows, and any combination thereof, for removing or cutting metals, ceramics, or composites, which, according to the manufacturer's technical specifications, can be equipped with electronic devices for simultaneous "contouring control" in two or more axes:

a. Machine tools for turning, that have "positioning accuracies" with all compensations available better (less) than 6 μm according to ISO 230/2 (1988) along any linear axis (overall positioning) for machines capable of machining diameters greater than 35 mm;

b. Machine tools for milling, having any of the following characteristics:

1. "Positioning accuracies" with all compensations available better (less) than 6 μm according to ISO 230/2 (1988)* along any linear axis (overall positioning); [* Editors Note: " μm" means "micrometers," "microns;" ISO represents by the standards set up by the International Standards Organization."]

2. Two or more contouring rotary axes; or

3. Five or more axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for "contouring control".

Note: Item 1.B.2.b. does not control milling machines having both of the following characteristics:

1. X-axis travel greater than 2 m; and

2. Overall "positioning accuracy" on the x-axis worse (more) than 30 μm according to ISO 230/2 (1988).

c. Machine tools for grinding, having any of the following characteristics:

1. "Positioning accuracies" with all compensations available better (less) than 4 μm according to ISO 230/2 (1988) along any linear axis (overall positioning);

2. Two or more contouring rotary axes; or

3 Five or more axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for "contouring control". *****

***** [ INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA), INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2; (12 November 2013), https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/purpose-series-documents

Or as an alternate source: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1978/infcirc254r9p2.pdf [last accessed: May 9, 2016]

The INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a list sample first identifies the type of work, and the class of machinery dedicated to the performance of such. This gives us the sense of what is being discussed. And then it goes into specific qualities the machinery must have in order to be placed on this list.

This list is meant as a caution, an advisory as to what is needed to produce nuclear weapons – so it doesn't deal with just general types of inventories; this list deals specifically with inventories of a variety of classes which could be used to make a nuclear weapon.

The kinds of machining – milling, grinding tools for example – which are listed here are of a kind capable of extraordinarily fine precision work. This is why they are of such interest to the auto industry; and not coincidentally to the industry of developing very capable advanced ballistic missile systems; along with complimentary aerodynamically suitable warhead casings to match, and along with other necessary components.

If members of the House of Representatives, as well as the Senate might bother themselves to read occasionally the material which they evidently ignore, then maybe some of the clouds would begin to clear and they might actually begin to perceive that there are horizons out there their insular and bigoted world view previously wouldn't deign to consider.

Mr. Inhofe, for all his long winded protestations of concern doesn't care to consider that perhaps sending such assets as above, and also nuclear weapons associated " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." to North Korea's best trading partner buddy Iran might end up somehow being distantly related to the sudden exponential advancement of North Korean enhanced range and Thermonuclear firepower capabilities.

From the previous writing " _Congress Jerks the General_ ," we remember this Republican Senator Inhofe, no doubt qualifying himself as a prominent member of the super-patriots' team (they all are), working himself as the leading Republican Party representative of the Republican Party side of the 13 March 2018 interview of CENTCOM Commander General Joseph Votel he is noted for sitting in on.

That interview was vaunted as a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) fact finding mission seeking to discover how well United States Government national security interests were being safeguarded in the middle-east and the southern asian theatre of operations.

Point blank simplistic questions (noted and examined in the previous writing and previously referred to in this one) had been posed to General Votel, by Democratic Party Senator Jack Reed and "Independent" Senator Angus King of Maine about if the General thought President Trump's proposed pull out from United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 might adversely affect national security interests in the region.

Neither of those two demonstratively pro-nuclear weapons proliferation partisan Senators dared publicly ask the General how ongoing United States Government active approvals of sales to Iran procurement packages potentially containing stuff like: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." might adversely impact the General's theatre of operations.

The General might have been shocked to have been made so suddenly acutely aware, in such a public venue, of what another branch of the U.S. Government was carrying on with, without the current President having informed him of the severity of the activity.

Had the General been so cruelly and abruptly informed of what the snickering Congress and the succeeding Presidents of the United States had been keeping from him, the Commander of CENTCOM might have felt somewhat betrayed, at least by his previous Commander in Chief, Barack Obama – who evidently hadn't shared what anyone might have thought was essential information regarding Obama's charade phony excuse that the deal the former President had concluded with the Ministers of the Government of Iran resembled anything like: _a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon_ ...;

And then, as I'm under the impression; the next President inheriting and carrying on with the masquerade; Commander in Chief President Donald Trump; doesn't seem to have shown the gumption to sit down with his Generals and inform them that the other international Parties to Barack Obama's famous "Iran nuclear deal" (Parties which include the European members of the _North Atlanic Treat Organization_ – the nominal NATO alliance member States of France, Germany and the U.K.); are permitted to sell to Iran stuff like nuclear weapons associated: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc.;" even with the United States Government out of the "Deal."

Who knows what is being passed around to Iran –this President Trump hasn't yet got up the nerve to gather together an alliance of States, all Party to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, and all feeling threatened by how Resolution 2231 eventually enables Iran and Iran's best trading buddy, North Korea, to target them with nuclear weapons, or at least further intimidation, threatening blackmail; or possibly the ultimate;

Trump hasn't yet shown any public sign of gathering an international alliance of States to go and petition the International Court of Justice to have United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 thrown out as void from its conclusion; which could and probably would result consequentially, among other things, in the opening of the books on Iranian procurements undertaken under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 2231; and which would consequentially reveal who's been philanthropically selling which weapons to whom.

The Court has the authority to do that, once it has a proper petition in hand, and has reviewed the case.

* * * * *

In the old days that kind of transfer of information, " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc.," would have been considered serious unquestionable violation of the afore mention Article I of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear_ Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, or 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**.

And in the old days that kind of transfer of information to a hostile State, would have been considered as something like treasonous – at least from the point of view of the United States.

However, since the rise to power of the reforming weapons monger hawk political faction machine, which has successfully taken control of the national level Democratic Party, the conversation game is completely changed.

For example and as mentioned, the Democratic Party ranking leader in the U.S. Senate; California Senator Diane Feinstein; another hard-line United States proponent of the project dedicated to the expediting and approving of Iranian acquisitions of defined nuclear weapons associated assets in combination with ballistic missile technologies; on 26 April 2018, excused the publicly unmentionable issue of approving sales to Iran of " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." as somehow justifiable by her pronouncement of her following edict:

The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region.

[Source: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 164; No. 68: (page S2456), WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2018]

It didn't matter that Senator Feinstein wouldn't share her opinion of how sales to Iran of " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc.," "... _blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon_ ...etc.;" because she doesn't need to. She doesn't even feel the need to mention anything about the existence of that ongoing sales activity.

ON, 24 October 2017 on the Congressional Record, House of Representatives Congressperson Waters of California says (page H8101 of the record on that date):

... _the rapid acceleration in the scale and range of North Korea's nuclear and missile programs is so alarming, including the launch of two intercontinental ballistic missiles in July, one of which experts believe could have had the capacity to reach the continental United States. Then, in September, the regime tested its sixth nuclear explosive device, and, according to U.S. and international estimates, this thermonuclear test was significantly higher in magnitude and yield than any previous test._

On, 24 October 2017 House of Representatives Congressperson Waters of California talked the big talk pretending how concerned she is with this "rapid acceleration" thing; and then two days later, on 26 October 2017; she voted; along with all the others in the 115th House of Representatives, to pass _HR-1698_ , the bill attempting to have ratified into United States statute – in defiance of treaty and the Constitution – a bill attempting to solidify into eventual statute the (at that time) United States ongoing approvals of Iranian acquired procurement packages combining nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons assets; Waters was off in a corner somewhere, not down on record for having been present voting on the measure.

Like Feinstein and the others, Waters didn't feel like publicly mentioning that the packages she had promoted being sold to North Korea's best trading buddy Iran, are permitted to contain nuclear weapons associated: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc.,"

Naturally mentioning such a thing might stalk her credentials as a California make-believe progressive pacifist.

Republican leading Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, sitting silent as a stone dummy God on the issue of Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" during the 13 March 2018 SASC interview of General Votel – seems to have by that time gotten over the 10 January 2018 squeamishness he had voiced on the Congressional Record of that day in January.

Inhofe had in January expressed alarm that, as he put it: "... _North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests of increasingly powerful weapons. The latest test was in September of last year_ [2017]...;"

But when it came to the 13 March 2018 interview of the Commander of CENTCOM operations – Senator Inhofe, like all the others, Democrats and Republicans alike, shied away from asking the General his opinion as to how ongoing (at the time) U.S. Government approvals of nuclear weapons associated assets to Iran might somehow have some affect or influence on the activities of rogue State North Korea's best trading buddy – Iran; somehow he had suddenly forgotten his earlier, January complaint.

The Oklahoma super-patriot Republican Senator did not bother asking General Votel of the General's opinion on how Iranian acquisitions of procurement packages potentially comprised of " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." as listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2, might adversely impact CENTCOM operations.

The 13 March 2018 SASC interview was the politicians' wonderland forum of irrational fear complaining against President Trump's pulling the United States out of the Resolution 2231 deal. None of the interlocutors in the room seemed to want to hear anything that might somewhat bridle the unrestrained histrionics being carried on with by those present and participating Senators of the Senate interrogation committee.

In order to support the irrational mob anxiety, the primitives of the SASC, Republicans and Democrats alike, refused to ask any question of the General which might give reason to encourage a rational belief that maybe withdrawing from Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" might not be such a bad idea and could be a positive step in slowing the menacing growing international momentum likely serving to escalate massive weapons proliferation, and of all classes of arsenals; this potential escalation instigated by the mendacity and conceits of a former U.S. President demanding of others that he be famously thought of for his contribution to the re-balancing of nuclear weapons capacity in the Middle-East and on the Korean Peninsula.

The Senators, as is often proven to be the case with politicians, had publicly presented themselves as disposed to only hearing what they wanted to hear; and therefore would not ask any questions the answers of which might upset the status quo of their hysterical mendacity driven partisan world view; a status quo widely subjectively held by the politician partisans as being so necessary to promote a public belief in so as to guarantee the grasping politicians more favorable re-election returns in the next electoral campaign.

The SASC Senators of record wanted President Trump to stay in the deal and keep the United States Government directly involved in the activities of the international contraband arms dealing syndicate whose very operations depend on ongoing violation of the very international treaty to which all members of the rogue organization were (are) Party to.

The view of the 115th Congress politician was that the United States should also remain as a rogue nation along with the others. The United States should maintain its first in line class status in disdaining and betraying the very treaty, the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ (NPT) which an earlier sustained effort by the United States Government of over fifty years ago had brought into being. The perverse rationale of members of Congress promoting the stance that the United States should continue to violate international treaty is that this will enhance United States Prestige in the eyes of the international community.

Reviewing the declaration of 115th House of Representatives Congressperson Mr. Costa, voiced on the Congressional Record – dated 11 October 2017; Vol. 163; No. 163: [https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/10/11/CREC-2017-10-11.pdf].

"...to remain credible, the United States cannot change positions on international agreements from one administration to another without serious justification and without the consent in working with our allies."

Mr. Costa said that on 11 October 2017 – and on 26 October 2017, not so many days later, he voted with all the others, House of Representatives Republicans and Democrats alike, to seriously violate an over 50 year United States Government commitment to the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ by espousing that United States approvals of Iranian acquisitions of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile weapons assets should be established as United States law superseding the rules laid out in treaty and in Article VI of the Constitution.

Costa had begun that speech by asserting that:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the significance of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran, more commonly referred to as the Iran nuclear agreement...

... Let's remember, this agreement has always been about Iran, not obtaining nuclear weapons.

Costa, within about two weeks of his fiercely hypocritical proclamation confirms by his voting along with all the others in the 115th House of Representatives; that this "Iran nuclear agreement" was never about Iran not obtaining nuclear weapons – but was always about assisting Iran to acquire nuclear weapons; perhaps in part to assure the prestige of one President, and that of the hawk extremists of his political party should have their reputations enhanced in the public eye by carrying on with the deception that things are other than what they are.

Through the vehicle of the Obama "Iran nuclear deal" dictates; one singular administration had exactly " _changed positions on international agreements_ " in the blink of an eye. The Obama administration, abandoned the over 50 year United States international commitment to the NPT, the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ ; favoring over it instead the advancement of a nuclear weapons development project in Iran. Jimmy Costa of California hasn't bothered to put himself through the trouble engaging in a discussion of that aspect of the issue publicly.

These are some examples of the kind of bad behavior that permeates the Congress. This is what **emphasizes** the need for a Vote of No Confidence enabling the electorate to rid itself of swaths of these malfeasant politicians in one sweep, and warn those remaining to treat the electorate which pays for their upkeep with a bit more honesty and respect – and to take seriously issues such as the current threat of nuclear weapons escalation for which the Government of this nation, under the Obama administration, is responsible for instigating; and all the other issues affecting communities nationwide which these politicians are so fond of pretending to concern themselves with; and who then so easily turn their backs on and ignore as soon as the collective assembly have made their shallow grandstanding speeches so soon forgotten.

WITHOUT a "Vote of No Confidence" the United States Citizen is forced to acquiesce in oppressive servitude, honoring in mandatory silence the inexcusable whims of a Congress comprised of the two political doctrines which control the governance of the United States. These two political party doctrines are currently clearly allied in their desire to appease the grandiose ambitions and expectations of the Government of Iran;

And at the time before Trump withdrew from Obama's "Iran nuclear deal," members of Congress clearly were fighting to maintain United States material assistance and support to the Iranian regime through continuing U.S. approvals of the enhancements to the nuclear weapons capacity of Iran directly overseen by the Procurement Working Group – which the United States was a board member of;

The two gargantuan political fundraising machines, the memberships of which have chosen that it must be in the best interests of their respective doctrinaire hopes for reelection to see to it that the foreign Prince be appeased and satisfied that the United States Government has sufficiently demonstrated its willingness to violate treaty and participate in a War Crime for the sake of the development of nuclear weapons capacity in Iran; this for the benefit of the ambitions of the foreign Prince;

Without a scheduled "Vote of No Confidence" rendered by the electorate; a "Vote of No Confidence" capable of sending large numbers of members of Congress home for a duration; the U.S. taxpayer becomes the thrall slave, paying for the upkeep of those politician partisans who have chosen to ally themselves to the arsenal building ambitions and efforts of the foreign Prince; who have thereby become the willing vassals, lavishing their favors on the foreign Prince instead of the people's Constitution and law; and thereby bringing the taxpayer to the degraded status of indirect serf to the foreign dictate.

A "Vote of No Confidence" allowing the Citizen on the national level to send numbers of these malicious baboons home at scheduled intervals would most assuredly do wonders to remind these treacherous partisan party loyalists which country they live in, and which Oath to which country they might do well to prioritize and pay attention to.

* * * * *

* * * * *

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

Writing on the topic of Amendments to the Constitution; in his 1833 classic study of the Constitution – titled, simply enough: _Commentaries on the Constitution_ , Justice Joseph Story observes (Chapter XLI):

**§956** ... It is obvious, that no human government can ever be perfect ; and that it is impossible to foresee, or guard against all the exigencies, which may, in different ages, require different adaptations and modifications of powers to suit the various necessities of the people...

... It is wise, therefore, in every government, and especially in a republic, to provide means for altering, and improving the fabric of government, as time and experience, or the new phases of human affairs, may render proper, in order to promote the happiness and safety of the people...

**§957** ... In regard to the constitution of the United States, it is confessedly a new experiment in the history of nations. Its framers were not bold or rash enough to believe, or to pronounce it to be perfect. They made use of the best lights, which they possessed, to form and adjust its parts, and mould its materials. But they knew, that time might develope many defects in its arrangements, and many deficiencies in its powers. They desired, that it might be open to improvement; and under the guidance of the sober judgment and enlightened skill of the country, to be perpetually approaching nearer and nearer to perfection. It was obvious, too, that the means of amendment might avert, or at least have a tendency to avert, the most serious perils, to which confederated republics are liable, and by which all of them have hitherto been shipwrecked...

...They knew the pride and jealousy of state power in confederacies; and they wished to disarm them of their potency, by providing a safe means to break the force, if not wholly to ward off the blows, which would, from time to time, under the garb of patriotism, or a love of the people, be aimed at the constitution. They believed, that the power of amendment was, if one may so say ... the real effective instrument to control and adjust the movements of the machinery, when out of order, or in danger of self-destruction...

**§958** ... Upon the propriety of the power [the Power to amend the Constitution], in some form, there will probably be little controversy. **The only question is, whether it is so arranged, as to accomplish its objects in the safest mode; safest for the stability of the government ; and safest for the rights and liberties of the people.**

Justice Story continues further on in his assessment to remark:

**§960** ...Upon the subject of the national constitution, we may adopt without hesitation the language of a learned commentator:

..."Nor," says he, "can we too much applaud a constitution, which thus provides a safe and peaceable remedy for its own defects, as they may, from time to time, be discovered. A change of government in other countries is almost always attended with convulsions, which threaten its entire dissolution ; and with scenes of horror, which deter mankind from every attempt to correct abuses, or remove oppressions, until they have become altogether intolerable. In America we may reasonably hope, that neither of these evils need be apprehended. Nor is there any reason to fear, that this provision in the constitution will produce any instability in the government.

The mode, both of originating and ratifying amendments, (in either mode, which the constitution directs,) must necessarily be attended with such obstacles and delays, as must prove a sufficient bar against light or frequent innovations. And, as a further security against them, the same article further provides, that [through] no amendment, which may be made ... no state shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate."

[ **Author's note** : I apologize to the reader that I'm not sure which is the commentator Judge Story refers to]

In bringing up that previous quote from _Commentaries on the Costitution_ I am merely mentioning that the propriety of amending the Constitution has long been established and is simply understood – in general, then:

**§956** ... It is obvious, that no human government can ever be perfect ; and that it is impossible to foresee, or guard against all the exigencies, which may, in different ages, require different adaptations and modifications of powers to suit the various necessities of the people...

* * * * *

The official title of Obama's "Iran nuclear deal," is United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2231). It is commonly touted as being officially titled the "JCPOA" (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). As mentioned this misnomer is conveniently tossed about by the Congress for evident duplicitous political reasons – as Resolution 2231 contains further weapons concession than are already provided Iran in its Annex A: JCPOA;

The 114th and 115th Congresses have not shown eagerness to speak openly about those various other weapons transactions described in parts of Resolution 2231 outside of its Annex A: JCPOA.

_Annex B: Statement_ , of Resolution 2231 provides for the ballistic missile weapons concessions given Iran as of "JCPOA" Implementation Day – 16 January 2016. These concessions allowed for the Procurement Working Group world-wide advertisement seeking vendors prepared to sell bundled packages of nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons assets to Iran, as previously mentioned and documented, in egregious violation of treaty.

This, Obama's concession of Resolution 2231 _Annex B_ , is the device which allowed the membership of the 115th Congress to entertain itself with an unusual month of activity, October 2017, in an area which had particularly had caught their interest;

As having already been noted – in October of 2017, the 115th Congress House of Representatives attempted to formulate as U.S. Statute, its assault repugnant to treaty which favored the sales to Iran of packages combining nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets.

As mentioned – the _House Bill 1698_ passed in the House of Representatives with almost universal approval.

House of Representatives arguments supporting the bundling of nuclear and ballistic missile assets to a non-nuclear-weapons-State – cannot reasonably be understood as based on any facts whatsoever supporting the merit of such an enterprise and the General Welfare of the United States Citizen and of populations world-wide argue against it.

The extremist Democratic Party pro-weapons proliferation position voiced in the House of Representatives is taken by this writing as condensed in the words of Mr. Costa from California who, as we recall, falsely stipulated on 11 October 2017 regardless of all known facts:

... Let's remember, this agreement has always been about Iran, not obtaining nuclear weapons.

Whereas, as previously mentioned, just a few days later, on 26 October 2017, Mr. Costa along with all those other House of Representatives opportunist politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, all such cut from the same fine cheap wormy cloth as he, did demonstrate their true inclinations by enthusiastically voting in favor of House Bill _1698_.

Nothing in that House of Representatives October 2017 exercise, Bill 1698, bothered to somehow signal or concede that the promotion of these weapons sales would ever somehow be mysteriously subject at some future date to conforming to the restraints imposed by the Constitution or treaty. Nothing like that was worth contemplating in the Democratic Party partisan moment of expedient fever and bigotry spoiling for its fight.

No virtue of rule of law was called upon or discussed to justify or sustain the 115th House of Representatives attempted enactment of the offense intended to be carried out against the Citizen's enjoyment of the protections afforded under the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_.

All that had been needed to carry the 115th House of Representatives vote were assertions alleging nonsense claims such as "... _this agreement has always been about Iran, not obtaining nuclear weapons_." No one in Congress would bother to explain how an arrangement making available to Iran nuclear weapons associated " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ..." could be reasonably construed as an agreement which: "... _has always been about Iran, not obtaining nuclear weapons_."

But that is the style of the modern day Congress; no one ever backs up anything they say in support of the Obama "Iran nuclear deal" with any kind of proof; and in this case proponents of the Obama deal can't, because all the documentary facts are against them.

The claim of Jimmy Costa of California, made only a few days before he rushed ahead along with all the others voting in favor of continued U.S. Government support of Procurement Working Group approvals of Iranian acquisition of ballistic and nuclear weapons associated assets in violation of treaty and international law; the claim clearly mocks the national level electorate; of whom the large majority of Independent, along with Democratic and Republican Party registered voters are against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

* * * * *

I have not, in this writing, gone through much of the dialogue carried off in the 13 March 2018 Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) interview with General Joseph Votel Commander of the CENTCOM theatre of U.S. military operations. Here then follows a small excerpt. The interviewer is Senator Angus King, an "Independent" who caucuses with the Democratic Party Senators:

**Senator King** :

... if the agreement were terminated, wouldn't the Iranians then be free to pursue a nuclear weapon within a matter of months?

**Votel** :

Theoretically, they would be able to do that.

**Senator King** :

And that certainly wouldn't contribute to -- if the Iranians had a nuclear weapon, we'd have two rogue states with nuclear weapons on our hands instead of one, the other one being North Korea.

**Votel** :

Right. This could certainly be the case again. We're speculating that that would be the direction...

**Senator King** :

Do you think it would be in the national security interests of the country to maintain the Iran agreement, at least for the near term?

**Votel** :

I share the secretary of defense's and chairman's comments on this. Right now, I think it is in our interest.

Here we come face to face once again with the extraordinary malfeasant mendacity of the current day politician. Senator King, on March 13, 2018 is very well aware of the 26 October 2017 vote in the House of Representatives; King knows all about how Iran is already pursuing development of a nuclear weapon with documented U.S. Government approval and assistance under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group.

Nevertheless, Senator King continues on his line of evasion, successfully leaving the General – who clearly doesn't know better – with the impression that the "JCPOA" prevents Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon; when Resolution 2231 is the actual structure under which the international league of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council along with Germany bend over backwards to contribute to the cause of openly assisting in a project developing nuclear weapons capacity in Iran.

It's a sad day for this Nation when a General can be so easily deceived by a politician – and when a deceiving politician is not immediately denounced and reprimanded by colleagues for having practiced such mendacity, when it is the Welfare of the People and the defense of the Nation that smug little Senator is making sport of.

King is having a partisan field day – the Senator is there to score points for his support of the weapons technologies flow; including the flow of nuclear weapons associated " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ..." going into Iran, which the U.S. was still involved with at the time; including the King says:

**Senator King** :

... if the agreement were terminated, wouldn't the Iranians then be free to pursue a nuclear weapon within a matter of months?

And then King says:

**Senator King** :

And that certainly wouldn't contribute to -- if the Iranians had a nuclear weapon, we'd have two rogue states with nuclear weapons on our hands instead of one, the other one being North Korea.

...And...

**Senator King** :

Do you think it would be in the national security interests of the country to maintain the Iran agreement, at least for the near term?

Senator King, like all the others, shows he doesn't give a damn about Iran gaining nuclear weapons capacity with United States Government assistance. One might speculate that King and the others are either too shallow to comprehend the danger, or feel themselves too immune to the danger; imagining that Iran might never put into effect the discretion handed off to them by the international community – the tacit permission by the international community to extinguish neighboring obnoxious populations at its discretion, or by chance inclination, or under any pretense of provocation.

No, of course the Iranian Government would never try anything like that – even though that Government is pledged to the destruction of some of its neighbors, and even though tacit international permission has already been given through five permanent Members of the Security Council support for Iran's contraband nuclear weapons development which has long been in effect despite that the whole operation must be most reasonably considered as falling under the _Crimes against Peace_ category of War Crimes.

The Government of Iran would never do anything as crazy as that – right? I mean, that would be just as crazy and unthinkable as the Congress of the United States pushing forward to hand off Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to Iran! It's simply unimaginable the United States Congress would ever – as an entire assembly – stoop to such a level of insanity!

At the very least – United States documented contributions assisting to develop nuclear weapons capacity in Iran gives Iran (and its best trading buddy, North Korea) the leverage to turn around and screw the U.S. under some pressure of blackmail in the future.

Our insular and entirely shallow always claiming to be super patriotic; and oh yes, always super progressive and pacifistic membership of the 115th Senate Armed Services Committee, who perform and carry themselves with the integrity and amorality of the war criminal in their desire that the United States Government should have continued participating in action easily understood as falling under the international definition of _Crimes against Peace_ ;

The conventional weapons concessions Obama made Iran and seem to be a strong motivating factor in the slavering intent of the Congress to remain in the deal. The nuclear and ballistic missile concessions had clearly caught attentions and the fancy of the Congress – as is reflected by the 26 October 2017 vote in the House of Representatives which unambiguously favored the project. The nuclear and ballistic missile transactions are attended to again in more detail, following:

* * * * *

As of "JCPOA Implementation Day," which was 16 January 2016, Iran would have access to acquiring nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons assets. We have already examined the Procurement Working Group world-wide advertisement to vendors:

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 _INFCIRC_ s. 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.

The provisions in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 providing for this bundling of weapons effects is, as mentioned above declared in Paragraph 2 of Annex B; but also – to be more precise than the Procurement Working Group has summon itself to be – in Paragraph 4 of Annex B. Here is Paragraph 2:

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]:

2. All States may participate in and permit the following activities provided that approval is provided in advance, on a case-by-case basis, by the Security Council:

(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 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 INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 (or the most recent versions of these documents, as updated by the Security Council), as well as any further items if the State determines that they could contribute to reprocessing or enrichment-related or heavy water-related activities inconsistent with the JCPOA;

And here is Paragraph 4:

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

Those provisions are not listed in this "JCPOA" which many still insist on popularizing as the "official" name of the Obama "Iran nuclear deal."

_Annex A: JCPOA_ gives some sense of the extent of the weapons exchange contract arranged between Barack Obama and the Ministers of the Government of Iran – but it does provide a timeline scheduling of events, or the full range, extent of the weapons transaction as are contained in "Annex _B: Statement_ " of Security Council Resolution 2231.

This fact in itself exposes the fully corrupt motives, intention and purpose of Barack Obama's refusal to transmit Resolution 2231 to Congress for review. Obama just simply didn't want people reading the thing – no matter how much the tawdry cheap politician Obama wanted and tried to publicly portray himself as open and honest, the little spoiled brat despot simply didn't want people looking at his deal.

His deal, which he didn't want anyone looking at anytime soon, provides that as of "JCPOA Implementation Day," which was 16 January 2016, Iran had its access in potentially acquiring nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons assets (although the activity didn't kick in until November of 2016).

That's one aspect of what Iran got early, almost immediately from the Contract.

NEXT there is the allowance to Iran that as of "JCPOA Implementation Day," 16 January 2016; Iran may engage in and undertake _activities which could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device_. The details of this measure are furnished in Appendix 8 – " _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_." []

What Iran is allowed to do under this provision is to begin practicing, experimenting with various elements related to nuclear weapons development – and to do this un-chaperoned by the IAEA.

The above appendix also explains how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is kept out of reviewing any of this experimentation, and that this all in clear violation of Treaty.

And with all these wonderful benefits and concessions comes the added surprise package – transmittal to Iran of " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc."

Nightmare Barrack's iconic deal to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon does what it does, not what it says it does – let's review the compilation of the weapons concession discussed – there are others which appear later on in the timeline, but here I'm only discussing what Iran got as soon as 16 January 2016; a mere six months after Obama's Iran nuclear deal was accepted, unread, by the United Nations Security Council non-permanent members sitting on the Council

THERE is the bundling of nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets for sale to Iran, allowed officially since 16 January 2016 – with the first approvals of these beginning some months later in November 2016 (Obama was still in office at that point – so at least he had the satisfaction of seeing that while still in office).

ALONG with these approvals of nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons Iran gets its support services and technologies such as " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc."

AND ON "JCPOA Implementation Day" Iran also has been allowed to investigate and undertake engaging in _activities which could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device_. This along with the added surprise bonus that:

THE IAEA is naturally prohibited from ever monitoring these activities or verifying that these goods and activities are not being diverted to activities which could be construed as contributing to the development of nuclear weapons capacity in Iran. All of this in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Article III; first clause).

It's wonderful – and what did the charlatan Barack Obama, the man vaunted to have either spiritually reformed the Iranian Government; or masterfully pressured that Government into a corner forcing Iran, with all of Obama's crafty and careful concessions, to renounce the pursuit of nuclear weapons capacity for good and for all – what weapons concessions did Barack Obama bring back to offer corporate arms dealership interests in the United States?

IN RETURN for all of Obama's magnificent gifts to the foreign Prince; there was the assurance that, if the United States were to stay in the deal, United States corporate arms dealerships can speculate that they might get the chance to sell Iran combat aircraft etc, as of 18 October 2020 if Iran decides it even wants to deal with buying stuff from the _Great Satan's_ corporations when they've got the preferable Russians on hand and more local with weapons that may be perceived of by the Iranians as on a par with those of the Americans.

I can't say I think much of Obama's contract negotiating skills – but our genius Congress seems to have been maybe holding its breath, waiting for that big day of 18 October 2020 when the floodgates to the Iranian market on conventional weapons, such as combat aircraft and all the other good stuff, would suddenly open up. If only the deal could be kept going on forever; or at least long enough so that...

Maybe the "A Listed" select chosen influences of the respective political parties might be grateful to profit and give a one or two of these members of Congress a cookie and a pat on the back.

But what does the Congressperson know if corporate market plans?

There's no use speculating on what corporations might be after until you see the contract – if you ever get a chance to. Neither Boeing, Lockheed, nor McDonnell Douglas; were ever involved with Obama's entirely inept negotiation with the Ministers of the Government of Iran. Obama, it appears, acted on his own measure of enterprising initiative throughout.

Many people were convinced at the time of his negotiations that Obama seemed to know what he was doing – and as it turned out he was only just another out-of-ideas venal politician who desperately grabbed at the chance of getting some sort of recognition for doing something truly "remarkable."

Boeing jumped into the twit Obama's fiasco scheme; so that when Trump pulled the U.S. out of the international War Crimes game, Boeing had to cancel an approximately 20 billion contract for commercial airlines sales to Iran. But Boeing said it wasn't hurt by it, didn't have to eat anything for it. All it meant was that other customers has their waiting listed goods bumped a little further forward along the schedule. That might a lot of people in another corner pretty happy.

As far as Congress, this pattern of congressional partisan pastime of speculative influence seeking brings to mind a few words from one of our previous great Presidents of the past:

* * * * *

As Dwight D. Eisenhower advised, in his farewell as President of the United States speech of late January, 1960 to the people of the United States:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea...

...[currently] three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, and even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, and every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

* * * * *

With all this background the writing returns to the issue of a "Vote of No Confidence."

We have a two party Congress, fairly construed to be slave to its preoccupations with speculative conjectures on the interests of their selected "A List" influences sought after by the respective Democratic and Republican Parties controlling the Government.

Congresspersons as a whole have uniformly shown that they are either preoccupied with those influences; or something else – but certainly nothing anything having to do with their Oath of Office or their duty to the Constitution.

Bi-partisanship has attempted to suppress the documented details of the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 – and even gone to the ridiculous extent of as to consistently avoid mention of the resolution by name – renaming it as only one of the Security Council resolution's annexes thus pathetically trying to uphold the pretence that nobody in Congress knows anything about the extent of the weapons transactions agreed to and carried on with by the U.S. Government since inception in the Obama administration.

The cheap charlatan politicians assembled in the 115th might still want to pretend that they know nothing of the activities of the Procurement Working Group, or what U.S. involvement in these had been before Trump pulled the U.S. out.

Double talking charlatan pretend pacifist progressive California Senator Diane Feinstein was still squawking on 26 April 2018, even months after the House of Representatives 26 October 2017 vote to approve United States participation in violation of treaty and engagement in the class of violation of peremptory norm of general international law known and defined as _Crimes against Peace_ , entirely to the benefit of the weapons development being carried on with by the foreign Prince with the most powerful international assistance one can realistically conceive of.

Hawk Senator Diane Feinstein, a leading light in the Democratic Party of the day, showed herself to be most anxious in continuing to enable Iran with the discretion to extinguish neighboring populations at choice of opportunity, chance inclination, or indignant pretended provocation.

After all, isn't that what approvals of transfers of Weapons of Mass Destruction is really all about; especially the distribution of these to a nation which openly publicly pledges repeatedly that the destruction of certain of its obnoxious neighbors is ultimately an objective – and wasn't it so sweet of our darling patriot cupcakes in the 115th House of Representatives to vote for continuing in the progress of the effort.

Senator Diane Feinstein, an exemplary archetype of the venal and preening, influence seeking politician putting herself up as the offering for sale; she let everyone know she's there to be bought by whoever deigns to touch her.

Perhaps attempting to impress upon her colleagues; and to show junior colleagues in the Democratic Party how it's done, Feinstein squawked, as mentioned, on 26 April 2018:

The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region.

I'm not intruding on anyone's personal life by remarking as a citizen that I couldn't care less if Diane Feinstein's friends or relatives are too polite to remember that the Senator representing California absolutely knows which Obnoxious group of hated people the Iranian Government, given the assistance and assurances of the United States Government in developing Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity; is pledged to exterminate.

Senator Feinstein claims to have certain sympathies – and makes political hay off the pretence. But whatever sympathies she pretends, she knows which is the first hated group the Iranians are after – the Iranian Government has made no mystery of its intentions;

Senator Feinstein might not know that the targeting of such groups falls under the War Crimes category of _Crimes against Humanity_ ; and that participation in preparations for such falls under the _Crimes against Peace_ category of War Crimes – maybe she doesn't know that;

But she ought to at least have some sense it is generally understood to be wrong to in any way excite or induce another belligerent State into believing that the belligerent's pledge to exterminate those it finds not to its liking is being honored. She ought to have modicum of some sense of decency at least; in despite of her being one of the leading lights of the Democratic Party; that the United States Government shouldn't be misleading the Government of Iran into believing the United States Government approves of and supports the belligerent war pledges coming out of Iran.

It is worth noting, however, as long as she got her way, and the United States remained in the deal – then internationally no one would be misled about the true intentions of the United States as it continued to expedite and approve sales to Iran of contraband weapons packages under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group.

The Senator was entirely in favor of the United States remaining in the deal assisting development of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity in Iran. Again, Senator Feinstein of California says:

The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region.

Of course everyone in Congress knows that Feinstein's mocking insult directed at the American People is a lie – that Obama's "Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal" is a determined effort to violate treaty. The instigation of it, and continued participation in it gains the U.S. Government high marks entry into the _Crimes against Peace_ Hall of Fame record book.

AS OUR earlier President Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower had admonished us:

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Yet we find ourselves governed by the interests of two behemoth political parties comprised of memberships so distracted in their seeking to grab guarantees of influence for collection in their influence portfolios; that the Oath of Office can no longer be reasonably construed by the public as having any meaning to any of these cynical, shallow politicians.

Membership in Congress demonstrates in their actions and deliberations that the concept of duty to the Constitution, and to the General Welfare is only the vestige of a dimly remembered, quaint but nevertheless antiquated remnant artifact of a bygone age.

* * * * *

An effectively applied "Vote of No Confidence" at scheduled intervals, rebuking many of these office holders who have engaged in activities repugnant to the Constitution and menacing to the national level electorate would, do much to remind those remaining in Congress that this is no longer a child's' play immunity game – where office holders may carry on as they please assured that there is no constitutional measure to restrain them, especially Senators with their six-year unchallengeable tenures, when they act up in collective malfeasance – such as they have all in the case of the "Iran nuclear deal," where they gathered together to pleasure the foreign Prince and intentionally use their offices of "trust" to coerce the electorate into believing that they are all so concerned about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity; when they are actually the very ones promoting U.S. Government continuing assistance benefiting the project.

That is one of the things a "Vote of No Confidence" is for; it is for holding the politician accountable and in check; but it is also to intended to hold these pernicious political collectives – the Republican and Democratic Party collectives whose currently malevolent doctrines control the governance of this country – it is for holding those groups in check as well

And were such a vote already in place to deter both the individuals – and the impositions of the political parties they cling to for security, enablement and reassurance – then the whole dishonest contraband weapons proliferation scheme would have been put in some sort of check long ago instead of never.

Without political Party backing, these elected poor representatives of human malfeasance probably couldn't get up the nerve to try and exercise this kind of Party-Line inspired viciousness, either in public or private.

The possibility of being a chastened official recipient of a "Vote of No Confidence," the consequence of which would be that the recipient of the no confidence vote would be barred for one term from running for the same office previously held – a rebuke such as that would very likely instill a newly discovered sense of respect in the Congress for the forgotten significance of their Oath of Office, and remind these persons of their need to prioritize duty to the Constitution and to the General Welfare over a preoccupation with seeking out influential support.

The Citizen would be given the opportunity – with a national level vote – to counteract at least with some effect, corporate big money interests; and, or the distracted wandering interests of the various members of Congress seeking out and pleading for support from corporate big money interests.

That seems on the face of it to be one of the simple objectives of the issue.

* * * * *

For all the evident need of a "Vote of No Confidence," it must be understood that such a vote rendered by the electorate should not be considered as an impeachment. The distinction may not be clear at first glance, but differentiation of the two is essential to determining what a "Vote of No Confidence" is not intended as – and should not be thought of as.

Returning to _Commentaries on the Constitution_ ; Book III, Chapter X, _The Senate_ – Supreme Court Justice Story discusses issues surrounding impeachment of high officials. This following excerpt from the reading begins with observations on the selection of tribunals overseeing such action.

§ 384. The great objects, to be attained in the selection of a tribunal for the trial of impeachments, are, impartiality, integrity, intelligence, and independence. If either of these is wanting, the trial must be radically imperfect.

To ensure impartiality, the body must be in some degree removed from popular power and passions, from the influence of sectional prejudice, and from the more dangerous influence of mere party spirit. To secure integrity, there must be a lofty sense of duty, and a deep responsibility to future times, as well as to God.

To secure intelligence, there must be age, experience, and high intellectual powers, as well as attainments.

To secure independence, there must be numbers, as well as talents, and a confidence resulting at once from permanency of place, and dignity of station, and enlightened patriotism. Does the senate combine, in a suitable degree, all these qualifications ? Does it combine them more perfectly, than any other tribunal, which could be constituted ? What other tribunal could be entrusted with the authority ? These are questions of the highest importance, and of the most frequent occurrence. They arose in the convention, and underwent a full discussion there. They were again deliberately debated in the state conventions ; and they have been at various times since agitated by jurists and statesmen, and political bodies. Few parts of the constitution have been assailed with more vigour ; and few have been defended with more ability.

§ 385. The subject is itself full of intrinsic difficulty in a government purely elective. The jurisdiction is to be exercised over offences, which are committed by public men in violation of their public trust and duties. Those duties are, in many cases, political ; and, indeed, in other cases, to which the power of impeachment will probably be applied, they will respect functionaries of a high character, where the remedy would otherwise be wholly inadequate, and the grievance be incapable of redress. Strictly speaking, then, the power partakes of a political character, as it respects injuries to the society in its political character ; and, on this account, it requires to be guarded in its exercise against the spirit of faction, the intolerance of party, and the sudden movements of popular feeling. The prosecution will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly, or hostile to the accused. The press, with its unsparing vigilance, will arrange itself on either side, to control, and influence public opinion ; and there will always be some danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real proofs of innocence or guilt.

§ 386. On the other hand, the delicacy and magnitude of a trust, which so deeply concerns the political existence and reputation of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, cannot be overlooked. It ought not to be a power so operative and instant, that it may intimidate a modest and conscientious statesman, or other functionary from accepting office ; nor so weak and torpid, as to be capable of lulling offenders into a general security and indifference. The difficulty of placing it rightly in a government, resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will be more strikingly perceived, when it is considered, that the ambitious and the cunning will often make strong accusations against public men the means of their own elevation to office ; and thus give an impulse to the power of impeachment, by pre-occupying the public opinion. The convention appears to have been very Strongly impressed with the difficulty of constituting a suitable tribunal ; and finally came to the result, that the senate was the most fit depositary of this exalted trust. In so doing, they had the example before them of several of the best considered state constitutions ; and the example, in some measure, of Great Britain, j The most strenuous opponent cannot, therefore, allege,' that it is a rash and novel experiment ; the most unequivocal friend must, at the same time, admit, that it is not free from all plausible objections.

§ 387. The conclusion, to which, upon a large survey of the whole subject, our judgments are naturally led, is, that the power has been wisely deposited with the senate. In the language of a learned commentator, it may be said, that of all the departments of the government, "none will be found more suitable to exercise this peculiar jurisdiction, than the senate. Although, like their accusers, they are representatives of the people ; yet they are so by a degree more removed, and hold their stations for a longer term. They are, therefore, more independent of the people, and being chosen with the knowledge, that they may, while in office, be called upon to exercise this high function, they bring with them the confidence of their constituents, that they will faithfully execute it, and the implied compact on their own part, that it shall be honestly discharged. '

"Precluded from ever becoming accusers themselves, it is their duty not to lend themselves to the animosities of party, or the prejudices against individuals, which may sometimes unconsciously induce the house of representatives to the acts of accusation. Habituated to comprehensive views of the great political relations of the country, they are naturally the best qualified to decide on those charges, which may have any connexion with transactions abroad, or great political interests at home. And although we cannot say, that, like the English house of lords, they form a distinct body, wholly uninfluenced by the passions, and remote from the interests, of the people ; yet we can discover in no other division of the government a greater probability of impartiality and independence."

* * * * *

In the above, among other things, we learn of the delicacy of the matter of appointing the most impartial, intelligent and independent Tribunal to be found. We learn that there was, and has been since carried on over the years, a great deal of debate as to whether a given Senate can be so thought of.

It is the perspective of this writing that the entire 115th Congress is – had been, absolutely pernicious in its approach to dealing Resolution 2231. The membership of Congress has worked to deceive, top to bottom concerning the objectives and activities carried out under Obama's "Iran nuclear deal;" which was clearly intended to appease the foreign Prince with the magnificent weapons concessions provided for therein.

In our day we are burdened by our corrupted Hawk Congress, no member of which presents themselves publicly as taking their Oath of Office seriously, not one of which brings themselves to denounce the violations imposed upon treaty which participation in Procurement Working Group activities entail; and of which all support to a greater or lesser degree, either by their loud support of it, or by their silence, the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This is the Senate we are given, which is the Tribunal which would be assigned the task of being triors and judges of guilt or innocence in an impeachment.

The restraining factor is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over proceedings conducted by these less than mediocre personalities. Moving on after having mentioned it:

An impeachment is a trial set up to ascertain innocence or guilt. The "Vote of No Confidence," however, is not to be thought of as such. It is more in the nature of an open referendum; but a referendum that sticks. There is a great deal of difference between the two.

The No Confidence vote does not ascertain guilt or innocence in any matter. It voices disapproval and rejection of an individual's or a Party's performance or policies. A "Vote of No Confidence" is a referendum on whether an individual or group is thought of as being currently fit for office – if not; out you go.

Taking our Senator Feinstein, as she is a perfect case study example: Senator Feinstein knows, as they all know in Congress – the market for sales of conventional class weapons to and from Iran opens on 16 October 2020. In order for U.S. arms dealerships to remain in the game the United States must not withdraw from the Obama deal. The United States Government must continue approving sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to Iran.

So Hawk Senator invents and declares her fiction of 26 April 2018:

The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region.

The Senator from California knows very well that the Procurement Working Group, and United States participation in it, is all about expediting and approving sales to Iran of Weapons of Mass Destruction associated goods, technologies and services.

The professional bigot politician does know, or is expected to know; that part of the Procurement Working Group mandated activity is to approve transfer of Iran of materials such as " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." They know, or are expected to know – so there's no use their pretending that they've been kept in the dark.

Senator Diane Feinstein – with all her vast knowledge base gained from her years in Congress – hasn't found a way to explain how the mandate of the Procurement Working Group; this mandate to expedite and approve of sales to Iran of inventories designed to escalate development of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity in Iran; how such activity could possibly construed as blocking "... _blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region_."

This public double speak of hers; this refusal to discuss the situation honestly; to her evidently appears a small matter when compared to her devotion to interested speculations on potential profit margins of U.S. arms dealerships once engaged in the Iranian open market for conventional weapons.

Arms dealing interests in congress would have to insist that President Trump must remain in the deal for any of the business potential to grow to maturity; so she utilized her office of trust to intentionally promulgate the pernicious deception of her fiction – which hardly anyone in Congress, either of her political party or the other, could possibly believe – as it is well known that the House of Representatives had voted in favor of promoting Procurement Working Group identified activities earlier in October 2017.

It doesn't matter to her if everyone in Congress knows that what she says isn't true, they are all involved in the same pursuit. The Question becomes, can she get away with it with the electorate?

Here gossipy, false rumor monger Feinstein knows she can get away with it – or just about any other sweet lie that might suit her purposes. Once again, Feinstein can be very confident that she need not give a care about whether or not voters across the nation believer her or not. They have no say in the matter of her choice to champion the cause of Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferation; and her choice spearheading a congressional movement to transform this country into a nation led by cynical fools exhibiting themselves as the equals in character to that of the amoral war criminal espousing _Crimes against Peace_.

Feinstein, a very senior leading light in the Senate and the Democratic Party, is available to reach out and teach and convince younger Democratic Party Senators, and even less senior then her Democratic Party members of the House of Representatives that as a Congressperson – if you're a Congressperson, you can with impunity promote to the public any lie as truth because the national level voter has no national level "Vote of No Confidence" with which to rebuke you and send you back home for a time out.

It's Great to be a Congressperson! You don't have to care if the national level public doesn't believe a word you say; you can lie your ass off and all the little people are simply forced to live with your mendacity and by your rules.

The denizens of the Republican Party have evidently learned a great deal from the Obama administration's transformation of the Democratic Party. The almost unanimous 26 October 2017 vote has been noted; as has been the behavior of both groups of Senators during the 13 March 2018 SASC interview of General Votel. The Republicans have learned their lesson well – they too, just like the Democrats, are immune from any current response by the national level electorate – they must have figured that out by now.

This is a very strange paradox currently carried on with in our country. The taxpayer on the national level, paying for the privileged upkeep of these people who make decisions on how our lives are to be ruled; find that those of the celebrity politician class are not the least bit answerable to the national taxpayer paying their salaries. Nevertheless; that they choose to promote proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction at their pleasure – this affects all national taxpayer voters all at once – and again, the taxpayer as a group doesn't get to vote no on the issue.

Without the "Vote of No Confidence" It takes us years to throw all the bums out; whereas they have the ability to promote their Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferation policies in almost a matter of hours or a few days.

The Congress has attempted to choose for the people that the United States Government should continue to participate in distribution to Iran of contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity. Their promotion of that failed as soon as the President succeeding Obama pulled the United States Government out of Security Council Resolution 2231, nevertheless;

The denizens of the two behemoth political parties have successfully chosen for us that the United States is now to be transformed into a nation led by cynical fools, absolutely lulled into a state of perfect immunity, invulnerable to any rebuke from the Citizen, themselves lulled into a state of indifference towards the concerns of the General Welfare and the Citizen – so far the behemoths have succeeded in that objective;

And the denizens of the Congress are currently free to act out as of the character of the amoral war criminal espousing _Crimes against Peace_ ; lying to the people while promoting the dissemination of contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction; this in favor of arming their foreign Prince, and joining in with the foreign Prince in his preparations for carrying out his pledged waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty and international assurances; this with no national rebuke from the electorate in sight.

* * * * *

The President succeeding Obama; President Trump, objected and finally got the lard out of his indecisive self and pulled the United States out of the deal – although not out all the way – in that this operation hasn't yet been shut down by petition to, and Order from the International Court of Justice.

The Congress has squawked about this unstable President's behavior; offended that his view runs contrary to the United States these hawk predator politicians choose to create.

Actually, Trump is a "Johnny Come Lately," entirely new to the scene. It's from the U.S. Citizens who have been anti-nuke all along, and which had already long since informed themselves on the issue – it's from them that Trump takes his lead – whether he cares to acknowledge it or not; the credit goes to us, although he gets some credit for having done the deed of getting the U.S. Government out of there. He deserves some positive recognition for that.

Yet still, we who are paying taxes for the upkeep of the choices of the hawk two party portfolio wielding Congress; we still don't have a "Vote of No Confidence;" we have no current means of gaining our independence from whatever influences the nightmare respective party portfolios seek to add to their collections. We of the national level electorate who are ruled by these purveyors of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as of yet have no means to vote them out of office.

* * * * *

In 2018 Diane Feinstein was reelected to her office as a Senator from California. She assumes her next term in 2019. The People of the United States are stuck with her pro-proliferation antics for another six years. It is not just her point of view we are stuck with – it is also that of all of the one third of the United States Senators who were elected for the same period.

These are the people who are mired in following along with Barack Obama iconic scheme in disregard of everything...

As mentioned, on 14 July 2015, upon the announcement of the public "signing" of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in Vienna on that day, Barack Obama, with prepared speech prompted the microphone, and speaking to American People from the East Room of the White House – laid into reciting his liturgy of specious, false promotional promises about the benefits of his "Iran nuclear deal."

Among other things which he promised, he lied on that day about restrictions on Iranian trading in ballistic missile associated assets:

And 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.

Barack Obama subsequently sent his twerp charlatan Secretary of Energy top "Scientist," Dr. Ernest Moniz off to directly and blatantly lie to the Senate.

On July 23, 2015, Dr. Moniz, went before the _United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee_ and declared:

_"Under this deal, Iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device, including multiple point explosive systems. These commitments are indefinite."_ *

***** [ TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE; Secretary Ernest Moniz; Washington, DC; July 23, 2015; internet access to pdf document is found at: http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-23-15%20Moniz%20Testimony.pdf [Last accessed June 24, 2016.]

The definition of "indefinite" for charlatan Moniz was evidently 16 January 2016 – which indefinite has already long since come and gone.

As mentioned; as of January 2016; Iran was allowed to engage in and undertake _activities which could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device_. The details of this measure are furnished in Appendix 08 – " _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_." []

Obama chose his gang of little charlatan liars well. Maybe it was easy for him to find people who would naturally vacillate towards a personality like his.

One of the most outrageous public displays of Obama's completely contemptuous disdain for rule of law comes out of his legal team – remarks from which really reveal the true culture and orientation of the Obama administration's cynically corrupt world view.

ALTHOUGH EVERYONE in Congress knew about the 20 July 2015 vote in the Security Council regarding Barack Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" officially pronounced as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; this was for the most part blithely ignored until members of the Senate. However, at one point Republican Senators Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo came to the earth-shattering realization/observation, on or around 18 September 2015; that nobody in Congress had ever received any signed copies of the JCPOA – reputed by legend to have been signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015. Mr. Pompeo fired off a polite letter to Obama's Secretary of State John Kerry asking what that was about. Following is the text of the Senator Pompeo's on 18 September 2015 letter:

Dear Secretary Kerry:

I have reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Islamic Republic of Iran – or at least the parts of the agreement that were provided to Congress by the administration. As you know, pursuant to H. Res. 411, the House of Representatives considers the documents transmitted on July 19, 2015 incomplete in light of the fact that the secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not provided to Congress. I look forward to seeing the entire agreement – including the two secret side deals that are part of the JCPOA – so that Congress may continue to evaluate the JCPOA and, depending on the outcome of the vote under the relevant provisions of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially end the current and continuing prohibition of the lifting of sanctions on Iran.

During that review, I found that the copies provided to Congress of the JCPOA are not signed by any of the P5+1 members nor by Iran. Having never seen an international agreement of this magnitude not signed by the parties or an agent of the parties, I assume this is simply an oversight or an administrative error. That is, Congress must not have the final version of the agreement that would necessarily be signed. I request that you provide us with copies of a final, executed copy of the JCPOA. In the event that the JCPOA has not yet been signed by the parties, please inform us (a) when signatures will be placed on the agreement, (b) what parties will be signing, and (c) which person you anticipate will sign on behalf of each of those parties, including on behalf of the United States.

I am confident that you intended for the JCPOA to be signed by each of the P5+1 participants. I can find no international agreement of this "historic" nature that was not signed by the parties. Each of the past five major nuclear agreements to which the U.S. is a party – SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea – were signed by representatives of each nation that was party to the agreement. This is not a mere formality. Those signatures represent the commitment of the signatory and the country on whose behalf he or she is signing.

A signature also serves to make clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement. In short, just as with any legal instrument, signing matters.

This is particularly important with respect to JCPOA. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has made clear that he does not believe that JCPOA is legally binding on his nation, saying, "If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it. Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?"

Given the many benefits that will accrue to the ayatollahs, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other unsavory elements of the Iranian regime, I believe that Iran should, at the very least, bind itself to the few requirements placed on it under the JCPOA by signing the agreement. I also believe that the United States and its P5+1 partners on the JCPOA should execute the agreement on behalf of their countries. I look forward to your response.

We all do. *

*[The text of the letter was found in two places

https://cjhsla.org/2015/11/01/the-iran-deal-was-not-signed-by-iran-or-anyone-else/

And:

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/the-iran-deal-was-not-signed-by-iran-or-anyone-else/2015/09/19/

I was unable to locate an original facsimile; however, the response to the letter from the State Department verifies that the letter was sent.]

That letter was sent out to Obama's State Department on 18 September 2015. It took a while for Obama's guilty conscience gang of overt liars to ruminate over how to answer that set of decent, honest questions. Eventually however, and after the long while wait; Harvard Law School graduate Obama foisted it upon his "Legislative Affairs" team department to formulate what must have seemed to that vacuous bunch a very clever smart asshole competitive retort:

The 19 November 2015 response was a whopper coming from a corrupted "Legislative Affairs" Department – presumed to have some recognized competency to go around handing out legal advice – but which nevertheless disclaimed rule of law as it did:

Dear Mr. Pompeo.:

Thank you for your September 18 letter regarding the nuclear deal with Iran. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China), and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.

The success of the JCPOA will depend not whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran's understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose and ramp up – our sanction if Iran does not meet its commitments.

Everything the JCPOA and its annexes are commitments Iran made, and must keep, to remain in compliance. Iran breaks these commitments, we can snap back both unilateral and UN sanction.

We provided Congress with everything agreed to between the P5+1 and Iran in the JCPOA, in full compliance with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INAEA). There are no "secret deals" between the P5+1 and Iran, and no JCPOA document that Congress does not already have. The Administration is fully committed to providing information to Congress to ensure full transparency as we implement the JCPOA.

We hope this information is useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Julia Frifield; Assistant Secretary; Legislative Affairs.

The facsimile presented next can be found at: _http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/11.24.2015.state.dept.letter.jcpoa.pdf_

In her first paragraph Frifield admits the document was not signed – presumably she is confessing that it was not signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015 by any of the non-signatory "Parties" to the JCPOA. An interesting point – to be collected upon at a later date in Court – if it is at all found to be material;

The lack of signatories on that date does not affect the final determination as to whether or not Obama's JCPOA agreement is a contractually concluded agreement. Resolution 2231; Annex A: JCPOA was documented as having been concluded with the rest of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 by its Security Council acceptance at the 7488th meeting of the Security Council in New York City on 20 July 2015.

Being that it is recognized as an instrument concluded by the Security Council, and more so having been since put into action by the Security Council; then the initially unsigned JCPOA by itself is no longer of material interest. But it is of material interest as an active part of a Security Council resolution. Thus it becomes an active menacing international agreement which exposes it to vulnerability of lawful attack under this following:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 53. Treaties Conflicting With a Peremptory Norm of General International Law ("Jus Cogens")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

The assertion of Obama's imbecile legal team, or rather its "Legislative Affairs" team; that "... _The success of the JCPOA will depend not whether it is legally binding or signed_ ..." is utter hogwash.

The instrument is very much so legally binding, in that it is an agreement to intentionally violate treaty, and thereby violate the Charter of the United Nations; and it is an agreement which infringes upon the defined tenants of _Crimes against Peace_.

The reciprocity of the Obama "Iran nuclear deal" is not binding between the "Parties" to the agreement – any one of which can walk out of the deal at any time; as Mr. Trump so aptly demonstrated.

The legally binding nature of the agreement on all participants in the provisions of Resolution 2231, severally and jointly, is their violation of the multilateral treaties they are all signatories to. They were and still are bound by international assurances they had long since made; and which they have intentionally violated in pursuit of expedient ends prohibited by agreed upon international treaty; and by international law.

Regardless that this rogue syndicate of States declares on the one hand that Resolution 2231 exonerates all participating Parties from conforming to the restraints imposed by the NPT, the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ :

Security Council Resolution 2231;

[section] **Other Matters**

27. [the Security Council] ... Decides that **all provisions contained in the JCPOA are only for the purposes of its implementation between the E3/EU+3 and Iran** and should not be considered as setting precedents for any other State or for principles of international law and the rights and obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and other relevant instruments, as well as for internationally recognized principles and practices;

Regardless of the proclamation of the rogue syndicate States that their dismissal of the NPT and international assurances in favor of promoting the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity in Iran, regardless of their excuses, prevarications, denials, their elaborate evasions; none of those Security Council States participating in the Security Council, Obama-instigated adventure of Resolution 2231, acted under any Authority granted the Security Council under the Charter of the United Nations in the passage of their nuclear weapons trade off gambit.

None of those States have, or ever had, any Authority to make exceptions and grant permission to violate treaty, or to participate in violations of treaty themselves.

They can't just simply say that they will use the power and influence of their positions to make an exception for Iran to violate treaty; and for themselves to violate treaty, in order to promote the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity in Iran.

When they make exception for themselves and Iran, then they determine that in the case of their "Deal" with Iran, international assurances are in suspension for the duration.

These world beating States of Germany, France, Russia, the U.K., China – and let us not forget the United States Government under the mission of the Obama administration; had decided that international assurances can no longer be applied to them in the singular case of in which they have determined for themselves to assist Iran in the ambitious development of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacities at their discretion;

Iran has long since pledged the waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty and international assurances. In order to facilitate this ambition – and to join in Obama's hopes to appease the Government of Iran – the leadership of the Obama-era five permanent Member States of the Security Council all agreed to participate in preparations for this planned war of aggression pledged by Iran to take place some time in the future:

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 Security Council was very clear on the intentions of its resolution. It would take it upon itself – without any Authority granted it by the Charter of the United Nations, to suspend international assurances in order to facilitate their participation in Iranian preparations for pledged waging of war of aggression.

The leaderships of the Obama-era five permanent Member States of the Security Council were looking for an excuse to simply indulge themselves in the _Crimes against Peace_ category of War Crimes by simply suspending their commitments to maintaining the promise of international assurance in favor of supporting Iran's pledged waging of war of aggression; and thereby granting the "unofficial" unique favor to Iran that it would now have, given their assistance in violation of treaty, the discretion to obliterate neighboring populations at Iran's choice of opportunity, or immediate chance inclination, or under any pretense of provocation which might justify the sudden extinguishing of neighboring population centers.

So yes, all nations seeking to be Party to Barack Obama's accommodation plan for Iran – the leaderships of these find themselves in the binding situation that they are all in the most serious egregious violation of peremptory norm of general international law, and of international treaty.

And the leaderships of these rogue national governments participating might find themselves, in the end, to be very much bound for having followed along with the planned and intended horse's ass excuses of the Obama administration.

Only a twerp charlatan politician such as Obama would have the idiot egomaniacal audacity to declare that he was somehow authorized to toss out international assurances and treaty at his whim;

He had and has found many regressive acolytes to support his predatory arms trading adventures. For example, there is the backwards shallow hawk predator elitist House of Representatives member from California Jimmy Costa, who pretending himself to be some sort of progressive pacifist super patriot in support of arms control – feels easy about twisting things around to try to warp public sensibility in his direction:

"...to remain credible, the United States cannot change positions on international agreements from one administration to another without serious justification and without the consent in working with our allies."

Jimmy of California wants everyone to believe that previous commitments made by earlier Governments of the United States don't count anymore – and the only thing that matters is the most recent doctrinaire position of his political party espousing United States continued approval of sales to Iran of procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets presumably in support of a project intended to develop that State's Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities.

Hawk Jimmy, speaking in his decisive role as another regressive from California, would not want to admit to something like that – that he's actually making a big sales pitch to sell weapons to Iran; that his version of an international commitment is to do everything he can to persuade the public that because his political party agreed with Obama – this international scheme to sell contraband armaments to Iran must take precedence over international assurances, law, and treaty;

In support of his unsupportable nastiness, Jimmy's did the easiest thing – invent a lie.

And as mentioned, Mr. Costa made his declaration of that on 11 October 2017 – and on 26 October 2017, not so many days later, he voted with all the others, House of Representatives Republicans and Democrats alike, to seriously violate an over 50 year United States Government commitment to the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ by espousing that United States approvals of Iranian acquisitions of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile weapons assets should be established as United States law, superseding the rules laid out in treaty and in Article VI of the Constitution.

We are living though a very backwards period of history – where petty partisan politicians declare their fabrications as truth – this when the documented facts clearly show their fabrications to be lies which nevertheless are forced upon, and must be accepted by a disenfranchised, never enfranchised, electorate.

We are forced to accept being dictated to by the malfeasant brokers of whatever partisan story these people come up with – and these little despots have learned that under the current system they can get away with saying just about anything, and acting out on the extreme fanatic doctrines they cherish; and they are without any obligation to answer to the national electorate which does not have a vote to send any of them home for a soothing "time out" vacation.

IF PETITION is ever brought to the International Court of Justice concerning the multiple violations explicit in Resolution 2231, the Security Council resolution must be found void at the time of its conclusion as it promotes at least one identified War Crime, and promotes violation of multilaterally signed treaties.

It is essential that Trump get over whatever it is that's holding him back. He's the one who's in the position to summon an international alliance of States – all who are signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and who all feel directly or indirectly menaced by the activities put into place under the provisions Resolution 2231 – to petition the Court to confirm Resolution 2231 as having been void from its conclusion. So far there has been no overt action on that account coming from his Department.

The ongoing trade in contraband weapons, pushed by the United Nations Security Council, moves forward unabated – completely unconcerned with; or perhaps feeling relieved and reassured by Trump's so far publicly exhibited, feebly indecisive character in this area.

Obama and his administration have advanced the nuclear clock – pushing the world towards the cynical disregard for treaty and international law which is most likely to lead at some point to the horrors from which the Charter of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice were called into being as reaction to.

Obama's "Iran nuclear deal," is the immediate menace to world peace and security; and to the security of the United States which must be confronted and ended in Court as soon as possible.

* * * * *

In the longer term there is a "Vote of No Confidence" amendment, arising from the People, to be enacted .

It is become evident that allowing a six year term for a Senator precluding any public national review by the entire national electorate is too long a term to risk on giving anyone that kind of power.

Currently members of Congress, once in, are completely immune to public national recall.

These are Federal Office Holders, paid for by nation wide taxes, who make decisions on the national level affecting all on the national level; decisions such as promoting United States expediting and approving of contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction sales to Iran;

Decisions such as promoting that the United States Government continue to directly participate in Iranian preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty and international assurances;

Decisions such as promoting that the United States Government continue to directly involve itself, and hence the People of the United States, in the internationally defined _Crimes against Peace_ class of War Crimes capers;

The members of Congress have indulged their favoring of support for decisions such as all those – and then to top it all off, in their immunity to any thought of any consequence of a currently non-existent indignant, outraged and unfavorable "Vote of No Confidence;" which might have been pursued by the national electorate had there been the opportunity – these smirking members of Congress can mockingly carry on with their pernicious collective lie that what is truly going on isn't what what's happening; regardless that a growing number of the national electorate are learning what the thing is all about; or even if almost the entire national electorate is aware of what the Government is openly carrying on with.

Senator Diane Feinstein, for all her years in the Senate, has never suffered the possibility of a term of office being cut short by a review from the national electorate.

Perhaps that is why Feinstein and all the others feel so damned confident promoting egregious violation of treaty supported by members of Congress carrying on amoral as a by definition War Criminal.

And meanwhile, the ongoing trade in contraband weapons, pushed by the United Nations Security Council, moves forward unabated.

Those Senators of the Senate Armed Services Committee; in their 13 March 2018 interview with the General Votel, were keen to play sport on the General because he didn't know what they knew. That puerile circle of smug self-satisfied little clowns, lacking any sensibility of a social compact, wouldn't share necessary information with the General – information that much of the public already is aware of.

Those Senators could do with a good dose of "Vote of No Confidence" shared out among them by the public on the national level.

These ongoing terms of members of Congress, with the capacity to vote on the national level to give a foreign Prince, which declares the United States to be his religious enemy "The Great Satan," to grovel at the feet of the foreign Prince that he might assist in enabling Iran's best trading buddy North Korea with the capacity to exterminate large portions of the United States;

The ongoing tenures granted these members of Congress, who not only have the capacity to promote endowing the foreign Prince with such power – but have actually voted in favor of appeasing the Prince in granting that Power to the Prince over the General Welfare of the People of the United States – the sequence of these ongoing tenures could be interrupted by the "Vote of No Confidence;"

These, and as these make up all of the members of the entire Congress; all could use a healthy dose of "Vote of No Confidence" meted out among them by the national electorate.

And meanwhile, the ongoing trade in contraband weapons, pushed by the United Nations Security Council, moves forward unabated.

The concept of long term tenure unchallengeable by national vote is no longer tenable in the modern age of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure that it ever was in the first place – but it's easy to understand, that at the time of the foundation of the United States, as there was no real system of communication such as today, the lapse should go to an extent unnoticed – or un-remarked upon .

Things change; and as Joseph Story observes in his Chapter XLI: _Commentaries on the Constitution_ :

**§956** ... It is obvious, that no human government can ever be perfect ; and that it is impossible to foresee, or guard against all the exigencies, which may, in different ages, require different adaptations and modifications of powers to suit the various necessities of the people...

In our age of nuclear weapons, things are a bit more fast moving than previously – and we can all thank for that the Democratic Party administration of Barack Obama; replete with its minion acolyte firm supporters in Congress – for having managed to move the hands of the nuclear weapons clock forward and escalate the situation appreciably.

* * * * *

I maintain that the Congress of the United States now knows that if it works as a collective, it can go ahead and do the worst possible thing imaginable in our current age – as it has. And therefore in any future age – if there is a future to be had, the Congress is free to believe that it can do the worst without any effective national level deterrence by the electorate. Congress has learned this.

The Congress is assured of its current immunity – and therefore no individual seeking office of trust in the National Assembly can ever be treated again in Good Faith as though any one of their proclamations of an Oath of Loyalty can ever be vouched for on personal recognizance alone;

The Oath of Office, as it stands today, is unenforceable when the entire collective of the national assembly acts in collective malfeasance – as it currently has.

The Oath of Office must be made enforceable. A regularly scheduled "Vote of No Confidence" national level election would give the electorate the chance force Congress members' diligent attention to their duties to Oath and to the Constitution and answerable to the Electorate, the very People who put the bread on their tables.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 11

– The Ninth Amendment –

In its brevity, the fundamental significance of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution is often overlooked in our more modern times.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The title of the ninth amendment is, as we see: "Construction of Constitution."

The brevity of the title and that of the sentence following might cause one to wonder how might the construction of a Constitution be construed to arise from such a sparsely worded principle.

* * * * *

Thomas Paine, in the opening paragraphs of Common Sense; First Chapter – _Of The Origin And Design Of Government In General, With Concise Remarks On The English Constitution_ ; reasons as follows:

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness _positively_ by uniting our affections, the latter _negatively_ by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries _by a government_ , which we might expect in a country _without government_ , our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. _Wherefore_ , security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever _form_ thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

The above reasoning is echoed several years later in the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The notion expressed by Thomas Paine in _Common Sense_ – that "... _security being_ [is] _the true design and end of government_ ...;" is restated in the Preamble: "... _establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty_ ;"

* * * * *

Returning to the question of: ...how might the construction of a Constitution be construed to arise from the sparsely worded principle declared in the Ninth Amendment?

Another short reading from the writings of Thomas Paine, this time from The _Rights of Man_ Part II; Chapter IV – _Of Constitutions_ might help to further clarify part of the meaning and intent of the amendment in question:

That men mean distinct and separate things when they speak of constitutions and of governments, is evident; or why are those terms distinctly and separately used? A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution, is power without a right.

All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.

In viewing this subject, the case and circumstances of America present themselves as in the beginning of a world; and our enquiry into the origin of government is shortened, by referring to the facts that have arisen in our own day. We have no occasion to roam for information into the obscure field of antiquity, nor hazard ourselves upon conjecture. We are brought at once to the point of seeing government begin, as if we had lived in the beginning of time. The real volume, not of history, but of facts, is directly before us, unmutilated by contrivance, or the errors of tradition.

I will here concisely state the commencement of the American constitutions; by which the difference between constitutions and governments will sufficiently appear...

...... I will begin with giving an instance from one of the state governments (that of Pennsylvania) and then proceed to the federal government.

The state of Pennsylvania, though nearly of the same extent of territory as England, was then divided into only twelve counties. Each of those counties had elected a committee at the commencement of the dispute with the English government; and as the city of Philadelphia, which also had its committee, was the most central for intelligence, it became the center of communication to the several country committees. When it became necessary to proceed to the formation of a government, the committee of Philadelphia proposed a conference of all the committees, to be held in that city, and which met the latter end of July, 1776.

Though these committees had been duly elected by the people, they were not elected expressly for the purpose, nor invested with the authority of forming a constitution; and as they could not, consistently with the American idea of rights, assume such a power, they could only confer upon the matter, and put it into a train of operation. The conferees, therefore, did no more than state the case, and recommend to the several counties to elect six representatives for each county, to meet in convention at Philadelphia, with powers to form a constitution, and propose it for public consideration.

This convention, of which Benjamin Franklin was president, having met and deliberated, and agreed upon a constitution, they next ordered it to be published, not as a thing established, but for the consideration of the whole people, their approbation or rejection, and then adjourned to a stated time. When the time of adjournment was expired, the convention re-assembled; and as the general opinion of the people in approbation of it was then known, the constitution was signed, sealed, and proclaimed on the authority of the people and the original instrument deposited as a public record. The convention then appointed a day for the general election of the representatives who were to compose the government, and the time it should commence; and having done this they dissolved, and returned to their several homes and occupations...

**...No article of this constitution could be altered or infringed at the discretion of the government that was to ensue**. It was to that government a law. But as it would have been unwise to preclude the benefit of experience, and in order also to prevent the accumulation of errors, if any should be found, and to preserve an unison of government with the circumstances of the state at all times, the constitution provided that, at the expiration of every seven years, a convention should be elected, for the express purpose of revising the constitution, and making alterations, additions, or abolitions therein, if any such should be found necessary.

Here we see a regular process—a government issuing out of a constitution, formed by the people in their original character; and that constitution serving, not only as an authority, but as a law of control to the government. It was the political bible of the state. Scarcely a family was without it. Every member of the government had a copy; and nothing was more common, when any debate arose on the principle of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority, than for the members to take the printed constitution out of their pocket, and read the chapter with which such matter in debate was connected.

* * * * *

The establishment of the original Constitution of Pennsylvania, and the Constitutions of the other various young Republics, were microcosm templates for the process of establishing that of the entire United States. The underlying principles were the same, and the procedure was similar although there were incidental differences due to the larger scale of the undertaking.

Having thus given an instance from one of the states, I will show the proceedings by which the federal constitution of the United States arose and was formed.

Congress, at its two first meetings, in September 1774, and May 1775, was nothing more than a deputation from the legislatures of the several provinces, afterwards states; and had no other authority than what arose from common consent, and the necessity of its acting as a public body. In everything which related to the internal affairs of America, congress went no further than to issue recommendations to the several provincial assemblies, who at discretion adopted them or not. Nothing on the part of congress was compulsive; yet, in this situation, it was more faithfully and affectionately obeyed than was any government in Europe. This instance, like that of the national assembly in France, sufficiently shows, that the strength of government does not consist in any thing itself, but in the attachment of a nation, and the interest which a people feel in supporting it. When this is lost, government is but a child in power; and though, like the old government in France, it may harass individuals for a while, it but facilitates its own fall.

After the declaration of independence, it became consistent with the principle on which representative government is founded, that the authority of congress should be defined and established. Whether that authority should be more or less than congress then discretionarily exercised was not the question. It was merely the rectitude of the measure.

For this purpose, the act, called the act of confederation (which was a sort of imperfect federal constitution), was proposed, and, after long deliberation, was concluded in the year 1781. It was not the act of congress, **because it is repugnant to the principles of representative government that a body should give power to itself**. Congress first informed the several states, of the powers which it conceived were necessary to be invested in the union, to enable it to perform the duties and services required from it; and the states severally agreed with each other, and concentrated in congress those powers...

...a deputation from five or six state assemblies met at Annapolis, in Maryland, in 1786. This meeting, not conceiving itself sufficiently authorised to go into the business of a reform, did no more than state their general opinions of the propriety of the measure, and recommend that a convention of all the states should be held the year following.

The convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, of which General Washington was elected president. He was not at that time connected with any of the state governments, or with congress. He delivered up his commission when the war ended, and since then had lived a private citizen.

The convention ... having, after a variety of debate and investigation, agreed among themselves upon the several parts of a federal constitution, the next question was, the manner of giving it authority and practice.

They first directed that the proposed constitution should be published. Secondly, that each state should elect a convention, expressly for the purpose of taking it into consideration, and of ratifying or rejecting it; and that as soon as the approbation and ratification of any nine states should be given, that those states shall proceed to the election of their proportion of members to the new federal government; and that the operation of it should then begin, and the former federal government cease...

...As soon as nine states had concurred (and the rest followed in the order their conventions were elected), the old fabric of the federal government was taken down, and the new one erected, of which General Washington is president...

Mr. Paine explains some of the reasoning underlying the formation of the Constitutions of the several young Republics comprising the soon to be reconstituted United States; and explains this reasoning as identical to that basic understanding underlying the unification of all State under a Federal Constitution:

...there is no such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side, and the government on the other. The compact was that of the people with each other, to produce and constitute a government...

,,,The only instance in which a compact can take place between the people and those who exercise the government, is, that the people shall pay them, while they choose to employ them.

Government is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumeable. ***** It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties. ******

[*The distance of time may have rendered the usage in that sentence somewhat archaic. The meaning might be difficult for a reader whose first language is not English to discern.

[Mr. Paine here is saying that: the people, those from whom the trust has been delegated, this trust can always be withdrawn. Mr. Paine is simply making a naturalistic observation of that condition which is universal to humankind.

[A people whom have been cheated, can always withdraw an earlier sense of trust in the character of the cheater or cheaters. In other words; because the people have earlier, in good faith, exercised their right to extend trust; this does not preclude the resumption of their right to cease to exercise extending trust to a given politician or group of politicians – and, or the doctrines those politicians espouse and impose upon the people. That premise is in our society almost universally understood as self-evident, and is taken as one of the underlying principles in our form of representative Government.]

[**The Powers of governance; to carry out duties, are vested in elected politicians only by and under the Authority of the Constitution declared by, and originating from the People.

[There is no "right" of the politician to disclaim those duties to the People once elected. The personal choice to run for election, and to gain public office, theoretically is a choice to take on the responsibility of carrying out those Authorized duties as favorably and conscientiously as such capacity affords the elected individual.]

The conception that Constitution originates from a society of people was prevalent at the time of the formation of the United States Constitution – regardless that it seems rarely given a thought to in our day.

* * * * *

The 115th House of Representatives bi-partisan collective was adamant.

Two days before their illustrious almost unanimous 26 October 2017 vote approving the Bill _HR-1698_ for enactment – that is the bill that intends that the already ongoing Procurement Working Group activities would now be protected under U.S. statute; the House of Representatives took it upon themselves to make up public show of spirit with many strenuously engaging in the usual pronouncements of deep concern over a given issue. Earlier in the month, the 4 October 2017 House of Representatives Democratic Party letter to the President had asserted:

... We are further concerned that noncertification based on justifications beyond the scope of the nuclear agreement would threaten global non-proliferation efforts and send exactly the wrong message to North Korea at the moment we are trying to diplomatically defuse that crisis. Countries should know that unless Iran commits a material breach of the JCPOA, the United States will keep its word.

The reference to North Korea in the above passage had everything to do with what most everyone in the House of Representatives was squawking about that month of October 2017. The 115th membership of the House of Representatives had become dimly aware that since the onset of Procurement Working Group sponsored Iranian acquisition had begun in November 2016 – North Korean tests of thermonuclear explosive devices had become exponentially more powerful. Here are three examples of the commentaries carried on with on 24 October 2017:

On 24 October 2017 Congressperson Barr of Kentucky says (page H8100 of the Congressional Record on that date):

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to sponsor H.R. 3898, the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions Act, which imposes the most far-reaching financial sanctions ever directed at North Korea.

Since 2006, North Korea has undertaken six nuclear tests and, earlier this summer, test-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching United States territory. The most recent nuclear device that the country detonated on September 3 had an estimated explosive power 10 times greater than the bomb dropped at Hiroshima. We must not allow the North to threaten a U.S. city with such weapons

On the same day, 24 October 2017 and in the same edition of the Congressional Record Congressperson Rothfus of Pennsylvania says (page H8103):

Now, as the brutal Kim regime continues its nuclear quest... This July, the dictatorship claimed they had the capacity to send an intercontinental ballistic missile anywhere in the world. In September, they conducted their sixth nuclear weapons test and claimed to have detonated a hydrogen bomb that could be mounted on an intercontinental ballistic missile. These actions must not be ignored.

On the same day, 24 October 2017 and in the same edition of the Congressional Record Congressperson Waters of California says (page H8101):

...the rapid acceleration in the scale and range of North Korea's nuclear and missile programs is so alarming, including the launch of two intercontinental ballistic missiles in July, one of which experts believe could have had the capacity to reach the continental United States. Then, in September, the regime tested its sixth nuclear explosive device, and, according to U.S. and international estimates, this thermonuclear test was significantly higher in magnitude and yield than any previous test.

The solution to the problem arrived at was not to take another look at United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 for further consideration; or in this case, perhaps a first look – and consider it as something to be taken seriously after all.

The above was not the solution arrived at. The solution arrived at was to attempt enactment of a statute which would have it recognized in U.S. law that the United States was to continue participating in the activities of the Procurement Working Group – and hence continue expediting and approving sales to Iran of INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 listed inventories such as nuclear weapons related: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." as listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2.

This was the solution arrived at – strengthen the commitment to arm a foreign State with Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity, and all other States will immediately fall in line and do what you ask of them. This was the fantasy the Congress constructed for itself to justify continued U.S. Government participation in the Obama scheme.

While supporting and approving perhaps Russian, perhaps Chinese, or French or U.K. or even U.S. possible sales of such stuff to Iran; North Korea's best buddy and trading partner – House of Representatives members could comfortably sit back and not even dimly wonder if such U.S. collusion with Iranian weapons interests might not result in exchanges of consideration between Iran and North Korea.

The notion that a sudden notable exponential increase in North Korean fire power, some eight months after the late November 2016 commencement Procurement Working Group activities, might in some way be distantly related to Procurement Working Group undisclosed approvals of whatever the Procurement Working Group was approving for sale to Iran – sales of which the _International Atomic Energy Agency_ is prohibited from reviewing; this prohibition being in violation of international treaty;

The notion that Procurement Working Group activities might be contributing to sudden expansions in North Korean weapons capacities was not examined on the Congressional Record.

Tiny Town House of Representatives glamour Democrats had shown the way in their 4th of October 2017 letter to the President.

The way forward was to attempt to consolidate and conclude with the North Koreans, negotiations having the objective of convincing that State to cease developing any further nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons capacity. The Democrats had postulated that the North Koreans must trust in the political image of the U.S. Government as an honest broker which maintains its commitments in order that such negotiation might prove successfully favorable to U.S. interests.

It was pretended that the way to establish that trust with the North Korean Government is to demonstrate that the U.S. Government is committed to following through on its promises – such as the one which upholds the allowance that the Procurement Working Group may, if it desires, approve of sales to Iran of INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 listed inventories relating to such materials as nuclear weapons related: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc.;"

The pretense was that by politically and actively promoting our fidelity to the vaunted contract with Iran – the United States would decisively convince the North Korean Government that the way towards succeeding in our mutual goal (of North Korean, and of the United States) in achieving lasting world peace would be for North Korea to negotiate with this trusted Government of the United States – which had faithfully maintained its commitment to continue to arm the foreign Prince with Weapons of Mass Destruction associated goods, services and technologies.

Of course the North Korean Government did not have, nor has, under current circumstance, any need to negotiate with the United States Government under stipulated U.S. doctrines designed to increase the magnitude of individual or bi-partisan political party domestic popularity.

North Korea has everything it wants through its best buddy and trading partner; Iran – which, even with Trumps withdrawal from Resolution 2231; will still be supplied by at least Russian and Chinese interests.

The North Korean Government, already out of its mind – might be found to be even more so in ever bothering to negotiate with a directionless United States Government which first of all has nothing to offer and no leverage at all with North Korea in any such negotiations proposed (the U.S., under Obama, having already given away every possible potential leverage point to Iran); and secondly, the U.S. can't convincingly on an international level, present any evidence that it knows what it wants to ask for.

The North Korean Government might play along with a charade, make meaningless promises for image sake – but as of yet, unsurprisingly, negotiations with North Korea yield nothing constructive.

However horrific the conduct of the North Korean Government – we ourselves are not excused from our responsibility in instigating the affair.

The U.S. Government cannot successfully negotiate with the corrupt Government of North Korea while the United States Government has chosen to effectively abandon treaty and peremptory norm of general international law. As the United States Government itself, under Obama, had simply abandoned treaty and law – it cannot use international law as a leverage point, it simply won't work; the credibility of the United States in that area has been temporarily laid waste by the reputation the Obama administration had left behind it. The United States must reestablish its credibility in that respect.

Diplomacy is therefore useless at this point; as the U.S. Government is absolutely not to be trusted – but rather to be regarded as a joke when it tries to posture and preach a bogus moral stance which itself doesn't practice.

The only thing that works is to return to adherence of international law, admit to the outrages carried out under the Obama administration; formulate an alliance to petition the International Court of Justice for correction and confirmation that Resolution 2231 was void upon conclusion.

The only way to get anywhere with North Korea is to lawfully cut its weapons supply line with Iran.

The bi-partisan denizens of the U.S. Congress pretend to the public that the U.S. Government is to be treated internationally as a Government upholding and representing international law, when this is widely known internationally not to be the case.

Since the United States, thanks in large part to the travesty of the Obama administration, has no international credibility in that area – the North Korean Government can continue to play games and treat the U.S. Government as a laughable buffoon.

Although the prospect could predictably guessed to be distasteful to the politician denizens of remorseless Tiny Town Congress – if the U.S. Government would be understood and respected as now determined to adhere to international law and attempt to correct the lawless circumstances instigated by the previous U.S. administration of Barack Obama;

Then the Government should begin by finishing exactly what Trump took the first step towards when he pulled the United States out of the "Iran nuclear weapons exchange deal."

Following up could, as I've opined in previous writings, entail forming an international coalition of States remaining loyal to the NPT and distressed by the ongoing and very menacing violations of that treaty introduced by Obama and sponsored on a continuing basis under United Nations auspices;

An international team of attorneys, assembled by such coalition, advocates learned in international law and the procedures of the Court could be brought about to formulate a petition to the Court to have the whole thing, Resolution 22231, thrown out and have the situation reversed – as had been previously been described.

* * * * *

It is an imbecile notion of both the Democratic and Republican partisans that North Korea will ever accede in negotiation with the United States, to curbing its weapons program just because any hypocritical U.S. Government – while itself in aggressive violation of treaty – says it wants North Korea to cut it out. North Korea has its few but powerful friendliest friends; and the U.S. is not one of them.

The U.S. is the nation which instigated the assault on international treaty in the first place.

As mentioned, the only way at this point to put pressure on North Korea to restrain its weapons program is; that if its supply line with Iran were cut off by a Court Ruling that Resolution 2231 was illegitimate from the beginning and that it must be thrown out; the weapons transactions and the other things entirely abolished; and the situation be brought back into conformance with international law reiterating as follows:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 53. Treaties Conflicting With a Peremptory Norm of General International Law ("Jus Cogens")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A TREATY

Article 71. Consequences of the Invalidity of a Treaty which Conflicts with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law

1. In the case of a treaty which is void under article 53 [above] the parties shall:

(a) Eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on any provision which conflicts with the peremptory norm of general international law; and.

(b) Bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law.

Petitioning the Court for confirmation that Resolution 2231was void upon conclusion changes the whole paradigm between North Korea and Iran – and between the United States and those and other States.

Without any action in Court against Resolution 2231, the North Koreans have no incentive whatsoever to depart from its development of nuclear weapons. After all, the remainder of the five permanent Members of the Security Council are all currently assisting Iran in the development of its program – so why shouldn't the North Koreans go about their business as usual.

Especially as regards the Democratic Party membership; a bi-partisan completely corrupt, insularly hypocritical Congress obsessed and preoccupied with its need, for stupid political reasons, to cling to the iconic publicly promoted legend of Obama's negotiation with Iran as being a brilliant success; despite the dismal failure which it has revealed itself to be; this 115th Congress has never, and probably the 116th Congress, will never be honest enough the tell the truth to itself or anyone else; and it is essential that Congress face up to the facts;

However, the Congress persists in maintaining its fantasy fabrication that North Korea could somehow be handled by United States "Diplomacy;" which, if using Barack Obama as the template – amounts to violating international treaty and law to appease the negotiators on the other end of the table. We see where Obama's style of "Diplomacy" lands us:

THE FRAMERS of the Constitution could never have foreseen thermonuclear weapons; they would never have imagined the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_.

But they did understand the seminal importance of treaty. Reviewing some of Justice Joseph Story's commentary on the subject:

§ 966. In regard to treaties, there is equal reason, why they should be held, when made, to be the supreme law of the land. It is to be considered, that treaties constitute solemn compacts of binding obligation among nations ; and unless they are scrupulously obeyed, and enforced, no foreign nation would consent to negotiate with us ; or if it did, any want of strict fidelity on our part in the discharge of the treaty stipulations would be visited by reprisals, or war. It is, therefore, indispensable, that they should have the obligation and force of a law, that they may be executed by the judicial power, and be obeyed like other laws ... while they do subsist, they ought to have a positive binding efficacy, as laws, upon all the states, and all the citizens of the states. The peace of the nation, and its good faith, and moral dignity, indispensably require, that all state laws should be subjected to their supremacy.

The Framers of the Constitution needed no threat of annihilation by thermonuclear weapons to frighten them into cautious examination of the issues, and concern for scrupulously maintaining treaty.

They had been through a great deal, and already understood that the world could never be a better place if international treaty were to be disregarded at expedient whim.

As I have often quoted Mr. Thomas Paine's _The American Crisis XIII_ – wherein he reflects upon the conclusion of the American War of Independence:

[America] ...is now descending to the scenes of quiet and domestic life. Not beneath the cypress shade of disappointment, but to enjoy in her own land, and under her own vine, the sweet of her labors, and the reward of her toil.—In this situation, may she never forget that a fair national reputation is of as much importance as independence. That it possesses a charm that wins upon the world, and makes even enemies civil. That it gives a dignity which is often superior to power, and commands reverence where pomp and splendor fail...

...Yet let but a nation conceive rightly of its character, and it will be chastely just in protecting it. None ever began with a fairer than America, and none can be under a greater obligation to preserve it.

Mr. Paine and Justice Story speak to us from an earlier era. Their observations are just as true today as these were from the earliest times of this nation. I believe that the notions they have formulated on the subject may spring from the experience gained by Doctor Benjamin Franklin in his establishing United States relations with the European Posers (not Britain) as of the Declaration of Independence. I borrow from myself a small excerpted passage from the earlier book " _Negotiating Abject Lawless Appeasement_ :"

...Neither France, Spain, nor Holland had any problem with the Colonies in themselves. But these Colonies were held by a belligerent British Government – that did pose a problem and a threat to all concerned...

The colonies had no sovereignty; they could neither advance nor enter into a treaty which Britain – it's interest laying elsewhere – might disapprove of. The colonies could not enter into any treaty of peace or trade whatsoever; whether Britain was at war or at peace – Britain wouldn't allow it.

It was early on recognized by many in the colonies that the situation was untenable – independent sovereignty would have to be developed and established so to avoid the constant bloodshed and ruin consequential to the colonies' dependence on the foreign policies of the British King and Parliament of the era.

The American Provinces, transforming themselves into a fledgling nation, the United States of America; desperately desiring peace in its very first existence, must formulate treaties of understanding with the suspicious, or skeptical, foreign Powers of Europe.

The fledgling nation, the United States of America; in seeking peace, had advocates like Dr. Benjamin Franklin; who was highly thought of in Europe.

The European Powers wanted to know what this new nation was on about. Understanding was necessary; it would supplant skepticism or fear.

Dr. Franklin was well-known as an honest broker (among the other good things). Franklin would be trusted by all Parties to bring forth honest understanding and alliance with foundation – and he was entrusted by both the American Provinces and the European Powers to carry on in this constructive work; and Franklin fulfilled his promise in this duty, no question at all about this choice of an emissary would be put by any of the Parties involved.

ONE CAN readily understand it as highly unlikely either North Korea or any other State will take the U.S. Government as anything other than a corrupted posturing pantomime on the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation unless Obama's iconic "Iran nuclear deal," egregiously in violation of treaty and international law, is brought to Court.

Recalling the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:

§ 966. ...It is to be considered, that treaties constitute solemn compacts of binding obligation among nations ; and **unless they are scrupulously obeyed, and enforced, no foreign nation would consent to negotiate with us** ; or if it did, any want of strict fidelity on our part in the discharge of the treaty stipulations would be visited by reprisals, or war. It is, therefore, indispensable, that they should have the obligation and force of a law, that they may be executed by the judicial power, and be obeyed like other laws ... while they do subsist, they ought to have a positive binding efficacy, as laws,

Justice Story's words are far from idle ones – as we are forced to learn from hard experience brought on by the self-aggrandizing frivolities of the Obama administration; and the inexcusable negligence and self-indulgence of the Congress.

As described, North Korea currently has no incentive to negotiate with the United States. Obama has effectively demolished United States negotiating credibility.

It is now up to this current President Trump to do the best he can to help repair the situation. I maintain that there will be no possibility of constructive negotiation with North Korea, and certainly not with China or Russia; and probably not with Germany, the U.K. or France on the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation; not without action in Court pertaining directly to the ongoing travesty of Security Council Resolution 2231; and thereby forcing the issue.

* * * * *

Reviewing some Constitutional underlying principles and concepts of the Constitution before moving on the proposition of two amendments which might very well improve conditions of the electorate in relation to a government which really should emanate from the People – but which sadly, does not always fulfill that promise:

...Government...is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. _Wherefore_ **, security being the true design and end of government** , it unanswerably follows that whatever _form_ thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

We currently find ourselves surrendering up a part of our sustenance to those who only offer menace in return – this is a dysfunctional form of governance.

The smirking 115th House of Representatives attempts to pass its 26 October 2017 unsustainable bill trying to stick the United States Citizen with the consequences of continuing participation in the violations of treaty and international law exercised in the ongoing activities of the Procurement Working Group.

The smugly smirking self-righteous Senate Armed Services Committee mocks the People and the Security of the Nation by playing sport with the General – frivolously keeping essential information from the General which they preferred to keep to their insular conceited selves, possibly for fear of letting the "cat out of the bag" exposing the United States Public to such information regarding the danger the General seems unaware of; the danger of which many in the public are already well informed regardless of the shoddy attempts of an imbecile Congress to try and keep it to themselves even though project progress reports on the Security Council resolution, including some aspects of Procurement Working Group sponsored sales to Iran, are openly published at six month intervals for every Citizen world wide to read, by the United Nations Security Council.

AND THERE IS this political ploy carried on with from time to time by the 115th Congress, which strikes up the band whenever it fancies the assembly to get up the energy to rampage some more – and we might as well expect the same coming from the 116th Congress:

The complaint essentially being that the current President hasn't got the "diplomatic skill" of Sainted and Messianic Barack Obama who brought back to America from Iran his wonderful pageantry of dismal failure which has been applauded by the political elite probably as an ideal re-election campaign ruse.

The pretence behind the complaint is that North Korea could be convinced to cooperate if Trump were to offer it such a good deal as was gifted to Iran.

As submitted, Trump can't effectively negotiate with North Korea on any issue relating to ameliorating its escalating nuclear weapons build up – and there's no help to be sought from China or Russia on the matter – as these two States completely understand that such an endeavor is a useless waste of time; they being the strong ones supporting assisting North Korea's best trading buddy Iran with developing its own Weapons of Mass Destruction capacities.

The Congress seems to want to do anything it can; pull any political publicity hoax, to keep the United States Executive from doing the right thing and the necessary thing of taking the matter to the International Court of Justice so that the Court can put an end to this ongoing international mischief;

So they invent this pretence about negotiation when the central point at this time, things having gone so far; is to bring the matter to Court and force the issue. Once rule of law, ignored for so long (especially by the U.S. Congress) has been reasserted; then there is something to bargain with and discuss with North Korea; and China and Russia might be forced to cooperation on some level now that the tables have turned in favor of law.

This dysfunctional Congress, which we pay for the upkeep of on behalf of preserving our security never touches upon any contemplation of resorting to rule of law to resolve the trouble;

The assembly on its end, prefers to ignore recourse to the law, never a word is uttered on the Record by any of the insular narrow minded bigotry cohabitating in either House, of the existence of, the availability of recourse afforded by, the very venue Authorized to deal with international problems such as the one instigated by the Obama administration.

Instead, the 115th Congress returns to the taxpaying Citizen its ruses and deceptions promoting extraordinarily dangerous and lawless policies – put forth misleadingly, most likely from a speculative point of view, to gain the votes of their respective smaller districts or regions which would ensure the perpetuation of their local political careers.

This collective Congress did not and does not argue for national security, it argues for the personal or party security of maintaining political influence and power; and as such, the current assembly proves itself to be a threatening and expensive encumbrance

The principle of " _security being the true design and end of government_ ," is ignored under the current governance of this Congress.

* * * * *

In _Of Constitutions_ , as presented earlier, Mr. Paine writes:

...A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution, is power without a right.

All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.

Paine goes on to trace some of the history of the development of individual State Constitutions moving finally to the formulation of the United States Constitution. Along the way he observes the sensibility of the times, his times:

...there is no such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side, and the government on the other. The compact was that of the people with each other, to produce and constitute a government...

...The only instance in which a compact can take place between the people and those who exercise the government, is, that the people shall pay them, while they choose to employ them.

Government is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumeable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties.

In the above, Paine speaks to a compact between the People – it is from this which government is to be formulated. Thomas Paine had noted:

After the declaration of independence, it became consistent with the principle on which representative government is founded, that the authority of congress should be defined and established. Whether that authority should be more or less than congress then discretionarily exercised was not the question. It was merely the rectitude of the measure.

For this purpose, the act, called the act of confederation (which was a sort of imperfect federal constitution), was proposed, and, after long deliberation, was concluded in the year 1781. It was not the act of congress, **because it is repugnant to the principles of representative government that a body should give power to itself**. Congress first informed the several states, of the powers which it conceived were necessary to be invested in the union, to enable it to perform the duties and services required from it; and the states severally agreed with each other, and concentrated in congress those powers...

In this above passage, Paine lends us once again the sensibility that the formulation of a Constitution is to be derived from the People. As he observes, the Act of Confederation of 1781 was not a compulsory act of Congress – which was not by any means Authorized to issue such a decree: "... _because it is repugnant to the principles of representative government that a body should give power to itself_ ...;" submitted as such it would have been a despotic ultimatum, an action of usurpation – the very thing that the American provinces had gathered themselves to struggle against and repel.

The 1781 articles of confederation were a proposal to be discussed, rejected, or accepted willingly and under no compulsory decree. It was in this manner that a Government by the People and for the People was thought to be established.

Bearing that basic principle in mind; that a constitution should emanate from the People, let us have another look at part of the meaning of the Ninth Amendment:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Viewed in the light that the Constitution is to emanate from the People, it becomes evident that Amendment 9 also serves to protect and guarantee the fundamental right retained by the People to amend the Constitution when the need be found.

The Ninth Amendment is saying that just because certain rights were declared, were initially enumerated at the time of the formulation of the Constitution – this does not preclude the People from contemplating and asserting other rights formerly not included in the original document.

With that background in mind – consideration of the amendments proposed in this book follow.

* * * * *
* * * * *

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

In considering amendment to the Constitution seeking relief in bringing the electorate closer to enfranchisement this writing reflects upon two issues to be contended with.

Not to present these in hierarchical order, but to indicate them severally in no hierarchical order while at the same time bearing in mind that these are of joint concern:

One issue to be discussed is the fact that there is no taxpayer review of the national legislature which the national level voter currently pays for the upkeep of – thanklessly and without any reciprocal condescending acknowledgement of by the membership of Congress; but the national level Citizen, while paying taxes, is nonetheless prohibited from any direct vote concerning whatever national level members of the national Legislature might come up with – such as installing nuclear weapons capacity in Iran for the benefit of the foreign Prince who will still go about calling us his mortal enemy and fomenting general guerrilla terror agitation against the U.S. Citizen and specifically the U.S. Citizen Soldier.

And then there is the issue of the several State's having been tolerated for having the choice to suborn access to federal election over which the States should not have any right to control. Explanation is needed and forthcoming.

This chapter considers the latter issue. The first issue presented above is considered in the next chapter

* * * * *

The "Winner Takes All" rule set by most States of the Union at this time effectively bars any third party candidate from winning election to the White House.

Currently we are beset upon by the two supreme fundraising corporate oligarchies of the Democratic and Republican parties which control the national level polling booths.

Both of these partisan groups have, as it has been so aptly demonstrated in the 26 October 2017 115th House of Representatives vote, voted in favor of the attempt to force by moronic statute, continued U.S. Government participation in violation of the Treaty on the _Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ , in participation the War Crime _Crimes against Peace_.

The pro- _Crimes against Peace_ campaign movement attempted to attach the Executive branch with a phony law which could never have stood up before the Supreme Court; but could perhaps for publicity's sake coerce the U.S. Government Executive Branch to continue to approve on an ongoing basis sales to Iran of contraband Weapons of Mass Destruction, this promoting support and assistance to Iranian pledged and promised waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty or international assurances.

The embarrassing ruse was stillborn. The Executive Branch didn't give in under the pressure. Nevertheless, the attempted coup put the U.S. Citizen on notice of the extraordinarily amoral character of all of those, of both political parties, manifesting themselves in the House of Representatives, and also in the Senate.

* * * * *

In review of the above, I submit that the almost impregnable, unassailable position of the enormously powerful corporate fundraising money making schemes powering the frivolously cavalier absolutist policies of the two great oligarchic partisan machines running the country are maintained and upheld at least in large part; by the system left to the various States, of commandeering the electoral votes cast by those who end up in no matter how insubstantial a minority in a national election deciding upon a candidate for President;

The States, instead of validating these votes as cast in a given electoral district; requisitions the Citizens' votes as transferable – as if these votes cast had become the property of the given State, to be dispensed with at the States' pleasure.

In other words – if you vote was counted as a minority vote in a given State – then your vote is automatically credited to the majority. You may have done worse by voting than if you'd stayed home; because having put your best foot forward, they bit your shoe off and stole your lunch. You ended up be offering up your vote to the side you thought was wrong.

Under the "Winner Takes All" policy, the electoral votes cast in minority statewide are automatically shunted over to the credit and benefit of the majority winner;

If twelve theoretical Counties vote one way, and fourteen vote the majority way – then the State transfers the votes of the populations of the twelve Counties in with the other fourteen – hence giving the "majority way" all 26 votes;

Whereas on the national level, those 12 stolen votes should have actually been acknowledged as to the detriment of the winner in that particular State, these should have gone to the other side on the National level. Without the vote tampering conducted by the given State, any national level election might have been more equitably decided on as having gone another way.

Interestingly, in choosing to garnish and alter the actual voting results in a given Federal level election, the States evade, under the "Winner Takes All" policy, another alternative, just as unfair and ridiculous, and which nobody would ever consider touching or mentioning, could be this:

Since the "Winner Takes All" policy expunges the votes of the minority; why not simply be honest about what's going on here? Why not simply act upon what everyone knows to be true? The States could act out another plan, different but similar.

All that's requested as necessary for this to work is a little bit of "honesty" from States' Governments, an open admission confessing that indeed, these votes are simply being altered, so we'll be more direct about it – the States would openly admit to denying acknowledgment of the minority votes cast in a national level election, allowing only the majority votes in the State to be presented to the electoral college.

The theory here being that if you're going to go about stealing people's votes, putting them in someone else's pocket; and thereby disenfranchising those people with their votes stolen – then why not just disenfranchise them without stealing their votes – just cancel those votes as though they never existed, and just publicize nationally something like; "So Sad, Too Bad, You Lost?"

As a theoretical example to illustrate the latter point:

Say that California has 33 electoral votes in the Electoral College; and 13 of those voting districts go to the minority; then why not simply expunge those 13 votes and present the Federal Government with only the 20 votes remainder favoring the majority? That is what is almost going on anyway.

But if California were to present only 20 of the 33 electoral votes it is entitled to, that might give the appearance that the Great State of California was somehow tampering with and the rigging of the Federal election in that State. Such a thing might not leave a good impression in the public mind.

People might stop buying scenic postcards of California, postcards claiming it to be the Golden State and what not. Such an honest confession might make for all around bad publicity.

Better not to more "honestly" expunge the votes directly – best and more pragmatically done is to simply steal them and give them to someone else.

So let's see here, what have we got? Oh yes, there are all those votes still hanging around over there that the losers steered the wrong way. Let's just see if we can't just move that big pile of loser votes over there into that other slightly bigger pile of the more appetizing and appealing winner votes; to the victor go the spoils as it were. Now the winner has all the votes – the winner has a nation-wide windfall.

Windfalls make great news- media copy for purposes of sensationalist political publicity.

* * * * *

There are serious insidious consequences to the conventional practice of rerouting the votes of the Citizen.

States' tampering with votes in the National election for the Executive of the Federal Government severely curtails any possibility of a third party – perhaps the " _Martian Space Colony Resurgence Party_ " – or a fourth party – perhaps the " _Blueberry Cream And Strawberries On Puffed Pastry_ " Party – or whatever one wants to conjecture the possibilities to be;

States' tampering with the vote in National election for the Executive of the Federal Government serves to consolidate the impregnable immunity to challenge of the reactionary rule of the two monolithic fund raising partisan machines.

No third Party or Independent can ever hope to reach the White House – it's a lockout. Trump is the closest the U.S. has ever got to an independent; in that he's not so snugly fitted in to the Republican Party doctrinaire enthusiastically in support of Obama's Iran nuclear agreement Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity sell off to Iran. But that aside;

Where "Winner Takes All," is the rule, where the voice of the minority is suppressed; where it is stolen away to garnish the pot of the majority; the smaller third political movement or voice can't even get a realistic toehold in a national election.

Any potential third party view is incidentally effectively also suppressed. No third party would be likely to win even one State in a national election. It's tough to get even a start under those circumstances; so how is a third party expected to grow and develop over time?

It might even be surmised pretty reasonably that this "Winner takes All" rule also may have a tendency to indirectly smother and handicap the potential growth of third parties on the State and local level, as the Republican and Democratic candidates already have a huge advantage in established brand name which – no matter however reviled; generally tends to help out anyway.

In the case of the 2016 national election, the largest majority was the "Vote of No Confidence" majority. But without amendment to the Constitution – that Party remains without a voice; unacknowledged and with no where to go.

The result is evident. The two political partisan monoliths have produced a series of elitist politicians so convinced of and secure in their immunity, so corrupt in their practice and warped in their bizarre politically driven cultural motivation; that they actually did openly vote nearly unanimously to continue participation in Procurement Working Group conducted activities promoting weapons assistance to the Iranian pledged and promised _waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty and international assurances_.

And the only two voices voting no in the 16 October 2017 vote in the House of Representatives were those of a couple of automaton brat Republicans. Mr. Duncan of Tennessee and Mr. Massie of Kentucky, who simply childishly. trucently said "no" refusing to condescend to show enough interest in the electorate to explain their "no" vote to the public on this essential issue of United States Government ongoing participation in violating treaty with the intent of assisting the arming of Iran with Weapons of Mass Destruction – as though none of this was of any serious enough of a concern, to either of these two attempts at impersonations of grown adults, to have a thought to comment on about it.

And nobody reads in the Congressional Record of any Senator whatsoever hinting at protesting that the conduct of the Legislature might be getting a little bit bitchy out of line at this time.

The two party system has produced through the respective ranks and vetting processes the series of politicians committed to denouncing the U. S. Constitution in their eager desire for continued participation in the War Crime of _Crimes against Peace_ , as this might hopefully appease, satisfy or assuage the appetites and ambitions of the foreign Prince and speculatively get them reelected.

There are currently only two games in Tiny Town Congress offered the U.S. Citizen by the two swollen partisan monstrosities – either vote for _Crimes against Peace_ ; or vote for _Crimes against Peace_.

A popular folk tale told nation-wide is that any child could grow up to be President. That fantasy doesn't take into account elements of our predicament. Currently no child can realistically hope to become President of the United States unless willing to adhere to whatever principles either political party ponders and promotes.

This effectively means that in order to currently join in with either party on the national level if with the intention of running for President, one must acquiesce, at this current time, to being conscripted in joining the force as an enlisted potential proponent of _Crimes against Peace_ ; long since defined as such by _International Military Tribunal_ ; _Control Control Council Law No. 10_. If you'll agree to do that – you might get some reasonable backing from one of the two political parties.

It was by fluke chance only that Trump got elected despite not having clambered up through the conventional squirrelly ranks and the partisan vetting process.

Trump goes against the grain – and he went against the grain. The U.S. Government is now no longer a key player in the international sport of entertaining and assisting and participating in the international _Crimes against Peace_ movement.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 13  
– Current Notion of Unchallengeable Tenure –

Next under further examination is the effectively unchallengeable tenure of the local representative elected to national office.

It is necessarily proper that those elected by the various districts and regions be of those regions wherefrom they emerge and which they may understand to a greater or lesser degree, and may venture to proffer an opinion of the respective district based on somewhat of an acquaintance with the region they have been elected to represent.

During their period of elected tenure, representatives on the national level cannot be recalled either by the State from which they issued, or by the electorate which voted for them in the first place. The representatives are now become officers of the Federal Government, with their upkeep paid for by the nation wide citizen taxpayer.

As well, there is some nominal restraint against that some of these representatives might be tempted to habitually indulge themselves in offenses assaulting and repugnant to the Constitution – the assurance these representatives pronounce to all the Citizens of the United States that this will never be the case; that they will concern themselves not only with the welfare of the citizenry they represent directly – but as well with the welfare of all of the Citizens of the United States – that pledge of restraint is ceremoniously mouthed in the public utterance of the required Oath of Office.

The pledge of loyalty of the individual the Oath or Affirmation is essentially that they will adhere and attend to the best interests of all – and that they will abide by the Constitution as if were a law unto them guiding their conduct – which in fact it is.

It is generally thought to be understood that the welfare of a particular district might be served best by the flourishing of all districts working together in cooperative reciprocal harmony.

In best and most understanding circumstance and compassion the representative would not swerve from the pledge – but rather would seek to combine to creative benefit the concerns of the respective districts respectively served with those of the greater collective.

Such enterprising vocation requires enthusiastic commitment and consideration if it is to be well served.

* * * * *

The above outline may be thought of as the ideal of how things were meant to work in this nation. If an individual representative drastically strayed from the Oath there was the recourse given the Congress of either censure; or expulsion.

On the issue of an entire Congress going universally rogue, the Constitution falls silent. Although the framers of the Constitution understood and appreciated corruption, and laid out every check on it they would conceive of – the idea of the chance of a unanimously rogue Congress must have seemed such an implausibility, so impossibly slim, that no recourse or remedy was contemplated or evidently considered necessary. The issue hadn't come up as far as I have read.

Yet the erstwhile thought of an impossible entirely rogue Congress has become a recurring nightmare reality in this epoch. The cynically debased, self corrupted denizens of assembly have shown us the face of a bi-partisan system supporting self-indulgent whims of the portfolio wielding elitist;

That class of politicians which currently, if temporarily, is frustrated in the espoused determination to continue with United States Government participation in the belligerent preparations of the foreign Prince for waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty and international assurances.

It is against this backdrop of universal corruption, or ineptitude that the need for a mandated scheduled review of the performance of every individual member of both Houses of Congress becomes more evidently prominent.

The need has become more obviously unavoidable that each of these politicians regularly at intervals be brought before the national level taxpayer – those who pay for the extravagances and outrages perpetrated and perpetuated by the insular nightmare elite of Tiny Town the Congress – population of which is generally made up of 535 soulless – in comparison to the 200 million eligible voters of the national electorate;

The need that they should severally and in groups be brought before the voter nation wide to face the possibility of dismissal by means of a regularly scheduled national elective "Vote of No Confidence;" as at this or any other time before, they have never been required to answer to the national electorate (and we see what we get for that), has become extraordinarily pressing given the destructive character of Congress which has evolved and taken hold over the years.

Such challenge to the "representatives" elected to the legislature might open up the myopic insular world of the partisans and force them to take seriously that the concerns of the national electorate are not a thing to be mocked and derided by means of simpleton phony stories such as the infantile Obama fairy-tale hoax still being carried on with by the 115th Congress in 2018, which proclaims that facilitating Iranian acquisitions of nuclear and ballistic missile associated assets will permanently prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons capacity.

These people are officers of the federal government. We nation wide pay for the upkeep of these people. We should by rights have some say as to whether or not we think some of these people should even be there in Washington for a time being.

It seems there will never be an end to the stupid lying and the incredible apathy, negligence and disinterest both parties have displayed and been carrying on with since 2015 when not one member of Congress would even think to mention on the Congressional Record if they had ever bothered to download Security Council Resolution 2231 from the Security Council website to discover that indeed, Barack Obama never did transmit even close to the full "Iran nuclear deal" to Congress.

That kind of couldn't-care-less attitude is just one more of the many items to confront the legislature upon in a regularly scheduled at known intervals "Vote of No Confidence," nation wide voter show down contending whether or not membership in the Congress is considered to be the right avocation at all for some of these people to be involved in.

* * * * *
* * * * *

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

Next under examination is a proposed outline of an amendment requiring that from time to time scheduled large parts of the legislature be called up before national vote regarding if the continuance of the several tenures of individual representatives be allowed to run on through to the next election – or whether jointly or severally they may be barred for one term from returning to the same office previously held, by national vote of the electorate.

This small exposition is not intended to propose with any finality a fully formed amendment to that effect, but rather to suggest the nature of what such might resemble, and to develop an outline of parameters to be considered in the structuring of it.

IN DEVISING such an amendment granting the national electorate some control over tenures in the legislature, there are two main relevant and essential constitutional concerns which must be attended to.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; **and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate**.

In considering an amendment enfranchising the national electorate with the power of voting Senators in particular (leaving aside members of the Lower House for now) out of Office, it is required to take the above into account: "... _no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate_."

This concern is easily resolved and accounted for; since a Senator will have been barred from subsequently holding the same Office in due time to elect someone to replace that Senator.

* * * * *

It is an underlying Constitutional principle that the Government cannot be simply shut down, especially not in times of peace. We see echoes of this principle throughout the Constitution, and it is most notably pronounced in the structured mechanisms of Article I; **Section 5** \- _Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment_ ;

A Quorum must be assembled in order to conduct legitimate business (take a vote) in either House of Congress; and under the United States Constitution, a Quorum is specified as a majority of whichever House is respectively under discussion.

The framers specified that a Quorum in either House could only be constituted by a majority of either House so that a common political ploy developed in the English Parliament could be averted.

It would not be allowed that a minority in either House be assembled to announce itself then as a Quorum legally recognized as competent to pass legislation. This common practice in England was thought of as odious to the American Provinces as it was considered as being a vehicle for promoting acts of legislation by surprise without consent – a thing necessarily to be avoided.

This is the basis then for it being thought imperative that a majority be present in formation of a competent Quorum.

It was noted that when there was a need to take a vote – and members of a respective House wanted to avoid having the vote taken for whatever political purpose; they would purposefully absent themselves from whichever House in order to prevent a quorum and thereby frustrate and obstruct a vote being taken on the subject;

It was therefore thought necessary by the framers to provide a deterrent against such political ruse. _Section 5; first Clause_ provides that each House has the authority: "... _to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide_."

It must be seriously reflected upon then – in the light of such elements of the Constitution; that an amendment to the Constitution which would seek, in draconian practice, to simply possibly, for practical purposes, completely shut down the government at regular intervals by eliminating the possibility of a majority quorum, would be worse than counterproductive – it would be a nemesis in principle and in practice were it to be adopted;

I doubt it would be approved – it would be a counter productive waste of time to even consider an amendment storming in trying to shut down the government like that or in any other such manner. But I will briefly further discuss the faulty notion to perhaps lend some small sensibility of its un-workability.

An amendment that sought to simply possibly completely shut down the government at regular intervals would be an antagonistic revolutionist obstructionist doctrine persistently promoting chaotic instability – a thing fashioned from irrational resentment; having at its unprincipled core the need to resort to a kind of blackmail which would hold the continuity of the government and hence the General Welfare as hostage.

Such a thing, I believe, would soon reveal itself as a manifestation of the very tyranny or corruption it would have allegedly been intended to suppress.

In a way, it would promote exactly the kind of obstructionism which the Constitution, in the first Clause of Article I; Section 5 seeks to deter when it directs that members of Congress are free to compel those absenting themselves, possibly as an obstructionist tactic, to attend to the vote which they resent and resist even having the opportunity that it be allowed to take place. Such refusal to cooperate in allowing for representation by others is a form of small time tyranny carried on with by those with no power to do worse.

* * * * *

The current proposal for a "Vote of No Confidence" amendment is therefore not an attempt to shut down the government – and care must be taken that if a "Vote of No Confidence" amendment is to be considered; it will be structured in such a way as not to inadvertently impede the continuity of legitimate governance.

Rather, it is to be conceived of as method to be undertaken in order to correct what may most reasonably in any era, be considered as general, menacing inequity and endangerment; the political expression of which persistently arises from time to time in the various contemporaneous forms of fashion, and which subsists and is carried on without any restraint or deterrence or remedy under current perceived norm and practice.

* * * * *

Both political parties, clearly vying to keep the United States involved in Obama's Iran nuclear deal, plainly revealed that they knew of the Procurement Working Group international advertisement to vendors worldwide requesting bids be offered Iran on procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets.

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 _INFCIRC_ s. 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.

The Congress knew about that when they voted in October 2017 to mandate United States Government support for the weapons sales to Iran.

Informed United States weapons dealing interests, on the lookout for new marketplace venues would also know about this following:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex B. - Statement

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.

It may be reasonably surmised that some informed arms dealers in conventional weapons systems across the nation would be greatly interested in exerting their influence over their loyal adherents in the Congress to force a mandate that the United States Government continue to participate and engage in _Crimes against Peace_ , and violation of international treaty as is required in order to remain in the Obama "Iran nuclear deal."

As of 18 October 2020 there would be no penalty attached to selling conventional weapons such as: " _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_ ...:"

So as of 18 October 2020 the door is wide open for engaging in all kinds of conventional weapons transactions with Iran if you're in the position to do it.

For some then, remaining in the deal requiring betrayal of the United States Constitution; the deal requiring violation of international treaty; requiring violation of peremptory norm of general international law by participating in the long since internationally defined War Crime of _Crimes against Peace_ ;

For some, the United States should remain in the deal which agrees that it is allowed that the United States should participate in the filtering to Iran, by perhaps by approving of who knows what nuclear weapons and ballistic missile associated " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." might be transmitted to over there;

For some, the decision to remain in the deal might be based on factors overruling those passing concerns. There is a commercial opportunity that would be missed if the United States were to remove itself from the deal. For some, those issues previously mentioned must be put aside in the face of the profits which might be made engaging Iran in significant transactions of conventional class weaponry.

The trade off effectively becomes something like; "We'll support your singular privilege to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities with the assistance of the Major Powers, in violation of treaty – as is understood; and in return, you let us sell you our conventional weapons class assets."

Dwight D. Eisenhower advised, in his farewell as President of the United States speech of late January, 1960 to the people of the United States:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea...

...[currently] three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, and even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, and every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

* * * * *

A brief review of the 13 March 2018 interview of General Joseph Votel carried on with by the membership Senate Armed Services Committee; this in the context of the informed reflection and the assessment proffered the Citizens of this nation by our President Eisenhower some 58 years ago, might be noteworthy.

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) met with General Joseph Votel, in command of the "CENTCOM" (Central Command) theatre of military operation. The area of CENTCOM responsibility covers roughly the Middle East / South Asia region.

As a timeline reference, 13 March 2018 comes after the October 2017 House of Representatives vote favoring continued participation in Procurement Working Group mandated activities; and precedes President Trump's withdrawal of the U.S. from further cooperation with and participation in provisions of Security Council Resolution 2231.

I have already written previously in detail about this interview with the General in the book " _Congress Jerks the General; The Citizen Too_ " – and so here I will only summarize in a few paragraphs various salient points and add some small observation.

The SASC interview at that time reflects concerns of Senators that the President would pull out of Obama's "Iran nuclear deal." The 13 March 2018 was vaunted as a fact-finding mission, and in most ways it was; except for the few brief and highly manipulative and leading questions asked of General Votel on the subject of Resolution 2231, which they still were misrepresenting referring to it, for the political purposes already explained, as the "JCPOA."

Prior to the interview General Votel had submitted to the SASC an excellent, very well written, informative and extremely interesting report on the issues faced in the area of his command. However, that writing might have left an impression on the Senators that the General had a very spotty understanding of Obama's "Iran nuclear deal;" which Votel himself still referred to as the JCPOA.

As explained earlier, without knowledge of the entire Security Council resolution one is completely in the dark; without knowledge of the full text of the resolution, review of various critical provisions in the resolution is entirely missed.

General Votel gave no indication of knowing anything about approvals of sales to Iran possibly of nuclear weapons associated "... _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." ongoing since November of 2106; or of the planned opening up of the conventional weapons market in Iran as of 18 October 2020 – or of the other things already discussed.

Possibly assuming from his writing that it was very likely he didn't know, Senators might have felt very safe in their questioning General Votel on his opinion of the possible consequences to national security of Trump's possibly withdrawing from the "JCPOA;"

The two Senators questioning on the topic were Democratic Party Senator Jack Reed and Independent Senator, caucusing with the Democrats, Angus King.

Although attempting to phrase things in a seemingly innocent manner – the Senators' questions were clearly manipulative and intended to mislead the record through the tactic of distortion by omission.

As indicated, all Senators knew about the 26 October 2017 vote of the House of Representatives; they knew of the Procurement Working Group approvals of sales to Iran of bundled nuclear and ballistic associated weapons assets; they would know about the existence of possible transfers to Iran of "... _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc.;" if not filtered through the United States – then very likely Russia and China, as they were also involved in the Procurement Working Group charade.

Arms dealing interests in the United States certainly would know about the opening Iranian conventional weapons market as of 18 October 2020. Surreptitiously contemplated profit seeking might help to explain the enthusiastic bi-partisan support for keeping the Procurement Working Group weapons sales approval market place open to the U.S. by having the United States Government remain in Obama's famous deal.

The Senators, clearly aware of the issues; and national security concerns evidently not being priority of Senators King and Reed – the two reassured themselves that by avoiding mentioning anything sinister contained in Resolution 2231, they might squeeze out of General Votel some favorable, complimenting answers that might look good later on the Congressional Record

The Senators basically simply asked bland questions intended to mislead the public and the General, such as what the General might think to be the consequences of suddenly withdrawing from the "JCPOA;" for example*:

**Senator King** asks of the General:

Turning to Iran, I understand all the testimony is Iran is abiding by the JCPOA in terms of inspections and what they are doing. What would be implications for the region if the United States abruptly terminated the agreement? And what would Iran do?

**Votel** :

Senator, I can't speculate on what Iran would do. You know the implications for the region, I think there would be some concern, I think, about how we intended to address that particular threat, if it was not being addressed through the JCPOA...

The General here is in a cloud – he is completely unaware that the "JCPOA," as he thinks of it to be in his limited understanding of the document – is addressing the nuclear threat posed by Iran as Votel clearly doesn't know that Security Council Resolution 2231 exactly approves the weapons transfers sponsored by the Procurement Working Group mandate, thus leading to escalation in the development of a prospective Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The Senators, on their side, all know what's going on, but they pretend innocence, never clueing the General in. The Republicans sat by in insolent silence. In their turn they also avoid making any reference to the menacing weapons transaction ongoing.

Not one Senator sitting on the 115th SASC was really interested in discovering what General Votel would think about the "JCPOA" impact on national security if he was informed on the issue.

The Senators avoided informing the General of the issues, and the erstwhile fact finding mission was easily converted into a politicians' dream propagandistic promotional charade promenade. Here's how the Generals' lukewarm and indecisive responses were later characterized in a posting in the Congressional Record by one parading Democratic Party pro-weapons proliferation partisan politician.

On center column page S1820 of the Congressional Record; dated Tuesday, March 20, 2018; Volume 164; Number 48 – Senator Udall of New Mexico characterized General Votel's comments of 13 March as:

The President's hostility toward Iran's agreement to disarm its nuclear weapons program is mind-boggling...

...But just last week, the commander of U.S. Central Command, Army GEN Joseph Votel, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Iran deal is in our national interest...

Gossip spreads – and Senator Udall's characterization is just a twisted reminder that the SASC interview had been converted from its presumed objective as a fact-finding mission into the politicians' grandstanding sham.

As I indicated in " _Congress Jerks the General; The Citizen Too_ ," I don't fault the General for not knowing – he should have been informed. And the Senate Armed Services Committee of all groups in the national assembly, knowing what they knew and realizing he was uninformed – should have performed their duty under the social compact; and in the interests of national security, informed General Votel.

But that wasn't the point of the melodramatic little political ruse played on in the 13 March 2018 meeting in the SASC. The underlying objective had, the way it played out, proven itself as an attempt contriving to exert petty political pressure on the President to remain in the deal. The Senators got what they wanted out of the General. In the end however, it didn't help the cause of the U.S. weapons manufacturing industrial giant further expand its bloated presence to a new horizon – at least not that time.

* * * * *

Obama, the secretive, paranoid, and mischievously corrupt President who installed the good General Votel in his position at CENTCOM, certainly didn't inform the General of the details as it was Obama's responsibility to do. Obama wouldn't even transmit United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to Congress as he was pledged to do.

Why should anyone think Obama would share any embarrassing information about himself with, or confess anything to his Generals about his "Iran nuclear deal?"

And his successor, President Trump is to be faulted for not having thought to do so either. These are issues that a Commander in Chief is thought to be responsible for.

True enough that it is for the Generals to keep the Commander in Chief informed – but how can they if they are kept in the dark on the issues? The open and reciprocal exchange of information is understood as necessary to developing intelligence and capacity. A closed and shuttered system is uninformed and does not serve.

And those sitting on the 115th Senate Armed Services Committee – are they in their turn, in their conduct, to be understood of as vassals to the interests of the foreign Prince? Are they to be understood as the tools of big money arms manufacturing industry giants? Or are they something of both – take your pick; they effectively act as Agents to either set of interests whether they're getting paid for it or not.

* * * * *

Reemphasizing the words of our former President Eisenhower:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

...We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Yet, as things stand now, we may very clearly perceive that the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military industrial complex has already given disastrous rise to misplaced power.

Without a "national Vote of No Confidence" amendment; no matter how alert and knowledgeable the citizenry is – we are almost powerless to effect any significant change or resist incredibly menacing affronts, repugnant to our constitutional rights, posed by the two impregnable, nationally organized and directed, partisan fundraising corporate machines now in control of the legislature. At the moment, they are destined to rule and regulate us immune to currently nonexistent nation wide direct and regularly scheduled Citizen challenge.

Bearing all of the above presented in this chapter in mind then; the remaining space arrived at here in this chapter is given over to considering some further underlying premise contributing to the contemplation of an equitable and constructive national Vote of No Confidence.

* * * * *

It may be perceived at some point – if it has not already been – that once the politician has so effectively learned how to deceive, as has been done in this case; and that once the two party fundraising partisan mechanisms have attained the certain mastery of subverting the system in such a way as to suppress the Constitution of the United States by means of universally corrupting a latently corrupt Congress of individuals trained; conditioned for years to automatically adhere to the party line;

Once the two party fundraising partisan mechanisms have attained the certain mastery of subverting the system in such a way as to suppress the Constitution of the United States by means of universally corrupting a latently corrupt Congress inducing it to work to achieve a common bi-partisan objective, such as has been done in this case;

It may be perceived that once the nationally entrenched overwhelming two party funding mechanism, along with perhaps influences behind the conduct of this mechanism, have so chaotically taken control as to manipulate an entire Congress to actually go so far as to vote almost unanimously in favor of violating treaty, and therefore the United States Constitution;

And of going to the extremist measure of inducing and pressuring the United States Government to continue its participation in the War Crime of _Crimes against Peace_ – the international definition of which was established in large part by an earlier United States Government which once internationally, more or less justifiably for a time was reputed to have a conscience (disregarding segregation in the armed forces – and the obstacles imposed on the black vote – and the scores of taboos, obstacles, and impositions placed upon the various minorities nation wide);

Once that has been managed without any possible rebuke allowed the national level electorate;

It may be justifiably perceived that the sky is no limit to whatever these people in Congress might come up with once they have learned that their Oath to the Constitution is mere mumbling; that they may suppress the Constitution at any time and carry on with any amoral or anti-Constitutional conduct such as their near unanimous bi-partisan vote in favor of blatantly discarding the Constitution in favor of violating treaty in assisting the arming of the foreign Prince with nuclear weapons capacity;

It may be justifiably perceived by the public that once the politicians are assured (as they already appear to be) in the confidence of their immunity to a non-existent national "Vote of No Confidence" which could the enfranchise the electorate to voice its disgust with the bi-partisan truly despicable character and behavior of them, by recalling such Congresspersons jointly and severally from national level office;

Without a national vote of recall – once the guiding offices of the entrenched partisan machines have learned how deceptively easy it is to collectively suppress the Constitution and get around the rules; they can accomplish anything they collectively desire without hindrance from that now obsolete Constitution of the United States; which was once, in more innocent times, thought to be the law intended to govern their actions and decisions while tenured in Office of Trust.

* * * * *

Given all that raucous complaining and protesting submitted by myself in the paragraphs above – the reader might anticipate that I would suggest, as underlying principle in contemplating a constructive national Vote of No Confidence; that we ordain all these politicians be directly marched in orderly file all the way to the guillotine, even if some in the public may mistakenly think that the miscreant louses might not all of them entirely deserve to get it that hard.

To my mind, such exploratory draconian treatment on the part of ourselves as the reformers is unnecessary and counterproductive under current circumstance.

Recall of a politician, or a group of politicians should not be considered as an impeachment, cheating the politician out of earned benefits and pension, and barring them from public office forever – its should not be considered as a punitive measure in that light.

Rather it is more to be thought of by the politician as a stinging and sticking rebuke for malfeasance or moronic lack of moral or intellectual honesty and capacity – a kind of "recall," actually a temporary barring from returning to the identical office previously held, which would mandate an interruption in a sequence of tenure; which could be taken up again later by the candidate if she or he would to try for re-election in the future.

* * * * *

In terms of the underlying principles and objectives of such amendment:

It is not to be confused as intending impeachment as such – it is not intended as a vehicle of permanent disgrace, a taboo barring a person from ever seeking public office again.

It is not to be thought of or in any way be considered as a means to cheat the public officer out of well earned pension and deserved benefits previously guaranteed. Pensions are retained.

An error is not to be answered by any requisite march to the guillotine; or any demand for social ostracism.

The Vote of No Confidence interruption of the politician's wequential tenure in office is to be understood as a reminder that it is the right of the People to announce extreme displeasure at a policy of this or that; such as had been declared and high handedly pursued by an entrenched intransigent brigade of the mustered currently immune Social Elite; and awaken the Congress that it is now directly answerable to the national electorate – and so it might well consider that reform is due, and aspects of its previous mode of business might no longer be so easily tolerated.

The vote can also be a reaction to a politician's or group of politicians' perceived collective dishonesty. The theory of improving the character of what is construed as balance power in having the entire electorate as the tribunal in this decision is that the national level electorate is the broadest tribunal available – and it is from the People which the United States Constitution derives its authority. The People's Constitution is the law of governance which guides the conduct of the three branches of Government.

And when members of Congress, en mass or individually decide they'd prefer to ignore the law that governs them – the law which they have all taken their Oath of loyalty to – the very Oath which allows them to be considered as fit for office; then there would be the regularly scheduled "Vote of No Confidence" to remind them not to lose sight of their personal responsibility and chosen duty.

Currently the United States Citizen suffers under from the result of the lack of a "Vote of No Confidence." Members of Congress, once banded together, feel entirely free to do entirely as they like – as in this case where they like very much to promote the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to the belligerent non-nuclear-weapons-State of Iran.

Members of Congress might not feel so free and easy to fabricate and make excuses and point the finger which shifts responsibility on to someone else were there an amendment enfranchising the electorate with the national level "Vote of No Confidence."

An individual member of Congress, like Senator Diane Fienstien, who with a straight face delivers her fairy tale invention: "... _The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon_ ...;" or other mendacious members of Congress like Lower House member Jimmy Costa; who claims: "... _Let's remember, this agreement has always been about Iran, not obtaining nuclear weapons_ ;" and then runs off about a week and a half later to vote in favor of maintaining U.S. Government approvals of Iranian acquisitions of bundled nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons assets.

The kind of treachery displayed by these members of Congress could be found distasteful to the national level electorate. With a "Vote of No Confidence" in place, members of Congress carrying on like that could risk having their tenures interrupted.

But because this is not a trial – where evidence is presented, sifted and weighed – it cannot be thought of as a form of due process where innocence or guilt is the concern.

It is instead a question of the policies and credibility of the politician – hence the term: "No Confidence;"

Therefore there should be no taboo associated with the decision rendered by the "Vote of No Confidence;" this is not an impeachment or an ostracism for proven guilt.

No one should be made to feel disgraced for simply having lost an election.

General ground rules, objectives and underlying concerns here having been briefly summarized – it is almost time to move to contemplating the structure of such amendment. While we do so, there is one more very important aspect to be reminded of and to bear in mind.

As mentioned, these people, these Senators and Lower House Representatives are, once elected no longer sponsored by the various States.

And as mentioned, the States do not pay for their upkeep. These are officers of the Federal Government – who make decisions on a national level; such as their odious decision attempting to force continued U.S. Government participation in violation of international treaty made under the Authority of the United States.

These are federal officials whose upkeep is paid for by the nationwide taxpayer. This "Vote of No Confidence" is a federal vote by the national electorate which is not to be tampered with by the various States in any way, directly or indirectly.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 15  
– Amendment as Applied to the Senate –

How should such amendment be applied – what might be the structure of such an amendment?

As the tenures of representatives in the two Houses of Congress differ – so then must the scheduling for review of members of the Senate and the Lower House differ somewhat.

As is well known; Senators' terms of tenure are six years; and the Senate is divided in thirds into three classes, the election of each class is staggered at two year intervals.

Suppose then that in the fifth year of each Senators six year term, they are faced with review by the national electorate; and the nationional electorate in its entirety denied the re-entry, for a six year term perioud, into that exact office previously held by the Senator;

This vote of no confidence could be brought about by the given Senator's association with an odious policy of promoting and facilitating sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction associated assets to a belligerent State which proclaims it considers the United States as its enemy – the "Great Satan." Naturally, however much the Democratic Party would like to hide the facts from the public; this weapons sales profiteering swindle is the long time ongoing implemented documented policy supported by so many in Congress. The only recourse currently is to sit back and wait for the pro-nuclear proliferation Senators to slowly retire one by one; or to wait out and see if one or two or maybe more of the district constitutences, bit by bit finally get fed up up with some of these and start slowly letting them go (by which time, with the help of the Procurement Working Group, Iran should have long since had the bomb.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 16  
– Amendment as Applied to the Lower House –

The terms of members of the House of Representatives, being two years for each elected individual; these terms being shorter, review of the individual Lower House representative by the national electorate would be staggered – they would be reviewed for recall on the first year of every other succeeding term in office.

So, if a given member of the House of Representatives had been reviewed in the preceding term – in the successive term the representative need not face the ordeal in the next. And so it would go – review would come every other term they are reelected to by their district.

The first time ever rookie representative in the Lower House, would be given some extra dispensation. The rookie representative would not be subject to review for the first two terms in office – but only come up for review in the first year of the third term in office; and then for every other successive term they are reelected to by their district.

After that subsequent term of suspended license; the representative could resume pursuing reelection to the same position previously held in the next term following the served suspension.

A representative having regained office after suspension would not face recall in that first term, but would in the next, and in every fourth, sixth, eighth, etc. term after that.

* * * * *

* * * * *

Chapter 17  
– What Would a Ballot Look Like? –

In a nation wide "Vote of No Confidence," there would be no silence gives consent vote recognized. In other words, to not cast a ballot means to abstain from voting, the abstaining voters cannot be counted against the numbers of people nationwide voting to reject a given candidate. Only the total population of voters would be counted as either rejecting or approving a candidate's continuation to completion of term in office upon review.

The ballot could be collected both by mail in, or by appearance at the polls – just as is done currently in other elections.

The formula and logistics for where the ballots would be collected and counted could be a matter for discussion.

No State "Winner Takes All" policy intrusion in this serious Federal election would be allowed – even if one could be devised.

The ballot itself could be simplified.

At the top of the ballot a presentation of the simple rules of the ballot is explained.

The candidates under review would be listed by Senate (fewer candidates); then by House of Representatives – this respectively either by State or in alpha beta order – or listed in some other easily comprehended order.

There would be two boxes besides each name – one box would be labeled something such as "remains in office," the other, something like "dismissed from office."

A "No Confidence Vote" is registered by marking the "negative" of the two boxes aligned next to the name of the candidate – this would be counted as a negative vote

Otherwise, marking the other box registers approval for continuation in office.

In the case of both boxes beside a name being left empty; this is registered as an approval of the candidate's remaining in office.

Just after the brief explanation of the rules the ballot asks the voter if he/she understands the voting criteria, next to which a box is provided for the voter to mark affirmative.

If the voter neglects to mark the "I understand" box – the entire ballot is disqualified no matter what else is on it.

If the voter really doesn't understand, then the voter can return to those tending the ballot station for clarification – or, if attempting to mail in the ballot, can call a toll free number somewhere to get some help with what's going on.

Once the "I understand" box has been marked – everything else on the sheet, marked or unmarked is considered a valid voting statement.

In assessing the vote, the total population marking the box in the "No Confidence" column next to the candidate's name is ratioed against the total population voting in favor of retaining the Candidate in office.

A candidates approval rating which is 50% or higher retains the current position in office; if anything less than 50% then the devices for dismissal already discussed respectively for the membership of the Lower House; and for the Senators, are in play. The ballot would be just that simple.

A 50% national level approval rating might seem like a pretty high mark to hit; after all, not either candidate for President in 2016 got close; but I'll leave it at that for now.

One very essential point to emphasize: it is strictly necessary that this be a national level popular vote for or against the continuing uninterrupted tenure of the given incumbent. No State would be allowed to tamper with it;

Meaning that gerrymandered electoral districts might organize the administration of the vote in their areas of jurisdiction – but the State may not impede the vote of national electorate by declaring the majority voting in an electoral district takes all the popular votes in that district.

This would be State tampering with the national tally – which is already enough of a delicate matter.

And there again; were States allowed to tamper in such manner; this would only perpetuate the effective freezing out of the possibility of third or fourth parties potentially developing.

* * * * *

It would be likely that such a sobering confrontation with the electorate would compel members of Congress not to pull the kind of crap that the 115th Congress had been pulling with its political promotion, based entirely on overt deception, of iconic Obama's agreement with the leaderships of the Security Council along with Germany; documented as structuring and putting into practice the active assisting, expediting, endorsing and approving sales to Iran of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity and the other things;

I rate it as highly unlikely that members of Congress, entering into the fourth year of this ongoing debacle, would be eager to face the national electorate with their politically motivated fabrication that Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" is somehow going to prevent Iran from ever getting nuclear weapons capacity.

Members of Congress might not feel so easy going about just doing what their respective party line orders them to do – might not feel so protected as a herded mob promoting the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to a hostile State; if their small numbers in the total feeble population of the combined Lower House and Senate of 535 thereabouts; for the first time in their political careers, had to face a theoretical confrontation with the entire 200 million eligible voters of this nation.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 18  
– The "No Need" Option –

The "Vote of No Confidence" would be scheduled as noted. As mentioned, to not cast a ballot in a "Vote of No Confidence" election means to abstain from voting, with the abstaining voters not being counted against the numbers of people nationwide voting to reject or approve a given candidate. The election would be tallied by the total population choosing to vote.

This may present a future paradox.

The objective of the "Vote of No Confidence" among other things; is to broaden enfranchisement of the electorate. There is however, the potential that it will do the opposite under this following circumstance:

Although it would seem unbelievable given the behavior of the current Congress, there might be some future era of more advanced consciousness in which the Congress had been cleaned up, or had cleaned itself up; and the People on the national level were generally very happy with the Congress they had (as improbable as it may currently seem); and it might not be felt there to be the need to hold that "Vote of No Confidence" election in one given cycle.

Were that to be the case – then the only people who would show up for the "Vote of No Confidence" would theoretically be there to disapprove ongoing uninterrupted tenures of some or all members of Congress.

This population of the disapproving might turn out to be a small minority of the entire population – and whereas in general, the People nationwide were very happy with things as they were; it would only have been a minority which had voted for interruption of sequential of tenure.

The conundrum is perhaps solved by a simple remedy.

* * * * *

On every mid-term and National level election for the President; before the listing of the candidates are presented on the ballot – there would be two prominent boxes next to a request for a "Vote of No Confidence" election the following year.

The "Vote of No Confidence" election does not affect the Presidency; it focuses on the merits of the Congress. The legislature, being a separate Department of Government, must be recognized as having its different peculiar needs with which the electorate must attend to and contend with in a separate manner.

However it's phrased, the description next to those boxes described in the first paragraph above, would explain that the vote offered at mid-term and National elections would decide if those voting felt it necessary to hold a national "Vote of No Confidence" the next year.

If at that time the majority of the voting population decided at that time there was no need to hold a vote in the upcoming cycle – then the particular vote would be called off in the circumstance of that particular result.

The record low turnout of the 2016 national election bore testimony to the discouraged or completely disgusted mood of the electorate in this Country. This "Vote of No Confidence" thing could bring more voters out from the cold just to indicate they wanted the "Vote of No Confidence" to be held the following year – and they could do that even if they otherwise didn't vote for any of the candidates.

Over 70 million of the eligible electorate wouldn't vote for either Presidential candidate. That's the biggest voting block of the 200 million eligible. And even those who did vote for one of the two candidates – might feel they still wanted to vote against the outrageous behavior of the pro-proliferation Congress; which, as I have indicated, may have its own peculiar needs which must be addressed independently of the Executive.

Clarifying one aspect of the boxes on the mid-term and national level ballot; there would be a box indicating that the individual felt there was no need for a "Vote of No Confidence" election that next year;

And then there would be the box requesting the vote to be held.

Unlike the "Vote of No Confidence" ballot previously described – leaving both boxes blank would signify approval for a "Vote of No Confidence" election to be held in the upcoming cycle. One might wonder why the difference?

In the "Vote of No Confidence" election ballot leaving both boxes blank means approval for the individual's remaining in office;

Whereas on the mid term and national election ballots, failure to mark either box means approval for holding the "Vote of No Confidence" election;

In both cases the argument falls in favor of giving the electorate the best chance.

In the "Vote of No Confidence" election, no undue prejudice should be exercised against the individual member of Congress – and therefore a voter must declare that they explicitly reject the Congressperson's continuing uninterrupted tenure – otherwise the Congressperson is given the benefit of the doubt.

In the calling off of a need to hold the "Vote of No Confidence" election the following year; leaving both boxes empty should not unduly prejudice the holding of the "Vote of No Confidence" election. The individual's ballot must explicitly declare that a "Vote of No Confidence" election is not necessary in this term – otherwise holding the "Vote of No Confidence" is given the benefit of the doubt.

* * * * *

The tallying for the request for a "Vote of No Confidence" election is simple enough – if enough people voting in the mid term or in the every four year national election for the Presidency vote that the "Vote of No Confidence" election focused on the Congress should be held the subsequent year, then the election is carried on with.

The vote for or against is tallied against the number of people showing up at the polls on the mid term, or four year term election.

If the "Vote of No Confidence" election is requested; then the subsequent tallying of the vote in that "Vote of No Confidence" election is measured against the total number of those showing up at the polls – either by mail or in person – at that time.

This arrangement – where the "Vote of No Confidence" was requested, basically fairly precludes the possibility that the only people who would show up for the "Vote of No Confidence" would theoretically be there to disapprove ongoing uninterrupted tenures of some or all members of Congress. The vote was requested by the majority of the Citizens – anyone at that point not showing up by mail or in person at the polls is understood to abstain, and only the votes of those actively approving or disapproving continued uninterrupted tenure are counted.

The ratio of votes in either direction is measured against the total number voting.

* * * * *

The abysmal and absolutely remorseless conduct of the 115th Congress – extolling and promoting its political agenda supporting the dissemination of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to a State particularly hostile to the United States; the Congress, promoting its agenda attempting to coerce or pressure United States Executive Branch continued participation assisting Iran's in its pledged waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty or international assurances; the Congress, promoting its agenda attempting to maintain United States Government ongoing participation in activities falling under the _Crimes against Peace_ category of War Crimes;

The subsequent series of outright documented lies served up by Congress freely upon the electorate – as that group of assembled lackeys to the whims of their political leaderships – intending to promote and foist their documented agenda upon the Citizen, many more of whom are quickly learning what it is actually is these people have been up to;

This disgracing Congress **emphasizes** most emphatically the need for the national level electorate to clamor for and gain enfranchisement empowering the national level voter to review, rebuke, and sticking with teeth restrain the Congress at regular intervals.

Without the national electorate "Vote of No Confidence;" We of the electorate will always be left out in the cold, almost entirely subject to whatever self-centered expedient adventures these politicians select for themselves to indulge in.

I maintain that without the "Vote of No Confidence" election, the Congress could continue to make choices for the People such as that of the 115th Assembly decision to appease the arms dealerships interests, and in so doing, appease the foreign Prince of the Theocracy at the expense of international treaty, and the United States Constitution without which We will never be able to secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity.

The cynical spoiled ignorant ingrate politicians who are able to butter their morning toast only by virtue of the Constitution they ignore, lie to us in seeking to secure the favor of the foreign Prince – thus making themselves the Vassals of the medieval Prince and effectively, making us the serfs of the weapons ambitions of the foreign theocracy; paying our tithes to the Vassals while those Vassals continue to promote the advancement of the weapons ambitions of their Prince.

Of course these cynical politicians disregard the Constitution – it has to be ignored as it only gets in the way of the half-baked idiot agendas of the partisans in Congress.

Moving on to an examination of anticipated Government reaction and resistance – and breaking through it.

* * * * *
* * * * *

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

One may anticipate that the denizens of a Congress disdainful of the Constitution, and by their actions carried out in repugnance to that Constitution, publicly present themselves as refusing to acknowledge that instrument as the law which is ordained to guide and restrain them.

One might anticipate that a collective of persons from across the country who had so blatantly and unquestionably displayed themselves dedicated to satisfying the covetous weapons development schemes and ambitions of the foreign Prince would scoff at the idea central to the Constitution – that a Constitution by right, arises from the society of the People;

That a legislature which seeks to empower itself to enact its own arbitrary whims, such as to seek to bind the American People to the provisions for weapons transfers contained in an agreement which the legislature has never publicly acknowledged it had ever seen, or had discussed publicly as an assembly on record, and certainly had never voted on: this agreement being Barack Obama's Security Council Resolution 2231 which is what no one in the legislature, even in the fourth year into this mess, will yet publicly acknowledge to the American People is clearly what is being acted on internationally;

That a legislature which seeks to empower itself to enact its own arbitrary whims, which happen to be by incidental coincidence, intended to be implemented and carried out in violation and defiance of the Constitution;

Such a legislature, which won't even discuss, or hasn't yet even at the end of 2018, the central issue of the entire agreement arranged between Barack Obama and the Ministers of Iran; that thing which won't talk to the people about; provisions of which they won't even warn an uninformed United States General of the impeding danger of activities carried out under those provisions;

Such a legislature, exhibiting such low character and non-existent integrity, cannot reasonably be construed as representing the People of the United States, the body of Citizenry which pays for its upkeep. That legislature cannot be reasonably construed as protecting, or even being interested in the General Welfare which it hasn't shown regard for in the undertakings of its various antics.

Such a legislature in its conceit, has usurped powers it is not granted under the Constitution.

Naturally then, there would be strident resistance in such legislature to any amendment which might bind Congresspersons closer to the Constitution they demonstrate themselves to be disdaining of.

Naturally then, there would be strident resistance in such legislature to any amendment which might restrict their untamed usurpation of power and influence; any amendment which would force the denizens of the legislature, jointly and severally, to be answerable to the national electorate, as opposed to the whims and the leaderships of their political machines;

Or else, if not voluntarily answering to the People, face interruption of tenure in office which might end up for them in many cases as effectively meaning an end to future election in political office – a permanent end to a political carreer.

* * * * *

It is anticipated that both amendments suggested and outlined in this writing would be stridently resisted as threatening, intimidating to the Agents of corrupt usurpation.

Per the contemplated amendment discussed first in this writing – the amendment abolishing States' altering the votes of the electorate cast for one candidate or another via the "Winner Takes All policy; this would challenge the prerogatives of the both the gargantuan Democratic and Republican Party funding machines.

Currently, under the "Winner Takes All" policy, each partisan group has fairly unrivaled control of certain turf.

In California, for example, even though there are electoral districts which vote majority Republican, there are more electoral districts which vote majority Democrat – so California falls under the control and ownership of the Democratic Party machine – it is Democratic Parity gangland syndicate held turf regardless of the substantial opposition whose votes are sequestered to be accredited the Democratic Party;

The mirror image opposite is true in States where the Republican Party gangland syndicate controls the turf. The swindler minion candidates of both partisan groups seem to like it that way – because there are "Swing States" which might be induced to go either way; and the phenomenon largely contributes to election outcome.

This makes things simpler for the swindler minion candidates and their strategy organizations – fund raising efforts and campaigning can be simplified through targeting these efforts mostly in those areas where the outcome is not considered clearly decisive.

The voter loss is two fold. On the one hand, voters in the minority in a "Winner Takes All" State have their vote redirected, and accredited to the other way around.

And on another hand, diversity of choice is curtailed, as the two gorilla parties are bound to keep their control of the U.S. Government in any kind of foreseeable future by having, in a given national level election, the privilege of conscripting any nascent minority third party votes and voting districts on their respective turfs commandeered in their favor.

It makes it almost impossible for another point of view to break in. And this prohibition on competition, this monopolizing of the national assembly by the two bloated gargantuas makes it very easy for extraordinary corruption to set in and, or be imposed in a very short time frame – as we have learned.

Currently, the two nightmare political parties have left the Citizen voter with only two versions of the same choice: either vote "Democratic" for the partisan movement openly supporting the Obama "Iran nuclear deal," and hence sales to Iran of procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic missile associated goods, services and technologies, or;

Vote "Republican" for the partisan movement which sits by and never protests at all on record about the fact that Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" promotes sales to Iran of procurement packages bundling nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons related goods, services and technologies while preventing the IAEA from reviewing these with the intention of verifying that such are not being directed to the development of nuclear weapons capacity..

The voter is trapped into the same effective choice – no matter what. And the 26 October 2017 tells the whole story.

...Just about tells the whole story; because fortunately neither a conventional Republican regressive party line conformist; nor a conventional Democratic regressive party line conformist got elected to the White House in 2016;

That President Trump is to be commended for pulling the U.S. out of the travesty is one thing. But U.S. officially pulling out of the deal does not mean this country is not still indirectly involved – it is. (That aspect, however, is another story for another time.)

President Trump's withdrawal from the deal is significant, but it does not alter the evolving corrupting trends and techniques developed through the continuing monopolistic control of States Governments and the national assembly held by a completely cynical bipartisan super elite supported by the two super entrenched, enormously well funded political party machines.

The doing away with States; "Winner Takes All" shell game vote shifting, this established system of State sponsored tampering in Federal Elections could open the door for the eventual development of a more pluralistic governance of the United States. The proposal of such an amendment would threaten to dilute some partisan dominance within a given State and therefore would probably arouse strident resistance from the two controlling entrenched national political entities.

And yet, under the current system which hobbles diversity and pluralism, we witness how easily and quickly and without restraint the acolyte minions of the two partisan groups descend in their conduct and decisions to the worst level of malevolent treachery.

THERE IS then, the suggested amendment enfranchising the Citizen to vote "no confidence" on the national level.

That this suggestion challenging members of Congress with interruption in tenure would outrage the Congress would seem self-evident.

What does not seem to outrage the Congress is its own exhibited preference for United States participation in the distribution of Weapons of Mass Destruction in violation of Treaty.

Also what does not seem to bother the membership of the Congress is its own collective hypocrisy in trying to hide the membership's preference behind the established curtain of lies which attempts to deny what Resolution 2231 is really about; spreading the malicious falsehood that the Obama "Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal" prevents Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons capacity, when the very text of the resolution testifies that it is a structured method for assisting Iran in developing nuclear weapons capacity.

* * * * *

Repeating here Article V of the Constitution:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that ... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Explaining the Article in Chapter XLI of his _Commentaries on the Constitution_ , Justice Joseph Story writes of the mode of creating amendments to Constitution:

§ 959. Two modes are pointed out, the one at the instance of the government itself, through the instrumentality of congress ; the other, at the instance of the states, through the instrumentality of a convention. Congress, whenever two thirds of each house shall concur in the expediency of an amendment, may propose it for adoption. The legislatures of two thirds of the states may require a convention to be called, for the purpose of proposing amendments. In each case, three fourths of the states, either through their legislatures, or conventions, called for the purpose, must concur in every amendment, before it becomes a part of the constitution...

That writing expresses the simple ground rules laid out to in calling an amendment into being – not so simple in practice as has often been shown.

Regarding the two amendments suggested; should these be found appealing to the public; in that case sustained, persistent wide-spread public support would be necessary in order to overcome stiff resistance in Congress that these become parts of the Constitution.

Such ongoing public support may very well arise out of the constant public exasperation with the unending bad behavior of a Congress, immune to rebuke from the national electorate;

Exasperation with a Congress which itself is shameless and unembarrassed in its indifferent disinterest; moronic distortions or disregard for fact; notoriously unending malfeasance; inability or unwillingness to accomplish useful things; idiot lack capacity in judgment; constant antagonistic obstructionist hypocritical grandstanding and shifting of responsibility – or any other number of antics and modes of doing business peculiar to the current Congress of the United States which many of the People might have long since become fed up with.

* * * * *

Possibly the best approach in the passing of these amendments would at first be conducted by nation wide petition to the States that State Conventions be convened. It may be undesirable to have the national level Congress, especially in the case of the "Vote of No Confidence" amendment, contemplating a write up of the amendment which might directly affect the uninterrupted sequence of tenures of individual members of that assembly.

The possibility of a ruse, whereby the legislature were to come up with an amendment so diluted as to be unacceptable – and thereby purposely staging its rejection – is perhaps far too great to be risked.

Obstacles which might make it a tricky job getting the amendments past – but if the U.S. Citizen is determined and enthusiastic enough about the possibilities of real transformation of the Government by the People, and it is found that the general character of the suggested amendments appeals enough to people – then obstacles and resistance by the legislature can be done away with. The matter is simple enough.

Uncooperative national level incumbent members of Congress would simply be voted out of office at the end of each term – never to be voted for again. Popular slogans of the era might become: "Vote the Incumbent Out Now!" or, "Incumbents Go Home!" or, "Don't Care Which Party – Just Get Out!" stuff like that.

Kicking the incumbents out on a consistent basis would certainly drive the message home to the national legislature that it might be best to start taking the Citizen a little seriously.

An amendment offering the Citizen a chance to review the behavior of the individual Congressperson could be seen as a more agreeable alternative than being guaranteed only one term in office.

After a few hearty rounds of kicking out incumbents, the Congress might start to get the idea that the favorite promotional fantasy of theirs, that individual Congresspersons with substantial seniority are not expendable is no longer viable as a nice bedtime story in today's world. This has been a politicians' favorite fairy-tale; that these people are indispensable to the smooth running of the nation's affairs;

As opposed to the reality that it is often the most senior representatives in Congress which are exactly often the most manipulative; most obstructionist, most learned and studied in political ploy and misdirection; and the biggest blustering blowhard bullies in either of both the Houses.

Kicking the incumbents out regularly might cause the incumbents of both parties to stop being so sure that the U.S. is their plaything which they own and can do with as they will. Recalling some words from The Rights of Man:

Government is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resume able. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties.

In any event, kicking out all the current incumbents shouldn't be thought of as any great loss. They had all participated in the antics of the 115th Congress, and went along either vociferously or silently with the execrable proliferation scams carried on with in that assembly – they are people who promoted, or allowed to be promoted, an amoral sensibility characteristic of a promoter of the War Crime, _Crimes against Peace_ ; and those public menaces probably shouldn't be considered as deserving on any level to continue in public office in any event.

The Obama administration's political promotion publicity hoax stunt campaign of the "Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal" has advanced the clock escalating nuclear weapons tensions in the Middle East and along the Pacific Rim.

As mentioned, the world has become a faster moving hot-bed. In this writer's opinion, the United States can no longer afford an entrenched, lethargic and indifferent Congress hanging about for fifteen years, or however long, before belatedly getting around to coming up with even a lame suggestion pretending to respond to a situation that's already been ongoing for some appreciable amount of time.

Regularly scheduled national voter review of the antics and omissions of Congress might help to compel some of these people to take matters somewhat seriously – and not just talk about how seriously they pretend to take the matters on hand.

* * * * *

I honestly believe that adoption of something like the two amendments contemplated and suggested herein might very well improve the quality of governance in the United States.

It might be a happier United States if the longstanding stranglehold of the two gargantuan partisan movements were loosened somewhat by doing away with the "Winner Takes All" policy of many of the States – allowing a more pluralistic sounding of diverse ideas and points of view, some perhaps having perhaps more, perhaps less viability or merit – but nevertheless...

...Even if no third or fourth etc. party did gain the White House for decades, this plurality emerged in Congress still might make for better quality conduct in Congress – we hopefully can't do worse than what we've got now; although the debacles mentioned, if ignored, might tend to deteriorate even further than currently anticipated.

Regarding the "Vote of No Confidence," had it been around it might helped to prevent such frivolous lack of preparation displayed by the 114th Congress when they entered upon their votes of 10 and 11 September 2015 to approve or disapprove the "JCPOA" without even remembering that the whole world knew about the 20 July 2015 vote in the Security Council approving Resolution 2231 – which is the actual Obama "Iran nuclear deal"; and without having bothered to look at it to at least discover that Barack Obama had never even transmitted his entire "Iran nuclear deal" to the 114th Congress.

The "Vote of No Confidence" would be a most appropriate measure initiated to deter in future such negligent, historically absurd and inexcusable lack of preparedness and utter indifference on the part of the national assembly.

A more prepared, pluralistic, less doctrinaire, more honest – unwilling to try to lie about U.S. Government participation in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – in general; an acceptable, reasonably conscientious quality of character, and of conduct emerging in Congress would be the objective and aim of the "Vote of No Confidence."

Another result of empowering the Citizen with the "Vote of No Confidence" is that it might help to make for a happier United States – wherein currently exasperated, justifiably disappointed and discouraged Citizens may again begin to feel inspired with somewhat of a sense of self-assurance that their votes might have some meaning; that these votes might have some positive effect somewhere down line after all.

* * * * *

* * * * *

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

The Congress at this point has abdicated itself out of the question.

It is only the President representing the United States who has the Standing before the Court to petition, and call forth counsel to bring before the Court petition calling for confirmation by the _International Court of Justice_ of Security Council Resolution 2231 as being invalidated from the point of its conclusion.

Optimally, the President would do this in international alliance with other like minded States all U.N. Member States Party to the NPT and all extremely unhappy with and threatened by that Security Council resolution. These States would be banded together in coalition; sponsoring the assembling of an international team of advocates, all studied in international law and the rules and procedures of the Court.

This alliance would give the position of those petitioning against Resolution 2231 even more clout and credibility than it already brings with it in the irrefutable arguments against the indefensible infringements and violations native to and promulgated in the Security Council resolution.

No time is to be lost in undertaking the endeavor; Procurement Working Group sponsored sales to Iran are ever ongoing – arms acquisition and weapons development is ongoing.

And on 18 October 2020 the next phase in Resolution 2231 Iranian weapons allowances opens for business. The Iranian Government is permitted to trade in conventional weapons with whichever entities it pleases.

The time to address the issue in the only feasible manner available is **NOW**! U.S. departure from the Security Council resolution was a start – but it does not avoid or restrain or halt the ongoing regional and world wide threat posed by Obama's "Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal;"

Only the Court can order the thing shut down, and order the necessary remediation required to bring the international community, and especially the leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council, back into line.

Failing timely action, not only will Iran get the bomb (which it will, at this point probably develop on its own anyway), but it will get the bomb with the best possible technical assistance available – that coming from the gorilla nuclear weapons powers themselves.

There is the other thing, at least as important if not more important. Iran also receives for its efforts the destruction of the credibility of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ (NPT); the dilution of any reasonable credibility of the Charter of the United Nations; and the dismissal of peremptory norm of general international law.

The study of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 reveals it as a document posing a real challenge to the credibility, relevance, and Authority of the International Court of Justice. Timely, immediate petition to the Court is of utmost concern – and the Court is bound to undertake consideration of the questions with utmost solemnity.

Without a pressing petition to the Court, the world drifts further into lawless amorality and international relations continue to deteriorate into further chaotic confusion.

* * * * *
* * * * *

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

Never before, since the dawn of the age of nuclear weapons, have the Citizens of the United States been confronted with a Congress which has supported the proliferation of nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear-weapons-State.

The bi-partisan membership of both Houses of the very singular 115th Congress has perniciously supported the arrangement between the Obama administration and the Ministers of the Government of Iran. The membership has supported this with either strident vocal endorsement on the one side; or retiring support through silence on the other side.

Not one voice in Congress mentioned that they were elected into office to serve the needs of the People and the Constitution under the means defined and manner described by the Constitution.

They are not there to serve perhaps their own interests in profiting off of arms proliferation – or to serve the profit motivations of others in that area or any other.

Government is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumeable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties.

Barack Obama had sweetened the pot for anyone of any importance interested in speculating on making money off of his Security Council resolution, just as he had sweetened the pot for the foreign Prince. The Obama administration had made everyone an offer they wouldn't want to pass up.

The only Party that has to suffer the brunt of the damage are the little people – and we don't matter anyway, because we don't have a regularly scheduled "Vote of No Confidence" with which to throw enough of the bums out of office on their phony little ears, to make a lasting impression.

The little people can't talk back – so we just have to take it under present conditions.

* * * * *

Obama had explicitly declared he was entitled, during his term in office, a "traditional" presidential prerogative to make his deal with Iran. His deal with Iran is a documented protocol to arm Iran with Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities – with all interested to enter into this international effort guaranteed to enthusiastically enter into the bargain for a piece of some of that tasty arms dealing action.

Obama was pretending this thing about traditional "prerogatives" as though this were some sort of holiday tradition recently modified with some new twists and spangles.

Obama had effectively announced he had always been understood to have had the 'traditional" Presidential prerogative to disregard the Constitution and dismiss his Oath of Office as a thing to be muttered for ceremonial purposes; and to violate international treaty and law. This is what his "Iran nuclear deal" entails and demands.

As previously noted, Justice Story observed in his _Commentaries on the Constitution_ ; Chapter XXXVII – _Executive Powers and Duties_ :

§ 777 **.** The power " to make treaties " is by the constitution general ; and of course it embraces all sorts of treaties, for peace or war ; for commerce or territory ; for alliance or succours ; for indemnity for injuries or payment of debts ; for the recognition or enforcement of principles of public law ; and for any other purposes, which the policy or interests of independent sovereigns may dictate in their intercourse with each other.

But, though the power is thus general and unrestricted, it is not to be so construed, as to destroy the fundamental laws of the state. A power given by the constitution cannot be construed to authorize a destruction of other powers given in the same instrument. It must be construed, therefore, in subordination to it ; and cannot supersede, or interfere with any other of its fundamental provisions. Each is equally obligatory, and of paramount authority within its scope ; and no one embraces a right to annihilate any other.

A treaty to change the organization of the government, to annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form, or to deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void ; because it would destroy, what it was designed merely to fulfil, the will of the people...

Obama's made assertion is a mockery.

The Congress, acting along Obama's lines; has avoided mentioning the violations of treaty and international law entailed in the provisions of Resolution 2231. The 115th Congress has carried itself along with the pretense that this singular national level legislative body in the United States has somehow ever had a mysterious "traditional" legislative prerogative to violate the Constitution upon the need to satisfy expedient political whim or for whatever reason – a similarly mysterious "traditional" Congressional "prerogative" paralleling that which the elitist dogmatist Obama publicly fantasized as his presidential "prerogative."

In the current fashion of the day, projecting Obama's fantasy prerogative on to the legislature meant a legislative prerogative to attempt to actively promote sales to Iran of Weapons of Mass Destruction capability – just as Obama had committed his administration to carry on with.

As a conventional rule shared among cozy politicians recognizing this presumptuous unauthorized usurpation as a practical approach to governance; the promotion to the public of this phony story proved to be appealing to themselves.

But given our Constitution, the premise of obscure "traditional" prerogatives does not have any authority over the Constitution or the rights of the People. It is only a useful totalitarian styled story line manufactured to confuse and deny the rights of the People – in this case, the right of the People to the full enjoyment of the protections of Treaty which previous to the 115th Hawk Congress had been guaranteed.

* * * * *

California Senator Diane Feinstein, knowing full well what Obama's "Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal is about; knew that she was declaring false in her in her preaching from the pulpit on 26 April 2018:

The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region.

She knows the whole favorable public promotion to be a lie; that fundamentally the deal, in its essence and as revealed through the irrefutable provisions of Resolution 2231 itself, is an agreement for the United States Government to open the Iranian conventional weapons market to U.S. arms dealerships as of 18 October 2020;

And to have (already done) allowed U.S. arms dealerships access enabling sales to the Iranian Government of ballistic missile weapons associated inventories, which have been theoretically allowed since JCPOA Implementation Day, 16 January 2016.

(This is all in Resolution 2231; Annex B Statement = which is one of the parts of the Security Council resolution which Obama refused to transmit to Congress back in 2015. That the Congress knows about Resolution 2231 by now is evidenced by the 26 October 2017 House of Representatives vote.)

In return for the Government of Iran graciously opening their conventional weapons and ballistic markets to the United States Government; the Obama administration agreed to violate treaty in order to assist Iran in procuring Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity in the manner already detailed and documented.

And also, the United States Government agreed that Iran should be (has been) allowed to undertake engaging in _activities which could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device_ without any accounting to the IAEA.

The United States, as well as the U.K., Germany, Russia, France and China all sit on the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency – and are all major player Parties in Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" scheme. They are all very much in the position to reassure the Government of Iran that the IAEA would be kept away from bothering about their little arrangement with Iran.

The ambitious rubbish spewing habitual twaddler, Senator Feinstein, never explains how her phony party line assertion that: " _The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon_ ..." can ever be reconciled with the documented facts. And she certainly leaves out any mention of the treaty made under the Authority of the United States; the NPT, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – which Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" violates repeatedly;

Or that the NPT might be considered to in the running for being acknowledged as something like the strongest agreement ever negotiated so far, providing for prohibitions on the transfer of nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons capacity to any State.

Nor does the rubbish spewing Senator from California, who publicly announces herself to be so much of a progressive pacifist standing tall against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, ever explain how she comes to her conclusions in her pernicious and surreptitious efforts to further the cause of weapons sales to Iran, if she has no vested interest of any kind in supporting such weapons sales undertakings. Doubtful, but maybe she might choose to try and explain her reasoning and motivations to the public at some point in the future.

We learn as we go along what level of sewage these elitist, fantasy prerogative holding politicians are willing to stoop to slopping onto the public.

And there is our lovely House of Representatives member Jimmy Costa, also from the Golden State of California; instructing us on international law and relations by espousing one thing:

...to remain credible, the United States cannot change positions on international agreements from one administration to another without serious justification and without the consent in working with our allies...

...While in the exact same breath denouncing over fifty years of United States adherence to the NPT, the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ , in favor of practicing violation of the international treaty which Russia, France, the U.K., Germany, the United States, and even Iran are all signatories to, and are all to be found in Court as being in violation of.

Costa's self-declared two cent insular view of international law and positive, constructive international relations is defined as agreeing to collude with, run with, the big time weapons dealing arms hustling nations at the expense of everyone not involved, and everything else in the world as well.

Costa presents that it is not adherence to treaty, acknowledging agreed upon course of conduct between nations which is to be considered as good neighborly and rational and trustworthy.

Rather, in Costa's perverted argument, it is the sudden unannounced departure from treaty previously adhered to for some fifty years; it is ganging up with the powerful arms producing nations of the international syndicate so that all of these might more effectively in collusion violate treaty at the syndicate's whim;

This is what defines for Costa the legitimacy of "international agreements."

Previously, before Mr. Costa and the 115th Congress; adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was, among other things, intended to reassure nations world-wide of the sincerity and integrity of U.S. commitment to honest conduct in international relations.

However; Costa, like Feinstein, like all the others in the 115th Congress, would like a radically new approach to be considered – or merely simply accepted on the word of a universally corrupt national assembly.

Costa doesn't personally publicly explain how, in his warped line of argument, he can support that this international trafficking in contraband weapons to any State, including Iran; this in violation of the treaty which so many States are Party to, will reassure the other State Parties to the NPT of the United States Government's sincerity and trustworthiness in international dealings.

And he doesn't publicly explain to the U.S. Citizen how promoting documented United States Government support for expediting and approving of sales to Iran of assets contributing to the development of Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities doesn't fall under the defined outlaw category of _Crimes against Peace_.

Repeating:

International Military Tribunal: 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**.

As is well known, the Government of Iran has repeatedly pledged the waging of war of aggression against its neighbors. This waging of war of aggression contemplated is intended to be in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.

The conscription by Iran; of the United States Government to violate treaty by expediting and approving, aiding and abetting the sales to Iran of Weapons of Mass Destruction assets and capability on behalf Iranian pledged ambitions waging of war of aggression against its neighbors cannot be reasonably separated from the fact that the action does assist in Iranian preparations for its long since pledged apocalyptic war of aggression;

And so the vaunted U.S. Government assistance to and participation in the program which so many in the Congress so eagerly have promoted must be most reasonably be construed as an intentional inducement, on the part of Congress, to maintain participation in an action which is specifically defined as falling under the category of _Crimes against Peace_.

Maybe Hawk instigators Jimmy and Diana have hopefully imagined that everyone in the world has forgotten about that category of War Crimes defined as _Crimes against Peace_.

NEITHER hypocritical Hawk Costa, nor hypocritical Hawk Feinstein, nor any of the others in the 115th Congress have explained to the public how Obama's weapons concessions to Iran which had temporarily opened the Iranian weapons market U.S. arms dealerships;

None of these Predatory Hawk politicians have explained how the opening of these weapons markets to U.S. arms dealerships – which the Congress, well into the fourth year since inception of Resolution 2231, still won't talk publicly about – perhaps because they fear the U.S. public might start getting wrong ideas about how perchance the real reason both political portfolio driven parties were so invested (and maybe still are) in the U.S. Government's remaining involved in the international _pro-Crimes against Peace_ movement which the other nuclear weapons States continue to participate in so eagerly and enthusiastically – the real reason for remaining involved with the operation was always profit motive driven;

The pretend pacifists of the U.S. Congress have never explained how speculation on potential profits to portfolios by remaining in the deal which opens the Iranian weapons market to U.S. arms dealing; how this is not an inducement for Congresspersons to prostitute themselves preaching smarmy lying sermons on behalf of Iran and the deal declaring things like:

The Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated.

* * * * *

In its 26 October of 2017 the 115th House of Representatives – belatedly endeavored to follow through on the set of procedures the Obama administration had instigated and put in motion. The Congress now attempted to put into acceptable language the formulation of an exclusive privilege which Obama had originally decreed the Government of Iran should be entitled to, and to expect that the United States would honor in perpetuity.

The House of Representatives by almost unanimous majority passed its bill approving Obama's plan to sell to Iran bundled nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated inventories. The 115th House of Representatives sought to couple two of Obama's dream provisions of Security Council 2231 into United States Government policy declared by statute.

By that bill the Congress wanted it official that the Iranian Government was to be entirely excluded from restrictions previously imposed by the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ ; Iran was no longer to be constrained to suffer the indignity of having to refuse assistance in its efforts to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity. For example, Iran would no longer be required to adhere to Article II of the NPT:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to **receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever** of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; **and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices**.

Reciprocally, neither the United States nor any other nation participating in the plan would be bound further by 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**.

This was to be the _ipso facto_ ; the by the fact; effective annulment of the United States Government's adherence to and cooperation with the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ as proclaimed by the would-be statute the 115th House of Representatives was agitating for.

This attempted departure from the NPT; this proposed Charter endowed to Iran, relieving the Government of Iran of practicable responsibility to the NPT – and relieving all direct Parties to Security Council Resolution 2231 of same, and all Parties doing business with the direct proponents involved in managing the affairs of the Security Council resolution would also enjoy the same benefit of relief;

This proposal was perversely vaunted by its enthusiastic promoters as a thing which would elevate the international view of the status of credibility, and the stability and trustworthiness of the United States Government.

Were the U.S. to withdraw from Obama's "Iran nuclear weapons transfer agreement" it was conjectured by the promoters; that the consequences could be dire.

Had a different damned foolhardy President been elected to the Chief Executive Office in 2016, the story might have been different.

A theoretical different President elected, gloating partisan interest in the matter, may well have ratified into law this proposition that the United States may exclude itself, Iran, and the other nations participating in Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" from the NPT; in order that this country should effectively denounce the NPT in favor of executing participation an adventure falling under the definition of _Crimes against Peace_ ;

A more foolhardy President than the current President Trump might very well have ratified into U.S. law sales to Iran of such items as agreed to by the Obama administration in his Security Council Resolution 2231 as nuclear weapons associated: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." as listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2.

There is no question that the passing on of such sensitive information to a non-nuclear-weapons-State would egregiously violate 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**.

Had there been a President available who was willing to further the passing on of this kind of nuclear weapons associated information providing detailed specifications on " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc.;" to a State pledged to the extermination of neighboring populations;

Then the Citizens of the United States would have allowed themselves to be led by a Government of fools of the quality of character of the aggressive amoral War Criminal agitating openly and unapologetically for maintaining U.S. Government engagement in a campaign formally pursuing the exercise of practicing, in collusion with the others, ongoing internationally defined _Crimes against Peace_.

As it is, the leaderships of Russia, France, the U.K., China, and Germany maintain that they are allowed to be contracted to carry on with this kind of transfer of technologies in defiance of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_.

At the moment, while the unscrupulous Congress rattles on with its support for the project; the weapons transfer activities are maintained and will not be halted without a petition to the International Court of Justice.

President Trump went a tiny bit along the way – essentially pretending that he could wipe away the stain by taking the initiative of pulling the United States out of the deal. But that will not be enough.

Trump ran for election to the White House knowing full well, or at least in substantial part, what had been going on, and what the Obama administration had instigated.

Trump won that election and now he's Mr. President, and now he's got the job he chose. He can now do the duty he undertook to perform on, or he can continue to shirk himself off cringing into a corner, as he's done so far.

The President is the only one constitutionally authorized to bring this outrage to the Court; and the only one who can order and organize representative advocates recognized by the Court as competent to present the position of the United States; and he's the only one authorized to ally with other nations in the formation of an assembly of internationally recognized as competent attorneys able together to bring the aberration of Security Council Resolution 2231 before the International Court of Justice for confirmation that the Security Council resolution was void upon its conclusion; and that nations participating in it must now bring their international relations with the rest of the world back into conformity with peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is permitted.

I submit that should he fail to attempt to move forward on this; such omission will pursue humanity and conscience for a long time to come.

* * * * *

There are some 535 members of Congress in both Houses. Still, about halfway into the fourth year since Security Council Resolution had been voted on by the Security Council, not one of these 535 courtiers of partisan connivance have shown within any of themselves the modicum shred of decency that might have helped one or two of those people over there screw up courage and speak out in favor of seeking remedy from the International Court of Justice to put an end to the outrages repugnant to international law and treaty carried forward ongoing by the State participants of the international _pro-Crimes against Peace Movement_ ; this movement which had originated in the United States; being formulated – as it was – instigated and then introduced and put into effect by the Obama administration in collusion, primarily, with the approval and cooperation of the Ministers of the Government of Iran.

Not one of the members of the national assembly has sought Justice for the People.

As of 18 October 2020, those U.S. partisan interests promoting sticking with the "Iran nuclear deal" will have got what they wanted – but not all of what they wanted.

As of 18 October 2020 the Iranian conventional weapons market will be open to all the international contraband arms dealing racketeering interests – all contraband arms racketeering agencies are allowed in on the wheeling and dealing except those of the cheap swindlers originating in the U.S.

What a thing to have to swallow; the portfolio gang got what it wanted, but now they're excluded from the enjoyment of it! Things are tough all around; and it's no wonder that the Congress of the gathered portfolio elite are so sorely pissed-off-infuriated by, and resistant to this President Trump guy who they should blame for so woefully impeding and disappointing their sport.

The 115th Congress, both houses, both political parties, have been aggressive in their support of the weapons sales to Iran schedule engineered by the Obama administration. They've demonstrated that aggression either by quiet approval (Republicans) or vociferous promotion (Democrats).

Not one in Congress has offered to step forward and announce that it is wrong to violate international treaty and international law so to gain the satisfaction of appeasing the ambitions of the great foreign Prince. Not one in Congress has stepped forward to call out that it is wrong to assist in Iranian preparations for that nation's pledged war of aggression by expediting and approving of sales to Iran of defined Weapons of Mass Destruction assets enhancing Iranian nuclear weapons capacity.

Rather, it is the other the other way around. It has been presented by many members of Congress, not just by Jimmy Costa from California; it has been presented by many others in Congress that not to go along with the international _pro-Crimes against Peace_ movement would tarnish the image of the United States something like beyond repair.

And the only way these members of Congress can bolster their phony arguments in favor of promoting their _pro-Crimes against Peace_ movement doctrinaire is by making up stupid lies characterizing that documented sales to Iran of expedited and approved of, by the international State sponsored _Crimes against Peace_ movement participants; those Weapons of Mass Destruction associated assets which the IAEA is prohibited from investigating;

The only way these members of Congress can bolster their phony arguments that this activity will be sure to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon forever is by simply spreading direct lies and false rumors.

The facts speak irretrievably against the U.S. _pro-Crimes against Peace_ portfolio would be potential profiteer politicians of the 115th Congress.

But the habitually mendacious demagogues don't care about that – there is no national "Vote of No Confidence" to deter their inconstant behavior.

The difference between a national "Vote of No Confidence" and a local election is that on the national level, few in the overall public generally feel beholden to the locally elected demagoguery free to practice their charlatan supplications on the local audiences; the façade enacted on home base might not play so well on the national level.

Not so many on the national level might be so easily sucked in to sympathize with, or feel beholden to the ongoing habitual liar's demagogic local level masquerade carried on with by would be profiteer office holders in the Congress who; having got Obama's, and the Ministers of Iran's permission for the sales to Iran of ballistic and nuclear weapons associated assets as of 16 October 2016 (JCPOA Implementation Day), now had real incentive to struggle in earnest to prevent United States withdrawal from the "Iran nuclear weapons transfer deal."

President Trump's potential withdrawal from the deal certainly caught the attention of the otherwise apathetic Congress – and they clawed their way towards trying to prevent it.

The 115th Congress portfolio policy partisans never struggled for the People like they had in favor of weapons deal intended to benefit the ambitions of the foreign Prince.

The treacherous lying molesters never struggled like the way they had for the foreign Prince; they never struggled like that on behalf of the security of the electorate by arguing to put a stop to the weapons sales to Iran; that, no on in Congress was willing to do. Nor did they plead to the Executive to take the matter to International Court of Justice to have the Resolution 2231 Weapons of Mass Destruction activities shut down.

The congressional _pro-Crimes against Peace_ demagoguery didn't care about justice. Justice and law would only get in the way of exciting speculative adventure.

Acting up in that manner, calling for remedy from the Court, was never proposed by the Legislature at that time. Instead they collectively directly lied to the public pretending none of this United Nations ongoing documentation of the ongoing handiwork had ever happened – or was currently happening. [Note Appendixes [FOOTNOTE]

The Legislature wasn't interested in anything like putting a halt to the sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to Iran; or anything nearly approaching thinking about such distant high-minded stuff like violations of international treaty, or violating the restraints imposed by an antiquated Constitution, or anything having to do with this weird concept of "the General Welfare."

Not any of the members of the Congress of the United States were going to, or did, publicly on the Congressional Record consider or protest in discussion those embarrassments or impositions laid out in the Constitution and in Treaty made under the Authority of the United States, which might restrict the freedom of their elitists whims and their self-interested obscurantist philosophical meanderings. Not in that 115th Congress of this country they didn't; not in this epoch would the membership of Congress be caught out doing something nearly as conscientious as that.

Their lips were sealed on the subject. It was better that way; that nobody should broadcast too loudly or possibly the cat might get out of the bag and skeletons might let loose rattling almost imperceptivity against the closet door.

Instead of discussing the thing openly, these portfolio servicing people acted almost as though they were ashamed to mention the ongoing continuation of those big time weapons sales to Iran which these moronic politicians, unwilling to try things out the honest way, had publicly been keeping oh so quiet about – never talking about, for so long – yet nevertheless yet nevertheless continued to promote by maintaining their infantile story that the Iran nuclear agreement would prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon forever.

* * * * *

The origin of the logic and justification for the plenary vote by the entire national electorate to interrupt the sequence of tenures of members of Congress arises from the Constitution of the United States.

Each member of Congress is elected locally. Once in national level office these become officers of the Federal Government, who cannot be recalled, during their tenures, by the localities which elected them.

However; it is required of each of them to take the Oath of Office, without which they are considered as not competent, qualified, to serve in the national office they were locally elected to.

So on the one hand, there is the initial obligation to the locale from which they issued; and then there is the responsibility to meet the requirement of adhering, on the national level, to the standards of the Constitution of the United States.

And when one or two Congresspersons repeatedly are shown to be disruptive obstructionists – then the Congress has the means to censure or expel for bad behavior.

If Congresspersons are thrown out for bad behavior, perhaps many in the respective local electorate might feel somewhat cheated or conspired against – but this is of no consequence. Those persons theoretically ejected from Congress had been decided upon as unfit for service in the national interest, whatever their qualifications might be for serving on the local level.

* * * * *

In the first days after the War for Independence from the Crown; the Tories; those having been loyal to King George III, many throughout much of the war – they were not excluded from public office in the first days of this early Government which had been newly constituted.

It's true that many had previously simply left the United States, or were in the process of immigrating to England or Canada. But many, although fewer of the Tories, remained to throw in their fortunes with this new state of affairs and conduct.

Those who remained, and sought election to Public Office, were required to take the Oath of Office, just as everyone else had. In those days, the Oath meant something to people.

Although the negative effects of political partisanship were well understood, it was never perceived that separate partisans would combine their controlling stranglehold on Government in the illegal act of immediately doing away with treaty so as to expedite their mercenary ambitions to sell nuclear weapons to a State avowedly hostile to the United States; enabling that State – or its closest ally and intimate trading partner – to strike at the United States with the very same weapons sold to it by the mercenary interests of the combined partisan syndicate.

Something like that was not considered in the early days of this country; although the notion that the Constitution as originally formulated was very much understood as, although in the immediate event not showing possible defects and omissions – it was regarded as an imperfect instrument which could not be regarded absolutely as sound, but would need adjustments and changes as defects became apparent over time.

Once again, recalling from our _Commentaries on the Constitution_ ; Chapter XLI:

**§956** ... It is obvious, that no human government can ever be perfect ; and that it is impossible to foresee, or guard against all the exigencies, which may, in different ages, require different adaptations and modifications of powers to suit the various necessities of the people...

... It is wise, therefore, in every government, and especially in a republic, to provide means for altering, and improving the fabric of government, as time and experience, or the new phases of human affairs, may render proper, in order to promote the happiness and safety of the people...

**§957** ... In regard to the constitution of the United States, it is confessedly a new experiment in the history of nations. Its framers were not bold or rash enough to believe, or to pronounce it to be perfect. They made use of the best lights, which they possessed, to form and adjust its parts, and mould its materials. But they knew, **that time might develope many defects in its arrangements, and many deficiencies in its powers**. They desired, that it might be open to improvement; and under the guidance of the sober judgment and enlightened skill of the country, to be perpetually approaching nearer and nearer to perfection...

At the time of the formulation of the Constitution the concept of nuclear weapons was naturally unimaginable; just as beyond the imagination as it was when Justice Story wrote those words above in 1833.

Aside from that it had been unthinkable in this era that either of the two mercenary cut throat political parties – the Democrats or the Republicans, would be that nasty as to seek to independently attempt to force the U.S. Executive Branch to agree to continue participating in a project geared towards weaponizing a State hostile to the United States with extended Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities; thus enabling that State; or its intimate ally and trading partner, at least with the potential to intimidate or blackmail the United States with its newly, foreign endowed, nuclear warhead tipped intercontinental ballistic missile capacity.

It had been become unthinkable in our time-frame that such a thing could be allowed to occur. It had become unthinkable as we had generally forgotten, or ignored the first time around, the words of former President Dwight Eisenhower spoken a little less than 60 years before this current period:

...we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

And now, without having anticipated the form it was to take, the phenomenon has been brought to the fore, to prominence, by the negligence or greed or whatever it is that motivates these obsessive politicians towards the expression of their styled malfeasance.

Despite their opportunist interests however; the Democratic and Republican Party opportunists had been plucked from their ambitious plan to remain in the Obama "Iran nuclear deal" before United States arms dealing profiteers could gain entry into the dream of participation in the Iranian conventional weapons market place as of October 2020; and they had been foiled in that U.S. arms dealing interests were now forbidden to participate in sales to Iran of combined nuclear and ballistic missile associated weapons assets sponsored by the Procurement Working Group and allowed since January 2016.

Yet even after it had been removed of the power to commit one wrong; the Congress persists in doing what damage it can. The spiteful politicians of the current day Congress engage in their political face-saving antics. For the purpose of keeping up their public images, the tawdry politicians must continue to openly lie about true nature of the deal; intentionally covering up about the weapons transactions carried on with regularly under the auspices of the Procurement Working Group.

These weapons transactions proceed and grow as a menace to the United States and to nations world-wide, even while the partisans of the two portfolio parties in Congress – the Republicans and the Democrats – continue to bemoan and pity themselves and espouse phony stories about how the United States missed a big chance to make peace in the region;

And they teach by example and peer pressure the junior politicians entering into office to believe in and act on their bogus history of the affair.

A nice allied international petition to the International Court of Justice on this topic of the Obama "Iran nuclear deal" would do much to bring the American People some relief from the hypocritical tirades continuously emanating from the loud mouth entrenched politicians of the Congress;

And remedy from the Court is the own plausible way to put a halt to the United Nations assisted Weapons of Mass Destruction development project going on in Iran; shutting down and opening the books on that operation might very well help to put a damper on similar ongoing developments in North Korea.

* * * * *

No branch of the U.S. Government can entirely shut down or dissolve another.

And there is no remedy in the current Constitution for dealing with a Congress which as a whole seeks to violate international treaty and espouse that the U.S. Government be led policies falling under defined War Crimes categories.

The Congress is in no wise authorized to violate the Oath, and should not be greatly applauded for openly conspiring to pressure the Executive into violating treaty, as they have done through their cheap attempts at political self-promotion through their attempt to pass their bogus law in October 2017.

Congressional espousal agitating for continued ongoing U.S. participation in the international _pro-Crimes against Peace_ movement is an abomination which shouldn't have to be tolerated by the Citizens across the Country. Nobody in the U.S. is required to love the fanatical Congress which has promoted participation in a War Crime; participation in what was aptly called, during the World War II and post World War II period as participation in or espousal of Hitlerite doctrine.

An early example of this usage "Hitlerite" can be found in opening of the November 1943 Moscow Declaration of the Allies:

THE UNITED KINGDOM, the United States and the Soviet Union have received from many quarters evidence of atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded mass executions which are being perpetrated by the Hitlerite forces in the many countries they have overrun and from which they are now being steadily expelled. The brutalities of Hitlerite domination are no new thing and all the peoples or territories in their grip have suffered from the worst form of government by terror.

What is new is that many of these territories are now being redeemed by the advancing armies of the liberating Powers and that in their desperation; the recoiling Hitlerite Huns are redoubling their ruthless cruelties. This is now evidenced with particular clearness by monstrous crimes of the Hitlerites on the territory of the Soviet Union which is being liberated from the Hitlerites, and on French and Italian territory.

Accordingly, the aforesaid three allied Powers, speaking in the interests of the thirty-two [thirty-three] United Nations, hereby solemnly declare and give full warning of their declaration as follows...

The current day national level entrenched Republican and Democratic members of Congress representing the interests of their respective national level party portfolios can be justifiably considered as condoning and espousing an Hitlerite doctrine preaching participation in _Crimes against Peace_.

They have demonstrated that corporate profits from weapons sales abroad are clearly important to them; but they haven't demonstrated much of an appreciation of history or rule of law;

And these people's capacity for shame seems much in doubt as well; given the either universally expressed (by the Democrats) vociferous support, and the silent approval (expressed by the Republicans) of the avid aspiration of both partisan movements to assist Iran in its preparations for its pledged waging of war of aggression by maintaining steadfast United States participation in the preparations of that pledged war of aggression;

This participation entailed assisting Iran in developing its Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity, in violation of treaty. It is noteworthy that by throwing Weapons of Mass Destruction into these preparations; this assistance takes on the feature of another internationally identified and defined War Crime:

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:

(c) **Crimes against Humanity**. Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, **extermination** , enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or **persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds** whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated..

There it is – we've got our extermination on religious and political grounds, which is enough to define that the weapons dealing policies of Obama's "Iran nuclear deal," so vaunted and beloved by the 115th Congress, are actually policies not only intent on violating treaty; but also intent on promoting activities falling under two internationally recognized categories of War Crimes: _Crimes against Peace_ , and _Crimes against Humanity_.

It is highly unlikely that the vicious and wholly belligerent, xenophobic policies of the regressive Obama administration as marked out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, could be sustained by the International Court of Justice.

But that doesn't change our domestic problem of the entirely corrupt, entrenched partisans populating the two party Congress.

* * * * *

The scum membership of the 115th Congress have all shown how deep down filthy they really are through their active insistent espousal of continued U.S. participation in Iranian preparations for the waging war of aggression and extermination;

This troglodyte elitist clique of Congress, propagating their support and promotion for maintaining U.S. assistance to Iranian pledged waging of war of aggression which, with the added element of Weapons of Mass Destructions, amounts to war of extermination of populations the xenophobic foreign Prince decides he might find Obnoxious – this is the Congress we've got.

The Republicans want to sit back and maybe say things maybe to the effect of: "Oh, but we didn't promote it out loud;" but it doesn't matter that they supported it in silent consent as a group. Nobody was putting a gun to their heads telling them to shut up or else. The Republican partisans chose a political strategy of using active silence as the manner in which to grant legally recognized _knowledgeable silent consensual authority_ to their partisan inclination favoring maintaining U.S. support for Iran's pledged and promised eventual genocidal war making.

As mentioned, neither the Judicial nor Executive Branches have much in the way of remedy putting a stop to extraordinary universal corruption in the Congress.

The Ninth Amendment guarantees that the "... _enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people_ ..."

If a majority in a local district can't see the local demagogue for what he or she is once out of the house and out of home base earshot – such shouldn't mean the national electorate should be forced to suffer and put up with that demagogue and cohorts in Congress.

The right of the local electorate to elect the demagogue is without question – but it does not follow from that right that the right of the national electorate to review the national level performance of the demagogue, after a reasonable time, and possibly to bar from re-election to the same office of said demagogue for the duration of one term – the possibility of attaining this right; cannot be disparaged, and is not forbidden by the Constitution.

An interesting aspect of a local district's election of a given representative has been noted. That representative cannot be recalled by those who elected the person in the first place until that tenure is fulfilled and whatever harm has been done. The national "Vote of No Confidence" would give the local electorate a chance to have a second look and maybe reconsider its position.

There is no other tribunal which could be more legitimately established then the entire national electorate to decide whether it is desirable to retain in office a collective partisan movement committed to propagating the kinds of violations the 115th Congress has attempted to put over on the Citizen.

It is for the electorate to decide whether or not it is desirable to tolerate the menace towards world peace which might be posed by a future Congress following in the footsteps of the 115th, which has significantly contributed to imposing upon the Citizen and populations around the globe the previously described threats to world peace possibly in contemplation of speculative financial gain favoring the nasty, self-serving politicians of the membership of Congress, or of their friends or interested associations.

* * * * *

Enactment of a "Vote of No Confidence" amendment would be an effective tool, with the objective of reminding members of the Legislature that their first duty is to the Constitution and the General Welfare; not to their political partisan chosen influences and doctrine.

It is doubtful that the "Vote of No Confidence" would pose any imposition on lobbyists promoting their legitimate causes before the Congress – good ideas will eventually find a way; most of the time, we hope.

And the "Vote of No Confidence" amendment would be helpful when large masses of people gather peacefully to petition the Government for redress of grievance.

These demonstrations often simply go ignored. A civilian petitioning population armed with the "Vote of No Confidence" has a much better chance of creating an impression and compelling the politician to think a bit more carefully about the nature of the grievance being protested.

* * * * *

Under the 115th Congress, governance in the United States has languished under the torpor of the habitual mendacity of the membership of the assembly.

The Congress had hobbled itself in its persistent obsessive insistence on perpetrating the fabrication that Obama's "Iran nuclear agreement" will prevent Iran from ever getting the bomb.

They have repeatedly complained about North Korea's sudden exponential progress in the area of nuclear weapons capability;

But the membership of the 115th has adamant in protecting the reputation of Obama's iconic arrangement with Iran. And so refused to allow that any association between the Weapons of Mass Destruction advances being sold to Iran might have anything to do with Iran's best trading buddy North Korea's, sudden exponential increase in domestic ballistic missile range and thermonuclear explosive capabilities. This dishonesty on the part of members of Congress demonstrates to some extent the threat that their politics poses to national security interests – and the threat their brand of charade politics of deceit poses to the possibility of United States peaceful coexistence with our neighbors.

The Congress – led by the two conflict of interest entrenched portfolio driven culture of the Republican Democratic Parties – shows itself to be an institution which has transformed itself into an impediment to domestic progress and world peace – given current allowances encouraging extreme unethical behavior,

No matter how much they lied about the Obama "Iran nuclear deal," they couldn't have it both ways. The U.S. Government couldn't reasonably expect to continue to expedite and approve of the sales to Iran of the described of arsenals without North Korea, Iran's best trading buddy, getting in on a piece of the action.

The culture of habitual lying carried on incessantly by all members of Congress makes for a very bad situation. It is an impediment to the effective running of Government when the overwhelming partisan culture of Congress is to direct the energies of the membership to concocting fabrications based on no facts whatsoever in order that they might upstage the fabrications of the other political faction facing across the aisle.

Neither side has any idea of what they're talking about, as has been shown to be the case in the adventure of the Obama "Iran nuclear deal" adventure. But they must insist on their bickering without foundation, which incidentally, turns out to be an exceptional mode of avoiding the reality of the issues.

North Korea's nuclear weapons project shows steady impressive improvement – the solution? Mention the issue but avoid discussing or taking responsibility for the unpleasant reality of what feeds this program.

Iran reaps the benefit of Russian, Chinese, French and U.K. nuclear weapons expertise – the solution? Avoid taking responsibility for assisting in instigating the situation; ignore the situation; and start pressing around town the fantasy that President Trump has destroyed the U.S. Government's last chance at being the Peace Maker.

What Trump has to do is take this thing to Court after the fashion suggested, or in his own way. An action like that would show the drifting morons of Congress what real peace-making is about. Something like that would help to shut these feeble jackasses up; these legislature member rule making jokers who have never even publicly contemplated the evidently politically unpopular notion of appealing to the rule of law for remedy; but have chosen instead to waste our time espousing continued U.S. Government participation in contemplated War Crimes.

HABITUAL lying in Congress poses a menace to representative governance in this country of ours. A local constituency, encumbered by a demagogue who consistently lies to those who elected that person; is a constituency cheated out of any effective representation, such a constituency has no effective representation – it has only a charlatan demagogue impersonating a "representative. This is a demagogue who misrepresents everything in order that said charlatan "representative" can have access cavorting with the other warped politicians of Congress; and is free to gain whatever accolades from, or influence with the elected charlatan's politician colleagues

A generally promulgated political culture engaged in the ubiquitous practicing of lies and evasions, distortions and fabrications is not conducive to getting any honest constructive work done. Rather, it is an inducement and encouragement motivating a collective assembly's descent into the kind of dismal corruption displayed by the 115th national assembly.

For this reason, even something like the persistence of consistent imbecile mendacity on the part of Congresspersons should be awarded with a "Vote of No Confidence" from the general, national level electorate.

Neither the Judiciary nor the Executive are recognized by the Constitution as competent to decide at what point the electorate has determined that the culture of habitual mendacity endlessly exercised by memberships of Congress has become too intolerable a protracted encumbrance to be further endured.

THE JOE MCCARTHY SYNDROME. That members of Congress aren't always the saints they might like the public to believe they are has been shown throughout our history. Remembering Senator Joe McCarthy of the 1950's who, for his own political self-aggrandizement, set about vilifying and defaming many hapless and upstanding persons not just serving in the government – but also those primarily writing for and producing films, from other walks of life as well – qualifying these persons as pixies, fairies, subversives, tools of the Stalinists, and what not.

McCarthy used his politics of mendacious defamation to gain enough political clout to have himself informally installed as something like a Grand Inquisitor – arbiter of politics; "American" values in the film industry and in the arts; and "American" values of morality in general when in fact he was a less than mediocre, out-of-ideas politician who had nothing going for him but his false defamations. He was a useless and viscous alcoholic who would die, it is believed from sclerosis of the liver, a few years after his reign of terror finally lost credibility and burnt itself out.

The national level electorate could have used a "Vote of No Confidence" to cut that corrupt Senator's antics short and save some of the many lives, reputations, and livelihoods McCarthy destroyed – reputations and livelihoods many of which were never recovered even after McCarthy's fall.

And even after McCarthy's eventual disgrace – he was merely rebuked by censure in the conflict-of-interest driven Senate – he was not expelled by any means. After all, many of these Senators trying to make themselves look good by pointing the finger at McCarty; had themselves been very enthusiastic about perpetuating the witch hunt, and joining in on the rounding up of innocent, harmless people.

It is nothing new that the conflict-of-interest Congress can't be trusted to review its own ethics. Congress members aren't necessarily to be thought of as even being able to recognize their own irredeemably amoral absence of conscience.

Is it reasonable to expect that members of the 115th Congress, an entirely regressive membership which has espoused U.S. continuing participation in violation of treaty, in violation of the Oath of Office, and in violation of the United States Constitution; a membership which has espoused continued U.S. participation in what amounts to _Crimes against Peace_ in assisting Iranian preparations laying the groundwork for carrying out _Crimes against Humanity_ in the potential extermination of civilian populations with the very Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity the U.S. Government had initially been helping Iran to acquire until President Trump – despite being under much protest from the Construes – pulled the U.S. out of the deal;

Is it reasonable to expect any national assembly such as this to be possessed of any capacity whatsoever to evaluate its own amoral malfeasance?

These people present themselves as of the amoral character of the War Criminal – how is it reasonable to expect that any of them even has the capacity to reflect on or evaluate the depths of their unethical conceits; when they have all also tried as a collective to regularly deceive the public in their attempts to cover up the nature of this iconic Obama Iran arrangement they've been supporting and protecting.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 22  
– Further Observations on the Suggested Amendments –

This mostly submits in summary review the need for both abolishing the allowance of various States' adoption of the "Winner Takes All" styled rule precipitating State level tampering with Federal elections – in particular, in the election for the President of the United States;

States Legislatures should never have had the right to decide: If you're a white man and you at least own a mule, then you can vote; all the rest – stay home. Oh, and by the way, if your mule up and drops dead on you, you can forget about voting too.

States Legislatures should never have had the right to decide: If we think you're a white man, then you can vote; all the rest – stay home.

States Legislatures should never have had the right to decide: if you're a man you can vote; all you women – mind to your cleaning.

States Legislatures should never have had the right to decide: if you're a man or a woman, you better pay that poll-tax (back to the owning the mule thing); or don't bother wasting our time trying to show up over here to vote.

States Legislatures should never have had the right to decide: Okay, you don't have to pay that poll tax no more, you go ahead and vote, go ahead. We liberal over here; we ain't gonna charge you for something like that – but if you vote for the wrong political party in our State – your vote is taken from you and given to someone else: So you people over there in that State that votes one way – don't you bother trying to be a resident here unless you like to vote the way we like to vote.

It should never have been allowed that States Legislatures should be given the leniency to decide upon the validity of the individual citizens' votes in a national election.

In the opinion of this Citizen, States should not be egregiously tampering with or altering the votes of Citizens, especially not the plenary election of a President.

The distribution of the aggregate of recognized citizens' votes is properly determined as an issue to be decided on the national, Constitutional level.

The reasoning behind giving a candidate the majority of votes in a single local electoral district is justified in that this on some level equalizes the validity of the vote in the less populous districts and prevents these from getting swallowed up by larger population centers. This allows for more diverse of viewpoints from across the nation. That seems to me equitable than having an entirely nation-wide popular vote whereby the votes of the large population centers which might effectively drown out the concerns of smaller populations distributed across the country.

In the case of a large State like California, which is larger than many nations; and there exists a wide range of voting interests distributed across that State – the vote at the moment falling only to the Democratic or Republican Parties;

In this case – the national level votes of the smaller communities are smothered by the larger population centers to the advantage of a particular political party.

I maintain that this defeats the logical and ethical objective of giving the candidate winning the majority of a singular electoral district. If the majority local views of the lesser populated districts are to be represented nationally, then these must not be smothered out nationally by the majority of electoral views focused in the larger population centers across a given State. The minority views should also be considered as these citizens may have concerns, observations and insights which would never occur to the denizens of the larger population centers. The voices of the forgotten should not be squelched by individual policies within the given State.

And then there is the issue of the diversity of political choices. Currently, as has been discussed throughout this writing, two political partisan fund raising machines control the government. The choice of alternatives the Democratic and Republican parties have offered are; either vote in favor of continuing U.S. participation and approval of ongoing Iranian acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction capability; or, if you didn't like that, then you can vote with the other party in favor of continuing U.S. participation and approval of ongoing Iranian acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction capability

These political party groups are simply organizations of collaborating people drawn together for their agreed upon political purposes and fundraising opportunities.

And these partisans have extravagantly shown in recent years that the political purposes they join together to bring about – are often unprincipled.

States' blocking of minority voices through the "Winner Takes All" practice effectively prevents, or at least gravely forestalls the possibility of other points of view getting any kind of a hearing on the national level.

As observed, if a third political party were to gain a minority of electoral districts in several States across the Country. The sincerity and reasonableness of that party's platform would be blotted out and go unheard due to the "Winner Takes All" policy. Whatever that point of view might be, it may never be noticed to have ever gained the credibility of a vote, and that citizens nationwide agreed with the premises and concerns of that party's point of view.

A third, fourth, or fifth party(ies) might gain some few seats in Congress. No President would likely ever be elected who had emerged from one of these parties.

And so we're stuck on the national level with the two choices: vote in favor of continuing U.S. participation and approval of ongoing Iranian acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction capability; or, if you didn't like that, then you can vote with the other party in favor of continuing U.S. participation and approval of ongoing Iranian acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction capability

* * * * *

And then, as to the second suggested amendment – a short further observation is offered on the need for the national electorate to have the opportunity to exercise the right to issue a "Vote of No Confidence" against the uninterrupted tenures of partisans and political groupings marshaled in Congress in a given age.

AS TO THE FIRST – an amendment doing away with individual States' intentional tampering with the national level plenary vote for a President of the United States through this erroneous "Winner takes all" rule.

It is noteworthy that such rule could be very justifiably considered as repugnant to the Constitution and hostile to fundamental principles of representative Government. The Constitution Guarantees this following

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV – The States

*Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

A Republican Form of Government simply put, means in the context of the Constitution, a representative government ( _Res-Publica_ ). This would be a government of representatives duly elected by the People which should represent the respective constituencies by acting in response to People's concerns and to the benefit of the welfare of the various respective communities accordingly represented.

[The example of a two party system]

But the notion of what a legitimate representative government is; has clearly changed throughout the years over the course of the continuing development of the conscience of this nation.

At first representative government was understood as a question of which white males should be allowed representation in government. Some States wanted only white free-men of property (un-indentured – not temporarily beholden by exclusive contract, usually seven year long, to a given Master – what we would consider as voluntary slavery, an illegal form of bondage in this era).

(In arguing favor of that point of view I submit this: Can you imagine having to suffer the indignity of your vote being counted alongside side those votes cast by the not-so-well-off or – and I hope it doesn't make the reader too sick to hear it – or, someone who might not be able to consistently make ends meet? Who could possibly know what these desperate aberrant persons clinging to the edges of decent society might decide to vote for? The very concept was found to be dangerous and repulsive to many.)

On the other hand, some States thought that every free white man of age should be given the vote – regardless of property status.

Many people of the era didn't like the idea of something like that – and property became an issue in some States; whereas other States were more liberal in view of who should be allowed to take part in the Community.

Eventually the property thing passed out of style, States' tampering with Federal elections on that level disappeared, and white male citizens above a certain age were allowed to vote in the nationwide plenary election for a United States President regardless of temporal possessions, or lack thereof.

This then became the perceived of and practiced understanding of the meaning of the Constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government in that era.

We know all this, but I'm building towards something. Please bear with me if you will – it soon becomes pretty clear where I'm going...

THE EXPERIENCE of the Civil War brought about an end to the previously allowed as legitimate, abomination of slavery, in this country:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. [1865]

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

And from that foundational principle logically ensued the following – although it took five years of procrastination to ascertain the Black Man's right to represent and protect himself and his kin through the means of the vote:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. [1870]

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The amendment was clearly intended to expand the plurality of participation in the community of the nation. The amendment clarified that the right to vote was recognized as not simply restricted just to white men; but it was to be recognized as the inherent right of black men, of any man of any "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was thought that any man who was not duly convicted of a crime should enjoy the right of recognition guaranteed by the 15th Amendment.

This novel concept of allowing the erstwhile negro slave parity in the vote precipitated exasperated, angry reaction in various quarters – as we know. Aside from any "unofficially" sponsored violence and intimidation which ensued – a series of statutes were enacted by various States of the Union to test, hinder and obstruct the black man from participating in the vote on any level.

One of the most persistent and longest standing of these was the pernicious "poll tax," which declared that one must pay a "tax" (really a set entrance fee) to be recognized as privileged to vote on any level – to say nothing of on a national level vote for a President of the United States.

For most whites even not particularly wealthy this fee might be only a matter of some slight inconvenience; but for the black man living on the edge who couldn't easily find a job; or for the poorer white man just trying to hang on – this fee was no small matter and might even be beyond reach at times or always.

And in some States, even if a person didn't vote in one election, the fee was charged to the account anyway, with interest accruing over time; principle and interest being tacked on to the next election – and ensuing in elections following.

This "poll tax" thing was a regressive return to the earliest era when property was a determiner of who would be recognized as legally competent to cast a vote.

Regardless of the 15th Amendment, Governments of some States had decided the recently freed erstwhile negro slave, bonded and chained for generations, must now prove that he had property enough to justify that he might be legally recognized as eligible to vote for a United States President or anything else – that was then the rule and the mockery in some locales.

This was one manner in which the various States tampered with, and restricted the plenary national vote on the Federal level. And those States managed to get away with the travesty for a good long time too.

This travesty was understood and accepted, at the time; as **the standard recognized notion of what a legitimate representative government, a republican form of government was to be officially considered as** – this was the notion held and maintained by those of the powerful in charge of the States exercising the infringement throughout that particular era of extended suppression.

And because States' Governments exercising the unjust treatment of their Citizens wouldn't budge on the issue – the injustice of the gambit was conceded as allowed, for the longest time, by politicians from other States not participating in the enterprise; and was thereby tolerated nationally.

MEANWHILE, there had been a little something else simmering in the background the whole time that many had concerned themselves with.

We don't have any exact documentation as to when the women folk started talking about it while engaged in doing the household chores; but the homespun topic that was on the lips of some began to be discussed openly in meetings in the early 1800's.

Some women had begun to wonder about why – since they seemed to have a stake in this whole independence thing – they somehow weren't allowed to vote – after all, the Constitution does say:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article IV - The States

*Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Not to be too bold about it – but it seems to have struck some women that the mentioned declaration of that clause of the Constitution presented a strange and unexplained absurdist illogicality given the informally arranged uneven circumstances their whole species of gender had been informally committed by others to suffer under.

It had been long since been unofficially announced that many Gentlemen of the better sort knew that women couldn't be expected to have a mind for such matters as governance – and it was felt best and most respectful of people's personal affairs not to provoke cantankerous uninformed housewives to incite disorienting internal private domicile political brawls and squalls within each man's own castle. That feeling was widespread and generally supported for a long time by most voters – all of whom happened by chance to be male.

But at the same time, the women folk might have started wondering if they were to be contemplated as citizens or not.

If they weren't citizens, then what were they – Crêpe Suzettes?

If that were the case, then maybe the Emperor of Crêpe Suzette Land should send his vast Armada over to rescue, reclaim and recover his rightful _Crêpe Suzette Land_ Citizens and heirs – hence denuding the encumbered male population of the United States of females; naturally so since the United States had changed its mind and didn't want them anymore.

It could have been an enormously difficult stigma for the guys of the times to get over possibly being called a sissy for voicing a heartfelt opinion. Eventually however, over the next one hundred years, enough of the guys started coming out with stuff like: "What the hell? Why not let them vote? I mean, women aren't such a bad bunch if you really think about it."

Eventually women's suffrage was upheld by amendment to the Constitution.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage [1920]

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex...

In the above, an apparent ambiguity in the interpretation of the Constitution was finally clarified and set to rest. Women were finally actually explicitly declared as Citizens: " _The right of_ _citizens_ [That's correct, women were now officially recognized and declared as citizens.] _of the United States to vote...shall not be denied or abridged...by any State on account of sex_ ..."

It took from the inception of the current constitution in the late 1700's until as late as 1920 for this latently contemplated plausibility to be tolerated enough to be allowed come into play in the U.S.

And everyone at the time, it turned out to be, was suddenly very happy. This was the beginning of the "Roaring Twenties." Women felt freer; the Stock Market was starting to boom; everyone wanted to get in on the action and get rich and have fun while doing it. This was an age of universal new found privilege.

Except there was still this nagging problem of those who couldn't pay their poll-tax. And the nineteenth amendment had an unforeseen negative consequence to deliver upon those forgotten Citizens.

The problem was – that there was no amendment to the Constitution which would have prohibited States' tampering with the plenary national level vote for a President – or even any vote for any office holder on the national level – meaning also a Congressman. (Congress was a "boy's' club," no women allowed before the 19th Amendment.)

Had there been such a thing, then the 19th amendment might not have turned out to be double quicksand for the black family. Not on account of the amendment itself – but because of ongoing, persistent States' tampering with federal elections.

As it was – there were now two people in the married black household who could be taxed, in some States, even if they never went to the polls. People could be taxed even if they didn't go out and vote. That's only reasonable of course – it saves on the paperwork trying to keep up on who did and who didn't show up. If y'all register to vote, or maybe if you just appear on the census – then effectively you pay the tax on that whether you show up or not. So it's actually a voter registration tax; or a having been recorded by the authorities as existing and having and name which could be taxed, tax – even though the poll tax was never called anything that precisely.

The tax could keep piling up from election to election, perhaps with interest added on – so no one better be showing up over there at the polling station unless they had what for them was a pile of money on their persons; which the authorized people in charge might start getting it into their heads to leeringly begin asking about where all that money was suddenly coming from anyway.

That's one aspect of some of the level of intimidation that many of our citizens were up against in the era.

And this intimidation, deterring the black vote, was understood and accepted, at the time; as **the standard recognized notion of what a legitimate representative government, a republican form of government was to be officially considered as** – the notion held and maintained by those of the powerful in charge of the States tampering with the plenary national level vote for a President – or any other public office.

THE POLL-TAX was finally done away with by amendment to the Constitution...

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred. [1964]

1 The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Ouch! Does that mean all them back taxes owed on the Poll Tax ain't nevah gonna get paid back to the State Authorities like they expected to be – and that all that interest accrued off them people who wouldn't come down to get intimidated at the authentic authorized polling stations just gets thrown down the drain jus' like it didn't mean nothing?

"Why you Washington fancy-pants dandies can't be just passin' no _ex post facto_ laws on us States (retroactive laws – laws having an effect before the law was established); you people in Congress can't be making up no laws canceling out debts due before the law was in effect."

Actually, it was the People of the United States who put a stop to the practice; basically telling the recalcitrant States that "It is the People who superseded this malign malfeasance – and we did it for good reasons none of which you have on your side."

The argument of the ex post facto rule never came up as far as I have researched. However, without going into the complexities which the ex post facto rule can bring up at times; I'll oversimplify that there were a number of long standing legal and jurisdictional reasoning which the Poll Tax ran roughshod over. Had anyone thrown out the red flag and cried "Ex Post Facto" these would have been put forth. It was the will of the People that the whole miserable charade be put to rest – and this will was proven by the 24th Amendment arising from the demonstrated and manifested will.

To my mind, the 24th Amendment is another example of how the Constitution can be a product arising from the hopes, beliefs and aspirations of the People; regardless of the reticence and fossilization of the entrenched beliefs of "law-makers."

Ain't that just such the crying shame! Some lawmakers got their feeling hurt – but now many people could all breathe a little easier taking a chance to vote for a change.

Throughout these fluctuating developments in perceptions of what _representative governance_ means, we observe a gradual, if not always so pleasantly timely, progressive change in the notion of what this concept of representation is to be understood as.

All in all, so far, gaining the right to vote has originated from the spoken desire of the People, longing for a sense of justice and equity.

The words of our antecedents such as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story and Mr. Thomas Paine when he submits that: " _A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution, is power without a right_." Such words are not empty words unless we make them so by ignoring them and dismissing them.

* * * * *

Although the Poll Tax was beaten, States hadn't quit the temptation to tamper with national level elections yet; the pernicious "Winner Takes All" practice persists today.

As observed, States' altering of the counting of electoral district votes does two things.

First – gathering the entire minority electoral district Republican Party votes into the pot with the majority of Democratic votes electoral district votes in a majority Democratic Party held State:

Or on the other hand; the gathering of all the minority electoral district Democratic Party votes into the pot with the majority of Republican votes electoral district votes in a majority Republican Party held State;

This practice entails disenfranchising the Citizen whose vote is stolen so that it may be put into another person's pocket.

Whether the Republican, or the Democrats lose or win in this or that election doesn't really matter.

What evidently matters to the colossal Republican and Democratic Party machines is that the various States; held under control of one party or the other – or disputed by both; maintain their allegiance to the two party monopoly format, obstructing third party entrance into the plurality.

The best, and the most proven openly public method of preserving the monopolistic control of the two giant party political machines over the Government, is through the "Winner Takes All" practice.

The practice, as mentioned, is dependent on disenfranchising the votes of electoral voting one way, stealing these away to put in the pocket of the other side.

This method is best practice for preventing the pluralism of a third or fourth etc. party gaining access to the vote.

When the majority of votes are bound to be sold off either way, to the Republicans or to the Democrats, a third party can't even get a hearing before the national electorate. The third party is made to appear ridiculous, run by a bunch of impractical dreamers who can't even get organized enough to make a show of it. For example:

If any third party managed to get a respectable showing of even a quarter of the electoral districts in a "Winner Takes All" State; such would go uncounted in a plenary national election for a President [these would go to either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. The same would hold true if a third party managed to gain a quarter of the electoral districts in all "Winner Takes All" State.

This would mean that the theoretical Citizens who voted in large numbers for our theoretical third party would simply have had their votes stolen from them and handed off to one of two acceptable norms – either of the Republican or Democratic machine monopolies. A third Party can't even get started in this Country.

Were it ever the case that a third party might gain almost a third of the electoral districts in a State; it might be difficult for a State to vindicate transferring the votes of that minority party's, and the other minority party's electoral votes, to a theoretical majority political party which had gained only a little over a third of the electoral districts in the State.

States' tampering with the plenary national level election for a President through the "Winner Takes All" practice; in a near three way political party split would bring into better focus the inequity States tampering in federal elections by the practice of stealing votes to put in another's pocket. In a theoretical case such as the one described; a party which really hadn't won any near majority had all, would gain all of electoral votes of the States in question.

THIS CONTROL of Government by the two party machine monopolies reveals itself as particularly insidious since these both groups are known in this era to have colluded to simultaneously violate the principles of the Constitution and rebel against rule of law.

The two parties, possessing almost universally shared exclusive control over both the governments of every State, and the National government (there is no significant other partisan operation to point the finger at in the United States at this time) – these two parties have shown on 26 October 2017 that they pretty unanimously favor violating treaty in order that the United States should maintain its participation in expediting and approving sales of Weapons of Mass Destruction to Iran.

The Democrats especially, but both parties have pretended that this handing off of Weapons of Mass Destruction capacity to Iran will do something like prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Republicans collude with the Democrats by not protesting the violation of treaty and the United States Constitution; and collude in not protesting this clearly condescending grotesque insult to the intelligence of the U.S. Citizen fabrication – instigated by the crowning example of imbecile Democratic Party self-promotional propaganda – which asserts that the Security Council documented U.S. approvals of sales to Iran of ballistic and nuclear weapons associated goods, support services and technologies will permanently bar Iran from every pathway to develop its nuclear weapons capacity.

It's too late in the game to be carrying on with such nonsense. As well, more and more of the electorate are gaining in the possession of the documented facts of the matter.

Both Republicans and Democrats were or, and are, in rebellion – disregarding their Oath of Office to defend the Constitution. These partisans set it upon themselves to use their influences of office to act in disregard for the law and the Constitution.

The significance of this malfeasance is best explained by our Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. Returning to our; his, _Commentaries on the Constitution_ ; Book III; Chapter II:

§ S6352 ... the preamble emphatically speaks of it [the Constitution], as a solemn ordinance and establishment of government. The language is, " We, the people of the United States, do _ordain_ and _establish_ this constitution for the United States of America." _The_ _people_ do _ordain_ and _establish_ , not contract and stipulate with each other. The people of the _United States_ , not the distinct people of a _particular state_ with the people of the other states. The people ordain and establish a " _constitution_ ," not a " _confederation_.''

The distinction between a constitution and a confederation is well known, and understood. The latter, or at least a pure confederation, is a mere treaty or league between independent states, and binds no longer, than during the good pleasure of each. It rests forever in articles of compact, where each is, or may be the supreme judge of its own rights and duties.

The former is a permanent form of government, where the powers, once given, are irrevocable, and cannot be resumed or withdrawn at pleasure. Whether formed by a single people, or by different societies of people, in their political capacity, a constitution, though originating in consent, becomes, when ratified, obligatory, as a fundamental ordinance or law ...

The Constitution is the law which those in national level U.S. Government must follow. It arose from and was ordained by the People of the United States. This is not the plaything of the representatives sent by the various States to toy with at their partisan enjoyment; a thing which binds only in so far as it entertains the good pleasure of the representatives of the various States.

These "representatives" issuing from the various States, holding tenure in public office, once entering Congress have become theoretically directly legally answerable to the ordinance established and upheld by the People of the United States – the Constitution of the United States. This takes priority over any loyalty to or preoccupation with concern over the expedient whims of their own collective party memberships; whims which find themselves in conflict with the laws they are legally sworn to adhere to.

The United States Government under the Obama administration had instigated an agreement with Iran which egregiously violates international treaty made under the Authority of the United States – and thereby violates the Constitution.

The United States Government was in violation of the law ordained by the People, the Constitution, in that administration's instigation and carrying out the "Iran nuclear deal."

The documentation shows clearly that Obama's "deal" was never about preventing Iran from getting the bomb – it was about appeasing Iran for the tawdriest of political motives; and also, as the evidence dramatically points to; about domestic weapons sales to a belligerent State beyond U.S. borders; this for the evident gratification of such interested parties as might delight in the profit of such a scheme.

The United States Government was already actively engaged in egregious violation of U.S. law when, on 26 October 2017, the 115th House of Representatives took its famous vote favoring support of the Procurement Working Group world wide advertisement; the advertisement which asserted that the Procurement Working Group would consider and attempt to meet the needs of agencies word-wide seeking to sell to Iran combined nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets while pledging to prohibit the IAEA from verifying that none of this material was being diverted towards use in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction production and manufacturing capability.

The United States Government was already actively engaged, by the time of the 26 October 2017 115th House of Representatives vote, in U.S. Government participation in Procurement Working Group activities at that time; the United States Government was already actively involved in violation of international treaty and law – and in the violation of United States law Ordained by the People – The Constitution of the United States.

The Republican and Democratic Party stance – voting for official U.S. Government recognition of U.S. compliance with the Procurement Working Group world-wide advertisement for nations around the world to come on in and join the fun of violating treaty in favor of selling to Iran procurement packages containing combined nuclear and ballistic missile weapons associated assets;

That vote can legitimately be understood as exposing the true amorality and construable inherent corrupt criminality of the membership of both political parties occupying both houses of Congress; the inherent innate amorality of all individual members of Congress, all of whom sought to maintain ongoing U.S. Government criminal violation of this:

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**.

The entrenched two-faced double political party machine monopoly, with all membership tagging along, chose to directly undertake the transference to Iran nuclear weapons of nuclear weapons capacity, and was fully engaged in this activity violating treaty when the 115th House of Representatives voted in favor of maintaining the infringement.

The entrenched two-faced double political party machine monopoly, with all membership tagging along, chose to openly collude in actively supporting maintaining illegal U.S. Government material assistance to Iranian preparations for its pledged apocalyptic waging of war of aggression in violation of treaty or international assurances by aiding that State in obtaining the material means to "... _manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices_ ;"

The Obama administration had arranged that United States Government participation in the project would include assisting Iran in procuring the technological means of such inventories as nuclear weapons dedicated: " _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals_ ...etc." as listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 and INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2.

Resolution 2231, Obama's "Iran nuclear deal" did not stipulate that there were some inventories from INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/Part 2 which were off limits for sales to Iran.

Instead, Barack Obama, in his generosity, allowed for indiscriminant sales of such inventories listed (if Iran was willing to pay for such, naturally).

The entrenched two party system in literal control government said nothing, and left no choice to the people.

Neither of the colossal monopoly players of the two party entrenched system ever produced at any time any member venturing to mention offering any suggestion that the Congress would support U.S. Executive Branch recourse to international rule of law for remedy for the wrong; would offer any support at all to a U.S. petition to the proper venue – the International Court of Justice – which has the Authority to put a stop to this internationally carried on with violation of international law and treaty; these ongoing internationally sponsored sales to Iran of procurement packages assisting Iran in its development of Weapons of Mass Destruction capability.

The two party memberships have maintained respective party discipline, and have tried to keep their mouths shut about what is known to be going on.

Had there been in the current period; more parties with a voice in place than just the two entrenched giants – then there might have been some open attention grabbing screaming about the outrage from early on.

The necessity of allowing greater plurality of voices becomes more apparent and self-evident as the Democratic and Republican Party joined in on shared corruption; progressively saturates further into the determinations and decisions of governance. This infiltration of un-restrainable politicians' sleaze (un-restrainable under current conditions) poses itself as a threat to, contrary to, and to the detriment of, the People's established Ordained law of Government – that being the United States Constitution.

The various States' respective "Winner Takes All" rule clearly acts as an efficient impediment to the development of a greater plurality of voice; and to the progressive development of a more open and informed society which, given a choice in an open election plenary national level election, which does not yet exist in this country; would not tolerate a moments more the presence of the misanthropic antics of the two entrenched political parties' memberships espousing insult to the public in their desperate politicians' fabrications and promotions of fantasies knowingly set forward as contrary to the facts known to have been already published in the very document they're working to mislead the public about; their falsely characterizing that document as something other than what it admittedly testifies itself to be.

* * * * *

ONE OF THE MAIN objectives of the "Vote of No Confidence" is to confront a Congress – currently immune from any effective national review – with the fact that the electorate now has the power to demand of members of Congress they bring their behaviors into conformance with the Constitution or risk being barred from re-entry into the same office for the duration of one term.

The Constitution enforces that States will initially recognize the representatives sent to the Congress by the various States.

Reciprocally, those representatives of the several States take their Oath of Office theoretically recognizing their obligation to adhere to the Constitution.

In the situation the electorate and the nation finds itself today, where the entire Congress contemptuously ignores and acts in violation of the Constitution – there is no constitutional method available to enforce this mandatory obligation.

And there is no constitutional method available to enforce that the loyalty due the Constitution takes precedence over political party policies or interests which may conflict with the Constitution.

The "Vote of No Confidence" amendment would allow for the nation wide citizen vote to review the tenures of these representatives; their strict adherence to placing the Constitution above political partisan interests; their honesty (an essential issue for the politician to practice – a dishonest politician using public office to promote lies to the national electorate – not only disenfranchises his or her own constituency, cheating that constituency out of a representative that would be of any use in keeping the electorate informed – but also seeks to distract the voter nation wide with false claims and fabrications, as the Obama "Iran nuclear deal" has so aptly taught us);

And as this is understood to be a representative government of the People, and made by the People, it would allow the voter to review and consider the merits of partisan platforms either officially announced or unofficially acted upon.

I consider the "Vote of No Confidence" a reasonable approach to the problems the Congress presents us with in today's world of nuclear weapons dissemination; the dissemination of Weapons of Mass Destruction so surreptitiously and yet so intransigently supported by the 115th Congress of the United States of America.

* * * * *

Books by the Same Author: Jean-Marc LeBouquin

– Throw All the Bums Out Legal –

– Congress Jerks the General; The Citizen Too –

– President Trump's Open Letter; From Jean-Marc LeBouquin –

– Militarists' False Fables, Paradigms, and Pretense –

– Sour Grapes Delusions Denied –

– Negotiating Abject Lawless Appeasement –

– U.N. Success in Expediting Arms Trafficking –

– What do I ask Myself on this Yom Hashoah? –

– Two Party Prototype Piranha Schooling –

– Curiously Emboldened Incompetence –

– Part by Part Synopsis of Security Council Permit to Bedlam –

– Security Council Permit to Bedlam –

* * * * *

Appendices follow.

* * * * *

* * * * *

Chapter 23 – Appendix 01  
– Excerpt of inventory listed on Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex –

[] []

Following is an excerpt of the inventories listed on the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ :

Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex

CATEGORY I -ITEM 1

COMPLETE DELIVERY SYSTEMS

1.A.1. Complete rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles, and sounding rockets) (≥300km "range" & ≥500kg "payload")

1.A.2. Complete unmanned aerial vehicle systems (UAVs) (including cruise missile systems, target drones and reconnaissance drones) (≥300km "range" & ≥500kg "payload")

1.B.1. "Production facilities"

1.D.1. "Software"

1.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY I -ITEM 2

COMPLETE SUBSYSTEMS USABLE FOR COMPLETE DELIVERY SYSTEMS

2.A.1. "Complete subsystems"

2.B.1. "Production facilities"

2.B.2. "Production equipment"

2.D.1. "Software"

2.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 3

PROPULSION COMPONENTS AND EQUIPMENT

3.A.1. Turbojet and turbofan engines

3.A.2. Ramjet/scramjet/pulse jet/combined cycle engines

3.A.3. Rocket motor cases, 'insulation' components and nozzles

3.A.4. Staging mechanisms, separation mechanisms and interstages

3.A.5. Liquid and slurry propellant (including oxidisers) control systems

3.A.6. Hybrid rocket motors

3.A.7. Radial ball bearings

3.A.8. Liquid propellant tanks

3.A.9. Turboprop engine systems

3.A.10. Combustion chambers

3.B.1. "Production facilities"

3.B.2. "Production equipment"

3.B.3. Flow-forming machines

3.C.1. 'Interior lining' usable for rocket motor cases

3.C.2. 'Insulation' material in bulk form usable for rocket motor cases

3.D.1. "Software"

3.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 4

PROPELLANTS, CHEMICALS AND PROPELLANT PRODUCTION

4.A. None

4.B.1. "Production equipment"

4.B.2. "Production equipment"

4.B.3. a. Batch mixers

4.B.3. b. Continuous mixers

4.B.3. c. Fluid energy mills

4.B.3. d. Metal powder "production equipment"

4.C.1. Composite and composite modified double base propellants

4.C.2. Fuel substances

4.C.2. a. Hydrazine

4.C.2. b. Hydrazine derivatives

4.C.2. c. Spherical aluminium powder

4.C.2. d. Zirconium, beryllium, magnesium and alloys

4.C.2. e. Boron and boron alloys

4.C.2. f. High energy density materials

4.C.3. Perchlorates, chlorates or chromates

4.C.4. a. Oxidiser substances –liquid propellant rocket engines

4.C.4. b. Oxidiser substances –solid propellant rocket motors

4.C.5. Polymeric substances

4.C.6. Other propellant additives and agents

4.C.6. a. Bonding agents

4.C.6. b. Curing reaction catalysts

4.C.6. c. Burning rate modifiers

4.C.6. d. Esters and plasticisers

4.C.6. e. Stabilisers

4.D.1. "Software"

4.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 6

PRODUCTION OF STRUCTURAL COMPOSITES, PYROLYTIC DEPOSITION AND DENSIFICATION, AND STRUCTURAL MATERIALS

6.A.1. Composite structures, laminates and manufactures thereof

6.A.2. Resaturated pyrolised materials

6.B.1. a. Filament winding machines or fibre placement machines

6.B.1. b. Tape-laying machines

6.B.1. c. Multi-directional, multi-dimensional weaving machines or interlacing machines

6.B.1. d. Equipment designed or modified for the production of fibrous or filamentary materials

6.B.1. e. Equipment designed or modified for special fibre surface treatment

6.B.2. Nozzles

6.B.3. Isostatic presses

6.B.4. Chemical vapour deposition furnaces

6.B.5. Equipment and controls for the densification and pyrolysis process

6.C.1. Resin impregnated fibre prepregs and metal coated fibre preforms

6.C.2. Resaturated pyrolised materials

6.C.3. Fine grain graphites

6.C.4. Pyrolytic or fibrous reinforced graphites

6.C.5. Ceramic composite materials for missile radomes

6.C.6. Silicon-carbide materials

6.C.7. Tungsten molybdenum and alloys

6.C.8. Maraging steel

6.C.9. Titanium-stabilized duplex stainless steel

6.D.1. "Software"

6.E.1. "Technology"

6.E.2. "Technical data"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 9

INSTRUMENTATION, NAVIGATION AND DIRECTION FINDING

9.A.1. Integrated flight instrument systems

9.A.2. Gyro-astro compasses

9.A.3. Linear accelerometers

9.A.4. All types of gyros

9.A.5. Accelerometers or gyros

9.A.6. Inertial or other equipment

9.A.7. 'Integrated navigation systems'

9.A.8. Three axis magnetic heading sensors

9.B.1. "Production equipment", and other test, calibration and alignment equipment

9.B.2. a. Balancing machines

9.B.2. b. Indicator heads

9.B.2. c. Motion simulators/rate tables

9.B.2. d. Positioning tables

9.B.2. e. Centrifuges

9.D.1. "Software"

9.D.2. Integration "Software"

9.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 10

FLIGHT CONTROL

10.A.1. Hydraulic, mechanical, electro-optical or electromechanical flight control systems

10.A.2. Attitude control equipment

10.A.3. Flight control servo-valves

10.B.1. Test calibration and alignment equipment

10.C. None

10.D.1. "Software"

10.E.1. Design "technology" for integration of air vehicle fuselage, propulsion system and lifting control surfaces

10.E.2. Design "technology" for integration of the flight control, guidance, and propulsion data into a flight management system

10.E.3. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 11

AVIONICS

11.A.1. Radar and laser radar systems including altimeters

11.A.2. Passive sensors

11.A.3. Receiving equipment GNSS e.g. GPS,

GLONASS or Galileo

11.A.4. Electronic assemblies and components

11.A.5. Umbilical and interstage electrical connectors

11.D.1. "Software"

11.E.1. Design "technology"

11.E.2. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 12

LAUNCH SUPPORT

12.A.1. Apparatus and devices

12.A.2. Vehicles

12.A.3. Gravity meters (gravimeters), gravity gradiometers

12.A.4. Telemetry and telecontrol equipment, including ground equipment

12.A.5. Precision tracking systems

12.A.5. a. Tracking Systems

12.A.5. b. Range instrumentation radars

12.A.6. Thermal Batteries

12.D.1. "Software"

12.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 15

TEST FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

15.B.1. Vibration test equipment

15.B.1. a. Vibration test systems

15.B.1. b. Digital controllers [continued]

15.B.1. c. Vibration thrusters (shaker units)

15.B.1. d. Test piece support structures and electronic units

15.B.2. Wind-tunnels

15.B.3. Test benches/stands

15.B.4. Environmental chambers

15.B.5. Accelerators

15.D.1. "Software"

15.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 16

MODELLING-SIMULATION AND DESIGN INTEGRATION

16.A.1. Hybrid (combined analogue/digital) computers

16.D.1. "Software"

16.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 17

STEALTH

17.A.1. Devices for reduced observables – such as radar reflectivity, ultraviolet/infrared signatures and acoustic signatures (i.e. stealth technology), for applications usable for the systems specified in 1.A. or 19.A. or the subsystems specified in 2.A. or 20.A.

17.B.1. Systems specially designed for radar cross section measurement

17.C.1. Materials for reduced observables – such as radar reflectivity, ultraviolet/infrared signatures and acoustic signatures (i.e. stealth technology), for applications usable for the systems specified in 1.A. or 19.A. or the subsystems specified in 2.A.

CATEGORY II -ITEM 18

NUCLEAR EFFECTS PROTECTION

18.A.1. "Radiation Hardened" "microcircuits"

18.A.2. 'Detectors'

18.A.3. Radomes

18.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 19

OTHER COMPLETE DELIVERY SYSTEMS

19.A.1. Complete rocket systems (≥ 300km range)

19.A.2. Complete UAV systems (≥ 300km range)

19.A.3. Complete UAV systems

19.B.1. "Production facilities"

19.D.1. "Software"

19.E.1. "Technology"

CATEGORY II -ITEM 20

OTHER COMPLETE SUBSYSTEMS

20.A.1. a. Individual rocket stages

20.A.1. b. Solid propellant rocket motors, hybrid rocket motors or liquid propellant rocket engines

20.B.1. "Production facilities"

20.B.2. "Production equipment"

There's more to that list – but that should give the reader a pretty good idea that a substantial part of the E3/EU+3 Iran, Resolution 2231 is about promising technological support to a weapons development program; all the while claiming that this whole arrangement is deeply concerned only with promoting the "exclusively" peaceful development of nuclear energy – and could never possibly have anything to do with any impure motives like arms trade profiteering.

THE MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME – Equipment, Software and Technology Annex is a general lexicon of 21st century weaponry, primarily dealing with ballistic missiles and delivery systems; and with other weapons technologies associated with ballistic missiles. This list was developed by the international Missile Technology Control Regime association. The Equipment, Software and Technology Annex was assembled as a list of weapons inventory the M.T.C.R. association considers should be controlled.

The Missile Technology Control Regime (M.T.C.R.) itself is a voluntary association of (currently) 34 member States joining together to establish and promote guidelines coordinating national export licensing efforts aimed at containing and restraining the proliferation of specific weapons war. The M.T.C.R. is not affiliated with the United Nations, but its members may also be United Nations members. All five of the Nuclear Weapons Nations (United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China) as well as Germany are all members of this association; the Islamic Republic of Iran is not.

For a more detailed description of the association's purpose and activities the interested reader may refer to the Missile Technology Control Regime website: http://www.mtcr.info/english/The Missile Technology Control Regime; or, possibly better, http://www.mtcr.info/.

The _Missile Technology Control Regime – Equipment, Software And Technology Annex_ does not correspond to the weapons inventory of any particular nation – rather, as mentioned, is a general lexicon of 21st century weaponry that the M.T.C.R. association considers should be controlled; and that great care and restraint should be exhibited when considering the import, export, sale or transfer of the listed inventory. The M.T.C.R. has established suggested common export policy guidelines (the MTCR Guidelines). These are non-binding legally, but may serve to be taken into account when developing export / import regulations regarding the list of voluntarily controlled items presented in the M.T.C.R. Equipment, Software and Technology Annex.

The E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel agreement, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, utilizes the M.T.C.R. Equipment, Software and Technology Annex for a use other than for which it was initially intended. It is used in the arrangement between Iran and the E3/EU+3 as a convenient shopping list which the Islamic Republic of Iran is to be given access to, on a case-by-case, basis as of 16 January 2016, and full access to some eight years after. The use of the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex by the E3/EU+3 Iran Project resembles the Cartel's employment of the International Atomic Energy Agency INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a list.

* * * * *

* * * * *

Chapter 24 – Appendix 02  
– How (why) the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex was renamed "S/2015/546 –

[] []

Two days after the July 14th Vienna signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the E3/EU+3; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Ms. Samantha Power, sent a Letter of Transmittal to the acting President of the United Nations Security Council, Mr. McCully of New Zealand. Ms. Power wrote: "The United States Mission to the United Nations requests that the attached Missile Technology Control Regime list (see previous appendix) be circulated as a document of the Security Council."

The letter was necessary as part of a gambit. Nobody needed the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex to be re-circulated through the Security Council. Such an action would represent a redundancy. The above list is a well known international document.

It would be like asking the Security Council to re-circulate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It is perfectly alright to do so – but it would be sort of a waste of departmental secretaries' time.

The purpose of this seemingly trivial exercise was not necessarily to have the Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex circulated. It was to get that Security Council document number appearing on that upper left hand corner of the page of the copied letter of transmittal. This document number was immediately used as a code word, avoiding the need to refer directly to the Annex by name within the text of Resolution 2231.

When it came time for Congress to debate United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; the use of the code word, which nobody in Congress would think to wonder as to the meaning of or look into, would initially obscure from the body of the Security Council: and, or from the Congress, or from the electorate, positive knowledge that certain classes of weapons were to be made available to Iran through the agreement – as is shown by the provision of Resolution 2231 presented below.

The Code Word was used once in Resolution 2231. It was needed for use in Annex B of the resolution, paragraph 4(a) below.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; Annex B. - Statement

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; and

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

The code word gambit would make it easier for the administration to hide its assistance to, and promotion of the Iranian expansions of its ballistic missile program and arsenals; while at the same time maintaining the pretence that the agreement authored by the Obama administration, was designed with every intention of retaining sanctions limiting Iranian weapons procurements – as opposed to allowing and promoting unheard of Iranian paying procurement of the latest in western weapons design style advanced achievement.

Annex B would never be transmitted to the Congress – nevertheless the code word was used in the Security Council Resolution 2231; Annex B; paragraph 4(a).

And the meaning of the code word has since become well-known in many quarters; although, even almost three years later, apparently not by our self-indulgent, indifferent 115th Congress of the United States.

* * * * *
* * * *

Chapter 25 – 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.) –

[]

This following is an excerpt – the complete list is found at: INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA), INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; part 2 (12 November 2013), https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/purpose-series-documents

Or as an alternate source: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1978/infcirc254r9p2.pdf [last accessed: May 9, 2016]

International Atomic Energy Agency; [information Circular] INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a

Annex – List of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software, And Related Technology

ANNEX CONTENTS

5. Test and Measurement Equipment for the Development of Nuclear Explosive Devices

5.B. TEST AND PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

5.B.1. Flash X-ray generators or pulsed electron accelerators 5 – 1

5.B.2. High-velocity gun systems

5.B.3. High speed cameras and imaging devices

5.B.5. Specialized instrumentation for hydrodynamic experiments

5.B.6. High-speed pulse generators

5.B.7. High explosive containment vessels

5.D. SOFTWARE

5.D.1. "Software" or encryption keys/codes specially designed to enhance or release the performance characteristics of equipment not controlled in Item 5.B.3. so that it meets or exceeds the characteristics specified in Item 5.B.3.

5.D.2. "Software" or encryption keys/codes specially designed to enhance or release the performance characteristics of equipment controlled in Item 5.B.3.

5.E. TECHNOLOGY

5.E.1. "Technology" according to the Technology Controls for the "development", "production" or "use" of equipment, material or "software" specified in 5.A. through 5.D.

6. Components for Nuclear Explosive Devices

6.A. EQUIPMENT, ASSEMBLIES AND COMPONENTS

6.A.1. Detonators and multipoint initiation systems

6.A.2. Firing sets and equivalent high-current pulse generators

6.A.3. Switching devices

6.A.4. Pulse discharge capacitors

6.A.5. Neutron generator systems

6.A.6. Striplines

6.B. TEST AND PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

6.C. MATERIALS

6.C.1. High explosive substances or mixtures,

6.E. TECHNOLOGY 6 – 4

6.E.1. "Technology" according to the Technology Controls for the "development","production" or "use" of equipment, material or "software"

These are examples of some of the inventory found in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; but to understand a little of what is meant by the above we must look at some definitions:

IAEA Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a (Date: 13 November 2013) ;

DEFINITIONS

"Development" --

is related to all phases before "production" such as:

• design

• design research

• design analysis

• design concepts

• assembly and testing of prototypes

• pilot production schemes

• design data

• process of transforming design data into a product

• configuration design

• integration design

• layouts

"Production" --

means all production phases such as:

• construction

• production engineering

• manufacture

• integration

• assembly (mounting)

• inspection

• testing

• quality assurance

"Technical assistance" --

"Technical assistance" may take forms such as: instruction, skills, training, working knowledge, consulting services.

Note: "Technical assistance" may involve transfer of "technical data".

"Technical data" --

"Technical data" may take forms such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories.

"Technology" --

means specific information required for the "development", "production", or "use" of any item contained in the List. This information may take the form of "technical data" or "technical assistance".

*[ INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA), INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; part 2 (12 November 2013), https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/purpose-series-documents \- or as an alternate https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1978/infcirc254r9p2.pdf [last accessed: May 9, 2016]]

The above is a partial list, giving a sense of the kinds of nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies, training and support services the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel.

The list of nuclear weapons associated inventories from which the United Nations pledges to expedite procurement of to the benefit of the discretion of use ultimately to be decided upon by the Sovereign Government of Iran – has been identified; and a sense of some of the classes of inventories has been presented.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 26 – Appendix 04  
– The Procurement Working Group and its mandate to expedite Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories.) –

[]

The provisions detailing the activities and mandate of the Procurement Working Group are laid out in JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission; a sub-Annex of Annex A: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is itself an Annex of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) – S/RES/2231 (2015) is presented below. Here then, is the authentic, accepted plan for expediting Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons associated assets as put forward by the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement expediting – beginning with paragraph 6 of Annex IV:

Resolution 2231;

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission

6. Procurement Working Group

6.1. With the purpose of establishing a procurement channel, the Joint Commission will, ...decide on proposals by states seeking to engage in:

6.1.1. the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to, 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 INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1, and, if the end-use will be for Iran's nuclear programme set out in this JCPOA or other non-nuclear civilian end-use, all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council), as well as any further items if the relevant State determines that they could contribute to activities inconsistent with the JCPOA; and,

6.1.2. the provision to Iran of any technical assistance or training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or other services related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, or use of the items, materials, equipment, goods and technology described in subparagraph (a) above ;

6.1.6. Except as decided otherwise by consensus, the Procurement Working Group will meet every three weeks for reviewing the proposals. When some of the proposals to be reviewed relate to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA, the IAEA may be invited to attend the meeting as an observer.

6.2. The Joint Commission will discharge its responsibility for reviewing and making recommendations on proposals for nuclear-related transfers to or activities with Iran through a Procurement Working Group.

6.3. Each E3+3 State and Iran will participate in the Procurement Working Group. The High Representative [of the European Union] will serve as the Coordinator of the Procurement Working Group.

6.4. ... the Procurement Working Group will consider proposals according to the following process:

6.4.1. Upon receipt of a proposal, including all necessary supporting information, by a State seeking to engage in transfers and activities referenced in Section 6.1, the Coordinator [of the Joint Commission] will forward the proposal, through appropriate means, without delay to the Procurement Working Group and, when the proposal relates to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA, to the IAEA. The Procurement Working Group will have up to 30 working days to consider and decide on the proposal.

6.4.3. Each participant in the Procurement Working Group will have to communicate to the Coordinator, within 20 working days, whether it approves or rejects the proposal. The timeline for consideration may be extended for an additional period of 10 working days at the request of a participant of the Procurement Working Group.

6.4.4. The proposal will be recommended for approval as soon as the Coordinator receives formal approvals from all the Procurement Working Group Participants or if, at the end of the 30 working day period, the Coordinator has received no disapprovals from any of the Procurement Working Group Participants. If at the end of the 30 working day period, the proposal has not been recommended for approval, the proposal may, at the request of at least two Working Group Participants within 5 working days, be referred to the Joint Commission, which would decide on approval of the proposal by consensus within 10 working days. Otherwise the proposal will be recommended for disapproval. The disapproving JCPOA participant(s) should provide relevant information regarding the disapproval to the Joint Commission as appropriate, taking into account the need to protect confidential information.

6.4.5. The Coordinator will communicate the recommendation of the Joint Commission to the United Nations Security Council no later than 35 working days, or in case of referral to the Joint Commission no later than 45 working days from the date the Coordinator transmitted the proposal and all necessary supporting information to the Procurement Working Group.

Oddly, the JCPOA itself doesn't mention anything about the Security Council taking part in this decision making process concerning what gets sent to Iran. Effectively the Security Council's role in this matter could be described as, at best, peripheral – but where is there any mention of that peripheral role?

Resolution 2231, section _JCPOA Implementation_ paragraph 16 (not to be confused as part of the Annex A: JCPOA; this section appears towards the beginning of Resolution 2231) tersely mentions the part that the Security Council plays in this decision making process, stipulating that:

16. [the Security Council] _Decides_ , acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, to review recommendations of the Joint Commission regarding proposals by States to participate in or permit nuclear-related activities set forth in paragraph 2 of Annex B, and that such recommendations shall be deemed to be approved unless the Security Council adopts a resolution to reject a Joint Commission recommendation within five working days of receiving it;

The description of the Procurement Working Group thus far has reached a certain level of complexity; naturally a flow chart, at this point, is in order to help clarify the process:

It is worth noting that once the determination to violate treaty has been made by the recruits stationed around the Procurement Working Group worktable; the entire body of the Security Council, under this system, has five working days to mount a defense against the violation of treaty endorsed by those recruits.

The Security Council has five days to put forward a proposal to reject the violation of treaty endorsed by the recruits of the institutionalized Procurement Working Group. If one of the five permanent members of the Security Council decides to uphold the violation of treaty recommended by the recruited staff of the Procurement Working Group – and veto any resolution against the Procurement Working Group decision; then the choice of the Procurement Working Group recruits to render the judicial decision to violate peremptory norm of general international law; to violate international treaty signed on to by a multitude of nations – that choice of the Procurement Working Group stands in force.

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 27 – 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 –

[] [] []

What is allowed and what is not allowed as far as concerns IAEA Participation in review of nuclear related assets acquired by Iran is detailed in the JCPOA as follows:

Resolution 2231;

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission

6.2. The Joint Commission will discharge its responsibility for reviewing and making recommendations on proposals for nuclear-related transfers to or activities with Iran through a Procurement Working Group.

6.4. Except as otherwise provided by the Joint Commission or the United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA, the Procurement Working Group will consider proposals according to the following process:

6.4.1 Upon receipt of a proposal, including all necessary supporting information, by a State seeking to engage in transfers and activities referenced in Section 6.1, the Coordinator will forward the proposal, through appropriate means, without delay to the Procurement Working Group and, when the proposal relates to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA, to the IAEA..:

As a concession to the IAEA, the Agency is informed as to the contents of a proposal when such proposal "... relates to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA...;" which, as it turns out, means when a proposal has nothing to do with nuclear weapons associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories.

6.1.6. ...When some of the proposals to be reviewed relate to items, material, equipment, goods and technology intended to be used in nuclear activities authorized by the JCPOA, the IAEA may be invited to attend the meeting as an observer.

A clearer sense of which meetings the IAEA is authorized to attend, as opposed to not authorized, begins to take on more defined shape upon a bit further examination of later provisions of paragraph six with its subs and sub-subs:

6.7. Iran will provide to the IAEA access to the locations of intended use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1 (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council) imported following the procedure under Section 6 of this Annex.

6.8. Iran will permit the exporting state to verify the end-use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2 (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council) imported following the procedure under Section 6 of this Annex. Upon request of the exporting state, or if the Joint Commission deems necessary when approving a proposal for transfer, the Joint Commission will provide expertise to the exporting state, including experts, as needed, to participate in the end-use verification.

The IAEA document INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1; unlike INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; refers to components and technologies associated specifically with nuclear energy production.

Sub paragraph 6.7 says the IAEA can hang around and check out the lay of the land – the end uses and end use locations of any goods and technology, any inventory, procured from the INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1.

When it comes to Iranian acquisitions from the prominent, nuclear weapons related inventories listed of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a, the IAEA is dropped from the picture; the Oligarchy authors of the arrangement leave out mention of anything about the IAEA being invited to drop in for inspection time.

It being the case therefore, that IAEA is explicitly not allowed in either to meetings, and is not explicitly granted authority to confirm end-use location of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories – one might ask if the IAEA is allowed to inspect this anyway.

Paragraph 26 of Resolution 2231 – Annex A: JCPOA – section SANCTIONS informs us of the following:

26. ...There will be no new nuclear-related UN Security Council sanctions and no new EU nuclear-related sanctions or restrictive measures. The United States will make best efforts in good faith to sustain this JCPOA and to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified in Annex II. The U.S. Administration ... will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.

Any attempt to insist – after the fait accompli – that the IAEA suddenly should be given access to meetings relating to; or given applicable knowledge of end-use or end-use location whereabouts of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons related inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; anything like that could justifiably be understood as an attempt to sabotage the E3/EU+3 Iran arrangement effort by imposing a new nuclear related restriction, or restrictive measure.

Note: All participating Parties to the negotiation and concluded arrangement were united in their approval over what had been agreed upon.

It must also be noted that All Parties signatory to the NPT agree that it is the International Atomic Energy Agency that has the duty, the obligation, the responsibility and the mandate to verify that there is no "... diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices," as follows under the first clause of Article III of the NPT – or to report otherwise:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices...

* * * * *
* * * * *

Chapter 28 – Appendix 06  
– Secrecy arrangement concerning Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories –

[]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 secrecy arrangements favoring Iranian acquisition of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed assets make it impossible for anyone on the outside to really know what is being acquired and when.

Iranian procurement activities are overseen by an arm of the Joint Commission – the Procurement Working Group. The secrecy surrounding the operations of the Procurement Working Group is described as follows:

United States of America: draft resolution July 17, 2015 (S/2015/547);

JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission

3. Procedures

3.4. Except as provided in Section 6 of this Annex which will be subject to the confidentiality procedure of the UN, the work of the Joint Commission is confidential and may be shared only among JCPOA participants and observers as appropriate, unless the Joint Commission decides otherwise.

The above explains that the work of the Joint Commission is confidential; and that the work discussed in Section 6 of Annex IV is "subject to the confidentiality procedure of the UN." The confidentiality procedure is of a much higher standard than the mere status of something being considered as confidential.

Section 6 refers to the functions and procedures of the Procurement Working Group. The Working Group carries out its work under the standard of secrecy of the confidentiality procedure of the UN. The current definition of this U.N. confidentiality standard is found in the U.N. document, document number ST/SGB/2007/6; Secretary-General's bulletin; Information sensitivity, classification and handling; (February 12, 2007): and can be located at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/235/79/PDF/N0723579.pdf?OpenElement

The Bulletin's Section 5 – Handling of classified information gives a sense of the strict security surrounding the Procurement Working Group's activities. Documents are to be kept under lock and key in a secured location; any duplication of documents is tightly controlled – and logged if copied; transmission of documents must be sealed and clearly marked as classified, the addressee and sender is clearly stated, etc.; all transmissions are duly recorded, logged; and there are the various other aspects of strict document controls that are described in the bulletin. And, of course, no one from the office is to divulge any knowledge of what they might have thought they had read or heard somewhere. Here are some examples from Section 5, just to give an idea:

United Nations Secretariat – Document Number ST/SGB/2007/6

12 February 2007

Secretary-General's bulletin

Information sensitivity, classification and handling

*Section 1

Classification principles

1.1 The overall approach to classifying information entrusted to or originating from the United Nations is based on the understanding that the work of the United Nations should be open and transparent, except insofar as the nature of information concerned is deemed confidential in accordance with the guidelines set out in the present bulletin...

*Section 5

Handling of classified information

5.1 Heads of departments or offices shall ensure that the following minimal standards are maintained in the handling of classified information received by or originating from their department or office:

(a) All classified information must be transported in sealed envelopes or containers, and clearly marked as such;

(b) All outgoing and incoming classified information must be recorded in a special registry that lists the staff members who are authorized to handle such information;

(c) Classified materials may be duplicated only with the authorization of either their originator or the head of the receiving or originating department or office, and such copies must be entered in the special registry;

(d) All classified information must be filed and stored under lock and key in a secure location within the department or office concerned, accessible only to the authorized staff members;

And it goes on from there with more detail. If anyone is particularly interested the document is freely presented by the United Nations at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/235/79/PDF/N0723579.pdf?OpenElement.

* * * * *

* * * * *

Chapter 29 – Appendix 07  
– Documenting the Obama Administration's Intransigent refusal to transmit Security Council Resolution 2231 to the 114th Congress –

]; [[10B]

Barack Obama did not share with the Congress, any part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 other than Annex A – as is documented in this following timeline of ev7ents – this despite that he had signed into Law and agreement that should have guaranteed his doing so.

The following presents a step-by step timeline of how this evasion of responsibility by the Obama administration was carried out:

**ON 22 MAY 2015** , as President, Barack Obama, signed the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ into law. This law stipulates that within not later than five calendar days "... _after reaching an agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran, the President shall transmit_ [such agreement] _to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership_ ...;"

And that " _an agreement_ ," for the purposes of that Act is defined as:

"... _an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future_."

This appendix is an examination of the simple ruse used by the White House to evade transmitting United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to Congress.

**ON TUESDAY 14 July 2015** , the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed in Vienna. President Barack Obama made a speech from the East Room of the White House corroborating the event stating, among other things:

"After two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon." *

*[BARACK OBAMA; Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal; American University, Washington D.C.; August 5, 2015; This file has been archived, find it on google at: obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/05/remarks-president-iran-nuclear-deal.]

**On the same day** ; in another part of the world, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano asserted that the following had been agreed to and mutually signed on to by the IAEA and Iran:

"I have just signed the Road-map between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme. The text has been signed on behalf of Iran by the country's Vice-President, and President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mr. Ali Akbar Salehi. This is a significant step forward towards clarifying outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme. ...

'... Implementation of this Road-map will provide an important opportunity to resolve the outstanding issues related to Iran's nuclear programme. ..." *

*[INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: IAEA Director General's Statement and Road-map for the Clarification of Past & Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran's Nuclear Program; (Tuesday 14 July 2015 8:30 CEST); Web address: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-generals-statement-and-road-map-for-the-clarification-of-past-present-outstanding-issues-regarding-irans-nuclear-programme]

Director General Amano then proceeded to an explanation – which was reprinted in IAEA Board of Governors report GOV/INF/2015/14: In his explanation, Director General Amano stipulates that Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, on 14 July 2015, had entered into two side agreements, which can be associated with the new JCPOA. Here are some excerpts of his explanation:

Road-map for the Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran's Nuclear Program:

Joint Statement

By the IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano and the Vice-President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano and the Vice-President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi agreed on 14 July 2015 the following ...

1. The IAEA and Iran agreed on a separate arrangement that would allow them to address the remaining outstanding issues, as set out in the annex of the 2011 Director's General report (GOV/2011/65). Activities undertaken and the outcomes achieved to date by Iran and the IAEA regarding some of the issues will be reflected in the process. ...

5. Iran and the IAEA agreed on another separate arrangement regarding the issue of Parchin.*

*[INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: GOV/INF/2015/14: (Date: 14 July 2015) https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov-inf-2015-14.pdf - The contents of the document have been published in many places by the IAEA, in its press releases and secondary sources reporting on it – on or around July 14, 2015.]

This declaration by the IAEA Director General is brought up here as it is used indirectly by at least one specific Democratic Party member of the House of Representatives to distract attention away from the fact that the Congress had never been transmitted the official United Nations recognized version of the agreement.

**ON THURSDAY, 16 July 2015** , Texas Senator Ted Cruz addressed a letter to Barack Obama describing some of his concerns relating to the JCPOA. Senator Cruz wrote:

"Language in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) assumes Congressional consent of this agreement and fails to even mention the statutory review process that you signed into law on February 27, 2015...."

[This writing isn't sure why Senator Cruz mentioned February 27, he may have been thinking of the date of the inception of the original Bill – the bill which would be later known as the ''Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.'' This writing adheres to the date listed on Public Law 114–17, which is 22 May 2015]

_"Specifically, Annex V of the JCPOA states that the United States and Iran "will endorse this JCPOA," and further elucidates that the UN Security Council will undertake a prompt review of the agreement after the conclusion of negotiations..."_

In the above, the Senator is paraphrasing material from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex A – JCPOA

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

34. Iran and the E3/EU+3 will implement their JCPOA commitments according to the sequence specified in Annex V. The milestones for implementation are as follows:

i. Finalisation Day is the date on which negotiations of this JCPOA are concluded among the E3/EU+3 and Iran, to be followed promptly by submission of the resolution endorsing this JCPOA to the UN Security Council for adoption without delay.

Presented following is a facsimile of the letter Senator Cruz sent the White House on 16 July 2015 – viewing the whole of what was sent might give a better understanding of the impressions the Senator was under during the course of the week's events.

[The letter which follows can be found at:

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20150716_LettertoPOTUSonIranDeal.pdf.]

For the purposes of this writing, referencing this 16 July 2015 letter clarifies that the Executive Branch had transmitted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to the Congress by at least 16 July 2015. We note from the above facsimile that on Thursday the 16th, Senator Cruz was under the impression: "... _That_ [Ambassador] _Samantha Power has already introduced a draft resolution to the Security Council_ ..." Actually, Ambassador Ms. Power was up to something quite different on that day.

* * * * *

On Thursday July 16, 2015, two days after the July 14th Vienna signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the E3/EU+3; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Ms. Samantha Power, sent a Letter of Transmittal to the acting President of the United Nations Security Council, Mr. McCully of New Zealand. Ms. Power wrote: " _The United States Mission to the United Nations requests that the attached Missile Technology Control Regime list (see annex) be circulated as a document of the Security Council_." *

*[U.S. AMBASSADOR SAMANTHA POWER: Letter dated 16 July 2015 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council. (United Nations document number S/2015/546): Available on the internet at: https://disarmament-library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/6d9eec6cdd36149b85257ddc006cd868/e7551f39803265f285257e92005b6a0c/$FILE/S%202015%20546.pdf [last accessed: August 22, 2016.]]

The letter was necessary as part of a sub-gambit. Nobody needed the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ to be recirculated through the Security Council. Such an action would represent a redundancy. The above list is a well known international document.

It would be like asking the Security Council to re-circulate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It is perfectly alright to do so – but it would be sort of a waste of departmental secretaries' time.

The purpose of this seemingly trivial exercise was not necessarily to have the _Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex_ circulated. It was to get that Security Council document number appearing on that upper left hand corner of the page of the copied letter of transmittal. This document number was immediately used as a code word, avoiding the need to refer directly to the Annex by name within the text of Resolution 2231 – as we shall soon examine.

When it came time for Congress to debate United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; the use of the code word, which nobody in Congress would think to wonder as to the meaning of or look into, would initially obscure from the body of the Security Council: and, or from the Congress, or from the electorate, positive knowledge that certain classes of weapons were to be made available to Iran through the agreement – as is shown by the provision of Resolution 2231 presented below.

The Code Word was used once in Resolution 2231. It was needed for use in Annex B of the resolution, paragraph 4(a) below. Annex B would never be transmitted to the Congress – nevertheless the code word was used in the following Annex B; paragraph 4(a), which has since become well-known:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; Annex B. - Statement

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** ; and

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

The code word gambit would make it easier for the administration to hide its assistance to, and promotion of the Iranian expansions of its ballistic missile program and arsenals; and to assert that the agreement authored by the Obama administration, had every intention of retaining sanctions limiting Iranian weapons procurements – as opposed to allowing and promoting unheard of Iranian paying procurement of the latest in western weapons design style in advanced achievement.

The Appendix (Chapter 9) – Excerpt of inventory listed on Missile Technology Control Regime; Equipment, Software and Technology Annex presents a substantial excerpt from the list and gives a pretty good idea of what the administration was attempting to cover up with its code word.

**ON FRIDAY 17 July 2015** : Barack Obama, completely ignoring the Texas Senator's letter as a matter of course; went ahead and had his draft resolution deposited with the Security Council.

Here is a facsimile of the header to the first page of _United States of America: draft resolution S/2015/547_ is presented immediately below presented as verification of the chronology as stated:

The entire document of the original draft resolution (in pfd format) submitted on the 17 July 2015 was to be found at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/547 [last accessed May, 3 2016.]. However, the United Nations has since modified the document it allows the public to review. The new web address finding United States of America: draft resolution is: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2F2015%2F547&Lang=E

What's missing in this newer version here is any mention of the submittal of the draft resolution by the United States – or the date on which the draft resolution was deposited, by the United States, with the Security Council (17 July 2015). That's perhaps an example of part of your Obama-era, post Obama-Era United Nations Security Council emerging style of paperwork deciding upon the new ideal of what to show the public, and when, in this day and age:

The header of this later version does note that the draft resolution was put out for General Distribution on 20 July 2015, the date of adoption of the resolution by the Security Council. Here then, the Security Council establishes its claim that the entire body of the Security Council, which does include the non-permanent Member States of the Council (none of which were privy to the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel JCPOA negotiation itself); here the Security Council establishes its chronology, which verifies the claim (voiced the morning of the 20th by U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, and which will be documented anon) that there had been no real review of the draft resolution by the entire body of the Security Council before the 9 AM vote for adoption on Monday morning, 20 July 2015, before anyone was really sure if everyone had even already had their cup of coffee yet.

The original version of the draft resolution can still be found in two places that this writing knows of:

_Human Rights Voices_ has it listed at:

http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/7.17.2015.security.council.resolution.iran.pdf

And _document cloud.org_ retains this at:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2168507/security-council-draft-resolution.pdf

The identical adopted Security Council Resolution 2231 version, as adopted on 20 July 2015 is found at is found (in English) at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2231(2015)

To find United Nations Security Council resolutions by year refer to: http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions

**ON SUNDAY, 19 July 2015** , Obama Spokesperson John Kirby announced in a press release that the State Department had transmitted to Congress everything relevant to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – this was the day before Resolution 2231 was even adopted by the Security Council. The resolution didn't exist yet, transmittal of an authorized version was impossible – and since, as the Security Council claims, the draft proposal would only be circulated of the following day; for the State Department to transmit to Congress an official copy of an un-circulated U.N. document would have been a bureaucratic impossibility. Here is what Kirby released to the news media:

"Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, today the State Department transmitted to Congress the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, its annexes, and related materials. These documents include the Unclassified Verification Assessment Report on the JCPOA and the Intelligence Community's Classified Annex to the Verification Assessment Report, as required under the law. Therefore, Day One of the 60-day review period begins tomorrow, Monday, July 20 ."*

*[DEPARTMENT OF STATE: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; Press Statement, John Kirby, Washington DC (July 19, 2015). This document has been archived in the State Department files. In order to find it, first go to this webpage: https://2009-2017.state.gov/# - Once on that page, notice the Search box just below the headline. In the Search box type: 2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/07/245051.htm]

What Kirby does here is to declare that the administration has transmitted these documents as " _Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ ;" the act which stipulates that:

Not later than 5 calendar days after reaching an agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership— ''(A) the agreement, as defined in subsection (h)(1), including all related materials and annexes;

...and continues on by defining what an "Agreement" as far as it concerns the Bill:

''(1) AGREEMENT.—The term 'agreement' means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.

The JCPOA is of interest; but no more so than the entire United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. According to the law, the 60-day countdown period for review couldn't and can't begin just because the Obama administration had only transmitted a part of Resolution 2231. The President had not transmitted to Congress the main attraction, the entire United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

Sunday 19 July 2015, was the day before Monday 20 July 2017 – the day when the Security Council voted unanimously to recognize the Draft Resolution deposited by the United States administration of President Barack Obama.

It's too easy to know: Barack Obama's intentionally mendacious Puppet Gnome Agent John Kirby claimed to have transmitted everything required by the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ to Congress on the day before the awaited United Nations Security Council authorization qualifying the agreement existed. The United Nations' recognized perception the agreement didn't exist yet.

John Kirby declared that: " _Pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, today the State Department transmitted to Congress the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, its annexes, and related materials. These documents include ...,_ _as required under the law_ _. Therefore, Day One of the 60-day review period begins tomorrow, Monday, July 20_."

The Obama administration, in asserting that it had sent everything, asserted the irrelevancy of the United Nations Security Council resolution to be declared the following day.

This was the excuse the maliciously mendacious overt liars of the Obama administration used to try to hide from the Congress that there were any significant additions to the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel JCPOA that the administration felt might merit any discussion by the Congress of the United States.

This was the excuse the maliciously mendacious overt liars of the Obama administration used to try to hide from the Congress the various weapons transactions agreed to within the entirety of Barack Obama's United States Proposed Draft Resolution, which was accepted as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) on 20 July 2019 – the day after Obama Gnome Agent offered the Obama administration's official statement claiming that it had sent everything relevant which needed be submitted to Congress.

**ON MONDAY, 20 July 2015** , the vote adopting Barack Obama's _United States draft proposal S/2015/547_ as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 takes place in the 7488th meeting of the Security Council. Now Barack Obama finally had something to send Congress; but there is no movement at that time of any time following, in that regard, emanating from the Obama White House. The 60 day countdown for Congressional review of the "Iran Deal" officially begins – not because Obama had transmitted Resolution 2231 to the Congress; but because Obama had decided explicitly on his own that the race will get started at that time; perhaps, because it should be thought of as the race to see if Congress would ever figure out within the 60-day countdown period that Obama had not acted on any pretence of an intention to effect transmission of Resolution 2231 to the 114th Congress...

The day before the resolution existed; on Sunday 19 July 2015; the Obama administration effectively told the Congress that whatever was in that resolution; to be voted on the next day, wasn't of interest to the _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015,_ law. The Obama administration here had implicitly, or maybe more or less explicitly, asserted that many of the agreed upon weapons transfers to Iran which are reflected in parts of Resolution 2231 other than Annex A: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, were not of interest to Congress or the law Obama had signed on to. Whatever the case contemplated and put into effect by the Obama administration; there was never a transmittal of Resolution 2231 to the Congress from the; but further confirmation on that point is required:

**ON WEDNESDAY, 22 July 2015** , White House Spokesperson John Kirby held a press conference in the White House.

The following is a recounting of some further details of the questions posed, and answers given during that July 22 press Conference.

QUESTION: _Yes, please. Just to clarify, you mentioned that the Congress has what we have. And in the same time you mentioned yesterday and today in a TV appearance that you transferred to the Congress all the documents that you have regarding this issue. Can you describe it? I mean, what is it? I mean, it's like it is detailed or it's just – I assume it's not --_

MR KIRBY: _It's the entire set of documents that go along with the deal to include the annexes and a verification assessment._

QUESTION: _...It's all the technical, the financial part and everything?_

MR KIRBY: _...It's – everything that we have about this deal has been provided to Congress. And I would point out that much of it is already available to all of you online._

QUESTION: _...It's not the 158 pages, right? It's more than that, right?_

MR KIRBY: ...There is some additional information provided there, yeah, but a lot of it's already been made publicly available. But yes, everything is up there. It got there on Sunday.*

*[U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: Daily Press Briefing - Washington DC (July 22, 2015); John Kirby, spokesperson. This document has been archived in the State Department files. In order to find it, first go to this webpage: https://2009-2017.state.gov/# - Once on that page, notice the Search box just below the headline. In the Search box type: 2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/07/245186.htm]

It was all a nonsensical lie, of course. On Sunday, 19 July 2015; United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 didn't exist yet. Kirby simply made up an inane story to cover for the Obama administration's refusal to transmit the resolution to Congress. And naturally., the imbecile members of the 114th Congress , incapable of exhibiting any common sense whatsoever, unanimously swallowed the story whole; And naturally, no member of the 114th Congress would take an interest in going up to the Security Council website and pulling down a free copy of the resolution to read it and consider what it might contain. This was, and remains even today, the going standard of disinterest in this whole issue of Barack Obama's "Iran Nuclear Deal."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 was not going to get transmitted to the Congress. Going through the Congressional Record, and State Department records, there is no trace of anything having to do with Obama's "Iran Deal" being transmitted or received after that Sunday, the 19th. The Statements made on the 22nd by John Kirby would be the White House final word on the matter.

That no one in Congress would complain about how the information being relayed by the White House simply didn't match up with the facts is another example of the lack attention, the dinterest; and the primitive nature of discussion surrounding this issue of Security Council Resolution 2231, "JCPOA."

* * * * *

But not quite; the White House later, in December 2015, made a very interesting declaration in writing concerning this "Obama Deal" which was never reviewed by the Congress.

Although everyone in Congress knew about the 20 July 2015 vote in the Security Council, it was blithely ignored until members of the Senate – Republicans Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo made an earth-shattering discovery/observation on or around 18 September 2015 that nobody in Congress had any signed copies of the JCPOA.

This discovery dawned on these two after both Houses of Congress had voted on something purported to be the "Iran Nuclear Deal" on 10 and 11 September 2017, a little over a week before.

Being the wondering audience they were, Senator Pompeo wrote the State Department, Secretary of State John Kerry, on 18 September 2015, asking questions:

Dear Secretary Kerry:

I have reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Islamic Republic of Iran – or at least the parts of the agreement that were provided to Congress by the administration. As you know, pursuant to H. Res. 411, the House of Representatives considers the documents transmitted on July 19, 2015 incomplete in light of the fact that the secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not provided to Congress. I look forward to seeing the entire agreement – including the two secret side deals that are part of the JCPOA – so that Congress may continue to evaluate the JCPOA and, depending on the outcome of the vote under the relevant provisions of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially end the current and continuing prohibition of the lifting of sanctions on Iran.

During that review, I found that the copies provided to Congress of the JCPOA are not signed by any of the P5+1 members nor by Iran. Having never seen an international agreement of this magnitude not signed by the parties or an agent of the parties, I assume this is simply an oversight or an administrative error. That is, Congress must not have the final version of the agreement that would necessarily be signed. I request that you provide us with copies of a final, executed copy of the JCPOA. In the event that the JCPOA has not yet been signed by the parties, please inform us (a) when signatures will be placed on the agreement, (b) what parties will be signing, and (c) which person you anticipate will sign on behalf of each of those parties, including on behalf of the United States.

I am confident that you intended for the JCPOA to be signed by each of the P5+1 participants. I can find no international agreement of this "historic" nature that was not signed by the parties. Each of the past five major nuclear agreements to which the U.S. is a party – SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea – were signed by representatives of each nation that was party to the agreement. This is not a mere formality. Those signatures represent the commitment of the signatory and the country on whose behalf he or she is signing.

A signature also serves to make clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement. In short, just as with any legal instrument, signing matters.

This is particularly important with respect to JCPOA. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has made clear that he does not believe that JCPOA is legally binding on his nation, saying, "If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it. Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?"

Given the many benefits that will accrue to the ayatollahs, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other unsavory elements of the Iranian regime, I believe that Iran should, at the very least, bind itself to the few requirements placed on it under the JCPOA by signing the agreement. I also believe that the United States and its P5+1 partners on the JCPOA should execute the agreement on behalf of their countries. I look forward to your response.

We all do. *

*[The text of the letter was found in two places

https://cjhsla.org/2015/11/01/the-iran-deal-was-not-signed-by-iran-or-anyone-else/

And:

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/the-iran-deal-was-not-signed-by-iran-or-anyone-else/2015/09/19/

I was unable to locate an original facsimile; however, the response to the letter from the State Department verifies that the letter was sent.]

The text of the response follows – and a facsimile of the response is presented after:

Dear Mr. Pompeo.:

Thank you for your September 18 letter regarding the nuclear deal with Iran. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China), and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.

The success of the JCPOA will depend not whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran's understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose and ramp up – our sanction if Iran does not meet its commitments.

Everything the JCPOA and its annexes are commitments Iran made, and must keep, to remain in compliance. Iran breaks these commitments, we can snap back both unilateral and UN sanction.

We provided Congress with everything agreed to between the P5+1 and Iran in the JCPOA, in full compliance with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INAEA). There are no "secret deals" between the P5+1 and Iran, and no JCPOA document that Congress does not already have. The Administration is fully committed to providing information to Congress to ensure full transparency as we implement the JCPOA.

We hope this information is useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Julia Frifield; Assistant Secretary; Legislative Affairs.

The facsimile presented next can be found at: _http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/assets/attachments/documents/11.24.2015.state.dept.letter.jcpoa.pdf_

The letter claims that the JCPOA was unsigned. The letter doesn't mention that the JCPOA had been incorporated into the larger, Resolution 2231 program and that the resolution's policy of arms transactions is not presented in the resolution's Annex A: JCPOA.

To an extent – this letter gives evidence; again, that Resolution 2231 was never transmitted to the Congress, and never looked at or voted on by the Congress.

* * * * *

* * * * *

Chapter 30 – Appendix 08  
– 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 –

[] []

AS HAS BEEN presented in the various appendices, the International Atomic Energy Agency is to be kept from the knowledge of any contents of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies, or support services – and subsequently, any knowledge of end-use location, whereabouts, or end-use of such acquisitions.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 also asserts this in its _JCPOA Annex I – Nuclear-related measures_ :

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015);

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex I – Nuclear-related measures

A. General

1. The sequence of implementation of the commitments detailed in this Annex is specified in Annex V to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Unless otherwise specified, the durations of the commitments in this Annex are from Implementation Day.

Nothing in Annex V mentioned in the paragraph _A – General; 1_ , mentioned above; indicates that the timeline for putting in to effect the very important Section T following below "... _has otherwise been specified_ ...;" therefore the following activities described under JCPOA Annex I; Section T have been permitted since JCPOA Implementation Day; 16 January 2016.

T. ACTIVITIES WHICH COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE DEVICE

82. Iran will not engage in the following activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

82.1. Designing, developing, acquiring, or using computer models to simulate nuclear explosive devices.

82.2. Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using multi-point explosive detonation systems suitable for a nuclear explosive device, unless approved by the Joint Commission for non-nuclear purposes and subject to monitoring.

82.3. Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using explosive diagnostic systems (streak cameras, framing cameras and flash x-ray cameras) suitable for the development of a nuclear explosive device, unless approved by the Joint Commission for non-nuclear purposes and subject to monitoring.

82.4. Designing, developing, fabricating, acquiring, or using explosively driven neutron sources or specialized materials for explosively driven neutron sources.

The JCPOA has already indicated, in _JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission_ ; paragraph _6. Procurement Working Group_ ; sub-paragraph _6.8_ , that Iran has not given the IAEA permission to: ... _verify the end-use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2_ ...;"

The materials referred to above, in 825.2 through 82.4 e.g.: "...multi-point explosive detonation systems suitable for a nuclear explosive device...explosive diagnostic systems (streak cameras, framing cameras and flash x-ray cameras)...;" neutron generating systems in application as: "... explosively driven neutron sources..." etc.; these are all INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories (see Appendix II [footnote]).

Again – the IAEA is not entitled to look into these per the JCPOA. The above paragraph 8, with subparagraphs, stipulates that these things will be monitored. The answer to the question of "by whom" is not within the scope of that paragraph. Paragraph 6.7 of Resolution 2231; Annex A: JCPOA; (sub-Annex of JCPOA) JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission; paragraph 6.8 gives us an idea:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)

Annex A – JCPOA

JCPOA Annex IV – Joint Commission

6. Procurement Working Group

6.8 **Iran will permit the exporting state to verify the end-use of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2** (or the most recent version of these documents as updated by the Security Council) imported following the procedure under Section 6 of this Annex. Upon request of the exporting state, or if the Joint Commission deems necessary when approving a proposal for transfer, **the Joint Commission will provide expertise to the exporting state, including experts, as needed, to participate in the end-use verification**.

The Security Council JCPOA Joint Commission asserts that it will provide expertise required for end-use verification. That's open ended it would seem. End-use verification can suggest that the monitoring and verification of the end-use of any Iranian acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories in the capacity detailed in paragraphs 82.2 through 82.4 listed above is to be conducted by the ad hoc committee set up by the Joint Commission – as much as the ad hoc committee set up by the Joint Commission feel like doing. It's pretty vague. Nevertheless:

This set-up bears witness of the intent by the Security Council to supersede treaty with vague promises. The Security Council asserts it will supersede treaty by preventing the IAEA from fulfilling its mandate to verify that INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories are not being diverted.

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive **purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices** ...

Every signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT) has agreed that it will be the International Atomic Energy Agency which verifies there is no diversion of resources to a nuclear weapons development project. It is not for an ad-hoc committee of lackey functionaries, playing the role of foxes guarding the hen house, to say that everything is going just fine.

Any committee the Procurement Working Group sets up for "verification" is simply not recognized by treaty.

That having been mentioned, the Security Council proceeds to supplant the IAEA with its own ad hoc unrecognizable verifiers – those who are not recognized by the NPT treaty signed on to by a multitude of Nations.

* * * * *

