Author: Daniel Castellano

A Declaration at 250

Leave a comment

The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, most notably the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

He has forbidden the Congress to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless they should pass legislation granting him unconstitutional power over elections, as he values his own continued power, by legal or illegal means, above the public good.

He has sought to redistrict various states in a non-census year, even to support an admittedly racial gerrymander, in order to divest people of the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has caused the suspension of the legislative activities of Congress, so that he may invade the rights of the people without restraint.

He has refused for a long time to admit a new member to Congress, knowing full well it would result in the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, again valuing his own personal interests against the public good.

He has endeavoured to limit the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither; unlawfully stripping legal immigrants of their residency, even of citizenship; unlawfully and in defiance of court orders, deporting immigrants without due process to barbarous prisons run by fellow dictators. He has openly disparaged and targeted immigrants on the basis of race, defying our Republic’s second founding on a race-neutral basis. He has slandered racial and ethnic groups, inciting violence against them, and using the full force of the state against them, without regard for judicial orders, as is the wont of tyrants everywhere.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by prohibiting prosecution of those who committed the crime of insurrection on his behalf, including pardons for those who assaulted police officers, and conversely persecuting those prosecutors who fulfilled their duty to enforce the law. He has made personal loyalty the sole criterion for retaining public prosecutors, and has openly encouraged them to prosecute his enemies on specious grounds, and to lie in court on his behalf, as numerous judges have confirmed, including those appointed by him. His open declaration of an enemies list for targeted prosecution is an established impeachable offense, an abuse of power.

He has attempted to make Judges dependent on his Will alone, by threatening, disparaging and harassing them, and inciting his supporters against them. By intimidation, he hopes they will make concessions to appease him. By showing himself an enemy of the rule of law itself, and declaring himself beholden to no law or limit besides his own will, he has declared open enmity with a free Republic.

He has created unofficial advisory and temporary roles for the purpose of evading Senate oversight and for the enrichment of his allies on an unprecedented scale of open corruption and self-dealing. He has repeatedly promised to give a blanket pardon to all these allies, so they may enrich themselves with impunity.

He has sent among us, in times of peace, armed forces without the Consent of our legislatures or governors.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power, answerable only to his personal will, so the state militia obey him instead of the governors and wars are declared by his whim without consulting Congress, a prerogative desired by all kings.

He has sent large bodies of paramilitary troops into our cities, and has protected them from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.

He has, at various times, sought to cut off our Trade with all parts of the world.

He has imposed unlawful Tariffs on us without our Consent.

He has, in many cases, sought to deprive even legal immigrants of the right to a trial with due process, by removing them from a court’s jurisdiction in the dark of night.

He has transported us beyond Seas to be imprisoned for pretended offences.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring more than half the country out of his Protection and waging War against us as though we were enemies.

He has plundered the seas, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and will do so again if a free election should do anything but confirm his power.

A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, solemnly published and declared that these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States. Accordingly they are Absolved from all Allegiance to any absolute Monarch that would usurp from the People’s Congress the power to Levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. Those who have pledged their lives and their sacred honor to the endurance of a free people must take every action necessary to remove the Monarch from power and erase his name from our memory, except as a byword for tyranny, corruption and folly.

The Complicity of U.S. Conservative Catholics

The U.S. government murdered citizens in cold blood on camera, and then told brazen lies plainly contradicting what was on camera. The U.S. Catholic conservative media was utterly silent about this. Instead they chastised cardinals for speaking out, only obliquely, against the nakedly imperialist actions toward Greenland and Venezuela (the latter including open piracy), and criticized bishops for opposing the inhumane anti-immigration actions of the U.S. government, which seeks to deprive people of Fourteenth Amendment rights and abolish birthright citizenship. Apparently, for them the magisterium of Catholic bishops is secondary compared to fealty to Donald Trump, a shameless nihilist who has made little effort to disguise his malignant narcissism. Much has been said about how Trumpism has destroyed the principles of the Republican Party, which is now a party of nihilism. What is more perplexing is the complicity of Catholic conservatives, who should have recourse to broader, more ancient teachings and sources of authority that contradict Trump, who in fact contradicts himself frequently. It is impossible to be a consistent defender of Trump, or to silently refuse to criticize him, without renouncing every intellectual and moral principle, for he will defy all of them at one point or another. How can a Catholic defend a nihilist?

As I’ve written elsewhere, the cultural Protestantism of the United States permeates even the Catholics who should know better. They adopt the pseudo-messianic doctrine of American exceptionalism, and the ignorant bigotries that are joined to it. Although they were once despised immigrants themselves, they now consider themselves “Americans” and reward newer immigrants with the same hostility. Mass deportation as a means of restoring cultural (read: racial) purity is a popular policy. In the most ancient of racist tropes, anti-immigrant sentiment is stirred up by pointing to a few criminals as representative of the group. In fact, undocumented immigrants commit crimes at much lower rates than native U.S. citizens, and their undocumented status is in most cases a civil offense. (Illegal entry is a criminal misdemeanor, but difficult to prosecute.) Local police departments prosecute violent crimes effectively, regardless of the nationality of the offender. The intentional lie that mass deportation is aimed at expunging criminals is promoted by the openly fascistic and racist Stephen Miller. If the conservative Catholic commentariat cannot find fault with a regime that is willfully cruel and builds concentration camps in the literal sense, their Catholic morality would seem to be of little practical use in the public sphere. They have less moral discernment than the average agnostic.

When it comes to foreign wars, Americans have historically had even less regard for the human rights of other nationalities, so here the silence of the conservative Catholics is more to be expected, though some may object on less noble grounds, namely not wanting to commit U.S. resources. In this case, the dictator posing as president has dispensed with even the pretext of seeking authorization from Congress or from any international body. There is at least a fig leaf of a casus belli, but it is so laughable – that Iran was going to attack the U.S. if it was attacked – as to be a mockery and utterly pretextual. This is, after all, a regime that routinely lies in court and declares fictitious emergencies to justify illegal tariffs and deportations to hellish prisons in third countries. The statement, “Donald Trump is a pathological liar,” diminishes both the writer and reader, that they should have to stoop to declaring something so copiously documented. What is relevant here is that truth should not be just one value among many for a conservative Catholic intellectual. It should be a supreme value, and one who disdains it so brazenly should elicit the deepest revulsion in a Catholic, even if his actions were not criminal.

The U.S. has practiced political assassination, in violation of its own law and of international law, for decades. Reagan attempted to kill Qaddafi, and instead killed his adopted daughter. George H.W. Bush tried to kill Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. Obama authorized 43 targeted assassinations. Trump in his first term famously assassinated an Iranian general, and thenceforth was fearful that he would be assassinated in return, so he discouraged mention of it. Now we are not even pretending to need any reason besides, “he was a bad man,” which would have horrific implications. The simplistic idea that killing the bad guy will make everything well is not only false; it is a brazenly consequentialist rationale for murder. Catholic teaching about assassination is even stricter than the law, but one would never know that from the silence of the conservatives. Shall we go for some lower hanging fruit, such as the destruction of a girl’s school? Shall we go beyond the sanitized Western media, and describe the dismembered limbs and heads strewn all over that school? Shall we describe a similar scene at a plaza where the sickeningly clinical “double tap” strike was employed, to inflict maximum casualties when rescuers come out? Israel has been doing this for years. It would be useless to profess outrage now if one has condoned this silently for so long.

I will not attempt to give an exhaustive list of the moral and legal outrages conducted by this regime – I will not call it an administration. You can use AI for that. A mere mention of some of the more egregious acts should suffice for anyone who has not allowed their moral sense to be deadened. If any of this makes your blood stir, you should rejoice that you are still truly alive. At the same time, beware that your anger does not cause you to emulate the enemy.

A Constitutional Amendment to Limit Executive Overreach

Over the past year, Americans have learned that many of the supposed restraints on executive branch power are defined only by norms rather than written law, and that legal action for redress is often prevented by questions of standing, sovereign immunity, narrow standards for injunctive relief, and timelines for review that can render litigation impotent in the face of a normless government willing to act pretextually. The proposed constitutional amendment does little more than restore in writing what has been implicit in the Framers’ intent and in the expectations of the American people.

The executive branch is expected to comply with the law, but what recourse does Congress have if the executive should thumb its nose at the law? Under Article I of the proposed amendment, Congress would have standing to bring civil actions to ensure compliance with appropriation laws, statutory directives and constitutional limitations on executive power.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens may sue state officials who violate their rights, yet Americans may be surprised to learn that no similar right exists with respect to federal officials. Article II of this amendment would close this gap, allowing citizens to sue federal officials who violate constitutional limits or clearly established law. It doesn’t eliminate qualified immunity—officers can still defend themselves by proving their actions were authorized. It doesn’t create unlimited liability—governments may indemnify their employees. What it does is ensure that when federal officials harm you by breaking the law, you have a remedy, just as you do when state officials violate your rights. This is the accountability the Framers intended, and that most Americans assume already exists.

What do we do when a federal officer murders a citizen and the government refuses to prosecute its own officer? In Article III of this amendment, states have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute federal officers for common law crimes and violation of constitutional rights within their territory. A federal court may decide first if the conduct was lawful under federal law and within the scope of official duties. If either element is not established, the state may prosecute.

Article IV would give governors standing to challenge federalization of the National Guard, and prevent the deployment of federal National Guard units for law enforcement without the state’s consent, unless there is a constitutional violation to be remedied.

Article V allows states to use State Defense Forces to prevent unconstitutional federal action that would cause irreparable harm, protecting its citizens pending expedited judicial review of the proposed federal action.

Together, these amendment articles give various actors (Congress, the states, private citizens) the ability to defend themselves legally and physically from lawless executive action, without abandoning qualified immunity for officials or compromising the supremacy of federal law. Articles I-IV shift the burden of proof to the executive branch to demonstrate lawful authority, rendering impotent those who would thwart the law by lying shamelessly. While our Constitution to date has assumed virtuous actors, this can no longer be safely assumed, unfortunately. Just as the Civil War amendments were necessary to prevent malfeasance by state governments, so this amendment is needed to prevent disregard of the separation of powers by an amoral executive branch.

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EXECUTIVE LAWLESSNESS
ARTICLE I: CONGRESSIONAL STANDING AND ENFORCEMENT
Section 1: Congress shall have standing to bring civil actions in federal court to enforce compliance with appropriations laws, statutory directives, and constitutional limitations on executive power. A majority vote of either chamber shall be sufficient to authorize such suits.
Section 2: Such actions shall receive expedited judicial review, with district court decisions required within 90 days and direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Courts may not dismiss such actions on grounds of political question, mootness, or lack of concrete injury.
Section 3: When Congress establishes a prima facie violation of law or constitutional limits, the burden shifts to the executive branch to demonstrate lawful authority for the challenged action.

ARTICLE II: ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY LIMITS ON FEDERAL POWER
Section 1: No person acting under color of federal authority shall deprive any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this Constitution or by Acts of Congress, nor shall any such person violate clearly established statutory limitations on federal power.
Section 2: Any person injured by violation of Section 1 shall have a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or other appropriate remedy against the responsible federal officer or employee in their individual capacity.
Section 3:
(a) In actions brought under this Article, federal officers may assert as a defense that their conduct was authorized by clearly established law at the time of the action.
(b) The burden of proving such authorization rests with the defendant officer.
(c) Good faith belief in legality shall not constitute a defense if the violation was of clearly established law that a reasonable officer would have known.
Section 4:
(a) Prevailing plaintiffs under this Article shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
(b) Courts may award fees to defendants only upon finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous or brought in bad faith.
Section 5: The United States and the several States may establish procedures for indemnification of officers held liable under this Article. The availability of indemnification shall not be a defense to liability.
Section 6: Congress shall have power to enforce this Article by appropriate legislation, including establishment of procedures, remedies, and limitations periods, but may not eliminate or substantially restrict the causes of action created hereby.

ARTICLE III: STATE PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL OFFICERS
Section 1: States retain concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute federal officers and employees for common law crimes and violations of constitutional rights committed within state territory.
Section 2: Federal officers may remove such prosecutions to federal district court solely to determine whether (a) the charged conduct was within the scope of official federal duties, and (b) the conduct was lawful under federal law. The burden of proving both elements rests with the federal officer.
Section 3: If either element is not established, the case shall be remanded to state court. If both elements are established, the case shall be dismissed, provided that federal prosecution for the same conduct is commenced within 180 days, or the state may resume prosecution.

ARTICLE IV: PROTECTION OF STATE NATIONAL GUARD
Section 1: The President may order a state’s National Guard into federal service only:
(a) With the consent of the state’s Governor; or
(b) Following authorization by majority vote of Congress; or
(c) In response to actual invasion or imminent threat to national security.
Section 2: Governors shall have standing to challenge federalization orders in federal court, with expedited review required within 72 hours. The federal government bears the burden of demonstrating that one of the conditions in Section 1 is satisfied.
Section 3: Federalized National Guard units may not be deployed for domestic law enforcement within any state without that state’s consent, except pursuant to specific congressional authorization identifying the constitutional violation being remedied, or court order following a finding of constitutional violation.

ARTICLE V: STATE DEFENSE FORCES
Section 1: States may organize, train, and maintain defense forces not subject to federal military authority, in numbers not exceeding twenty percent of their National Guard strength, for protection of state territory, institutions, and constitutional order.
Section 2: When a Governor, with approval of a constitutional majority of the state legislature, certifies that federal action within the state appears to violate the Constitution and that immediate interposition is necessary to prevent irreparable harm, state defense forces may act to prevent implementation of such federal action pending judicial review.
Section 3: Upon such interposition, the challenged federal action shall be stayed within that state. The matter shall receive expedited judicial review commencing within 72 hours in federal district court, with mandatory appeal to the Supreme Court within 30 days.
Section 4: If courts uphold the federal action, the state shall immediately comply. Continued resistance after adverse final judicial ruling shall subject state officials to federal prosecution. If courts invalidate the federal action, the federal government shall bear all costs of litigation and any damages resulting from attempted enforcement.