IMPEACHMENT THE ANSWER?
PART 2 of 2
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.,
December 15, 2014
IMPEACHMENT THE ANSWER?
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.,
I am enough of a political realist, though, to recognize that, politics being “the art of the possible”, it often does take a crooked stick to beat a mad dog. So at this juncture in the tortuous course of human events, I should not be unwilling to watch the first steps in the experiment of “Impeachment” conducted along the lines advocated by Mr. Williams—because the end result would most likely be, not the “Impeachment” of Mr. Obama, but the overthrow of his imposture nonetheless. In his earlier NewsWithViews commentary “Republicans Can Stop Executive Order Amnesty Dead”, as well as in his commentary under consideration here, Mr. Williams has recommended and provided links to a document entitled “Articles of Impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama”, prepared by the North American Law Center as a model for that purpose. Article I of this production is headed “Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud”. Unfortunately, the type of illogic on this subject characteristic of Mr. Williams flaws the NALC’s underlying argument: For if (as the Article relates) “Barack Hussein Obama accepted the presidential oath of office on false and fraudulent pretenses”, then he never validly took the oath; and as the Constitution self-evidently requires that an individual validly take the oath, Mr. Obama never “enter[ed] into the Execution of [the] Office” in the first place [see U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 7]. And if (as the Article also asserts) Mr. Obama “has made false and misleading statements under oath of perjury, to unlawfully accept the office of President”, then he did not lawfully “accept th[at] office”, and thus never entered into it on that score as well. Those two points being conceded by necessary inference in the Article, it passes understanding how Mr. Obama could now suffer “Impeachment” with respect to an office from which his own “false”, “fraudulent”, and “misleading” statements excluded him at the very threshold.
Be all that as it may, though, the Article does charge that “[c]ompelling prima facie evidence exists which demonstrates that Barack Hussein Obama has engaged in false personation * * * and in conspiracy to commit false personation * * * in pursuit of high office and governmental power”. Now, any hearings held to establish a case for Mr. Obama’s “Impeachment” based on the latter assertion would, if successful, substantiate the charge of “false personation” of a public official. Further prosecution of that charge would not require “Impeachment”, however. For Title 18, United States Code, Section 912 provides that “[w]hoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer * * * acting under the authority of the United States * * * , and acts as such, or in such pretended capacity demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”. Observe that this statute neither requires, nor even suggests, that such a malefactor must be “Impeached” with respect to his pretended office as the prerequisite to his prosecution. Moreover, the statutory language “[w]hoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer * * * acting under the authority of the United States * * * , and acts as such” clearly indicates that an individual who succeeds in “act[ing]” as “an officer” for some period of time—perhaps even temporarily deceiving everyone in the entire world—does not thereby somehow actually become “an officer” for any purpose, let alone a proper subject of “Impeachment”. So, once the evidence were adduced to support a charge under Section 912, the fabric of Mr. Obama’s fantastical “Presidency” would immediately unravel like a cheap sweater, and crime could then be succeeded by punishment along one of the routes suggested above. That is, once proof on this score were had of the very first Article of “Impeachment” which Mr. Williams himself is promoting, further efforts at “Impeachment” would become unnecessary.
Furthermore, proof of a charge of “false personation” would undoubtedly rely upon evidence that Mr. Obama had engaged in various forms of fraud with respect to his eligibility for the office of President. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 provides that
Observe that this statute applies universally to “whoever”; to “any matter within the jurisdiction * * * of the Government of the United States”; to “any trick, scheme, or device”; to “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement”; and to “any false writing or document”. No exclusion is made, or excuse accepted, for “whoever” engages in any such conduct for the purpose and in the course of impersonating an officer of the United States. And nothing suggests that such an imposter must first be subjected to “Impeachment” from an office he does not hold before he can be prosecuted for the deceptions he has employed in order deceptively to clothe himself in the outward trappings of that office. So, once evidence were adduced to support a charge under Section 1001, Mr. Obama’s “Presidency” would immediately collapse in its own footprint in the manner of World Trade Center Building 7, and crime could then be succeeded by punishment along one of the routes suggested above. That is, once proof on this score were had of the very first Article of “Impeachment” which Mr. Williams himself is promoting, further efforts at “Impeachment” would become a waste of time.
The very same analytical exercise could be performed for Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1003, 1017, and 1028 (and doubtlessly other statutes as well). But that would simply bring owls to Athens. The decisive point is that, if what the North American Law Center denotes as “Usurpation of the Oval Office via criminal identity fraud” on Mr. Obama’s part were proven by the initial inquiry in Congressional hearings on “Impeachment”, such proof would obviate the need for any further action aimed at “Impeachment”. More importantly, if Mr. Obama’s supposed ineligibility for the office of President were proven without “Impeachment”—and therefore without the least suggestion of a concession that he had ever actually held that office even in some loose de facto sense—then at a single stroke each and every one of his faux “official” acts would be stripped of any semblance of legal validity. Surely Mr. Williams recognizes that the latter result, and not simply Mr. Obama’s physical eviction from the White House, is the consummation devoutly to be wished.
So I say to Mr. Williams: Promote “Impeachment” if that is really the only way you believe the evidence of Mr. Obama’s ineligibility can be brought into the open. But, as soon as that evidence becomes manifest, forget about “Impeachment” and turn your efforts instead to enforcement of the statutes that punish, in one manner or another, what the North American Law Center calls “criminal identity fraud”, whether this can be accomplished in 2015, or only in 2016, or only in 2017. And under no circumstances ever acquiesce to the least degree in the notion that usurpation of the office of President can actually clothe an usurper or any of his acts with any of the attributes of the Presidency, especially a supposed immunity from termination of his usurpation by any means other than “Impeachment”.
The foregoing said, I nevertheless fear that, in chasing after Mr. Obama’s “Impeachment”, Mr. Williams has set out on something of a fool’s errand. This may seem to be a pessimistic assessment. But, as the old saw has it, a pessimist is an optimist who knows the facts. And the political and economic facts of the last several years bode exceedingly ill for the future.
The political facts are that, since Mr. Obama first campaigned for the Presidency in 2008, the Members of Congress, the courts at every level of the federal system, State officials, the big media, powerful special-interest groups, and even masses of deluded Americans have done nothing to address his ineligibility for and then imposture in that office—other than to ridicule the question, disregard the available evidence, and dismiss the whole issue as irrelevant or inconsequential. Tutored by this experience, can we realistically expect a different outcome in 2015, 2016, or 2017? Without confessing themselves to be no less than accomplices in Mr. Obama’s imposture, how can the professional political class, the “mainstream” media, and the special interests ever admit that since at least 2008 they all have promoted, protected, and pandered to Mr. Obama, even though at all times they knew or should have known that he might very well be ineligible for the office of President—and never demanded from him conclusive proof of his eligibility if such proof exists? Against that background, how can they allow an honest and thorough investigation to be conducted now? Were honest and thorough investigations how they and their predecessors dealt with, for the prime examples, the 9/11 event and the assassination of President Kennedy? No, these worthies will continue to cover up for Mr. Obama, because in doing so they will cover up for themselves. This is where Mr. Williams’ vaunted political acumen fails him. He does not seem to realize that Mr. Obama never was, and is not now, the core of the problem, and that therefore the eviction of the latter’s person from the White House, through “Impeachment” or otherwise, cannot terminate America’s on-going national nightmare. Mr. Obama always was and remains merely the pen with which at this moment others are charting the serpentine course for (in Mr. Williams’ apt phrase) “the destruction of the U.S. Constitutional Republic”—just as Bush, Clinton, and other real Presidents were only temporary figureheads on a ship of state they did not actually captain, sailing to a destination to which perhaps they were not even privy.
The economic facts are that, even if his handlers could contrive to throw Mr. Obama under the bus without soiling their own skirts, and did instal an ostensible Goody Two Shoes “reform” figure in the office of President in order to placate an angry populace, the nationwide banking and monetary collapse looming over this country would not be stopped, or even significantly slowed, in its fatal course. The Powers That Be in the District of Columbia and New York City are fully aware of this—which is why they are laying the logistical groundwork for “martial law” (or, as the new buzz-phrase has it, “state of emergency”) throughout the land, by para-militarizing State and Local law-enforcement agencies at a frantic pace, in order to be ready to put down with maximum brutality the social disorder and civil disobedience which will break out across the continent when the economy melts down. “What effect favorable to average Americans”, one could ask Mr. Williams, “would efforts aimed simply at Mr. Obama’s ‘Impeachment’ have on these developments?” No effect at all is most likely the correct answer. Can anyone believe that Mr. Biden’s succession to the Presidency could provide America with relief from the policies being promoted by Mr. Obama? Or does Mr. Williams propose to subject to “Impeachment” Mr. Biden too—thus doubling the complexity of the process while undermining any likelihood of its success?
In sum, Mr. Williams and his co-thinkers should be concerned less with the scintillating political fireworks of Mr. Obama’s “Impeachment” and more with a prosaic effort to teach Americans how they can protect themselves against social dissolution and “martial law” in the event of a nationwide economic catastrophe. I emphasize the need for Americans to learn how to protect themselves, and to take the necessary steps to do so, because the professional politicians, the big media, and the powerful special-interest groups will do nothing for the people, only plenty to them. Mr. Williams apparently agrees with this assessment, when he observes that
The people will be able to hold politicians accountable, though, only after they have taken action sufficient to provide for “the security of a free State” in the unique manner the Constitution prescribes. I hope Mr. Williams knows what that is, or at least finds out before it is too late. For part one click below.
� 2014 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
He can be reached at his new
Mr. J.B. Williams recently wrote a commentary for NewsWithViews entitled “House Republicans Place Obama on Official Notice”, in which he focused on the continuing constitutional crisis caused by the residency of Mr. Barack Obama in the White House.