The Michigan Militia Corps'

Weekly Update
Internet Edition

Volume 4, Issue 8

Week of March 10, 1997

Barr Calls for Impeachment
Cites Clinton/Gore "Web of Scandal"

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) has officially asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde to begin an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton and Vice President Gore amid increasing evidence that the "campaign-finance scandal has compromised national-security interests and corrupted the country's foreign-policy decisions" (The Washington Times, 3/14/97).

Barr charged Clinton with using the White House to "amass his political campaign war chest" and Gore with fundraising "on federal property and with federal resources." Calling to remembrance laws invoked to impeach Richard Nixon, Barr wrote, "The cumulative effect of such a series of systemic abuses of the political process points to impeachment law considered explicitly by our Founding Fathers alone among remedies to correct abuses of power or improper conduct by high public officials."

In 1995, White House Counsel Abner Mikva sent both Clinton and Gore a memo warning that "fund-raising activities of any kind were prohibited ... and no fund-raising phone calls or mail may emanate from the White House." But Vice-President Gore has admitted he made 50+ fundraising calls from his office at the White House using a Clinton/Gore Campaign credit card.

President Clinton has acknowledged that he, too, may have made such calls.

Barr said, "the web of Clinton campaign-related scandal" is now of such a "complexity and proportion" that it is now improper to appoint an independent prosecutor. This "cannot be viewed as a permissible or desirable alternative to the constitutionally mandated process properly reserved for impeachment inquiry [such] would undermine our [Congress'] own constitutional obligations."

The US Constitution says "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" are grounds for impeachment.

Impeachment proceedings will require an investigation by the Judiciary Committee, debate by the full House, indictment by the House, trial by the Senate and a 2/3 majority vote to convict.

Georgia Fingerprinting Update

This week the Georgia Senate voted 41 to 7 to repeal the law passed last year about requiring fingerprints on drivers license. They said in comments, they thought it would be a good way of keeping criminals out of GA when they passed it at the end of the session last year, but after discussing it at length with their constituents during the winter break have seen that most people in GA do not want to be fingerprinted every time they have to renew their license.

The bill to repeal this law still has to pass the Georgia house and this is expected to go to them sometime in the next few weeks and no one is at all sure about how that will go. Governor Zell Miller still maintains he will veto the bill if it passes the house. Stay tuned for further updates.

SPC Michael New gets D.C. Appeal!

(Washington) - The U.S. Court of Appeals has denied the Department of Defense's request to throw SPC Michael New's case out with a "summary affirmation," and has granted New a full hearing. New was the soldier who reported to duty in Schweinfurt, Germany, in October, 1995, wearing an authorized U.S. Battle Dress Uniform, in disobedience of a direct order to wear unauthorized United Nations insignia. The military judge, Lt. Col. Gary Jewell, refused to allow New's attorneys to present any evidence to the panel concerning the legality of the orders, the uniforms, or the deployment itself. He was court-martialed and given a Bad Conduct Discharge in 1996. His case is on appeal in the military courts as well.

The 3rd Infantry Division has been supplying 550 men to the United Nations for six month deployments into Macedonia since mid-1993, without Congressional approval or authority. President Clinton maintains that he doesn't need Congress' permission to send troops. In mid-1993 Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive #25 giving himself the authority to act without Congress. While he provided a summary of that directive to Congress, he classified the actual order, so no Congressman is allowed to read it. A controversy has developed over this practice.

Virginia attorney Michael Farris said Thursday, "This ruling means that Michael New's arguments will now get the full hearing they deserve. The Constitution and the laws of this country make it clear that the President cannot unilaterally assign soldiers to fight under a foreign commander in foreign uniforms. Michael New has courageously stood on the side of our country and our laws. We will now have an opportunity to demonstrate the clear illegality of the Clinton decision to unilaterally commit our bravest men and women to foreign commanders who have the power to place them in harms way in a battle zone." Farris is head of the Home School Legal Defense Association, and is New's lead attorney in the civilian courts.

For more information: Michael Farris 540/338-1835
Daniel New 409/539-1917

Jenkins, Dornan, Press their Cases

Republican Woody Jenkins reports he has evidence showing 7,454 votes were fraudulently cast for his opponent Mary Landrieu during the 1996 race for Louisiana's US Senate seat. Landrieu can be removed by a simple-majority Senate vote if Jenkins proves her winning margin of only 5,700 votes consisted of votes illegally cast.

California Republican Bob Dornan is on a "subpoena campaign" to obtain evidence from agencies whose files may prove Rep. Loretta Sanchez's 979 vote victory was made possible by illegal votes. An investigation by the California Secretary of State revealed that one publicly funded immigrant rights group, Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, helped register at least 227 non- citizens to vote. A House committee has recommended field hearings be held in Dornan's Orange County, 36th Congressional District.

Clinton's UN Response

Clinton had a press conference on Friday March 7th and an interesting question came up. Even though he is "laughing" about the question, he never says that it is baloney. Although the "concentration camp" part is a bit far out, notice his response to the rest of the question; "...we live in an interdependent world." He spends most of the response backing up the UN, his denial of giving away independence is almost an afterthought. Read for yourself...[I got this from the White House web site.]


...Let's take one from Sarah. And then I've got to take one from Jill Dougherty because she's about to go to Moscow and she needs to have her parting shot. Go ahead.

Q Sir, this is on another subject. We have a very great problem in this country today, and I wonder if you would use your leadership to counteract the rumor-mongers that are abroad in the land who are spreading all these rumors that are scaring people to death -- large segments of our citizens believe that the United Nations is taking over whole blocks of counties in Kentucky and Tennessee.


Q And some of them, they believe that --

THE PRESIDENT: Now, you all are laughing, but --

Q -- you're going to put us in a concentration camp and you're going to give our army to Russia and all that baloney. Could you do something about this? Because it's hurting the unity of the United States.

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know, because the people who believe that think I'm the problem. (Laughter.) We're all laughing about it, but there is a not insubstantial number of people who believe that there is a plan out there for world domination and I'm trying to give American sovereignty over to the U.N. There was a --I read in our local Arkansas newspaper, one of them the other day had a letter to the editor saying that, there I go again, there's Clinton out there trying to give American sovereignty over to the United Nations.

Let me just say this: For people that are worried about it, I would say, there is a serious issue here that every American has to come to grips with, including Americans that don't much think about foreign policy until some great problem occurs, and that is, how can we be an independent, sovereign nation leading the world in a world that is increasingly interdependent, that requires us to cooperate with other people and then to deal with very difficult circumstances in trying to determine how best to cooperate.

That's the issue that you will all be reporting on for the next week in the Mexico certification issue. Did I do the right thing to certify Mexico? Are the members of Congress who disagree with me right when they say we should have decertified Mexico and then give it a national interest waiver so we could continue to cooperate economically and in others ways?

I strongly believe I was right. But we don't -- if you want to go into that, we can later, but the issue is, we live in an interdependent world. We have to cooperate with people. We're better off when we do. We're better off with NATO. We're better off with the United Nations. We're better off when these countries can work together. So I just think for folks that are worried about this out in the country, they need to be thinking about how -- we're not going to give up our freedom, our independence, but we're not going to go it alone into the 21st century either. We're going to work together and we have to.


Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. Speaking of Russia and NATO, yesterday we heard...


California Senators Question Navy Base Deal

Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, California's two senators, sent a letter to Samuel R. Berger, the National Security Advisor and Defense Secretary William Cohen requesting an inquiry into a plan to turn over a Long Beach Naval Station to a Communist Chinese Shipping Company named COSCO.

It is reported that the lease was assisted by the White House without seeking national security review.

The facility will reportedly be leased for $14.5 million a year. The Long Beach harbor commission plans to build a $200 million terminal for use by COSCO.

Among the reasons for the inquiry by the Senators is a questionable history by the company. Among the incidents that COSCO has been involved in are;

-One of COSCO's ships was used to bring 2,000 illegal immigrants into the country last year;

-One of their ships was searched after US intelligence suspected chemical weapons smuggling. Nothing was found;

-One ship crashed into a boardwalk in New Orleans in December.

COSCO also reportedly has a facility in Alabama.

--Letter to the Editor Concerning COSCO:

Hi Jeff,

Just wanted to drop you a line... I'm a 31 year old Geologist working for an environmental firm (we solve problems instead of the organizations, who just whine about them), from Virginia but currently I live with my girlfriend in Lafayette California (State of Confusion). I just finished reading Set Up and Sold Out by Holly Swanson and it really has me worried. Why? not because it in itself is alarmist but because it assists in confirming fears I've always had... I believe we are in for some serious crap.

I get back to the office this afternoon (Alameda, right next to what used to be a world class naval station, now closed) and there sitting across the channel is a Cosco ship at the Oakland terminal. Now, these people have a lease at Redwood City I hear, Long Beach (which I'm sure you've heard about in the news) and I now hear in Alabama also. I get this nagging feeling (call me paranoid) that we are going to see something occur that may make Pearl Harbor seem like peanuts.

Think about this... I put myself in Chinese shoes... If I want to achieve limited objectives (crush unrest in the newly aquired Hong Kong, take Taiwan, maybe get some Siberian realestate etc...) how would I prevent U.S. naval intervention in the conflict, particularly in the Taiwan arena? How about pre-caching weapons supplies at bases in the U.S., then coordinate your operation with a simultaneous seizure or key west coast cities and ports Via sudden deployment of up to 100,000 troops contained in several large container ships? Even if the seizure were basically a suicide mission the Asian objectives would be achieved through the necessity of the U.S. Naval forces being drawn to home...

[Something to keep in mind. We continuously downsize our military while China continues to strengthen theirs like there is no tomorrow. Sounds extremely pre-World War 2-ish]


Law of Principal & Agent

Legal opinion on violations of the Constitution by State legislative agents in Washington, by Judge J. J. Boesel, ret. *

States are not mere subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the federal government. The positions occupied by State officials appear nowhere on the federal government's organizational chart. The Constitution, "The Federalist No. 39, page 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) reserved sovereignty to the States under the Tenth Amendment."

Whatever the outer limits of the sovereignty may be, one thing is clear, the federal government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. "Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the states, departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by "consent" of state officials."

So wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the case of NY vs US, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), (at pages 2434, 2435 and head note 18). And so the Court held the "take title" provision of Congress' Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act lies outside the Tenth Amendment.

According to this case, the States in their sovereign capacities are no longer "agencies" of the federal government; the shoe is on the other foot. The States are the Principals and the federal government is the "agent" of the sovereign States.

Colorado and Oklahoma have already acted as sovereigns in the two Resolutions listed herein. Colorado in declaring its sovereignty grounded on this case declares the federal government to be its "agent". Oklahoma declares it shall no longer be subject to the "Federal Regulatory Program" of the United Nations as brought about by the UN Treaty [charter].

Both States are on sound constitutional ground. Colorado acts as sovereign in its capacity as principal based upon this NY case. Oklahoma rejects further military or funding support by Congress of the UN Treaty.

Oklahoma's action has four grounds for rejecting the UN Treaty as beyond the powers of the Executive and Senate making it unconstitutional and void, and therefore incapable of receiving any further U.S. military or funding support.

An analysis of the U.N. Treaty shows it has, together with laws passed in pursuance thereof, amended the Constitution four times.... five counting President Clinton's recent turn-over of U.S. troops to United Nations command... an act clearly beyond his powers to delegate his duty as Commander in Chief under Art. II of the Constitution. Attorney and columnist Phyllis Schlafly refers to this "turn-over" order as the most unconstitutional transfer of power in the history of America (see Copley News Service item).

These four amendments to the Constitution made by the U.N. Treaty and laws passed pursuant to it, violate the Supreme Court rule that ... "treaties and laws passed pursuant to them must comply with the Constitution" Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Moreover, the Treaty and laws passed pursuant to it cannot change or amend the Constitution. "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution... let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition to construe Article VI (the supremacy clause) as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V" Reid v Covert, supra.

The first defective amendment was brought into being by Article 36 of the Treaty. There it is stated... that "The International Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction over all cases involving the interpretation of a Treaty". This violates Art. III, sec. 2 U.S. Constitution which gives the Federal Judiciary power over all cases involving treaties "made under the authority of the United States".

The second defective amendment was placed in effect by the United Nations General Assembly resolution made in pursuance of the Treaty, setting up a UN Income Tax, with the apparent consent of the Senate subcommittee on the UN Charter (Senate Doc. 87). This violates the Sixteenth Amendment which gives to Congress only the power to tax income and provides for no delegation of this taxing power to the UN or any person or corporation, international or other-wise. It has already been held the United Nations is not a State, and hence has no inherent power to tax. U.S. v Melekh, D.C. N.Y. 190 F. Supp (1967).

The third defective amendment was put in place by the Act of Congress called The International Organizations Immunities Act, passed pursuant to the Treaty. This Act gives immunities from suit to all UN employees and foreign ambassadors, ministers and consuls on missions to the UN, unless they waive their immunity. This immunities law violates Art. III, sec 2, U.S. Const. which says "in all cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and cases in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction". No immunities are found in this original jurisdiction of the Court, nor anywhere else in the Constitution. This violates Marbury v Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) which had this same original jurisdiction section before it. It held that the Congress could not change or amend the original jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution.

The fourth defective amendment was put in place by Article 43 of the Treaty which says... "All members of the United Nations .... undertake to make available to the Security Council... ON ITS CALL (emphasis added), armed forces, assistance and facilities." This Article transfers to the UN Security Council the war power given Congress by Art. 1, sec 8, U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is any authority given to the national government to delegate this war power, the income tax power or the President's power as Commander in Chief.

This analysis of the UN Treaty lends full support to Oklahoma in its order to the federal government to cease further support to the United Nations, for its Treaty is clearly unconstitutional.

"The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive, or by the Executive and the Senate combined" Reid v Covert, (supra).

* Judge Boesel, graduate Ohio State University and University of Michigan Law School, is a former Professor of Constitutional Law, Capitol University Law School, Columbus, Ohio.

A retired Army Colonel he served with the 4th Infantry Division, World War II, which made the assault landing on D-Day, Utah Beach, Normandy.

If you would like to submit an editorial, commentary, or news story from your perspective on something you have been keeping an eye on, please e-mail it to xxx and it will be evaluated for entrance. Thanks.
To subscribe to the Weekly Update, put out weekly by Michigan Militia Corps 5th Division command, simply send a message conveying that to xxx. The Weekly Update is archived at the Michigan Militia Corps web page at: