Home 911Truth Congress, 9-11, and the Constitution

Congress, 9-11, and the Constitution


An official photo of Dick Cheney as he watches the towers burn

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

Some people have claimed that 9-11 was an inside job. If that were in fact the case, or appeared likely to be the case, what resources are available within the United States federal government to address such a thing?

(Note: “inside job” can mean either that officials or private persons were able to actually perform the destruction of the World Trade Center, such as by a controlled demolition of the buildings, or were able in some other way to direct the events of September 11, 2001.)

In this article I only want to walk through the structure of how the matter could be dealt with, per the United States Constitution. I’m not here to make a case against a particular person. Let’s call the miscreant “John Doe.”

Of course various entities below the level of “United States government” could take action against John Doe. State governments could act, if any of their citizens had died in the Towers or at the Pentagon on 9-11. Private citizens or corporations could sue in court. But this article will look only at the three branches of the federal government, and especially at the legislative branch, Congress.

Executive Branch Nabbing John Doe

Start with the executive branch. The Constitution’s Article II tells us what the job of the president is including, in Section 3: “He shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

President George Washington appointed an Attorney General and eventually there came to be a Department of Justice. This

DoJ contains a group of people known as “US Attorneys.” They can prosecute criminals who have broken federal law.

I am personally very abstemious about what I take to be the subject matter available to the feds to prosecute. (I declare unconstitutional many laws enacted by Congress making such-and-such a federal crime). However some crimes mentioned in the Constitution are: treason, counterfeiting of money, and piracy.

The Attorney General – presently Jeff Sessions – has responsibility for those and also for any crimes added to the Constitution by amendments. In 1919, Amendment XVIII forbade the manufacture of sale of intoxicating liquors. This was called Prohibition; it was repealed in 1933 by Amendment XXI.

Earlier, in 1865, the 13th amendment had said “slavery shall not exist,” and it said “Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Congress then enacted such law, which is codified at 18 USC 1581ff.

(Wouldn’t it be nice to see violations prosecuted today by the aforementioned US Attorneys, now that we are all aware of thousands of persons being trafficked as sex slaves!)

So if John Doe arranged the attacks of 9-11, it is possible for the executive branch of government to step in and prosecute. (First, a grand jury must present a “true bill,” but we won’t go into that now – at present the US Attorneys illegally “boss” the federal grand juries.)

The Judicial Branch Nabbing John Doe

Hmm. This is a tricky one. Article III of the Constitution says “The judicial power of the United States shall be invested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” It says the judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution….”

Why do I say tricky? First, because Congress could ordain a court that would seem to undermine the judicial power of the Supreme Court (see the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 which prevents citizens from having their cases reach the Supreme Court).

Second, because the power “extends to all Cases.” If a matter is not a case – that is, not a civil case brought by a plaintiff or a criminal case brought by the government or by a private party (yes, private prosecutions are possible!), the matter cannot be ruled on by the judiciary.

So you won’t see any of the eight associate justices of SCOTUS, or the Chief Justice John Roberts, “doing anything” about John Doe’s 9-11 sins. They could, however, use the bully pulpit to talk about the issue.

Of course if they came out and said “John Doe looks guilty” they would then have to recuse themselves from adjudicating a case against him. Anyway they never do preach; they are silent.

The Legislative Branch Nabbing John Doe

Congress does not nab. It is not Congress’s job to catch or punish criminals and in fact the Constitution specifically prohibits a legislative bill that would name someone. Article I, Section 9 says “No Bill of Attainder…shall be passed,” and Section 10 also forbids the states to do that.

A 1965 case, United States v. Brown, held that in 1787 the Framers intended that clause to prevent “legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.”

That said, Congress has wide scope to conduct inquiries about any matter that has federal content. It could certainly hold hearings to look into what really happened on 9-11. Thus, I repeat, Congress would not begin with any hint of “attainder.” It would not say “Let’s hold a hearing to see if So-and-So did the attacks.”

Congress could say “Let all come forward who want to give information about what happened.” Anyone might make a submission claiming that there is evidence that John Doe did it. Presumably this would lead to Congress recommending to the Justice Department that they consider indicting the person.

Note: there is one punitive action that the legislative branch has constitutional power to perform, namely impeachment.

So, say Vice President Richard Cheney were fingered for having given issued a stand-down of fighter jets that could have chased after hijacked planes that day. He could have been impeached while still in office (he remained in office for 7 years after September 21, 2001), by the House of Representatives. The case would have then been sent to the US Senate for conviction.

(“Conviction” does not mean criminal conviction; it means getting kicked out of office. But after that takes place the person is liable to be charged with crime.)

What Congress Has Actually Done about 9-11

The first thing Congress did about 9-11 was to bite its Article I, section 8 tongue and allow President Bush on October 8, 2001 to start bombing the preferred John Doe, Osama bin Laden.  That is, Congress sinned against the Constitution by not taking the responsibility to declare war.

You could almost say Congress wrote a bill of attainder against Bin Laden. (I do not claim that this offends the Constitution; only our own citizens are entitled to the protection of no-bills-of attainder).

Anyway our military did not actually target Bin Laden, who was a citizen of Saudi, but rather bombed Afghanistan where bin Laden was allegedly hiding.

Next, on October 26, 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act — WITHOUT HAVING READ IT. Since the story was that Muslims had hijacked four planes and brought down the Twin Towers, there was suddenly a perceived need to protect Americans against further disaster.

The official name of the Patriot Act is: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.”

Next, Senators Lieberman and McCain introduced legislation for a Commission to investigate 9-11. This group eventually

produced “The 9-11 Commission Report.”  It reported all “facts” about the hijackers without criticism of the basic premises and without taking into account any submissions that challenged the media’s line.

Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah (who as of 2017 has been a senator for 40 years), gave a peculiar statement about the formation of the Commission. He said:

“I rise to discuss briefly my vote on the September 11 Commission. I joined in the amendment proposed by my good friends from Connecticut and Arizona because it is the right thing to  do. Sitting as I do on both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, it has become clear to me over the past year that many different causes contributed to the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11. I have become convinced that we need to take a hard look at how this tragedy happened in order to better understand how we might avoid a similar tragedy in the future. …”

He was referring to government’s failure to stop the Muslims before they did what they did. He also spoke up for another branch:

“While I believe that a September 11 Commission should be appointed, I also think that the administration should have some voice in its makeup. The amendment establishes a 10-member commission with all of the 10 members appointed by the majority and minority leaders of Congress. It is fitting that Congress play a large role in defining the membership of this Commission, but it is striking to me that the Administration has no voice at all. … I would call upon my colleagues to think

seriously about providing the administration with some role in defining the Commission.”

Indeed the White House, in 2004, was allowed to have great say in the Commission, getting the Commission to agree that the president and vice-president could testify jointly, in private, THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH, and that their statements would not be recorded!

The White House chose Henry Kissinger to lead the 9-11 investigation, but after public protests he resigned. Thomas Kean, former governor of New Jersey, led the Commission.

The Final Report of the 9-11 Commission starts with this:

“Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States. Millions of men and women readied themselves for work. Some made their way to the Twin Towers, the signature structures of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Others went to Arlington, Virginia, to the Pentagon. Across the Potomac River, the United States Congress was back in session. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, people began to line up for a White House tour. In Sarasota, Florida, President George W. Bush went for an early morning run.”

The last chapter of the report presents the findings of that Commission about “failures of intelligence.” That chapter starts with:

“As presently configured, the national security institutions of the U.S. government are still the institutions constructed to win the Cold War. The United States confronts a very different world today. Instead of facing a few very dangerous adversaries, the United States confronts a number of less visible challenges that surpass the boundaries of traditional nation-states and call for quick, imaginative, and agile responses.”

I now quote from the Senate’s wrap-up of legislative efforts regarding 9-11:

Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention and Act of 2004, which created a Director of National Intelligence to coordinate the work of 15 federal intelligence agencies and established a National Counter Terrorism Center to analyze intelligence information – “connecting the dots” so the government could take effective action to detect, prevent, and disrupt terrorist activity.

To ensure appropriate oversight from Congress, the Senate expanded the Committee’s jurisdiction in S. Res. 445 and changed the Committee’s name to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The new Department of Homeland Security was tested for the first time when Hurricane Katrina, the largest natural disaster in recent U.S. history, struck the Gulf Coast in August 2005.  The inadequate response by all levels of government to this disaster underscored the need to better prepare for both natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

The most recent Congressional intervention into matters arising from 9-11 has consisted of legislation in 2016 that permits US citizens to sue foreign governments with regard to the events of 9-11. So strong was Congress on this that it overrode a presidential veto. This was the first time in Obama’s 8 years of office that Congress overrode a veto by him.

Owing to this new law, families of 9-11 victims are suing the government of Saudi Arabia. Their claim is that:

“through a network of the kingdom’s officers, employees and/or agents who met with and aided the hijackers, providing them with money, cover, advice, contacts, transportation, assistance with language and U.S. culture, identification, access to pilot training and other material support and resources.”


I am currently a Republican Party candidate for the US Senate, in a special election in Alabama. If elected I may be out of step with the 99 others in that chamber if they all believe “9-11” is a closed issue.  However, it is the responsibility of the executive, not Congress or the judiciary to deal with it.

Besides the three branches of government there are two other parties to the Constitution – the states and the people. They can find creative, Constitutional ways to grapple with anything that needs grappling with.

— Mary Maxwell would like to hear from you at her campaign website: MaxwellForSenate.com




  1. Don’t ask me why but the phrase “fiddling while Rome burned” came to mind, and I was lucky to find this etymology of “fiddle” in a 1947 article in Classical Journal, by Mary Gyles:

    With the increasing importance of Anglo-Saxon as a literary medium, innumerable references to fithele (fiddel) are found. Early in the fourteenth century the word is still spelled with the “thorn” (fiþel). Soon after Chaucer writes, “Than robes riche, or fithele, or gay sautrye”; and Piers Plowman says sadly, “Ich can not tabre ne trompe ne telle faire gestes, . . . ne fithelen at festes, ne harpen.” Among the variations in spelling that appear are fythel, fydill, and fyddel; not until 1589 does the word appear in the modern form fiddle.

    Apparently until about 1530, the term was applied only to musical instruments. Thereafter a distinctly new trend appeared, one associated with the modern expression “to fiddle around.” This use seems to have arisen from the disrepute into which the wandering minstrel had fallen. In 1607, Dr. Cowel’s law dictionary, The Interpreter, defines a minstrel as a “fidler” or “piper.” These “fidlers,” formerly welcome, were considered in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance period as roisterers and idlers, and as active in spreading social unrest. [Wow.]

    By the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I, they were believed dangerous enough for Parliament to promulgate an “Acte for the Punishment of Rogues, Vagabonds, and Sturdy Beggars.” Minstrels were expressly classified as “Sturdy Beggars,” and only those belonging to Barons or other honorable personages” were excepted from the act. Hence to fiddle received a new meaning. By the seventeenth century it acquired the non-musical significance of acting idly or frivolously.

  2. Not being a academic, I thought Locke the English philosopher, circa 1650- 1710, is that right? had something to do with the American constitution reference guns, I believe was to have guns if a corrupt government that became a oppressive force to the people? to use arms against government, of course now governments having huge power of military would no longer work in the way Locke had in mind.
    As we can see in terrorism today the ability for the individual working as a terrorist can inflict huge damage on any system, even if one is not a terrorist but a individual regarded as being more or less a terrorist can inflict a cost to the society such as Assange, now I estimate some 30 million dollars in police costs, also with mass uprising of the masses could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to incarcerate, in this sense those who are on the short side of the slice of the cake can have some gratification in becoming a terrorist, as the third world is fairly impoverished as a result of first world policies, will not run out of terrorist activity for some time.
    As America flaunts the integrity of the Founding Fathers of American democracy will most likely destroy America from the inside out rather than from the outside in, the twin Towers having the stigma of in part a inside job as many inside jobs are now on the agenda will erode the public belief that governments are now in active collusion with terrorists.
    The morality of the establishment being eroded by the 1% and cronies as is believed by many as being so, in the quest to stay in power will destroy not only in time the 1% but also most of the worlds population physically and spiritually, it is doubtful the few who may be enlightened are not enough to slow down the train as it approaches the red light of no return.

    • Don, when you were a kid in England, were you taught about the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381? It sounds to me like it really happened but as far as I can judge the other ones were top-down engineered (certainly Bolshevik and French). I believe the tea being thrown in Boston Harbor was emgineered also.

      So I doubt your remark about a mass uprising. I see no sign of it. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that lethargy is contagious? Genreally speaking we do what we see being done around us.

      Come back at me if you know otherwise. Also, I am now living in a very military town. You say “governments have huge power of military,” but each of the troops is a vulnerable lad — and maybe a lad with ideas that contradict the Plan.

      And then there are the lassies. Hmm. Maybe that was a wrong move!!!

      • I had not been educated in the Peasants uprising? I heard about it much later, the Silver Street Secondary Modern School, in Edmonton London, was not for education it was a state institution to prepare the lower classes for factory fodder, you may know the movie? Look Back in Anger, I presume this is a classic on the working class and all part of the oppressive class system, and all so fodder for the military, infantry, these are the first to be killed and all for the benefit of the elite money making, same as Anzac, fodder for being massacred designed by those who had public school education.
        I think it was Locke who had the idea of uprising against the ruling class if found to be corrupt, it would not be possible to arise against the establishment today for many reasons, the police coming historically from private enterprise of the rich and remains predominately for the rich today.
        If terrorism became widespread would be a problem, for establishment also the police such as the CIA and MI5 and so on are well equipped to destroy uprisings, as more people become disenfranchised could become a problem especially if their is no organization but individuals whom kill as singular units with no affiliation or connected, but know the idea of picking their targets with discernment.
        As we come to a more technological society such as fast trains the security to keep the society safe will blow out costs of holding it together, it will be to the advantage of the elite to support terrorism but if it gets to a critical state, Rothschild may not be safe.

        • You mean Uneasy lies the head that wears a Rothschild beanie? No doubt. Even the deluded have bodies that tell them they are in trouble.

          Don, skipping your qq about Locke for a moment as I will see if Her Bossness would like me to hold forth at article length, I hereby offer you Section 2 of the Alabama state Constitution of 1901:

          “That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.”

          • I suggest Mary the sentiments you quote, re Sect 2 of the Alabama State Constitution 1901, having a lofty ideology is far from the truth, it is not the people in power but the lobbyists whom have a political doctrine to frustrate and alienate the people.
            You remember here in Australia, no individual was deemed qualified to change Telstra from public ownership to privatization or corporation, the change brought in by a American was to give you 10 seconds to leave a message! this generosity to Australian people as I presume freedom of speech, was one of the changes, he walked out of Australia with, from memory 33 million dollars, it is this inept propaganda by our politicians and I may suggest their is a link between a global conspiracy to misrepresent the people? such as those in Alabama and Canberra.
            It is a unwritten creed understood by those in power, to the outsiders mainly the 90%, a dislocation of sentiments of a noble creed and the reality to many a nightmare of existence, sometimes for some, alleviated by a tattoo, a stomach band, silicon for a breast implant or a Harley Davidson.

    • Locke lived from 1632 to 1704 and is considered one of the greatest English philosophers. He is also regarded as one of the first ’empiricists’ after the style of Rene Descartes, who greatly influenced him; a founding psychologist; a constitutionalist of note; one of the first ‘Whigs’ – that morphed into the Liberal Party; was a classical scholar and teacher at Christ Church, Oxford; friend, confidant and secretary to the Earl of Shaftesbury, for a short time holding the top government job next to the king; and in his spare time(!) physician, member of the Royal Society, traveller, writer and political manipulator. His works on Human Understanding, Government, health, education and the money supply were not printed and circulated anonymously (1689) until he felt it safe to do so after the ‘Glorious Revolution’, which he partly engineered, and which created a new (protestant) constitution which enshrined the principles he had advocated. He had long had financial and administative connections to the American colonies, and with Shaftesbury he drafted the constitution of Carolina, which was never actually implemented. However his lasting impact was on the 1776 Constitution itself which virtually reused his words and incorporated them and many of the principles he had enunciated, in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself. Not for nothing did Thomas Jefferson regard Locke as one of his trinity of ‘greatest men’. (The other two were Bacon and Newton) Yet today few I guess recognise his name let alone appreciate his contribution to the liberties and protections which we have enjoyed, fast being eroded and despised by a powerful clique. Perhaps we all need a crash course in Lockean thinking?

        • Interesting. Thanks. Of course not everyone then or now agree(d) it was ‘glorious’ or a ‘revolution’.

        • FROM WIKIPEDIA: Portland wrote to William in 1697 that “the kindness which your Majesty has for a young man, and the way in which you seem to authorise his liberties … make the world say things I am ashamed to hear.” This, he said, was “tarnishing a reputation which has never before been subject to such accusations”. William tersely dismissed these suggestions, however, saying, “It seems to me very extraordinary that it should be impossible to have esteem and regard for a young man without it being criminal.”

  3. As in Mary’s 9.40 comment, we see every State and Federal treasurer, fiddle the figures in each budget each year.

    It is noted that the US has 15 security agencies, but they were not effective to keep Americans safe from the 9/11 attack. Why then do these agencies exist and why all the duplication?

    We, I believe have two security agencies but neither were able to prevent the murder of Harold Holt, the Hilton Hotel bombing, the Port Arthur massacre or the Sydney siege. Does this not pose some very important questions?

    Furthermore, is it a coincidence that none of the above type actions happened here in Australia before the birth of ASIO?

    • I’d just like to point out that Eddy and Aussiemal are Vietnam veterans and this seems to matter a great deal.
      I notice that veterans speak with more sureness than civilians. It could be because they were thrust into extreme situations and when you are hit that hard by realities that are “off,” you can’t help trying to re-balance the world.

      By the way, today is Memorial Day here.

      From Lawrence Binyon’s “For the Fallen,” 1914:

      They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
      Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
      They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
      They fell with their faces to the foe.

      They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
      Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
      At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
      We will remember them.

  4. The FACTS are, there is an Authority that ordered the stand down of the systems put in place to prevent such an act.
    It is CLAIMED, the stand down order came from none other than
    To this day, not one person has persued this issue from Cheney, or anyone else, who was involved with the carrying out of that order.
    This, in of itself, is a very strange way to behave by the media and the security organisations responsible for the security of the U.S. and it’s a massive RED FLAG to anyone with even half a brain. It also shines attention on the President himself at the time, for not following thru with that investigation, which he should have done.
    The whole thing is, as if it simply didn’t happen.
    It has been stated, basicly, “we lost the plot”. Yet despite the massive failures, not one person or persons have lost their jobs as a direct result of those failures.
    This raises the question, what exactly must someone do in those organization before they are fired ??????????
    There’s plenty evidence available of people had the back bone to follow thru with it.
    B.T.W. there are also people who have instigated legal action against their Government on this issue, but have been stone walled by the very legal system that’s supposed to ensure the safety of all Americans.
    So at the end of the day, it matters diddly, what the law books say, since 911 it would seem the U.S. Government has thrown such niceties away and don’t follow any law anyway, as verified by the above line wherein folks have already instigated legal action, but stone walled by the Judicury.

    • Yes of course you are welcome. All my stuff is free. (As is Dee’s) and any way Copyright law has so weakened, thanks to Disney legislation, if I my call it that, that everyone can pilfer galore.

      Timothy, I like your two comments above. I have not yet opened the links.

      • Thanks for that Mary. You may spot I have also added a little piece below on one of my ‘heroes’ John Locke as he was raised in converstion. Hope you don’t mind. Regards, Tim.

  5. You may also be interested in my own recent ones on the Westminster and Manchester attacks? Apart from other parallels, I am sure you will have noticed how the CIA and FBI failings in the 9/11 case have been repeated in these two British instances. Whether by incompetence or design awaits to be seen. Further in common with 9/11, quite incredibly, not one official or politician has been held accountable for the obvious and disastrous failures in security!

  6. Incidentally I am of the opinion that it is a sad fact that most of said “terrorism” in the world is generated by the military/industrial complex, and much by the very states said to be fighting it!

    Such is the mountain of historical evidence, it would be wise to shift the burden of proof in every case of so-called ‘terrorism’, for government to prove it is NOT behind it at some level or other.

      • It is no surprise Kennedy would be killed, those in power are still controlled, you are not allowed to support the end of war? to much money is lost by those who control military, the lobbyists would not accept radical views such as John Kennedy, although from a privileged family will not save those whom offend the status quo.

        • I see those event in ’63 as a water shed moment, the consequences and fulfilment of which we are seeing at the moment. Somehow or other the generality of the people HAVE to seize back power from those that have usurpt it but that’s not easy. Often revolution has the opposite effect to that intended. The people seek honesty, justice and peace but it’s not what they get.

  7. There has only been one, scientific, completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse DEMOLITION!

    WTC 7 Evaluation is a two-year study by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. It is being crowd-funded through the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    WTC 7 Evaluation is a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. The final report is scheduled for release in August 2017.

    A preliminary report has been released and Hulsey said that the team has already investigated the theory that fire caused the building’s collapse. “It is our preliminary conclusions, based upon our work to date, that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building.”

    When their study concludes, a panel of experts will be allowed to analyse the data and submit the study to peer-reviewed journals. The WTC7 Evaluation project will also include a review by a committee of technical experts who will vet the research being conducted by Dr. Hulsey and his students.

    Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko was killed a car accident in the Netherlands. He was reportedly driving from church when he collided head-on with a tree. Before that though, he made some observations.

    Surely scientific facts, expert opinion, common sense, truth, justice, must prevail. Go Mary!

    • OK, Fair, and thanks for pointing out the church accident.

      If I remember correctly, the former husband of Senator Jeannie Ferrie (from SA) died in a one-car accident when planning to attend her funeral (ovarian cancer, she).

      He was editor of the Canberra Times and may have had a few choice things to say by way of a eulogy. Jeannie too was a journo — from NZ — and was one of Parliament’s best spokespersons for the farmers.

      That said, I make the following comment about the importance of the one scientist you mentioned (Jowenko), and I apply it to our dear Fair Dinkum as well:

      “For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,
      For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,
      For the want of a horse the rider was lost,
      For the want of a rider the battle was lost,
      For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,
      And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.”

      (attributed to Ben Franklin, I think)

    • There is no getting away from the fact that virtually ALL the significant actors in the humongous crime of 9/11 were Zionist Jews or supporters of it/them. Leaving aside the matter of criminal culpability, why would the political establishment not even recognise this fact? If unpersuaded see: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=9/11+israel Until this nettle is finally grasped, how can the world even begin to escape its dastardly consequences?

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion