Impeach Obama? Is Ron Paul Right? - Loyal To Liberty

The elitist faction’s anti-American 80-20 strategy for the GOP

Despite my efforts to explain how silly it is, I still encounter apologists for the GOP’s quisling leadership who cite ...

Read More

The choice: Impeachment or dictatorship

Some time back, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Barack Obama can’t be impeached because he’s America’s first black President.  I experienced ...

Read More

War in the GOP: real or contrived?

I've been reading  lately about an alleged war going on in the GOP.  Is this for real? The supposed "battle ...

Read More

Does Bush's Plea of love exonerate illegals?

[For readers who may have missed it, here is the column WND published yesterday.] Speaking of illegal immigrants, Jeb Bush says: “Yes, they ...

Read More

Eich's dismissal was an exercise of freedom

I applaud Brendan Eich if his refusal to apologize for his action in defense of the human natural rights of ...

Read More

Faithful Christian citizens seek victory that counts

The yea-nay approach to Christian Citizenship- Concluded Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery apparently believes that the prospect of victory in ...

Read More

Is breaking faith the Christian citizen's way to victory?

The yea-nay approach to Christian citizenship, Part II FOR THE LORD'S DAY In my last post, we learned that Focus on the ...

Read More

Focus on the Family's yea-nay approach to Christian citizenship

FOR THE LORD’S DAY I saw a headline recently that foreshadows America’s doom as well or better than any other I ...

Read More

Burning murdered babies for fuel-Does it shock you?

I just read this headline: Shocking report shows 15,000 aborted babies incinerated to heat British Hospitals. According to the story: The hospitals, ...

Read More

Paul, Cruz and the GOP's mimicry of principle

On Wednesday I read of a media orchestrated exchange of views between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz that further entrenched ...

Read More

To save America, the people themselves must lead

[In an email I received this morning a reader’s comment on my last WND article, To Joseph Farah: I respectfully ...

Read More

Impeach Obama? Is Ron Paul Right?

by Alan Keyes on October 7, 2011


For war consists not in battle only, or in the act of fighting, but in a tract of time wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known; and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lies not in a shower or two of rain but in an inclination thereto of many days together, so the nature of war consists not in actual fighting but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace. (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 13)

I doubt that the United States has ever engaged in war without some U.S. citizens taking part with those making war against us. In his vociferous reaction against the recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki Ron Paul certainly reminds us of the serious and troubling issues involved in the decisions required to take effective action against such self-selected enemies of their country. Paul and those who applaud his advocacy of passivism in matters of national security claim constitutional grounds for their objection to deadly national security operations that target U.S. citizens, even when these citizens plan and direct warfare against the United States as al-Awlaki reportedly did. They accurately point out what the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “nor shall any person be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….”

Ron Paul is well and favorably known for insisting that the U.S. Constitution be strictly adhered to and applied.  But in this case does he himself fail to take careful account of what it actually says? The Fifth Amendment’s words do not restrict the due process requirement to the government’s dealings with citizens of the United States. They apply to “any person”, with nothing said about that person’s citizenship status. In order to act with due regard for the Constitution in this respect we must therefore consider what the Fifth Amendment requires of the U.S. government in its conduct toward all persons, not just those who are U.S. citizens.

But considered in light of this more accurate observation of the Constitutional context, Ron Paul’s criticism implies restrictions on U.S. government action that are so broad as to preclude the possibility of any warlike actions in defense of our national security. It effectively erases the prudentially necessary distinction between warfare and law enforcement. Every military and national security operation would have to be regarded as an exercise in law enforcement, during which U.S. personnel would have observe all the safeguards entailed by the due process presumption of innocence.

In time of war, this would endlessly complicate operations that depend on secrecy, surprise and deadly swiftness. It would lead to absurdities likely to prove inexcusably fatal to our military and national security personnel. Apparently, the authors of the Fifth Amendment realized this. The first clause of the amendment applies the procedures of law enforcement “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger…” This prudent exception explicitly recognizes the special exigencies connected with the conduct of military and national security operations (i.e., operations that deal with ongoing public dangers).

This exception reminds us of a truth that the situation of America’s founding generation did not permit them to forget: no written provisions of law can deal with every emergency, every situation and circumstance. Therefore, prudence and common sense will always be required by those determined to act with respect for the provisions of constitutional government. This does not mean that any action taken in the course of military and national security operations must be accepted without question. But it does mean that not every such question can be clearly answered by citing the words of the Constitution. The Executive should always act with due regard for the Constitution, but perforce that also involves due regard for circumstances that threaten the safety and existence of the people the Constitution exists to serve. To paraphrase, with respect, what Christ said of the Sabbath, the Constitution exists for the people, not the people for the Constitution.

Ironically, this reasoning compels me to conclude that Ron Paul’s demand for a bill of impeachment against Barack Obama should be given serious consideration. Unless the people, through their representatives, seriously scrutinize Executive actions that appear to contradict the Constitution words, how can they be certain those actions were, in truth, justified by prudence and common sense? Sometimes (as, I think, in the case of the killing of al-Awlaki) such scrutiny will lead to overwhelming defeat of an impeachment bill. But at other times a majority of the people’s representatives, influenced no doubt by the common feelings of their constituents will unite to demand a full Senate trial of the case. Both the legislative and executive branches of our government will benefit from the greater sense of responsibility and accountability this process encourages. So, in fact, will the security of every person’s unalienable and/or Constitutional rights. Prudence is essential to good government, but so is careful and habitual scrutiny of any extraordinary actions taken in its name.

  • Dawg em

    Once again, Dr. Keyes, you have made a very compelling argument. Taken in isolation there is not much with which I would disagree. However, my concern is not only with the proverbial “slippery slope”, but also the criminal cabal that presently occupies the halls of government. Much like the ever-changing American lexicon (remember when the word “bad” wasn’t being used as a pejorative but began to be used to reference a modified car or a popular person?) American law has been redefined and misapplied. What happens to a person like myself who vociferously condemns the treasonous, global whores who are destroying our Republic? As it stands right now my numerous postings have undoubtedly placed me on watch lists or at least have been “flagged” for my potentially being classified as a domestic terrorist. (See the MIAC Report). When the Second American Revolution/Civil War comes, will I be subjected to the same Chicago-style ‘hit’ as OBL allegedly was?

    As to your last point, would a superfluous impeachment proceeding be truly productive when the illegal, unconstitutional and immoral bombing of Libya is a much more legitimate reason? I suspect ‘loser’ impeachment proceedings will cheapen and ‘tire’ a legitimate process for the removal of such a threat as the present usurper in the White House.

    It’s good to have you back posting here at your blogspot. God bless and Peace.

  • Chris Mason

    Come on Alan the time is right get into this race! No-one, No-one does it better than you.


  • Paul Szemanczky

    Outstanding submission: we should be gathering impeachment evidence from Geitner’s Treasury, Bernanke’s FRB, and most definately Holder’s AG as these were the ‘Hitlerian’ surrogates most-used beneficially to raine the Obama’s conscious plan of destruction of the US Economy, the fruit of which is weighted to the DNC and the Wall St. Occupiers, who are his front line offensive for 2012.

  • Paul Szemanczky

    Alan: I believe we should begin the impeachment process via the Holder-Attorney General maliase which is so detailed in a recently issued book that it significantly details the levels of incompetence/malfeisance innate to Obama’s directed agenda. Much like Hitler directed his SS inside Germany in the mid to late 30′ties, so has Obama consistently shoved his issues and destructive ideas forward on the backs of Holder and Geitner, most publically, and the other ‘czars’ less obviously. The Senate and House should be gathering incriminating evidence through the Treasury, through the Federal Reserve, and of course the AG’s offices. Thank-you. (*You are a great man)

  • Booch Paradise

    That is an interesting point, but I would say that you can safely assume that in all cases in the bill of rights when it talks about the rights of the people it is specifically referring to American citizens and when referring to the government it is referring to the US government. For example if we are to take your logic and apply it to all the amendments, the tenth amendment also does not specify that the term people is referring to US citizens. So are we to assume that all power not specifically given to the federal government is held by the states and all the people of the world? I also don’t think that you can go to the clause for in a time of war, because he was not collateral damage. This was an attack that served no other purpose than to kill a single man. If we are to excuse this then why couldn’t you just say that there is a predator drone clause to the fifth amendment? The conclusion would have to be that Government can kill anyone out side of its boarders just so long as a predator drone is used.

Previous post:

Next post: