Part X
Political Motives behind the Prosecution
of the President
Political Motives behind the Prosecution
of the President 1
The Impeachment Drive put in a Perspective
of the United States Constitution. 3
Appendix
Copy of letter to Mr. Bill Clinton,
President of the United States, January 19, 1993,
sent again on July 1, 1993, regarding
the unconstitutionality of the Iraq War.
Copy of letter to Mr. William J. Clinton,
President of the United States, dated October 11, 1998,
regarding the United States War in Yugoslavia,
as well as the matters of this Treatise.
Copy of a letter to Representative David Bonior,
dated October 13, 1998, regarding
the threatened renewed United States war in Yugoslavia.
Political Motives behind the Prosecution
of the President
It would not be improper to consider what political motives may be truly behind the present prosecution of the President by the unconstitutional office of Independent Counsel and the Chief Justice's appointments of the "judges" to the "Division" of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who in turn appointed the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, and defined his "prosecutorial jurisdiction." It appears rather obvious that those in the public clamoring for impeachment and conviction of President Clinton are those who are pushing for more war against Iraq! (They also want to be in power, quite obviously, and from that position, promote more militarism, that so corrupts our society.) In this regard, the Author calls attention to a treatise on the Constitution which he issued on January 11, 1991, regarding the matter of the use of force against Iraq, titled, Analysis of the Constitution with respect to the Authority to make War and Alliances, and the Employment of Force against Iraq, and proving that the military action against Iraq taken by President George Bush up to that time, namely, the interdiction of Iraq's shipping, President Bush's hostile declarations against Iraq and its leader, and the war alliance, called the coalition, which he made, as well as his transactions in the United Nations Security Council concerning Iraq, were all unconstitutional.
The treatise was delivered on January 14, 1991 to the office of the President, and a copy to the "legal advisor" of the President's "National Security Council," Mr. Nicholas Rostow. (Both copies were received in the White House on January 14th, three days before the commencement of the attacks on Iraq, which occurred on January 17, 1991. On the same day, January 14th, copies of the treatise were received in the Congress and distributed on that date to several leading members, as the chairman of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, and the chairman of the House's Committee on Foreign Affairs. Also, on January 15, I telefaxed to Rostow's office an addendum to the treatise analyzing the use-of-force authorization resolution passed by the Congress on January 12, and proving that the resolution is unconstitutional! (The Addendum was also telefaxed on the same day to various leading members of Congress.) The United States Government's WAR against Iraq is unconstitutional! I pressed the matter intensively thereafter, including debates with one of Mr. Bush's legal counsellors, Stephen Rademaker, who presently, or as of a few months ago at least, is the counsel for the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives. Later, I issued, and sent to the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Dante Fascell, a Supplement to the treatise, in the form of a 36-page letter plus appendices, dated April 6, 1991, which politely demanded that the Congress investigate the unconstitutionality of the United States' war against Iraq and its tragic consequences. The letter, among other things, critically analyzes the arguments of Mr. Rademaker, who answered my treatise "on behalf of the President," and shows that the January 12 use-of-force authorization resolution was passed in the Senate, and by a narrow vote, 52 to 47, because the chief advocates of the resolution asserted in the congressional debate that the resolution would "enhance the peace." There was absolutely no response by the Congress to that letter, my treatise, addendum, and supplement, despite my repeated inquiries.
I have given Mr. Clinton in the care of his legal advisors of the President's National Security Council in June 1993 a full copy of this treatise, including the Addendum and the Supplement, plus a letter to Mr. Clinton. A copy of that letter is attached in the appendix of the present treatise.
I find that not only is the United States's war against Iraq unconstitutional, but also unconstitutional were the United States' war in Vietnam, in Korea, in Europe, both World War I and II, and now also in Yugoslavia, as I shall demonstrate in a separate work which is being finished. I am relieved somewhat that Mr. Clinton has not ordered renewed bombing of Iraq,(1) though I protest his war making in Europe in Yugoslavia - for instance, the heavy "NATO" bombing attacks in September 1995, and now lately the missile strikes in Afghanistan and the Sudan, again all unconstitutional, and tragically dangerous. I am preparing and finishing a follow-on treatise in these regard, to be attached to a petition or complaint that I shall present to the Government soon. I am sure that the unconstitutional war in Iraq and other unconstitutional activities of military assistance, covert actions and other acts of war in the Middle East, as in Libya, have produced the hatreds against Americans in that region that endanger foreign peoples, as well as our foreign embassies, and our citizens living abroad, and us at home, with possible, even likely, revengeful attacks.
I add that the unconstitutionality of the Independent Counsel statute could not, of course, excuse any misbehavior by a President or other officers of the United States. But in determining what constitute criminal behavior, and more specifically high crimes and misdemeanors, we ought to take into consideration the unconstitutionality of the Independent Counsel statute, and the results of an investigation into all the matters before mentioned that are involved in the Independent Counsel's illegal investigations, and also the analyses given with this treatise proving that Mr. Clinton was illegally compelled to submit to examination in the Paula Jones suit and answer questions of "other women," and therefore, he had committed no federal crimes, pertaining or relating to the Paula Jones suit. See Parts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of this present Treatise.
The Impeachment Drive put in a Perspective
of the United States Constitution.
I feel it necessary also to place the present analysis and commentary of this present treatise in a proper perspective in regards to the bad and sad condition of America that I see existing, pollution and the despoliation of our land and living environment: unhappy living conditions: crime: killings, now by children: rampant criminal prosecutions and imprisonments: automobile deaths and injuries: dangers of catastrophic nuclear accidents: toxic industrial wastes, including radioactive waste materials: dangers still of nuclear war: and now, of dangers of terror bombing attacks and attacks with biological weapons spewing deadly bacteria in the air and water, and so on ad infinitum. I find that the root cause of these, and all the other unhappy conditions in America, and I dare say, much or most of the turmoil of the rest of the world, is the United States Government's unconstitutional activities of war-making, war alliances, foreign assistance, including military assistance and "covert actions," and massive "outer-space" technological projects, and also assumptions of power to govern the internal, domestic affairs of our Country; for instance, promoting and licensing nuclear power plants.
I find by my studies of constitutional law that there are a great multitude of profoundly serious infractions of the Constitution that need to be rectified, and I can only now in this present treatise just mentioned them ever so briefly, and randomly; such as war making to assist and defend foreign nations in their wars and quarrels, in violation of the Constitution, the object of the Constitution being limited to providing for "the common defence of the United States," not the defence, nor the security, of other nations; licensing and promotion of nuclear power plants, causing dangers of reactor accidents with catastrophic radioactive consequences of an enormous horrible magnitude; the Congress authorizing the President to acquire and use nuclear weapons "as he deems necessary in the interest of nation defense," one man given the power to make nuclear war, in violation of the Constitution, and with it the real dangers of nuclear war (and a President has already made a nuclear war!), and regardless of the perversion of the man holding this power.
There is a virtual infinity of other infractions of the Constitution, such as: the Judges of the Courts of the United States usurping the power of the jury in civil suits to decide the matters of fact in issue, thereby denying a party his or her right of trial by jury in cases in law; the Judges of the United States Courts dismissing suits, that is, terminating a suit without hearing and determining the issues of the dispute, as is required by Article III of the Constitution; the erection of Banks, and so an ad infinitum. I refer, for example, to the book that I have written, The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants, published by the University of Massachusetts Press, 1976, specifically, the last chapter on constitutional law, titled "Who should decide?" The chapter gives an introductory proof that the Atomic Energy Act is unconstitutional. I have written more in depth essays and treatises as well, which are available, plus I am completing a full disproof of the Supreme Court's opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland about the Court's unconstitutional doctrine of implied, incidental powers, and a full disproof of the Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Curtiss-Wright that asserted the unconstitutional doctrine of inherent powers in the President to manage the "international relations" of the United States, hence, an inherent power to make WAR.
This Author asserts that the failing quality of analysis which is displayed in the Supreme Court's opinion of Morrison v. Olson, delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist, on the question of the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel statute, is found in practically all Supreme Court opinions that pertain to the major constitutional questions: (a) of foreign affairs powers assumed by Presidents to make war; (b) of the virtually unlimited powers pertaining to domestic affairs assumed by the Congress; (c) of military conscription; and (d) of the duties and powers of the judiciary, Supreme Court opinions that gave unconstitutionally "inherent" powers for the President to make war, and a "vast mass of incidental powers" for the Congress, such as powers to erect Banks, to issue bills of credit (paper money), and to license nuclear power plants, and so on ad infinitum.
The Courts also refuse to carry out their duties to hear and determine causes presented to them, when a citizen in a civil action at law complains of infringement of rights by unconstitutional acts of the United States Government. One example is given here. In 1972 this Author applied to the United States Courts for an injunction against the United States Atomic Energy Commission from licensing and developing nuclear power plants. My legal ground for the suit was that the Atomic Energy Act of the Congress is unconstitutional, and on the factual ground that the operation of nuclear power plants would endanger me and my family with exposure to nuclear radiation, especially in the event of possible catastrophic nuclear eruptions, and thereby would deprive me of my constitutional right to provide for my safety and the safety of my family (Article I of Ohio Constitution, and Amendment IX of the United States Constitution). The United States District Court in Columbus, Ohio, granted the motion of the Government to dismiss the complaint, and ordered the suit dismissed, and did so without a hearing on the matters of law in issue that is, the judge of the Court rejected my law suit without hearing and determining the constitutional issue of the case.
The Government, in its answer to my complaint, guised as a memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss the action, disputed my charge that the Atomic Energy Act is unconstitutional, and thereby argued the merits of the case, and consequently admitting the jurisdiction of the Court). Also, the Government did not answer the complaint as to the factual allegation of the danger of catastrophic eruptions of nuclear power plants and the potential harmful radiation consequences, thereby not disputing the fact alleged in my complaint. The Court of Appeals at Cincinnati, and the Supreme Court of the United States, upheld the order of the District Court. However, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution directs that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ..." Therefore, the Courts of the United States have deprived this citizen of his constitutional right to apply to the Courts to have his complaint heard and determined, and to obtain the remedy due him.
In another example of infractions of the Constitution by the federal Government Judiciary, the chief Judge of the United States District Court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has usurped the power of the jury in the proceedings of a civil suit to judge matters of fact in issue, by judging the credibility of expert witnesses, in a case concerning the Three Mile Island nuclear accident of 1979; somewhat like when Judge Wright in the Paula Jones case denied plaintiff Jones her Amendment VII right to a jury trial, by the Supreme Court's unconstitutionally contrived device of the "summary judgment."
In the Three Mile Island case, the United States Court judge pronounced and published a judgment that my scientific work, more specifically, my nuclear engineering analysis of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident of 1979, is "scientifically unreliable," that by an innuendo my analysis is "riddled with factual inaccuracies and unproven assumptions," and that "Dr. Webb could not assist a jury in understanding the complex facts of the Three Mile Island accident." (This author has a Ph.D. degree in nuclear reactor physics and engineering, and was on the staff of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, Division of Naval Reactors, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, among other nuclear reactor engineering physics qualifications.) Acting on a motion to exclude my "testimony" (my scientific analysis and affidavits regarding the TMI accident) from the scheduled jury trial in a civil case involving claims asserted by about 2000 area residents around the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, or their attorneys, of cancer injury due to exposure to the nuclear radiation emissions of the TMI accident, the Judge of the United States Court in Harrisburg (a) held hearings on the motion, and heard the technical consultants of the moving party, the owners of the TMI nuclear plant, testify that my work is wrong; (b) received and considered the TMI consultants' technical reports which are full of a multitude of allegations that my work is wrong; (c) received and considered the 60-page attorney brief given to the court by the TMI owners devoted to "attacking" my person and work; and (d) pronounced a condemning judgment of my scientific work in a court memorandum (January 5 or 6, 1996, TMI Litigation Proceedings), which has since been published in the leather-bound official court reports that are now on the shelves of every law library in the nation, thereby destroying my reputation (with permanent note of infamy), all the proceedings enumerated above happening without my knowledge: without my being informed by the Court, nor by any of the parties, nor by anyone else, of the motion to exclude my testimony from the jury, and the brief that accompanied it, and of the hearings held on the motion; and all in violation of the right of trial by jury under the Constitution (Amendment VII), as the Court Judge usurped the constitutional authority of the jury to judge the credibility of witnesses. Under the Constitution of the United States, the jury is to examine the evidence and judge the facts in issue, a point which this Author will demonstrated in a future work.
That a United States Court of Law provided for by the Constitution has assumed the power to pronounce a judgment against a man's scientific work and qualifications, and thereby destroy the man's reputation (setting a note of perpetual infamy) without informing the man of the "attacks" on his person and scientific work that were presented to the Court: without informing him of the Court's hearings that were held to hear the testimony of the nuclear company's technical consultants criticizing his scientific work: without giving him the opportunity to refute those criticisms and attacks against his person, and be heard: and without also having the technical disputes about his scientific works judged by a jury, preferably a special jury of experts in physics and engineering all together is just another instance of the abuses and usurpations of power which the Courts of the United States, including the Supreme Court, have made throughout the history of our Republic, save perhaps the first Court under the Constitution. The judges of the United States Courts have not the constitutional authority to judge the credibility of witnesses in civil cases, when a party demands a jury trial, as was the case in that TMI litigation. And more, the judge in that case had not the physics and mathematics competency to judge of the scientific expert testimony. The examination of the facts, including the judgment of the credibility of witnesses, is the sole province of the jury in a trial by jury, which is protected by Amendment VII of the Constitution, but which the judge violated.
This Author hopes, therefore, that those officers and legislators of the Government who may read the present Treatise will understand my point that the infractions of the Constitution pertaining to the office of Independent Counsel" and its criminal investigations and prosecutions, and the United States Courts' involvements and cooperations in the background, are but a part of the whole-scale disintegration of Constitutional Government pushed and effected over the years by the erroneous dicta of the Supreme Court on the meaning of various clauses of the Constitution, and by court orders dismissing complaints (law suits) that alleged injurious infractions of the Constitution, without hearing and determining them, so as to protect the Government's usurpations of power.
To conclude, the Courts of the United States, led by the Supreme Court, have committed whole scale infractions of the Constitution, now completing their usurpations and abuses of power by usurping the executive power of the Government, and causing to be prosecuted for alleged crimes a President who seems to be out of favor by not making as much WAR as most of his predecessors of this century, wars all made in violation of the Constitution of the United States. [Again, this was written in early September 1998, three months before Mr. Clinton ordered more bombing attacks against Iraq.]
The unconstitutionality of the Independent Counsel statute, therefore, ought not to be considered an isolated instance of misapplication and misplacement of power, but is only another gravely serious infraction of the Constitution of the United States committed by officers and legislators of the United States Government. Indeed, the usurpation of the executive power by the Supreme Court, and its Chief Justice, in the appointment and direction of the chief marshal, and in the appointment of the "Division" of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for appointing and supervising the Independent Counsel for the criminal investigation and prosecution of the President, all together effects the final disintegration of the constitutional foundations of the United States Government. Therefore, it is critical that those who still hold constitutional power, both in the federal and State governments, must act to check the unconstitutional powers which the Federal Courts have acquired, including the office of Independent Counsel which serves the Courts: to abolish these illegal powers (the Independent Counsel, the Division Court, and the Supreme Court Marshal): and to restore the constitutional principle of separation of powers; so that there can prevail the constitutional authorities by means of which all other infractions of the Constitution can be properly investigated and corrected.
I cannot now elaborate more in the present paper. I would be happy to supply to any officer or legislator of the federal Government and any State government who may be interested in my treatises on the Constitution, which deal with these broader infractions in depth.
This concludes this Part. I still have more notes to incorporate in the treatise. However, I cannot devote any more time to this matter at present, due to severe economic hardship as well as the pressing necessity to finish work on the matter of the nuclear hazards, and the United States Government's WAR-MAKING. I only undertook the original essay (Part I) in August 1998 out of sense of duty to inform proper officers of the Government of my knowledge of the plain unconstitutionality of the Independent Counsel statute, which is material to the present matter of the criminal prosecution, and now (21 January 1999) the impeachment, of President Clinton.
Studies of Nuclear Hazards and Constitutional Law
4951 Highland Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111
telephone and telefax: 717-939-2980
1. * Again, as my notice declares, this section was written in early September 1998, three months before Mr. Clinton ordered more bombings attacks of Iraq. I had set out in early August to write what has become Part I of the present treatise, partly with the hope that President Clinton would perceive the advantages, including to himself, of preserving, protecting, defending, and supporting the Constitution of the United States, and not violate the Constitution, as by the erection of an office of an independent counsel, with its injurious consequence, and, therefore, not make any more WAR in violation of the Constitution. In August 1998 I telefaxed to him in the care of his counsel in the White House Part I, and in September, a crude draft of Parts II and III of the present treatise, which parts, by the way, have been greatly revised and improved. But the President and his legal counsellors apparently ignore the analyses of the Constitution which I have offered to them, including my 1991 treatise, Analysis of the Constitution with respect to the Authority to make War and Alliances, and the Employment of Force against Iraq (January 11, 1991), and its January 15, 1991 Addendum and April 6, 1991 Supplement, which was sent to Mr. Clinton in 1993; as the President does what he wants to make war, despite the proof given in the treatise that he is not vested by the Constitution with the kingly prerogative power to make war.