Part XI
Commentary on the Behavior of Mr. Clinton,
as President of the United States,
pertaining to the Matters of
the Independent Counsel's criminal Prosecution of Mr. Clinton,
the Impeachment of Mr. Clinton by the House of Representatives,
and Trial of the Impeachment by the Senate, and
as these Matters relate to the United States Attacks on Iraq,
and renewed threatened U.S. Attacks in Yugoslavia.
Commentary on the Behavior of Mr. Clinton,
as President of the United States, pertaining to the Matters of
the Independent Counsel's criminal Prosecution of Mr. Clinton,
the Impeachment of Mr. Clinton by the House of Representatives,
and Trial of the Impeachment by the Senate, and
as these Matters relate to the United States Attacks on Iraq,
and renewed threatened U.S. Attacks in Yugoslavia. 1
Federal Criminal Investigations 4
A Note about Courts and Suits 5
Commentary on the Behavior of Mr. Clinton,
as President of the United States,
pertaining to the Matters of
the Independent Counsel's criminal Prosecution of Mr. Clinton,
the Impeachment of Mr. Clinton by the House of Representatives,
and Trial of the Impeachment by the Senate, and
as these Matters relate to the United States Attacks on Iraq,
and renewed threatened U.S. Attacks in Yugoslavia.
Although the office of Independent Counsel, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and discretionary powers assumed by the Courts of the United States, are all unconstitutional, as before demonstrated, and although by means of those unconstitutional offices, rules, and powers, Mr. Clinton's private life was illegally pried into, hence, an invasion of his constitutional rights, the Independent Counsel's investigations, albeit by illegal and improper methods, have nevertheless uncovered evidence of perverted behavior, which if true, and Mr. Clinton has not denied it, ought to make him unfit and untrustworthy to be the President of the United States, when considering especially the powers of that office, and all the problems facing America and our relations with other nations, as well as the global pollution problem. For instance, the evidence of President Clinton conversing on the telephone with a member of Congress on at least two occasions (involving two different members of Congress), presumably about matters of public affairs, while at the same time engaging in sexual activity with a women, not his wife, described as "oral sex," and otherise carrying on clandestine extramarital sexual affairs in the White House.
Also, as is now evident from the records of the Paula Jones proceedings and the Independent Counsel's investigations, President Clinton lied in his deposition in the Paula Jones case, when he answered under oath, "No," to the question, whether he ever had an "extramarital sexual affair" with Monica Lewinsky. Putting the defective, unconstitutional federal perjury law aside, and the unconstitutional Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence, Mr. Clinton did take an oath to tell the truth, and the whole truth, to the attorney questioning him on behalf of the plaintiff Jones. So, these disclosures have revealed a lack of person integrity, honesty, and decency that are qualities that we surely would like and require of the President of the United States and all other government officials. These serious deficiencies in Mr. Clinton's person, in respect to the duties of the President of the United States under the Constitution, primarily that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, have a sad and tragic congruence in Mr. Clinton's actions of ordering more bombing attacks against Iraq in December, in violation of the Constitution, killing an estimated 2100 persons or more. Unlawful killing human creatures is a dishonesty and a perversion to the extreme, and a criminal offense. By the unconstitutional Atomic Energy Act, the President of the United States has the power to use nuclear weapons "as he deems necessary in the interest of the national defense." The matter is very serious indeed.
It is plain to this observer that Mr. Clinton has sought and achieved the office of President for his personal gratification and aggrandizement. The fault is not only with him, but also with the whole federal government; as it has grown without bound in violation of the Constitution, to assume the powers to provide for the defense and security of foreign nations (the United States being involved in wars all the time), to manage and control the domestic life in the Country also without constitutional authority, as chartering banks, licensing nuclear power plants, regulating industry and corporations so as to protect corporations and industrial companies against anti-pollution regulations of the States, erecting corporations, building super highways everywhere, and promoting jet travel and industry of all kinds, to effect a highly industrialized way of life to build the war machinery and maintain wars.
Consequenlty, a person achieving the office of President of the United States does so only with the support of the persons who benefit from all the extended operations, regulations, and places and privileges provided by the United States Government unconstitutionally. The President is an officer that cannot possibly supervise the vast United States Government activities as they now are; and so, he is there to give a semblance of constitutional authorization, to give the approvals to the innumerable departments that want their programs supported, as the Department of Defense wanting to make more war against Iraq, quite plainly. A President is rewarded for these approvals by gratifications of all kinds. I have seen no sign in Mr. Clinton working to understand complex problems of nuclear radiation hazards, dangers of nuclear war, pollution harm, and so on, or to study and understand the true meaning of the Constitution in respect to the powers vested in the Government by the Constitution, including the powers and duties of the office of President of the United States. In this regard, he is no different than his predecessors. The President of the United States today is interested only in directing the virtually unbounded United States Government (in violation of the Constitution), extending its operations and power throughout the globe, and to every country on the globe, under the name "foreign assistance."
But the part of the unconstitutional Government, and now I mean the office of Independent Counsel, the Supreme Court marshal, the improper and unconstitutional rules of proceeding in the Courts of the United States, and rules of evidence, and the defective, unconstitutional criminal laws on "obstruction of justice, and perjury, being but a part of the whole disintegration of Constitutional Government, have been turned against Mr. Clinton, by a powerful faction in the Government, aided by the Supreme Court's usurpations and actual possession of the executive power a faction who have expressed frustration over Mr. Clinton's hesitations to order more bombing attacks on Iraq, and to undertake an invasion of Iraq, or to authorize "covert actions," to removal its leader, and who themselves, naturally want to have the executive offices for themselves, and all the rewards, advantages, and privileges attending thereto. As the defective federal perjury laws provide for arbitrary criminal prosecutions, and as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence provides for setting up perjury traps (but unconstitutionally so), this faction, represented by the Independent Counsel and the Supreme Court Chief Justice that appointed the "judges" that appointed him, exerted these unconstitutional powers to intimidate Mr. Clinton, by prosecuting him for arbitrary crimes that could add up to the rest of his life in prison. Mr. Clinton, therefore, has to have been frightened! He also has not the executive power, despite the wording of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, due to the Supreme Court's and the Independent Counsel usurping that power; so he is powerless to prevent a criminal prosecution against him by the prosecutorial officers of the Government which he is supposed to be the chief.
Being so intimidated, Mr. Clinton then misused the office of President again, and ordered more war against Iraq, which is evident from its timing, on the eve of an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives, action taken plainly to please the prosecutors of Mr. Clinton in and out of the Congress. Mr. Clinton cleverly uses these unconstitutional means, and forms his executive policies (e.g., more military spending now), to placate the Senate and the House of Representatives, and as a consequence, there has been a measurable diminution in the press for his conviction by the Senate. For instance, by the House of Representatives reducing the articles of impeachment voted out by the Committee of the Judiciary: for instance, eliminating the charge of perjury in Mr. Clinton's Paula Jones deposition. But plainly, Mr. Clinton lied when he testified in that deposition that he never had an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. So, the unconstitutional powers of the Courts, and the unconstitutional Independent Counsel, have been exercised against the President of the United States with consequences of producing more destruction and killing in Iraq. We may very well see more United States attacks in Yugoslavia, and more still in Iraq, either of which could trigger war with Russia and then nuclear war! ultimate consequences of unconstitutional judicial rules and powers applied in a civil suit.
The proof of the preceding assertions of unconstitutionalities must be deferred to other works of this Author, which are in preparation. The present commentary is given in order that the reader does not assume that this Author finds violations of the Constitution only in regards to the specific matters treated in the preceding parts, namely, the Independent Counsel, the perjury and "obstruction of justice" laws, the Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, but is that this Author finds that the Constitution has been violated in all respects, concerning foreign as well as domestic affairs of the nation, and the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the Government. Treatment of these broader matters must, of course, be given in a different treatise. I must put a period to the present one. The utility of the present treatise is chiefly to analyze the presently assumed powers of the judiciary, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, as well as the Independent Counsel statute, in the light of the Constitution, and point out what are evident improprieties, and dangers, as well as unconstitutionalities in these present powers and rules.
Accordingly, the present treatise ends with a section written months earlier, before the attacks on Iraq, about the steps Mr. Clinton should take to rectify the unconstitutional matters of the Independent Counsel, the Supreme Court marshal, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Federal Criminal Investigations
In the course of the Authors studies and investigations, it is clear to him that the attorneys and "federal prosecutors" are very confused about, and have insufficient understanding of the Constitution, and the proper rules of judicial procedure and rules of evidence. The Author urges and recommends that Blackstone's Commentaries be studied thoroughly, and that the Congress makes the proper laws for the rules of court proceedings and rules of evidence that truly conform to the Constitution. It appears that criminal prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, if the debates on television are any signs, including the performances of the prosecutors before the Judiciary Committee of the House, are too aggressive a kind of malicious prosecutions. According to Department of Justice statistics there are 1.7 million persons in prison currently in the United States, and 3.9 million persons "out on parole." These figures mean that about eight to nine percent of the households in the United States, of four persons assumed per household, have one of their members in prison or out on parole. The causes of this terrible state is, in this Author's view, mostly due to the unconstitutional assumptions of power by the Federal Government, with consequences of wars, dangers, promotion of a heavily industrialized way of life, pollution, despoliations of the land, whole scale neglect, and so forth, producing an unhappy living environment, and unhappy and stressful lives, and turning to drugs, and so on. And as the United States Government is involved everywhere and in everything practically, there are federal criminal laws for every activity, hence, armies of "federal prosecutors" and about 50,000 criminal cases annually; and "federal investigators," searching for and "detecting" crimes. The unconstitutional rules of evidence provide for arbitrary convictions as well. I find that everything is out of order in America!
A Note about Courts and Suits
The idea of providing courts of justice seems sound. But we need to review everything. According to the English common law expounded by Blackstone, the rules of proceeding for civil suits in courts should provide for compulsory process to bring in unwilling witnesses to give evidence, and that these witness shall be required to take an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth, under penalty of perjury for deposing falsely in matters material to the issue in the case. And the witnesses are to be disinterested, as those who have an interest in the cause are not competent witnesses. But why should a witness be compelled to testify and expose himself to the danger of a possible groundless criminal prosecution for perjury, then conviction and imprisonment, for the sake of parties to a private disputes, neither of which would be exposed to such danger, not being subject to being examined under oath. There is a reason for that rule in suits at law, explained Blackstone: to avoid all temptations of perjury, when one party has alleged a fact, and they other answers to deny it (see Part VII). Also, if the jury is to judge of the credibility of a witness, then why put him under oath? It seems a contradiction. If he is under oath, should not the jury be required to believe him, unless proof is given at the trial that the
witness lied? I think we need to make good, well thought-out rules of procedure and evidence, so that justice is administered truly. Perhaps the compulsory process rule for bringing in to a trial unwilling witnesses in civil suits at law is necessary to give justice and at the same time, to protect the witness against revenge by the party adversely affected by the witness's testimony. If a party knows that the witness is unwilling to testify against him but does so under compulsion, then the party would have no reason to hate him, unless the witness perjured. And to further protect the witness, one who is to be a disinterested person (one without an interest in the cause), the perjury law, under the 1790 federal perjury law, evidently founded on Blackstone's common law definition, requires that a perjury be wilful, absolute and false on a matter material to the issue. There cannot be any more rigorous criterion for the criminal offense of perjury to protect the witness against being indicted or even suspected of a perjury prosecution. This aspect of a perjury law, namely, the evident necessity to protect witnesses, who after all, enable the administering of justice, by providing evidence in a trial of the matters of fact in issue, goes to clarify further the definition of a proper perjury law.
We need to ensure the making of sound rules of evidence. For instance, evidence ought to be evidence, that is, that which demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact in issue. We ought not to convict anyone on such "standards" as the "preponderance of the evidence," or "beyond reasonable doubt," "or clear and convincing evidence." Evidence means that it is clear! There should be not doubt. It should be certain! To require that I be "convinced" reduces it. I should be certain! Prosecutions, whether civil or criminal, ought not to be malicious but taken on with the truly felt attitude of a regretful necessity, and judgments ought to be made on the basis of proof, not probabilities, or credibility contest, or subjective assessment, but proof!
The problem as I see it is that because of the unconstitutional federal Government, the members of society are attacking each other, as we attack Iraq, Vietnam, and people everywhere. The federal government wants the rest of the society to be obedient to their laws and programs. If you resist, you are liable to be attacked by a government prosecutor.
The hope for a solution of America's problems is in restoring constitutional government, taking advantage of the wisdom of the Constitution, grant a general pardon, and work to solve the serious problems facing America and the rest of the world, such as nuclear war dangers, dangers of catastrophic nuclear accidents and radioactive wastes, pollution of the land, water, and atmosphere, and, generally, to make a happy way of life, a happy living environment, and peace.
Studies of Nuclear Hazards
and Constitutional Law
Dr. Richard E. Webb
Traubinger Str. 37
8132 Tutzing
Germany
Tel. 49-8158-8386
Telefax: 49-8158-1493
January 19, 1993,
and sent again on July 1, 1993
by Federal Express c/o Niel Wolin,
legal advisor, National Security Council.
Mr. Bill Clinton
President of the United States
White House
Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Clinton:
Subject: The Unconstitutionality of the Iraq War
I feel it my duty to submit to you the enclosed treatise which analyzes the Constitution of the United States with respect to the War against Iraq, titled Analysis of the Constitution with respect to the Authority to make War and Alliances, and the Employment of Force against Iraq by Presidential Acts. I believe that the treatise is fundamentally important for your duty as President of the United States to support and defend the Constitution in regard to the serious matter of the Iraq War. I believe that you will appreciate having this analysis for your study, to assist you in forming your opinion and judgment about the question of the legality and constitutionality of the actions taken by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government in making and prosecuting the war, and of the January 12, 1991 resolution of the Congress which "authorizes" the use of force against Iraq.
As I conclude in the treatise, I find that the war against Iraq waged by the United States is unconstitutional. Specifically:
(1) The blockade (the interdiction of Iraqi ships in the Gulf), ordered by President Bush and commenced on August 16-18, 1990, is unconstitutional, being an employment of force against Iraq, hence an act of war, and the Constitution not vesting in the President any authority to make war without a prior declaration of war made by the Congress. The makers of the Constitution intended that the President shall not be vested with the power of war and peace - the power to make war - but instead, that only the Congress shall be vested with this power, and for good reasons: to prevent the wars which an "elective monarch" would likely make, and to limit and
clog the war making power of the Government, prescribing the form of this power which was judged to be best calculated to promote the security of the People with respect to the preservation of peace and tranquillity.
(2) The war alliance made by President Bush with Great Britain, France, and other nations, called the "coalition," is unconstitutional, having been made by the President without the advice and consent of the Senate (two thirds concurring) - the President not being vesting with any power to make treaties, alliances, or any other compacts with foreign nations on his authority alone.
(3) The United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iraq following the Iraq's invasion and acquisition of Kuwait are null and void (illegal), because the President has no authority under the Constitution to determine alone and direct the vote of the United States in the U.N. Security Council. The United Nations Participation Act of 1945, which in effect confers to the President the authority to direct the voting of the United States in the United Nations Security Council, is unconstitutional - the Constitution not vesting in the Congress any general authority to execute treaties (in this case, the U.N. treaty), nor any other such authority to transfer the power to make war and alliances to the President through the medium of a treaty, such as the U.N. Treaty and the Security Council created by it.
(4) President Bush, prior to the January 17, 1991 attack on Iraq in her territory by the "United States-led coalition forces," and in violation of the Constitution, declared war against Iraq by his several hostile public statements against Iraq, together with the his deployment of enormous military forces around Iraq in the period August 1990 to January 1991, which was threatening to Iraq, and by his ultimatum letter of January 5, 1991, which he addressed to the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and which was transmitted to the Foreign Minister of Iraq by Secretary of State Baker. A declaration of war under the Law of Nations and by the meaning of the Constitution is an ultimatum threatening the use of force. Thus, President Bush's hostile statements and threatening letter constituted a declaration of war. The Constitution does not vest in the President any power to declare war - that power is solely vested in the Congress, by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
(5) The Joint Resolution of the Congress of January 12, 1991, which "authorizes" the President to use United States military forces to execute the United Nations resolutions against Iraq, provided that the President determines that "peaceful" means to induce Iraq to comply with the U.N. resolutions "would not be successful," is unconstitutional: The resolution is an act of Congress to vest in the President a power to make war, and also to delegate to the President the power vested in the Congress by the Constitution to declare war. The war-declaring power is a power to take our Nation out of a state of peace with a foreign nation and into a state of war; but Congress has no authority to grant such power to the President or to delegate any of its constitutional powers to the President. The makers of the Constitution intended that the power to declare war be vested in the Congress, not in the President, and that only those powers that are specifically vested in the Government by the Constitution shall be exercised by the Government, and that the powers not delegated to the Government by the Constitution shall be reserved to the States or to the People (Tenth Amendment).
Moreover, the Congressional resolution is further illegal, as it's stated purpose is to execute the United Nations resolutions against Iraq, but which are illegal (item 3 above). Congress has no authority to make resolutions to execute illegal acts.
The foregoing are the main violations of the Constitution, as I conclude them. Other violations include the embargo against Iraq ordered by President Bush in early August 1990, and the Government's calling forth National Guard forces to support the war operations against Iraq. I refer to the enclosed treatise.
I request that you and your legal advisors and constitutional law experts carefully study the enclosed treatise, dated January 12, 1991, its January 15, 1991 addendum on the use-of-force resolution of the Congress, and the April 6, 1991 supplement (36 page letter with appendices) addressed to Congressman Dante Fascell, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
I am an American citizen, born and raised in Ohio, and was a naval officer in Washington (1963-67) in the Division of Naval Reactors, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (staff of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover). I published a lead article in the Ohio State Law Journal on the subject of the Vietnam War and the Constitution, titled: "Treaty-Making and the President's Obligation to Seek the Advice and Consent of the Senate, with Special Reference to the Vietnam Peace Negotiations" (1970). I also drafted two proposed U.S. Senate resolutions on the subject, which were formally submitted to the Senate by Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana in the period 1971-73.
I assert that my rights as a citizen of the United States to enjoy constitutional government, my rights to safety, and other rights that I enjoy under the Constitution have been infringed by President Bush and the other principal officers of the Executive Branch in making and prosecuting the War against Iraq in violation of the Constitution. For instance, an increased danger of nuclear war with the former Soviet Union arose during the fierce attacks against Iraq, due to the precarious state of government in the Soviet Union at that time, including the precarious control of the Soviet nuclear/military forces, and the possibility of a shift in Soviet policy in favor of Iraq. Consider the fact that during the fierce attacks against Iraq the U.S. naval forces in the Red Sea intercepted and retained with the use of force a Soviet freight ship loaded with weapons, heading for a port in Jordan (see page 2 of the addendum on the use-of-force resolution for the documentation).
My treatise was delivered to the offices of President Bush, Secretary of State Baker, and Secretary of Defense Cheney before the attacks on Iraqi territory began in January 17, 1991; and my addendum on the Congressional use-of-force resolution was sent to Bush's legal advisor, Nicholas Rostow, on January 15 by telefax. I also had discussions with two of Mr. Bush's legal advisors, and also with Secretary Baker's constitutional law advisor. However, these efforts to prevail upon the Bush Administration to consider and abide by the Constitution were to no avail, obviously.
Therefore, I politely and respectfully demand of you as President now, to consider carefully your constitutional duty, and oath of office pledging, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and accordingly, to exercise your constitutional power and authority to stop the U.S. war operations against Iraq, to declare a state of peace with Iraq, to withdraw from the war alliance (the "coalition") with Great Britain, France, and other nations which President Bush made unconstitutionally to wage war against Iraq, to declare the United Nations resolutions on Iraq null and void, having been made by President Bush in concert with representatives of other nations on the U.N. Security Council without constitutional authority, and to withdraw those U.S. Forces in the region which were sent to wage war against Iraq, on the ground that the actions taken by President Bush to make the war and the "coalition" alliance, and the January 12, 1991 use-of-force resolution of the Congress, are all demonstrably unconstitutional.
Further, I urge you to recommend to the Congress that the United States offer to Iraq and Kuwait to repair the damages done to their lands, and other just compensations, and to send an envoy to Iraq and Kuwait, appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two thirds concurring, to propose and negotiate a treaty of amity with Iraq with the aim to promote and establish peace in the area and the peaceful settlement of disputes and a happy accommodation of differences between Iraqi and Kuwaiti peoples and leaders.
I sincerely recommend that you study the treatise, including its January 15th addendum and April 6, 1991 supplement, and to distribute copies to your constitutional law experts and legal advisors for an evaluation and investigation. I further recommend that you and your law advisors consult me in regard to any questions, doubts, or disagreements you and your advisors may have. I stand ready to assist you; and I promise objectivity. My object is, and has been, only to determine and ascertain truthfully the intentions of the makers of the Constitution as to the meaning of the Constitution with reference to the powers vested in the Government to make war and war alliances, and the limited authority of the federal Judiciary to expound the Constitution - the relation of judicial opinion to the Constitution, when such opinion is not in agreement with the demonstrable intentions of the makers of the Constitution.
I should also mention that I have made much further research on the Constitution, and am preparing a revised, extended treatise; but it has not been possible to complete it in time to give to you now. For instance, the revised treatise will include an exhaustive critical review and analysis of the Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., to disprove the Court's opinion on the Constitution in that case about the powers of the President in foreign affairs - an opinion which evidently is the primary basis for the Executive Branch's claim of constitutionality of the January 12, 1991 use-of-force resolution of the Congress.
In this regard I propose and recommend that you commission me to finish the revised, extended treatise, and to submit it to you and the Congress. The purpose of the proposed commission would be to assist you in your effects to determine the true meaning of the Constitution with respect to the issue of the unconstitutionality of the War, in pursuance of your duty to support and defend the Constitution. I would return to America immediately for this purpose.(1) In the meantime, I believe that you will find that the enclosed treatise sufficiently demonstrates the intentions of the makers of the Constitution as to which department of Government shall be vested with the power to make war and alliances.
Moreover, the April 6, 1991 letter to Congressman Fascell contains a full account of two debates on the question of the war-making power under the Constitution, and the issue of the unconstitutionality of the Iraq War, which I have had with one of President Bush's legal counsellors and Secretary Baker's constitutional law advisor. The letter also requests and urges the Committee to undertake a full investigation into the issue of the unconstitutionality of the War, and everything else about the War, including the harmful consequences of the war.
I am also enclosing an essay which offers my analysis of the Constitution with respect to the major domestic affairs problems we have in America. It is titled Unconstitutional Government - Sketch of a Constitutional Analysis with respect to Domestic and Foreign Affairs. I believe that this essay gives a vitally important and necessary perspective on the Constitution for you to consider when determining the issue of the unconstitutionality of the Iraq War. The essay is a follow-up to a chapter on constitutional law contained in my book The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants, published by the University of Massachusetts Press in 1976. The chapter is titled "Who Should Decide?" It presents my analysis of the U.S. Constitution with respect to the U.S. Government's assumptions of authority to promote and license nuclear power plants. Finally, I offer a statement of my background, which is contained in the Appendix of my letter to Congressman Fascell.
Respectfully yours,
Richard E. Webb
Enclosures:
- Analysis of the Constitution with respect to the Authority to make War and Alliances, and the Employment of Force against Iraq by Presidential Acts (January 12, 1991, 85 pages)
- Addendum - Congressional Resolution of January 12 "Authorizing" the President to use Force against Iraq (January 15, 1991, 12 pages) with an appended essay titled Unconstitutional Government in America (November 1990, 8 pages)
- Letter to The Honorable Dante B. Fascell, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, dated April 6, 1991 (36 pages, plus appendices).
- Unconstitutional Government - Sketch of a Constitutional Analysis with respect to Domestic and Foreign Affairs, May 1984, revised August 1990. This supplements Chapter 13, "Who Should Decide?" of my book The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants (University of Massachusetts Press, 1976).
Studies of Nuclear Hazards
and Constitutional Law
Richard E. Webb, Ph.D.
4951 Highland St.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17111
Telephone: 717-939-2890
Telefax: 717-939-2890
11 October 1998
Mr. William J. Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President,
Two Subjects: (1) United States WAR in Yugoslavia v. the Constitution; and
(2) Proof of the unconstitutionality of the Office of Independent Counsel, of the Supreme Court Decision in Clinton v. Jones that required you to stand the Paula Jones Suit, and of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence upon which you were unlawfully compelled to submit to Interrogatories and a Deposition and answer Questions of extraneous Matters, my Briefs on Constitutional Law for defending you against the unlawful criminal investigations and prosecutions of the "independent counsel" and the follow-on Impeachment Inquiry of the House of Representatives.
Firstly, this citizen politely petitions you, on the basis of my rights to enjoy the protection of the Constitution of the United States, that you not make any more WAR in the Balkans area, as well as in Iraq, as the United States Government's war-makings in Europe and in Iraq, are, and have been, unconstitutional. I am very fearful of the dangers of war erupting with Russia, and with it nuclear war, by your threatened NATO attacks on Serbia.
The Constitution of the United States does not authorize you as President, nor the Government of the United States, to intervene in the internal affairs or quarrels of other nations, but only "to provide for the common Defence of the United States," the defense of the United States only, not the defense of other nations or peoples. And the word is defence, the fending off of an attack on the United States, or a threatened attack on the United States, not the "national security." Perhaps I should mention that I was a naval officer, stationed in Washington from 1963 to 1967, on the staff of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, of the Division of Naval Reactors, United States Atomic Energy Commission.
I have sent you in 1993 in the care of your legal advisors of the National Security Council a thorough treatise on constitutional law on the point of Iraq, together with a letter addressed to you. I have researched the matter more thoroughly still, including also the United States war-making in Yugoslavia (e.g., the September 1995 NATO bombings there), and have written a more extended proof, which I will send you as soon as I can. I have already sent the Office of Counsel to the President, the White House, by telefax letter on August 20 some letters and excerpts of my constitutional law analysis regarding the United States wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia.
The printing of the extended proof has been delayed, however, because I decided it more important to defer the completion of that work, in order to investigate from the standpoint of constitutional law the matters of the Independent Counsel's investigations and the examinations in the Paula Jones suit that you were ordered and even compelled to submit to. I had assumed that you would not make more war. I worked on the "independent counsel" matter out of a sense of duty as a citizen to help my country avert the erosion of the constitutional foundations of our Government, namely, the usurpations of the executive power by the independent counsel and the Supreme Court.
Briefly, a preview of my findings are as follows: (1) That the office of "Independent counsel", and the whole independent counsel's investigations and prosecutions against you are unconstitutional, hence, illegal; (2) That the Supreme Court's order that required, and really compelled, you to stand the Paula Jones suit was oppressive and illegal, having been founded on the Court's "doctrine" of presidential immunity from civil suits at the judicial discretion, a doctrine that violates the Constitution, and executed against you on the basis of the Supreme Court's usurpation of the executive power of the Constitution, by the Court's sole appointment and control of a special marshal to execute the Court's orders; (3) That the District Court's orders in Paula Jones that required you to answer written interrogatories and submit to a deposition were illegal, founded on unconstitutional rules of proceedings, namely, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (4) That the District Court's orders that required you and other "witnesses," as Ms. Lewinsky, to provide evidence (answers to questions) on the matter of "sexual relations" with "other women", matters extraneous to the fact in issue in the Paula Jones suit, were also illegal, being founded on unconstitutional rules of evidence, namely, the Federal Rules of Evidence.
But before elaborating on these findings (later in this letter), the urgent matter of Yugoslavia urges upon you the following further considerations.
The urgent Balkans Matter
Surely the plight of the people in the Kosovo province can be cured by peaceful and happy methods of care. There are many questions as to the true causes of conflict in the Balkans starting back in 1991: of who supported whom with weapons and active military assistance that instigated the original armed revolts that escalated in general turmoil. We citizens at present cannot adequately investigate these matters to establish the truth. I have determined for certain, however, that the Constitution does not authorize the United States Government to assume a world police power, called offices of humanity in treatises on the law of nations, nor to defend other nations in their wars and quarrels. The People who ordained and established the Constitution restricted the objects of the Constitution with respect to the use of force to that of providing for the "common defense of the United States" (Art. I, Sec. 8, and the preamble); and that they did so for reasons! Also, the Congress is given the power to declare war, but not for any object they please, only for the object just mentioned: And so, the Congress could constitutionally declare war to punish an aggressor who attacks the United States, or to forestall a threatened attack on the United States. And that's all! And it is enough and a proper responsibility.
The leading declaration of the Constitution does not declare among the expressed purposes of the Constitution an object, "the defence of other Nations," nor even the "Security of the United States." The writers of the Constitution chose the words deliberately and precisely. Defence means one thing: fending off an attack. Security means another thing. Security is freedom from danger. Therefore, had the Federal Convention of 1787 specified in the Constitution the object, "to provide for the Security of the United States," or "to provide for the national Security," as one of the declared objects for the exercise of the war, military, and naval powers vested by the Constitution in the Government, the Congress would be authorized to declare wars for virtually any object that the Congress may please, as acquiring territory, or disarming certain unfavored nations, merely on the presumption that their weapons pose a danger to us, even though such nations with the arms may not have threatened the United States with any attack, neither verbal nor by threatening postures. And also the Congress could declare wars to intervene in foreign conflicts, on the theory of promoting "international peace and security." So, the makers of the Constitution chose, and wisely so, to restrict the object of the Constitution in regards to foreign danger, to that of providing for the common Defence of the United States, and that only; so that the exercise of the constitutional powers by the Government relating to war and defense are confined to that express object only. The wisdom of this declared limited object is obvious, when we reflect on the fact that this principle of the Constitution was violated by the Government throughout this century; and consequently, we have been involved in wars practically all the time with absolutely horrible tragedy.
Regarding the Matter of the Independent Counsel's Prosecutions
and the Impeachment Inquiry
On August 17 I telefaxed to you in the care of one Robin Roland of the Office of Counsel to the President a constitutional law analysis (paper) proving that the office of "Independent Counsel" is unconstitutional, on the ground that the Constitution directs that the sole power of impeachment shall be vested in the House of Representatives, and the sole power to try all impeachments shall be vested in the Senate; where impeachment means a formal accusation of criminal behavior, but specially for officers of the Government, hence the prescribed form of the criminal prosecution of officers of the United States for crimes. The statute which erects the Office of Independent Counsel confers to the "independent counsel" powers to investigate and prosecute in the Courts of the United States high Officers of the United States, including the President. Manifestly, this statute violates the express directives in the Constitution that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment (the prescribed mode of the criminal prosecution of officers of the United States), and the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments, though qualified, of course, as to the extent of judgment (Art.I, Sec. 3).
On September 16 I telefaxed an addendum to the paper, which (1) extends the proof, by more refutation of the Supreme Court opinion in Morrison v. Olson; (2) extends the analysis to show that the Supreme Court has usurped the executive power of the Government which the Constitution vests in you alone as President, and (3) adds to my findings of illegal activities of the "independent counsel," as presumptions of intermeddling in the Paula Jones suit. I indicated in my letter to Counsel Robin Roland that I was adding to the addendum still more. I am nearly finished with that additional addendum, which will prove among other things:
1. The Supreme Court violated the Constitution by denying your reasonable motion to stay the Paula Jones suit until you leave the office of President. The Supreme Court in its decision in Clinton v. Jones did not support the Constitution, by their disregard of the Constitution's directive that you, the President, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and by favoring instead the Court's unconstitutional doctrine of Presidential immunity from civil suits at the discretion of the Judiciary.
2. The proceeding of compulsory discovery against you in the Paula Jones proceedings of the District Court, specifically, the deposition and written interrogatories to which you were ordered to submit, were unconstitutional, and, therefore, you were illegally compelled to submit to that deposition and the written interrogatories of the plaintiff's attorneys in that suit.
The basis for this finding is my finding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially Nos. 2, 26, 30, 33, and 37, are unconstitutional; in that these rules have unconstitutionally abolished the distinction between cases in law and cases in equity which is expressly mandated by the Constitution, Article III, Section 1. More specifically, these rules prescribe only one form of action in the Courts of the United States, called "civil action," thereby abolishing the distinctive action at law, and action in equity, and give each of the parties of any "civil action" the "right" to compulsive discovery by the oath of the other party. Whereas, the absolutely certain requirement and tenor of the constitutional distinction between cases in law and cases in equity is that the compulsive examination of parties to a suit, as for instance, the defendant, and as distinguished from witnesses who are not parties to the suit, is prohibited in suits at law. Suits at law are to be the ordinary kind of action in courts; as the courts of law are for the redressing of any civil injury whatsoever. The compulsive examination of parties may be permitted in suits in equity, however; but such suits are to be resorted to only in "rare and extraordinary" cases, when an adequate relief cannot be had by a suit at law; as by a request for an injunction, to prevent a civil injury, not to redress one. The reason for this distinctive rule barring the compulsive examination under oath of parties to a suit at law, was, as Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England gave it, "to avoid all temptations of perjury," while providing for just rules of evidence and proceedings in the courts of law, so as to determine the suit with justice; thereby settle the dispute and quiet the contention, not to stir up more strife and contention, as by prosecutions for perjuries committed in such compulsive examinations. (The compulsive examinations under oath of the parties to a suit obviously would tempt perjury, in order to support and sustain an allegation or a denial. Such is the wisdom of the bar.)
3. The District Court's order in the Paula Jones suit which directed you to answer questions in the January 17, 1998 deposition and the earlier written interrogatories about any sexual relations with "other women" was illegal, being founded on the unconstitutional Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 401, which essentially allows, as "relevant evidence," for purposes of both discovery as well as the trial,
that which tends to make more probable the existence of any fact (considered by the judge to be) of consequence in the determination, meaning, the termination, of the action.
This rule violates the tenor of the Constitution as to the intended meaning of the judicial power which the Constitution vests in the Courts of the United States with the express object "to establish Justice." The established definition of the judicial power when the Constitution was made is that which Blackstone laid down. By this definition, the judicial power is "to examine the truth of the fact" of the "injury" complained of in the suit, hence, the very fact in issue; not to examine extraneous facts. This intended meaning of the judicial power is further defined by the definition of admissible evidence which was further intended by the People who ordained and established the Constitution, namely, the "leading maxim" on legal evidence as expounded by Blackstone, to wit:
"And, first, evidence signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue, either on the one side or on the other; and no evidence ought to be admitted to any other point." (III, Ch. 23, p. 367)
Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, however, is fundamentally different than the maxim set down in Blackstone, and amounts to a (unconstitutional) license of complete liberality at the discretion of the judge (and ultimately the discretion of the Supreme Court), as to what constitutes "relevant" evidence, whether sought in discovery, or admissible at trial; and, therefore, is plainly contrary to the tenor of the Constitution and the demonstrable definition of the judicial power that the People have delegated to the Courts of the United States by our Constitution. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Congress, is at liberty to re-define the judicial power. The Courts, by the Constitution, are not vested with a power to examine extraneous facts, as in the Paula Jones case, where evidence about any sexual relations with "other women" cannot demonstrate, make clear, or ascertain that plaintiff Jones was "sexually harassed" by defendant Clinton as alleged in her complaint. The Courts of the United States are only vested with the judicial power as truly and demonstrably intended by the People who ordained and established the Constitution.
Further more, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Federal Rules of Procedure, which are laws, and laws of the utmost gravity, were made by the Supreme Court in violation of the Constitution, usurpations of legislative power. The Constitution mandates that the legislative powers of the Constitution shall be vested in the Congress, and therefore in the Congress only, not to be usurped or given over to the Supreme Court, as the Congress have acted by statutes which authorized the Supreme Court to make rules of evidence and rules of proceeding in the Courts of the United States.
More still, even had the Congress by laws made the present Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the laws would still not be proper, as these rules do not conform to the demonstrable tenor of the Constitution, as to the intended meaning of the judicial power. For the Congress is granted the legislative powers of Article I, Section 8 with the qualification that the laws which they shall have power to make for carrying into execution the judicial power, shall be necessary and proper. The word shall is command language that establishes that Congress's law-making power is not a discretionary power. Therefore, the laws prescribing the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure which the Congress is empowered to make, in order to carry into execution the judicial power, must be proper and in pursuance of the Constitution (Article VI); and therefore, the Congress would be duty bound to strive to make the laws on evidence and procedure to conform to the tenor of the Constitution and the intended definition of the judicial power and justice.
Therefore, you were illegally deposed, and illegally compelled to answer questions about "other women" in the Paula Jones suit; and, consequently, there can be no crime of committing corrupt perjury on account of your deposition testimony and answers to the written interrogatories of the Paula Jones suit.
Moreover, as Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is unconstitutional, the plaintiff in the Paula Jones suit, and her attorneys, had no legal right to subpoena and question witnesses, as Miss Lewinsky, on the "pattern of conduct" theory about sexual relations with "other women" extraneous facts. Therefore, no crime of subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice, or witness tampering, in connection with such witnesses of extraneous matters could have been committed by the defendant Clinton.
Also, the grand jury proceedings that were, and are still being, conducted by the "independent counsel" were and are illegal, as the office of independent counsel is unconstitutional, as proved in my brief and addendum. Also, the use of the grand jury to make criminal investigations, as Mr. Starr has done, further violates the Constitution, as grand juries are judicial bodies, not a criminal investigative and prosecutorial office. They are to be sworn, as jury means "sworn judge" in its Latin form, to enquire of an indictment and to make a finding, where a prosecutor goes to a grand jury only with a bill of indictment (determined by the prosecutor upon the completion of an investigation), and, therefore, is not to have the grand jury participate in a criminal investigation of suspected crimes. This matter is treated in depth in the forthcoming addendum, as are the other matters before mentioned, and other related matters.
It is concluded that the Referral with its accompanying material which the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, has sent to the House of Representatives is an illegal document, containing an illegal, unconstitutionally authorized assessment of information about alleged criminal behavior of the President that has no legal capacity, being that the Independent Counsel Statute is unconstitutional. And worse, it's production and disclosure, founded on an illegal, unconstitutional statute, has plainly violated the rights of privacy and reputation of all persons who were subjected to investigation by the Independent Counsel and his deputies. Therefore, the resolution of the House of Representatives to undertake an "impeachment inquiry" on the basis of the "Referral" report of the Independent Counsel ought to be rescinded, in order to support the Constitution. Also, the Congress ought to repeal the statute that enacted the office of independent counsel, and to repeal the statute which vests in the Supreme Court the sole power to appoint (and remove) a marshal, and which mandates his duty to execute the process and orders issued by the Supreme Court a usurpation of the executive power which the Constitution vests solely in the President by Article II, Section 1. Also, the Congress ought to repeal the statutes which authorized the Supreme Court to make the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure in the Courts of the United States, and make proper laws on rules of evidence and proceedings in the Courts that conform to the tenor of the Constitution.
You, as President, ought to exercise your authority and power alone, as the officer vested with the executive power of the Government of the United States, to abolish the Office of Independent Counsel and the marshal of the Supreme Court, as unconstitutional, in fulfilment of your oath to preserve the Constitution of the United States. You would be in the right to order an investigation of the possible and suspected illegal or improper activities related to and surrounding the independent counsel's investigations, including the involvements of the Chief Justice of the United States, by his appointment of the judges to the Division of the Court of the Appeals of the District of Columbia, who in turn appointed Mr. Starr. But I would just gather up all the matter about the Independent Counsel's investigations, and remove it of all official capacity, and discard it. This citizen sees it all as one sorry mess created by a violation of the principles and precepts of the Constitution, and which ought to be rectified. I would urge no punitive actions, just write it off as a bad idea, and get on with setting things right.
Final Remarks on the urgent Balkans Matter
Please do not make any WAR in the Balkans area as you have threatened. You have not the authority to do so under the Constitution. You have not a constitutional power to execute treaties, no authority to execute the NATO treaty; as the execution of a defensive alliance would have to be done by the Congress in its proper exercise of the power to declare war. Moreover, the NATO treaty is unconstitutional. The treaty really creates a European police force, led by the United States military power. But the Constitution does not authorize the Government of the United States to undertake such engagements. The NATO treaty is not really even a defense alliance, to provide for the defence of the United States; for there is no commitment in the treaty that any member nations of the treaty would assist the United States if we should ever be attacked. Moreover, there is no threat of an attack against the United States which might justify under the Constitution a defensive alliance with certain European nations and Britain; and evidently, there never was one. Look at the wording of the treaty! So, as a citizen, acting upon my right to enjoy the protection of the Constitution, and who wants some time in his life to live in a state of peace. I politely request that you exercise your constitutional power and act to turn America away from unconstitutional military power and attend to the serious matters of life in America that beg all of our attentions, matters that we all know about.
Respectfully yours,
Richard E. Webb
Studies of Nuclear Hazards
and Constitutional Law
Richard E. Webb, Ph.D.
4951 Highland St.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17111
Telephone: 717-939-2890
Telefax: 717-939-2890
13 October 1998
The Honorable David Bonior
House of Representatives
United States Congress
Washington, D.C. REVISED FOR MORE CLARITY
(20 October 1998)
Dear Mr. Bonior,
I oppose the United States making war in Iraq and in Yugoslavia, partly on the ground that these wars as all other wars of the United States are unconstitutional. That can be absolutely demonstrated, I contend. I want to live in a state of peace, and not have my country killing people, by intervening militarily in foreign quarrels and conflicts, and risking nuclear war, but only to promote peaceful and happy methods of solutions to quarrels.
I have sent you a copy of my letter to President Clinton because of your remark on television at the White House that President Clinton has kept America in a state of peace. I was impressed by your sincere remarks and believe you to be a level-headed person. I ask you to study that letter, and to confer with the President about it. Also, would you make sure that he is given a copy of this letter, as I am not certain that his office of legal counsel has passed the letter on to him as I have requested in my fax cover letter.
This present fax includes a copy of my letter to Mr. Clinton that I sent in 1993 about the Iraq War. The letter accompanied a treatise on constitutional law that I wrote that proves that the war as started by President Bush is unconstitutional. I sent the same treatise, including an addendum proving that the January 12, 1991 use-of-force resolution of the Congress is unconstitutional, to President Bush and also to his legal advisor, Nicholas Rostow, days before the attacks on Iraq began. I had debates with Rostow, then other legal advisors for Secretary of State Baker and the President before and during the attacks. Later I sent the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Dante Fascell, a supplement to the treatise. All these materials were given to Bush's advisors, then Clinton in 1993, in the form of a large Ring Book. Recently, earlier this year, I sent a duplicate of the Ring Book to the Congressman of my area, Congressman Goodling, who then passed it to Congressman Gekas, but no interest was shown. My Government just makes war without regard to the proof of their unconstitutionality. There has been no interest shown in the Congress to investigate the points and proofs of constitutional law that are laid down in that ring book. Mr. Gekas has even returned the book. Should you be interested, I would send you a duplicate. But hopefully, the White House legal advisors for the President still have the ring book.
In regards to the current Yugoslavia crisis, I ask the question, Who has supplied the weapons and other military equipment, and the training and encouragements to the Kosovo rebels, of the so-called KLA, Kosovo Liberation Army? There is a credible report in The European magazine, September 21-27, that the Germany Government has provided that support. As the United States Government is allied with the German Government on this crisis matter, the presumption is that the United States was supportive of this.
I have investigated the Yugoslavia conflict, including obtaining rare documents from an office in the United Nations in Vienna, and I find that the escalation of the turmoil in Yugoslavia starting the first outbreak of revolts in 1991 was accompanied by a series of United Nations Security Council threats and demands and military interventions step by step, demanding "autonomy" for Croatia, including NATO air strikes from time to time. As I recall, before the September 1995 massive bombings, there were already about 350 United Nations military soldiers killed there in these involvements, and that figure does not include any casualties among the so-called humanitarian workers or personnel. (Do we spend peoples lives so that politicians in banquets in Washington, D.C. can be happy and showered with extols about foreign policies successes?) So, it is appears that the United States Government activities in the original Yugoslavia have contributed to the causes of the escalations of that "internal" Yugoslavian conflict and the large number of killings and atrocities that we have learned about; for we have been involved throughout the whole period of the conflict, pushing and shoving, causing violent reactions, hence escalations and punishments, hence atrocities. These probable contributions are to be presumed, because the language of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Yugoslavia from the beginning in 1991 period, voted by the United States executive officers, under the direction of President Bush and Clinton, used the language of "demands," not the language of peaceful offerings of happy solutions, but hostile language.
Also, the Government of the United States violates the Constitution, plainly. There is no regard for the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that the President shall have power to execute treaties; but the Presidents assume the power anyway. There are other facts, together with these presumptions, that make probable that the Yugoslavia conflict was instigated for the object of securing the independence of the Crotia republic from the federation or nation of Yugoslavia(2) that is capitaled in the Serbia republic, and that this instigation was led by the United States Government, and by Kohl German Government. For why is there, or was there, a huge population of Yugoslavians (Croatians) in Germany? The attached article "How Germany backed KLA" lends credence to this probability. As I state in my October 11 letter to Mr. Clinton, it is certain that the United States war making in Yugoslavia and Iraq are unconstitutional.
The essential points of my constitutional analysis are as follows:
1. The preamble of the Constitution and Article I, Section 8 expressly limits of the objects of Constitution, hence, the objects of the exercise of granted powers, to that of providing for the common defence of the United States, so that any use of the war, military, and naval powers delegated to the United States Government for the defense of other nations, for world policing, and for intervening in the interval affairs of other countries, as Yugoslavia, is unconstitutional.
2. The object of the Constitution is the defence of the United States, not the security of the United States. I refer to my October 11 letter to Mr. Clinton on this point. So, the United States Government has no constitutional right and power to exercise the granted war declaring, military and naval powers for the purposes of "providing for the national security," which would be an unlimited scope of purpose. Defence pertains to fending off an attack on the United States, or a threatened attack. Therefore, it is unconstitutional for the United States Government to assume the power to provide for the national security, and on that claim, assume a world police power to "promote international peace and security," as that is always the reason given for making war.
I have a right to our Constitution, that the Government confine its exercise of granted powers to the express defined objects of the Constitution. Those objects were deliberately and precisely prescribed by the makers of the Constitution for reasons! I have, as well as all my other fellow citizens, the right to the Constitution as the people who ordained and established it plainly intended it to mean, and intended it for their Posterity, which includes me. We lowly citizens have absolutely no power over our lives in America, because of the usurpations of power by the United States Government.
3. The President has no constitutional authority to execute treaties, as the NATO or UN Treaties. The President's express duty by the Constitution is "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Laws are one thing, rules of civil conduct binding the members of the society. Treaties are contracts between nations, promises and obligations to perform. (Article VI of the Constitution distinguishes between the Laws of the United States and the Treaties made under the authority of the United States.) Also Treaties of the United States are obligations entered into by the United States, not by Presidents; and, therefore, it is the United States that decides to fulfil such obligations, and the manner of doing so. So, only the United States, not the President, executes its treaties; and this can only be done by the United States Government exercising constitutional powers granted to it, as the Congress exercising its power to declare war, in the case of executing a defensive alliance treaty made in response to a real threatened attack on the United States. For more, I refer to page 8 of my October 11 letter to Mr. Clinton.
4. The war making in Yugoslavia by President Clinton is doubly unconstitutional; the President not having the authority to execute treaties, and the NATO and UN treaties being unconstitutional, as the United States Government has no constitutional authority and right to go beyond providing for the common defense of the United States, to that of providing for the defense of other nations, and "offices of humanity," as assisting peoples of a civil war and internal rebellion occurring in foreign nations.
5. The President does not have any inherent powers in the office of President to employ the United States military forces against foreign nations. The President has no kingly prerogative powers. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution bars such doctrine, doctrine which, however, the United States Supreme Court has decreed in the Curtiss-Wright case, but in violation of the Constitution. (The Court's opinion is just opinion without proof, that the powers of the President are derived from the king of England, called powers of "external sovereignty." No regard for the Tenth Amendment.)
Mr. Bonoir, look at the state of America as it has been all this century. Nothing but war. Most of the industrial and other business activity in America, directly or indirectly, must go to the military and space establishments for the unconstitutional objects of world police and "security." None of the fighter bombers, cruise missiles, nuclear reactors in the submarines, rockets, tanks, aircraft carriers, guns, and so on ad infinitum grow on trees. To produce these military and space equipment requires practically everyone in the country going every day to work in the factories and other business to produce these war things; and they work hard: five or six days per week with just two weeks off each year for "vacation." (Now with "day care" centers to raise the children while mother and father are working in factories and businesses directly or indirectly for the unconstitutional military power of the Government. And each of these factories require equipment, machines, tools, computers, and supplies, and input materials; and so factories and businesses are needed to produce those things. And then those secondary level factories and businesses require machines and supplies, &c.,; hence, the need for the tertiary level of factories and businesses to provide for them. The chain of such factories and business continues all the way to the mines, to rip and tap the materials from the bowels of the Earth to feed all these factories, besides stripping lands of trees. All to support the unconstitutional military and space ventures of the United States Government, to our general harm of pollution everywhere, dangers of catastrophic nuclear accidents, and neglect of the important matters of life for the necessities and true happiness. The automobile industry is basically to provide for automobiles and trucks so that the people can get to and from work, in order to work in all the factories and businesses that produce, directly and indirectly the military and space ventures and establishments, and to truck everything around from mines to factories to factors and businesses, and so that the Government and its military and space establishment can have vehicles. The people are going to work every day in America not making the way of life which they really want. For the People have not delegated to the United States Government the powers which the Government has usurped to effect the military, space, and nuclear way of life, Indeed, they are all working on producing the things ordered by the unconstitutional Government for military and wars, by means of Government "spending" contracts, banks for money creations and loans, and "regulations."
One sign of the neglect about which I have learned recently is that there are 1.7 million persons in the United States in prisons or jails, and 3.8 million persons out on parole. That adds up to about nine percent of groups of four persons in America (families) having one of theirs in prison or out on parole. Children even are killing people with guns. Just the other day, a teenage boy in York, Pennsylvania, or York County, was stabbed to death by his teenage brother. Is there not something fundamentally sick in our culture? We have had military conscription forcing tens of millions of men in the military to kill and destroy, while the officials of the United States Government exempt themselves from the conscription, as judges, and executive officers of the Government. I could go on and on with the unhappy things about America caused by unconstitutional Government.
In domestic affairs, the nuclear power plants, for instance, are made to supply the electrical power to feed all the factories just mentioned above. These nuclear power plants pose an extremely grave danger that you and all my other fellow citizens do not appreciate. This area happens to be my main line of work: the scientific investigation of the accident hazards of nuclear power plants. (As I mentioned in my letter to Mr. Clinton, I was on Admiral Ricker's staff in Washington, the Division of Naval Reactors. My responsibility, as a junior engineer, was for the reactor part of the first civilian nuclear power plant, the Shippingport pressurized water reactor; though the reactor was already built and operated for four years before my position at Naval Reactors.) My research of the nuclear hazards extends into constitutional law. I have found upon rigorous study and analysis that the United States Government has no constitutional power to promote and licensing nuclear power plants. I filed a law suit in the United States Courts in 1972, complaining and alleging that the Atomic Energy Act is unconstitutional, and that the Government's activities under the Act to develop, promote, and licensing nuclear power plants will endanger me and my family with the clear danger of catastrophic reactor eruptions and exposure to harmful nuclear radiation from radioactive clouds and fallout, thereby infringing my right to seek and obtain safety. But the Courts, upon the Government's motion, dismissed my complaint without hearing and determining it; thus, violating Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution which directs that the judicial powers shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution. I have since discovered in scientific research that the health hazards of nuclear radiation are far greater than the Government has assessed, and really infinitely greater. But I am delayed in publishing my findings because of having to work on the unconstitutional war making by the Government, the danger of war escalations and nuclear war, as well now as biological warfare.
Mr. Bonior, if I can appeal to you on a more human level, seeing that you are from Michigan. I was born and raised in Toledo, Ohio, right on the edge of Michigan; and I spent much time in Michigan as a boy, working on my father's "Fuller Brush" truck runs throughout lower Michigan, below Midland. I swam many times in the once pretty lakes of southern Michigan. I lived in Charlevoix for six months, as the designated reactor engineer at the Big Rock Point nuclear power plants, until I resigned, in order to study for the doctorate in nuclear engineering, so that I could independently investigate scientifically the nuclear accident hazards.
While at Big Rock in 1967, I warned about the B-52 bombers and other Air Force warplanes buzzing the plant in low level (1000 feet) practice simulated bombings (flying directly over the reactor). I raised the matter at a summer management meeting at the plant with the vice president for nuclear operations of Consumers Power Company; and I was criticised by the plant superintendent for doing so. I then wrote to the company president informing him directly of the danger, the danger of a plane crashing into the plant, causing the ruin of Michigan with radioactive releases into the air and its fallout over the land. The company president published my letter in the company's magazine, Consumers News, in November 1967, in which I urged that the Air Force practice be stopped. The company president supported my objection in an article besides my letter. But the United States Government and its military do what they want to do; and so a few months later (January 1968, maybe February), a B-52 crashed in Little Traverse Bay, near Charlevoix (the little bay with Petosky as its head), heading, according to an eye witness reported in the Detroit News, on a line directly at the plant. (The eye witness was positioned on the opposite side of the bay.) I estimated that the plane fell (and exploded) short of the plant by about 30 seconds. (It could be that the plane hit a plume of radioactive gases from the plant's radioactivity discharge stack, and that the radiation from the plume materials disturbed the electronics of the plane's guidance systems. Big Rock had notoriously high releases rates of radioactive gases, by operating with fuel rods with ruptured cladding, allowing radioactive gases to escape into the steam, and subsequently out the station's radioactivity release stack.)
So, as you can see, I acted to protect the people of Michigan (and America) from a radioactive catastrophe; and I am still doing that work, though with no income now. (It is extremely difficult to survive financially, being critical of nuclear power plants; as all the scientists are supported by Governments and the industry.) The University of Massachusetts Press published my book The Accident Hazards of Nuclear Power Plants (1976), which had the effect of causing the nuclear industry to be more careful. Still, the dangers are there, and worse now, due to aging. Also, the reactor explosion hazards are much worse than my book originally assessed, based on my subsequent research. Also, my more recent research (into health hazards of nuclear radiation) finds that nuclear radiation is far more harmful than officially assessed. But this is no place to go into an details; just to apprise you of my assessment. There are many things to be attending to, instead of the Government making wars unconstitutionally.
Start another war in Europe, and you are liable to find a nuclear power plant in Germany sabotaged by revengeful attack. An explosion of one nuclear reactor could transform 80 million people in Western Europe into mutants from the radiation dose from just the first day exposure from the fallout; where every cell in one's body is damaged by the impact of energetic electrons on cell molecules produced by the radiation absorption in the body. (At natural radiation levels, hardly any cells in are body are hit with any such impacts.) I am working hard to write up and publish my analyses; but have to stop this work, in order to work on my Government making wars all the time.
I have recently issued a series of scientific treatises proving that there were great large, significant increases in the numbers of still births and infant deaths in southern Bavaria, plainly due to the fallout from Chernobyl. As a result of my scientific research, the Bavarian Government has now reversed its original assessment of no Chernobyl effect in Bavaria. They have confirmed my finding of significant increases in still births following the Chernobyl fallout. They did so on the basis of a report of two experts in mathematical statistics, which the Bavaria environment ministry commissioned to review my work and my critique of the official assessment. Chernobyl is a warning for us, and a tragedy in eastern Europe, also as far away as Bavaria. I am here in Harrisburg, to follow through on the matter of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979.
....
The United States Government, or more particularly, President Clinton and his envoy Mr. Holbrooke, and the Secretary of State, have violated the Constitution and assumed the power to declare war. A declaration of war is an ultimatum served on a foreign nation that if that nation does not accede to our demands, force will be employed to bring that nation to submission. Thus, Mr. Clinton and the other officers mentioned have declared war against Yugoslavia (really a kind of reminder that the state of war declared earlier in relation to the 1985 NATO bombings still subsists); and so they have usurped the power from the People to make war; as Mr. Clinton's hostile declarations to the sovereign authorities of Serbia has put us in a state of war or re-newed war; and the President has not this power under the Constitution, a presidential power to declare war. Nor has the Congress the power to declare war for the objects of defending other nations in their wars and quarrels, or intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. And I do not mean not only intervening with "air strikes," but also intervening and interfering in the interval affairs of foreign nations by encouraging certain peoples and persons to take up arms against the public authority of their land, and by supplying them with training, weapons, and promises of support, and "autonomy."
Please use your power to discuss my concerns and contentions with Mr. Clinton, and work to persuade him to preserve the Constitution and withdraw from unconstitutional war-making. I would, of course, be pleased to elaborate for you.
Postscript: Mr. Bonoir, I am attaching with this letter some samples of my treatise, Analysis of the Constitution with respect to the Authority to make War and Alliances, and the Employment of Force against Iraq, and its addendum on the Jan. 12, 1991 use-of-force resolution of the Congress, and a Supplement which I sent to the Congress, to the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1992.
Also, I am enclosing excerpt pages from my series of briefs on the current crisis of the independent counsel's prosecution and now the impeachment inquiry. However, I have decided to defer the completion of that work, in order to deal with the unconstitutional war making, Mr. Clinton's re-newed declaration of war against Yugoslavia. I am attaching the title pages of the first two briefs that I issued, the original brief and the first addendum, plus the table of contents of each. These prove, for example, that the office of independent counsel is unconstitutional. Also attached are the list of sections of the second addendum, which I have been preparing. Some of the topics of the final addendum are discussed in my October 11 letter to Mr. Clinton. If you or the Congress would like the finished final work, please contact me. This work is in defense of Mr. Clinton vis-a-vas the impeachment inquiry and the independent counsel's prosecution of him. I also need financial support to complete that work. I undertook the work on own extremely limited financial means, in order to help my country. It proved more involved than I at first thought; but I stayed with it. All the research is done, and what remains is typing some final parts of manuscript.
But as the Government only wants to make war all the time, my heart is not in completing that work as of this time; for must attend to the crisis of war. I have prepared a thorough legal complaint against Mr. Clinton to file in the United States Courts, charging him and Mr. Bush also, with making war unconstitutionally. It has been defined traditionally that unlawful killing of human creatures is murder. A succession of Presidents have made war unconstitutionally, and somehow it is viewed in the politics of the nation as respectable.
I do not want to see the people of Kosovo suffer of having some of their members and children killed, and suffer the misery of evacuating their homes and having them destroyed. But CNN carried a film story stating that the Kosovo Liberation Army, so called, received new weapons and plenty of ammunition, and set out to make a war of independence, and began by "ambushing" Serbian police and killing many. I can understand why the Serbian Government "cracked down." The soldiers and police must have gone on a rampage with revenge, hence destroying homes and killing people. But who supplied the arms and training and encouragements and promises to the Albanians or whoever they were of the Kosovo province to so revolt? Or even, did some slip into Kosovo from Albania to make attacks? I do not trust my Government for any truthful and full information. The Government here does not respect the plain directives of the Constitution. Since I have been born in May 1939, I lived under United States Government's war making unconstitutionally in Europe and the Far East (in 1941-45), then Korea, then Cuba, then Vietnam, then Middle East (Lebanon), then Grenada, then Panama, then Iraq, then Yugoslavia, now Kosovo in Serbia. I have lived in America under military conscription, in a land that was to be a land of liberty: Liberty meaning, not to be forced to do what you don't want to do. The Constitution does not give the Congress the power to compel enlistments in the United States Army, but the mild power "to raise Armies", not to drag (draft) a man into the Army, not to levy Troops, as levy is to form an Army with a lever. The king of England had the prerogative power to "raise armies," but no person could be compelled to enlist. Lest you may disagree that the United States War against Japan was unconstitutional, your may not know that Roosevelt declared war against Japan, by an ultimatum given to Japan's ambassador a few months before Pearl Harbor attack, and renewed the ultimatum about a week before. So, that hostile declaration put the United States in a state of war, by the meaning of the power granted to the Congress to declare war; and consequently Roosevelt provoked Japan in attacking our naval forces in the pacific. In other words, we were already in a state of war with Japan before Pearl Harbor, caused by unconstitutional acts of the President. The same happened with Germany. President Roosevelt made war against Germany in the North Atlantic (naval convoying merchant ships to Britain with a "shooting war", then a radio address in September 1941 declaring war against Germany). These acts of war (hostilities and hostile declaration) then caused eventually the German Government to declare on (or about) December 11, 1941, or so, that a state of war exist in fact with the United States. But Roosevelt, later the State Department, misrepresented the German declaration to assert falsely (in a written war message to Congress) that Germany declared war against the United States; when in fact, the German Government (Foreign Minister Ribbenstrop) declared that a state of war already existed, due to Roosevelt's declaring and making war against the German navy in the Atlantic, including capturing German freight ships. Roosevelt failed to lay the German declaration before the Congress when he asked Congress for a resolution declaring that a state of war exists because, he alleged, but falsely, Germany declared war on the United States. (Declaring war takes a nation from the state of peace with another nation into a state of war with that other nation. If a nation makes hostilities without a prior declaration of war, then, of course, a state of war is arises practically, that is, in fact. The German declaration declared only that a state of war exists caused by the United States Government creating that state by opening hostilities in the Atlantic.) The official State Department translation of the German declaration published many years later is false, by the way. I have a copy of the original, obtained from the German foreign office archives. I mention this for perspective. Big wars start with demands and threats, and hostile declarations.
I strongly suspect that the United States secretly with other European nations instigated the revolts in Yugoslavia in 1991. When the Government violates the Constitution, they cannot be trusted with any information; for they break the public trust. I hope you can do something. ... Please consider these matters and views, and investigate them.
Sincerely yours,
Richard E. Webb
Note: The final item included with my Treatise as an appendix to Part XI is a reprint of my article "Treaty-Making and the President's Obligation to Seek the Advice and Consent of the Senate with special Reference to the Vietnam Peace Negotiations," Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3 (1970).
1. I am presently in Europe conducting scientific research into the accident hazards of nuclear power
plants following the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
2. * As I understand it, Yugoslavia is a nation established as a country by Tito's Government that
includes the republics of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, &c.