It is appropriate to start off with some Constitutional wisdom from the Father of the Constitution, before we proceed.
It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
--James Madison, Federalist N
o 62
In the previous article, “
Which Came First, the Rooster or the Egg?“, we were focused on the original charge, violation of 18 US Code § 432, which was the charge in the
original Indictment,
dated February 3, 2016. Though the government did the intimidation,
the defendants are charged with that crime, there is nothing to
demonstrate that the defendants intimidated or threatened anybody.
Just over a month later (I guess it took the United States Attorneys
that long to try and find something a little more, well, tenable, to
charge the defendants with), a
Superseding Indictment
was filed on March 8, 2016. It is with Count 2 of the Superseding
Indictment that we will be discussing, here, along with both logical and
historical perspectives.
Before we proceed, you may want to refresh your memory, from another
earlier article, in which it was apparent to Representative Greg Walden,
in his
Speech on the Floor of the House of Representatives
(Published January 8, 2016 – 24 minutes), that if Congress makes a law,
pursuant to the Constitution, it doesn’t mean that the Administrative
Agencies are going to abide by that law, or, perhaps, interpret it
contrary to its intent.
So, let’s look at Count 2, as it appears in the Indictment: