John Ashcroft
06-18-2004, 03:50 PM
John Kerry, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for President of the United States, has been caught stealing from the American taxpayers – and he should be ashamed of himself.
Title 2, Section 39, of the United States Code clearly states that “[t]he Secretary of the Senate ... shall deduct from the [salary] of each Member ... the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate ... unless such Member ... assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family."
The plain and unambiguous meaning of this statute is that a Senator who misses work doesn’t get paid – just like ordinary Americans. Unfortunately, the Secretary of the Senate, Ms. Emily Reynolds, has improperly, and inappropriately, declined to carry out her statutory duty – i.e. to dock the pay of Senators who miss work. When pressed, Ms. Reynolds explained, in a response to a letter by David Keene of the Carmen Group, that since her predecessors in the position failed to carry out the law, she won’t either. This reasoning is absurd – and unlawful.
An officer of the Senate is bound by the law as it applies to that officer. When the law states that an officer of the Senate “shall” do something, that officer is bound to carry out the mandate of the law. If individuals were free to ignore the law as they pleased, our society would fall apart. The Secretary of the Senate is no exception – she is not above the law. Her failure to carry out the mandate of Title 2, Section 39 is a clear violation of federal law. However, ultimate culpability does not end with Ms. Reynolds.
Ignorance of the law, in American society, is never a valid defense to the commission of an unlawful act – thus, all Americans are charged with knowledge of the law. Lawyers, who are, ideally, learned in the law, should be held to a higher standard; though it sounds like an oxymoron, they are indeed held to a standard of lawyers’ ethics.
A United States Senator, charged with promulgating the law, and especially a Senator who is a lawyer, thus, must be held to the highest standard of legal and ethical conduct. John Kerry is both a Senator and a lawyer. As such, Senator Kerry is charged with knowledge of the law and must be held to the highest standard of legal and ethical conduct. In this respect, Kerry is a “miserable failure.”
John Kerry is charged with knowing that the Secretary of the Senate is to dock his pay when he fails to show up for work – and that there is no exception in the law for campaign activities. Thus, any payment made to a Senator in violation of Title 2, Section 39 is an illegal payment of funds from the U.S. Treasury and, legally speaking, theft of taxpayer money – John Kerry is presumed to know that these payments are illegal. Therefore, by knowingly accepting these illegal payments, Senator Kerry himself is breaking the law.
While, of course, this rationale applies to all Senators, John Kerry warrants special condemnation: Senator Kerry is running for President and he has the most dismal attendance record in the Senate; Kerry has been absent, without valid excuse, 87 percent of the time this session! Ergo, John Kerry is the most flagrant offender – and “everyone is doing it” is not a reasonable excuse. Further, an ordinary American who is absent from their job 87 percent of the time wouldn’t merely be docked pay – that person would be fired!
In the interest of restoring the rule of law, I have personally filed a formal ethics complaint against both Senator Kerry and the Secretary of the Senate with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, which has jurisdiction over this matter. It is quite sad that it takes the efforts of a mere law student to force a candidate for the Presidency to obey the law that, if successful, he will be sworn to uphold himself.
This matter draws yet another bright line between Senator Kerry and President Bush. When then-Governor Bush ran for President, he declined to accept his salary, as Governor, when he needed to campaign full time – even though Texas law did not require him to do so. On the other hand, though Unites States law requires Kerry not to accept his salary when he campaigns full time and cannot be present in the Senate, Kerry has opted to accept his salary illegally.
Jonathan Stein is on staff at the Hofstra Law Review and has been published in the Washington Times, Brown Daily Herald, NewsMax.com and The Committee for Justice.
Link: here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/18/142727.shtml)
Title 2, Section 39, of the United States Code clearly states that “[t]he Secretary of the Senate ... shall deduct from the [salary] of each Member ... the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate ... unless such Member ... assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family."
The plain and unambiguous meaning of this statute is that a Senator who misses work doesn’t get paid – just like ordinary Americans. Unfortunately, the Secretary of the Senate, Ms. Emily Reynolds, has improperly, and inappropriately, declined to carry out her statutory duty – i.e. to dock the pay of Senators who miss work. When pressed, Ms. Reynolds explained, in a response to a letter by David Keene of the Carmen Group, that since her predecessors in the position failed to carry out the law, she won’t either. This reasoning is absurd – and unlawful.
An officer of the Senate is bound by the law as it applies to that officer. When the law states that an officer of the Senate “shall” do something, that officer is bound to carry out the mandate of the law. If individuals were free to ignore the law as they pleased, our society would fall apart. The Secretary of the Senate is no exception – she is not above the law. Her failure to carry out the mandate of Title 2, Section 39 is a clear violation of federal law. However, ultimate culpability does not end with Ms. Reynolds.
Ignorance of the law, in American society, is never a valid defense to the commission of an unlawful act – thus, all Americans are charged with knowledge of the law. Lawyers, who are, ideally, learned in the law, should be held to a higher standard; though it sounds like an oxymoron, they are indeed held to a standard of lawyers’ ethics.
A United States Senator, charged with promulgating the law, and especially a Senator who is a lawyer, thus, must be held to the highest standard of legal and ethical conduct. John Kerry is both a Senator and a lawyer. As such, Senator Kerry is charged with knowledge of the law and must be held to the highest standard of legal and ethical conduct. In this respect, Kerry is a “miserable failure.”
John Kerry is charged with knowing that the Secretary of the Senate is to dock his pay when he fails to show up for work – and that there is no exception in the law for campaign activities. Thus, any payment made to a Senator in violation of Title 2, Section 39 is an illegal payment of funds from the U.S. Treasury and, legally speaking, theft of taxpayer money – John Kerry is presumed to know that these payments are illegal. Therefore, by knowingly accepting these illegal payments, Senator Kerry himself is breaking the law.
While, of course, this rationale applies to all Senators, John Kerry warrants special condemnation: Senator Kerry is running for President and he has the most dismal attendance record in the Senate; Kerry has been absent, without valid excuse, 87 percent of the time this session! Ergo, John Kerry is the most flagrant offender – and “everyone is doing it” is not a reasonable excuse. Further, an ordinary American who is absent from their job 87 percent of the time wouldn’t merely be docked pay – that person would be fired!
In the interest of restoring the rule of law, I have personally filed a formal ethics complaint against both Senator Kerry and the Secretary of the Senate with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, which has jurisdiction over this matter. It is quite sad that it takes the efforts of a mere law student to force a candidate for the Presidency to obey the law that, if successful, he will be sworn to uphold himself.
This matter draws yet another bright line between Senator Kerry and President Bush. When then-Governor Bush ran for President, he declined to accept his salary, as Governor, when he needed to campaign full time – even though Texas law did not require him to do so. On the other hand, though Unites States law requires Kerry not to accept his salary when he campaigns full time and cannot be present in the Senate, Kerry has opted to accept his salary illegally.
Jonathan Stein is on staff at the Hofstra Law Review and has been published in the Washington Times, Brown Daily Herald, NewsMax.com and The Committee for Justice.
Link: here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/18/142727.shtml)