Friday, July 29, 2016

Do You Understand the Separation of Power's?



Do You Understand Separation of Power’s?

The Powers of the three branches of government are established in section 1 of each Article, I, II, and III of the Constitution. 

Quite simply: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…Senate and House of Representatives; The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…; The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts.”  

I have not found an explicit declaration that the branches may not intervene in the ‘business’ of the other branches. This is because their duties are described implicitly (by terms that have universal understanding—executive, legislative, judicial—with no overlap.

The current suit against the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) is claiming a violation of the separation of powers by a legal mechanism called “quo warranto.” The central claim is that the department—an executive branch agency—cannot repeal legislation; specifically Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC).  ICC is statutory authority granted to the executive by the legislative, to contract with other states to transfer inmates.  This contracting authority has to come from the legislature.  Imagine if the governor had free reign to enter the state into any contract!

The judicial branch, in turn, verifies the validity and legal integrity of statutes, as well as hears cases of non-compliance with statutes.  The claim at issue is:  Repeal of the Statute; by very intentional ignorance of the statute.

The primary intention of the suit is to break the obstruction prohibiting my application for transfer to Maine.  The secondary intention is as a ‘stalking horse’, to see if the Colorado Attorney General will argue for an executive branch right to ignore statutes.  They will have to first argue that there is not a separation of powers issue…that denial of the existence of a statute is not a repeal of statute…maybe just and option to obey a statute, but not an obligation! I do hope they pursue this optional statute argument, because it is a violation of the AG’s oath to the People and proves the claim.

If the AG should argue for CDOC omnipotence…I slipped in the power word because I’ve lived under their unchecked authority for so long…; let’s euphemize that a little from omnipotence to…authority to ignore statutes that may benefit inmate rehabilitation; I would ask who they argue for.  This is politically relevant, more than legally relevant. The answer is Corrections Corporation of America—the bête noire in the story.

This dovetails into the original piece I wanted to write, questioning how “The People” came to be so misrepresented. It spawns the foundational question of who our institutions are working for; the corporate construct? Did we let it happen or are we victims? Answer: Mostly victims, the authority was passed to the corporate construct away from public view and input.

Can we recover out arrogated liberty?  No. Revolution and reconstitution has become the only option.

I’m going to leave it parenthetically pushed off the cliff there—with revolution and reconstitution.  Any criminal defendant since Reagan, or maybe Bill Clinton’s AEDPA, can tell you this is the path.

Keep an eye on Colorado Appellate Case, 16CA949.

It is my only hope to get back to Maine and make a legal point about prison corruption.

Peace,
Jason

No comments: