Clinton should not be impeached because...

Castle Doctrine

***************** PART ONE OF THREE ******************

As I understand the current flap over Clinton, here are the major accusations:

So far the flap has centered on points 2 and 3. But, if Clinton indeed had a legal consensual affair as stated in Point 1, then Points 2 and 3 are moot. Clinton has no obligation to tell the truth or to cooperate with the government. Clinton has a right to influence witnesses and to obstruct [illegal] justice any way he can. Here follows a discussion about that:


If a citizen is doing nothing illegal, however good or bad it may be, can the government properly declare a $40,000,000 mixed war [1] on him? Or is the government now authorized to not only enforce the law, but also to enforce the bureaucrat-in-charge's concept of morality? Can the government go beyond enforcing the law, and also apply police power to morality?


It is a well established point of the law of jurisdiction that if one is doing nothing illegal, regardless of what the activity is, the government may not interfere. If a policeman should decide to *illegally* arrest a citizen, the citizen is entitled to use whatever reasonable force necessary to preserve his liberty, even if the force is lethal.

Recently that point was reaffirmed at Ruby Ridge, where Mr Weaver killed a U.S. Marshal who was trying to arrest him. The jury determined that the Marshal fired the first shot and Mr. Weaver was entitled to shoot back to protect himself as well as to protect himself from unlawful arrest.

The principle is long standing. It was first established in 1709 in The Queen v Tooley case[2]. In the United States it became the established rule in Bad Elk v United States[3]. In the Bad Elk case the Supreme Court held that, "the defendant, whose murder conviction was reversed, had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest."

Once the government breaks the rules and conducts a mixed war on one or more citizens without probable cause, it loses its right to expect the citizens to continue to obey the government's wishes. The citizen(s) are entitled, in fact have a duty, to do whatever is necessary to control the government and force the government to obey the law. The U.S. Declaration of Independence elaborates quite thoroughly about that.

In Clinton's case, EVERYONE agrees that he initially did not break the law. However improper his actions were with Monica Lewinsky, the acts were consensual and there was no federal law specifically prohibiting it. When Ken Starr opened what eventually was to become known as the Starr Chamber (a play on the original English Star-chamber which accused, judged, and executed in the name of expediency) he had no probable cause to investigate that incident, and Ken Starr has so admitted that.

Clinton, in that particular case, was (and is) entitled to do any reasonable act of force necessary to preserve his privacy, liberty, and reputation. "Reasonable" means that he cannot act or use force beyond what is necessary to preserve his rights, to preserve the status quo, to prevent unlawful jurisdiction.

Clinton took an oath to tell the truth. It is important to realize that the oath was not voluntary. It was forced out of Clinton under threat of contempt of court (force) if he did not testify. Since the government had no probable cause, since the consensual acts were legal, there was no governmental authority to question Clinton about the act. He is, under the nearly three-century-old legal theory of reasonable resistance to loss of rights, entitled to take whatever actions necessary to preserve those rights.

The grand jury to which Clinton is accused of lying was a special grand jury. It was not a fully empowered independent grand jury of 25. Instead, it was a lesser grand jury, statutorily defined, consisting of fewer than 25 members, paid by the federal government, serving as a dependent extension of the government. Because the grand jury was a dependent extension of the government's $40,000,000 mixed war against Clinton, and because it was being influenced by the Starr team (also part of the government), and because there was no probable cause, Clinton still had no obligation to yield to their demands. Nor did he have any obligation to tell the truth, for lying is an acceptable thing to do when defending rights against a mixed war initiated by the government.

The Paula Jones court has a similar problem. There are two reasons why Clinton's alleged actions are not legally significant.

In summary, however opposed we may be to his lying, it was not illegal, and the government has no authority to reach beyond the black letter of the law without probable cause. Morality is a political question enforced at the ballot box, not a legal question subject to police power. It appears that Clinton is entitled to do whatever he can to avoid a mixed war against him by the government. If we people are opposed to Clinton's morality, we are entitled to show it at the ballot box.

If we accept the idea that "The end justifies the means," then we will cease to be a nation of laws and become a nation of opportunistic power. If we allow the government to ignore the requirement that it have probable cause, then anyone can be convicted of anything. Just find something he did that's embarrasing though legal, attack him with such overwhelming power that he cannot make well thought choices of action (he'll make a mistake somehow), and he can be convicted. If the government can disregard the probable cause requirement, then the target can be convicted of murder despite his claim of self defense. Saying it another way, if the government can ignore the fact that Clinton's consensual acts with Monica Lewinsky were legal, then the government can convict Clinton for obstruction of justice, despite his claim that he is entitled to self defend his privacy, liberty, and reputation.

If Clinton is convicted by the Senate, we will have established the precedent that the government needs no probable cause to investigate anyone. Is that what we want?

The nearly three-century-old principle that one may stand his ground when a limited government breaks loose from the restraints of law and mounts an unprovoked attacked will be certainly trashed. Is that what we want?

Is it now OK for the government to conduct a $40,000,000 mixed war against a citizen because the citizen's conduct, though legal, is immoral in the eyes of the government? Are we ready for the morality police?

Many claim that Clinton is a bad guy--bad for the country, bad for the children, bad for the Republicans. It seems to me that we can hold the government to a higher standard. If Clinton has done something illegal, he should be prosecuted for that act. Clinton should not be prosecuted for resisting an investigation of a legal act just because he is disliked for something else.

Just because a bunch of politicians are loosely calling President Clinton a perjurer, it isn't necessarily so--even Ken Starr admitted that there was no genuine perjury, just a lot of lying. Do not haste to grant the government authority to police morality. They do badly enough just "enforcing" the law. Do not limit the right to protect oneself from unlawful intrusion from the government. We have little enough power to protect ourselves from our present government. The founding fathers and the courts have provided us the means to preserve our liberty, privacy, and good name. We must demand that the government respect that by following good procedure and not let it profit by success when it skips over essential steps in prosecutorial procedure.



[1] In this writing I used the term "mixed war." Here is the legal dictionary definition: "one which is made on one side by public authority, and on the other by mere private persons." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 1420

[2] The Queen v Tooley (1709) 2 Ld Raym 1296, 92 Eng Reprint 349

[3] Bad Elk v United States (1900) 177 US 529, 44 L Ed 874, 20 S Ct 729.

[4] Our Western civilization is based in part on the Greek civilization. The Greek Gods required that earthly humans must be honorable, honest, etc. But they made one exception to that rule. In matters of love, men and women were allowed to deceive without restriction. Although we all want integrity in our daily affairs, even the Greek Gods acknowledged, where humans were concerned, that there was a practical limit to enforcing that standard, and they made a special exemption. Sorry. That's part of Western Tradition.

***************** PART TWO OF THREE *****************
************ Further commentary ************
********* and other random thoughts ********

Nowhere in the accusations does anyone claim that Clinton's consensual affair was illegal. I object to Clinton being prosecuted for legal behaviour. If we allow the government to prosecute someone for legal behavior because "we don't like him; he deserves it even if we don't have the other evidence," then we are trashing the legal system. I am opposed to trashing the legal system.

Is our system so intellectually impoverished that we are unable to correllate the trial with the crime?

It destroys our system when you prosecute someone for doing something for which there was no law prohibiting it. It destroys our system when you prosecute someone for properly resisting such illegal prosecutions.

The legal meaning of the word "justice" essentially is "fair procedure." To obstruct justice is to obstruct fair procedure. When the government accuses you when no crime has been committed (such as a consensual affair), you are entitled to do whatever you reasonably can to obstruct unfair procedure, aka illegal procedure.

Is our system so intellectually impoverished that we cannot differentiate between self defense against the government and obstruction of justice?

Of course, I understand the problem with trying to speak precise English. Calling things by their right names is a dangerous thing to do. Savile wrote, "A Man that should call every thing by its right Name, would hardly pass the Streets without being knocked down as a common enemy." "The Complete Works of George Savile, First Marquess of Halifax," 1912, 246.

Our system, unlike other systems, says the government cannot just do anything it wants to any person. Our system says that the government has limits, and when it goes beyond those limits it is the responsibility of the People to correct it. Because the U.S.A. is a Republic and not a democracy, it is all the more reason that the People should correct it. In fact, I have no doubt that you, just as I, have often said the Pledge of Allegiance in which you pledged your "allegiance to the Republic." [By the way, if you're not familiar with the difference between a Republic and a democracy, check out the web site at]

Unlike other countries, the U.S.A. is a government with limited powers. It cannot make up ex post facto laws; it cannot do bills of attainder (see U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3). In fact, it cannot do anything unless it has prior permission from the People (see U.S. Constitution, Amendment X, Reservation of Powers).

You can not trust your government to make up laws "on the fly," without public legislative debate. Many foreign countries operate that way: it's not a politically pleasant experience. Let's keep the system clean. Do direct prosecutions, not indirect ones.


Why are the Republicans and naturally conservative prosecutors not prosecuting Clinton for what are far more serious accusations? I suspect the answer is this: The Republicans believe that Clinton will adopt a scorched earth policy if they accuse him. The Republicans are probably equally guilty of accepting illegal campaign donations from the Chinese (well-heeled, smart donors will donate to both parties so they can get favors from whoever wins). The Republicans are probably equally guilty of treasonous acts, bribes, and obstruction of justice.

If you want a real experience, call up your representative and try to discuss why proposed legislation is not considered for its constitutionality. You will find that the U.S. Constitution has no place in their thoughts except when they are telling you how loyal they are. The idea that legislation should be prechecked for constitutionality has been considered and rejected by Congress.

Every representative and senator has a $200+ book called, "The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation." You can see its contents for free at It is prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The book is published by the Library of Congress for the Congress. The book pulls no punches. In it you can find the differences between the rights of People and the Civil Rights of citizens (1992 Edition, Footnote 37, Page 962 []; or 2002 Edition, Footnote 37, Page 1006, []); or see summary at I know of no congressman who has looked at its contents. In fact, it is not unusual for Congress to pass bills that are duplicated so that if a particular code is declared unconstitutional its duplicate sister code is immediately invoked for enforcement. This is particularly true for anti-gun and anti-drug legislation.

***************** PART THREE OF THREE *****************

Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.

Submitted by joeFL on Sat, 09/26/2009 in
Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)