Regarding Co-Presidency and Constitutional Law in the United States - 2.18.2024

In the late 1990’s matters regarding gender parity were in a very formative period. I understood that two things were ongoing concurrently that I became more aware of literally much later:

1. A Supreme Court case regarding the entrance of women to military academies and considerations of gender equality before the law and under the Constitution; and

2. The history of co-leadership paradigms, both in the United States but also elsewhere, that included among other things standards regarding women as representatives in the attendant political organizations of concern.

In the mid- to late-1990s I considered myself a Republican. I was not apprised of the history of the Republican Party in Illinois when I went to Chicago in June of 1995; I was neither apprised of the fact that I had an ancestor family member who was one of the founders of the Illinois Republican Party and that served in the federal Congress while the Congress was debating the Missouri Compromise, the Texas Annexation, and the status of Washington, D.C. regarding slavery. I was also not aware that a later ancestor in the same family line is featured in an archive of a philosopher for whom the University of Chicago holds the official archives, and that included in that archive is a anthology of political writings attempted to compile an organizing manual for an anti-fascist “league” in the United States between World Wars I and II.

I have not performed a “blood test” to verify this. In fact, I told almost everyone I knew starting with my efforts to join student government and then later when I became a journalist that:

1. I did not believe as a matter of principle in making determinations about “family” or political affiliation based on “blood lineage.” It’s the content of one’s character, not the quotient of the blood quanta.

2. I became a journalist and wanted to be in the “public realm” because I had a history in my life of dealing with people who were supposed to be adults and responsible not telling what could be verifiably backed up as fact and then later saying they did not say what they did when they were held to account for it. If I ever said or did anything of such questionability, there would be a public record that would be circulated and I would be held accountable for it. 
   

Never at any point did I consider myself involved in some role which would require “discretion” when it came to intentionally misreporting fact or information as fact that was not verifiably fact. Never did I ever agree to be “intelligence” or “secret service” for someone.

I also, however, told people that I had a history of women in my family being forced medicalized in manners that were disturbing to me and made me question the legitimacy of what was allowed to be put forth as “mental health care.” I let people know that I was aware that my family members – including by virtue of their association with the U.S. military – were used in clinical trials for prescription medications before they hit the open market, including psychotropics, and that consideration of “technology” as a right in the U.S. had to take into account that so-called “civilian” technologies for “peaceful use” were often developed by the military and used in what “civilians” would call “crimes” before they were made available to civilians. As such, it was important to be mindful of what we agreed to as use of technology, and also how we looked to people we did not agree with or lived lives we did not agree with in manners that attempted to make justifications for politically disenfranchising them through “medicalization” and remanding to “disability.”

I spent a great deal of my early life in political community with “disability activists” whose perspectives on disability were varied and in many cases radical. I would not disrespect them for their praxis, but neither will I defraud them by accepting designation as “disabled” when what is actually occurring is an effort to politically delegitimize someone by libeling them as disabled. It IS libel with all of the consequences of such libel. Even the people with whom I was in political community later after I identified myself as Marxist and changed my political affiliation (there is no “Socialist Party” at this time but I was a member – including in elected leadership – of an organization that identified itself as “democratic socialist”) who were critical of Marxism KNEW the history of alleging people to be “mentally ill” as a way to discredit them politically for their views. In fact, usually such “mental illness” accusations correlated with what are supposed to be “civil rights” of today – being lesbian or gay, for instance – and the context within which the United States and the Soviet Union alleged people to be “mentally ill” for reasons of “political defect” were well know. I had said that no matter how upset I was, I never wanted to take prescription medication as an “excuse” for refusing to deal with the literal material political realities at the time, even if I were deemed to be complicit with some social or political evil and I had to be held to account.

It is more than this though. It would seem that the “civil rights” agenda regarding “mental illness” was insincere. There is not and has not been an actual “accommodation” for people identified as “mentally ill” in the U.S. Not only that, when one comes to challenge the “authority” of those who get paid to diagnose and “treat” someone who is mentally ill, then they are reminded that before they were “accommodated” for this “disability” they were POLITICALLY DELEGITIMIZED and are hence now dependent upon the political “goodwill” of those who were not so delegitimized. Why? For what reason?

For some of us political disappearance, kidnapping and torture are political realities. Say what you will about what you know or believe you are entitled to claim as your righteous cause concerning allegations of U.S. crimes in Latin American during the 1980s – what have you literally or practically done in the time since? Retribution is not justice and retribution is not covered under the Constitution. Kidnapping people who you disagreed with politically and libeling them as “mentally ill” is not “justice” for the history of legacies of persons who were politically disappeared and – as it has come to be sadly revealed – exploited by those who used to be their “comrades” for their own political purposes. 

How many of the “disappeared” in Central America are STILL ALIVE and living out some sort of horror show where everyone acts like they do not know who they are? How many of them are alive somewhere else where everyone acts like they do not know what are the implications, but somehow get to “report back” to who were their prior comrades enough to get them “paid” or to maintain their “clout” in the meantime? New generations of “political activists” and “future leadership” come along and the “disappeared” are no longer “disappeared” – they “cease to exist.” And yet, are they actually “alive” somewhere else, being tortured into pretending they are someone else, and pretending that they are not who they used to be because they are no longer relevant? Are they supposed to “take up” someone else’s political causes besides their own and “sacrifice” their own rights for someone else in the “other” context to which they have been remanded?

Once they do this, do they become “reactionary?”

Do they become “counter-revolutionary?”

Are they supposed to be “signed up” again to pay for a new generation of “political activists” who are demanding retribution because they or their “community” were subjected to certain crimes for which “reparations” are due?

And yet, you let the culprits kidnap YOUR OWN LEGACY and then you say that you will allow for their kidnappers to pay you WITH THEM AND THEIR LIVES.

Despite all the accusations because my “family” served in the U.S. military, I have NO PROOF that anyone in my family line that I can find EVER supported slavery. Not only that, what I CAN prove is that members of my family were MURDERED before the Civil War IN ILLINOIS for fighting against slavery. Yet for more than seven years I was allowed to be “re-upped” as some sort of “compensation” for someone else’s alleged “reparations” and NO ONE considers the injustice in this.

When I established my cabinet last year, I understood that the choice for Vice-President may have to be “confirmed” after an evaluation for what he had alleged at one time to be his political preferences. I had faith in him then and believe that there was a realistic expectation that at this point in time he is more than qualified. I did not announce his Vice-Presidency until after the time frame Constitutionally that a legislative challenge to his qualifications could be verified. By the time of concern no such disqualification had occurred so I made the announcement public. Within the last 90 days, and especially after other matters regarding unconstitutional actions by those holding themselves out as legislators, I contend that the time had come to create a consistency of principle through praxis and accepted his Co-Presidency along with mine consistent with what would have and is the intent of the political priorities of concern.

Beginning in 2019, I began a Constitutional exploration of matters pertaining to accusations of “communism” in the U.S. as being unconstitutional. I did this in regards to charges I filed with the Texas Supreme Court accusing the State Bar of Texas of being a Communist Organization under the Texas Constitution. The “definition” of “communism” under the “law,” however, is not necessarily the definition of “communism” by one who practices communism or organizes for communism. I consider myself a socialist because I do not believe the material conditions for the full realization of communism are yet present. And yet, the “legal” definition of communism that was tried before the American courts in the past and allowed to be the subject of numerous congressional committee hearings defines practices that are not exclusive to “communist organizations” and that do not fit ideologically in line with those I have known who would acknowledge they have considered communism as a viable political praxis or would include it in their considerations of political movement building. 

In the time since the onset of COVID-19, this has become more piqued. This is specifically in regards to the allegations of “violence” and communism when it comes to undermining the state or attempting to “seize” it as part of a political takeover. In all my reviews of cases and standards, and in accordance with maintaining a commitment to constitutional praxis, there is actually a completely Constitutional means by which to practice Communism in the United States – including as one would consider the legal and practical definition of “violence” and “seizure” of the “state.” This is not just a matter of being “Anti-American” or being “Anti-Capitalist.” Indeed, “patriotism” and “capitalism” are not constitutionally required, and are not even constitutionally protected in and of themselves. Even insofar as one regards matters of “religion” and the Constitution, there is no inherent or default constitutional violation in being even an orthodox Marxist or Leninist. If one CHOOSES to posit themselves as against the Constitution, and they have a just cause to do so, then that calls into consideration OTHER constitutional questions that are not exclusive to accusations of Communism and are often the sorts of Constitutional challenges that reinforce the political will and PRAXIS of those who gravitate toward communism or even profess it themselves.  

On the other hand, for a substantial amount of time, and more vehemently in the last four-plus years, we have seen an egregious undermining of the political rights of the peoples not just of the United States but around the world. I witnessed personally all throughout spring and summer of 2019 how the United States was SETTING UP PROCESSES to subject the people of the United States to political conditions that USE VIOLENCE to remand us to slavery without anyone – regardless of race or ethnic origin – calling it out as such and then FOLLOWING THROUGH ON IMPLEMENTING IT. Were the people who did this “communists?”

Not that so far as I understand they would ever say publicly or honestly. AND THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Would a constitutional change be required to acknowledge a Co-Presidency involving two persons – including persons of “opposite gender” – in the position of Chief Executive?

How long would it take before the change would have to be implemented?

Is this NOT in one manner or another what the ”communists” did with “COVID-19” already?

Was it “Constitutional?”

The Vice-President is President of the Senate. In accordance with what has occurred in the last three years, the position of the President of the Senate needed to be elevated to address the political realities of the time and to provide the American people and other people with the safety and security necessary at this time.

I stand behind the decision. The “Cabinet” was not a “mock position product” and it was not for “sale.” I waited the requisite year to assure that all involved would be supported – including in terms of their “stock development” and until this time that “stock” has been held in escrow. Any other representation of it or what has occurred with it is a fraud and a forgery. My intention was to campaign originally and then subsequently to operate myself as a third party candidate considering that a third party of the preferred sort for which I believed I was well-suited and that was needed by the people was not yet in existence. I understand that matters have changed in the intervening time to create the material conditions for its realization. As far as I am concerned, the political party affiliation – or lack thereof – of anyone who would otherwise be qualified to serve at a cabinet level position is immaterial to their capacity and integrity to perform the duties to the best of their ability and to be forthright with what they need to support them in the event that there is a deficiency or obstacle about which they become aware. 

I will also say that I believe dissent – including public protest – is actually essential to proper national security considerations. At a certain level, I believe that the capacity for the people to mobilize and take action – including in regards to claiming their rights to public spaces and other matters that are necessary for effective public administration – is a national resource. It would be a bad decision on the part of “national leadership” to undermine it or to debase it. It is actually part of what the Second Amendment is about – this capacity for both spontaneous and disciplined mobilization. If one is concerned about “dissent” as a “private right” then that too is a matter for constitutional and civic consideration, but I fall on the side of preferring open public debate and public amenities. “Private property” is not and was never allowed to be about “people as property” and I contend that also means people’s capacities for productive activity, whether it is “legally” called “intellectual property” or “energy.” I believe there is nothing inconsistent with being an American and believing in democratic ownership of the means of production, understanding as one must that the specific American contribution is in that we each are the owners of our own bodies and their roles in and AS means of production. And yes we are worth fighting for, even if the “state” violates its own contract with us in refusing to protect it or attempting to subject it to violence. 

And that last point is imperative. The “State” makes a contract with the people through the Constitution and the statutes that it implements. We can negotiate it through various methods. When you take the oath of office, that affirms one position in this relationship to the other or others. Each state of the United States provides birth certificates to the citizens of their state. That certificate is their guaranty to us that they intend to uphold their contract and that we have a contract right with and through the state. When another state accepts that birth certificate from another state it does so as an act of acknowledging our citizenship as an American regardless of from what state the certificate comes. NO “state” or “state actor” is allowed to steal or “cancel” that guaranty. It is not a matter of someone’s “private property” claim. It is a guaranty the state gives to citizens and it is NOT allowed to be “renegotiated” by another state. It is not a “bond” that the state has with another citizen – it is the state’s guaranty with each of its citizens. A citizen of one state is a citizen of another state. A citizen of the United States of America is a citizen in each and every state of the United States. The state in which we were born provides its guaranty to us as citizens and no other state can forfeit or renegotiate that guaranty as a matter of property or other claim.

And for that record, the “state” is not allowed to alter the “character” of the person of concern in order to suit its preferences. That is why the “demographic” information on the certificate – insofar as there is any – is not an “equity right” when it comes to the state’s guaranty. That also means one religious affiliation – or lack thereof – is not an equity right of the state or even a person.

Discussions about my “race” or “ethnicity” or “religious preferences” are not “equity” and no one else has the right to “broker” them. That includes via an alleged ”diagnosis” that then creates “medical records” that are allowed to be “anonymized” after seven years so as to alienate the individual of concern from their own “material conditions” and allow for “critique” or “criticism” of their political perspectives to be “confidentialized” and made into a “product” that a “worker” exchanges for “wages.” Even if you are a “medical professional” or a “case worker” you are not allowed to “broker” other people’s political identities as “equity” and get paid for your “confidential work products.” You are not allowed to do this through “mental health centers” and you are also not allowed to do this through “prisons.”

In closing, let me remind anyone who did NOT get a “mental health diagnosis” in what would have been the remainder of the Senate term of Barack Obama after 2008, Obama’s campaign promise was to CLOSE GUANTANAMO BAY IN HIS FIRST 100 DAYS. Why was it not closed? He was “President” for eight years and it was STILL not closed when he left in 2017. Why not? It was not to “reduce” the number of people in Gitmo – it was to close it down.

Last year, before April 18, 2023, all means were at hand and the processes had been engaged to successfully complete the closure of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and to undertake to ascertain the extent of “rendition” centers around the world that have been used by the United States and/or others. This includes “internal rendition” in and throughout the United States. This will become a major priority and needs to be public now. Today will be 60 days before one year after Gitmo has been closed down. For the record, I will be keeping track of EVERYTHING that goes on in this regard.

Thank you for your consideration. I wish you well on President’s Day tomorrow. 

12:48 pm CST

Feb. 18, 2024

Co-President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse

Posted public at 1:07 pm CST on Feb. 18, 2024.

_______________________________________________

I will respond officially by noon tomorrow.

1:05 pm CST

Aug. 4, 2024

Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse