by Joseph DeMaio, ©2022

https://www.thepostemail.com/2022/11/20/the-impeachment-imperative-revisited/

(Nov. 22, 2022) — From time to time, faithful readers of The P&E – and even the occasional liberal or Democrat – offer comments to your humble servant’s offerings.  On occasion, a comment will pique your servant’s interest and result in another post.  Such is the case now.

In this recent offering, your servant reiterated his warning that the impeachment of Joseph Robinette Biden – sometimes whimsically referred to as “The Goofball,” “The Big Guy” or, respectfully, “Brandon” – was a categorical imperative if the Republic was to survive.  To quote him: “Not a joke…, not hyperbole.”

The history of just his first 23 months in office as chief buffoon is one of indisputable incompetence, defiance, stupidity and outright abandonment of his constitutional duties.  Among those he has abandoned are to refrain from “adhering to” the enemies of the nation by providing them “aid and comfort” as well as his obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Anyone who contends to the contrary is either in deep denial or is likely indulging in a controlled substance.

In commenting on that post, one “12 GenerationAmerican” (probably a pseudonym) offered the following: “It should be a tandem impeachment of The Goof and The Cackler! MAGA AGAIN!”  Truth be known, your servant had considered making that additional proposal in the prior post, but decided to concentrate on Brandon first and hold the “Cackler” issue for a subsequent post.  And then 12 GenerationAmerican commented, precipitating that which you are now reading.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-JUTYfp2Ns

If by “The Cackler,” 12 GenerationAmerican means Kamala Harris – a pretty safe bet – a fairly good case exists for pursuing the “tandem impeachment” being suggested.  That is because, quite apart from her reputation as the “Word Salad Queen,” Harris is almost certainly ineligible as a president or vice president under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5, the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution, at least under a “de Vattel § 212” interpretation.   

As faithful P&E readers well-know, your servant’s prior posts on the eligibility issue have focused heavily on the 1758 edition of a legal treatise relied upon by the Founders when they were crafting the new nation’s constitution in Philadelphia in 1787.  That treatise is “The Law of Nations,” by the Swiss attorney, philosopher and jurist Emmerich de Vattel.

Specifically, in § 212 of de Vattel’s legal tome “Le Droit des Gens,” or “The Law of Nations,” it is provided that in order for one to be a “natural born citizen,” the person’s mother and father must be, at the time of the person’s birth, already citizens of the country where the birth takes place.  De Vattel notes that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” (Emphasis added) 

This is the principle which the Founders understood and it is what they seemingly clearly intended when they inserted the term into Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 – the “Eligibility Clause” – of their newly-minted Constitution.  Arguments and hypotheses to the contrary are generally premised on faulty – and on occasion, disingenuous – reasoning and ignore empirical, historical facts.

This post will not attempt to regurgitate the multiple posts he has offered, or offered by others who share the same view, as it would extend this post into next week.  Suffice it to say that, under a “de Vattel § 212” analysis, Kamala Harris is very likely constitutionally ineligible to serve as either Vice-President (under the 12th Amendment) or as President (under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5) because although she was born in Oakland, California, her parents were not U.S. citizens at that time.

For those interested, these issues are addressed as to Harris here, here and here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08 “We’re evading that one”

That circumstance aside, since the Supreme Court persists in “evading” the issue, perhaps a tandem impeachment of the Goof and Harris could “kill two birds with one stone.” 

Specifically, if successful, it would (1) rid the vice presidency of a constitutionally ineligible usurper and (2) lay the immediate foundation for the next in line to the presidency: the Speaker of the House and, probably, a Republican, bringing Brandon’s reign to a welcomed end.  It would also provide a great forum for the competingWong Kim Ark/citizen by birth” and “de Vattel § 212” arguments to be aired out free of Supreme Court control…, and evasion…, and indifference. 

This hypothetical is, of course, beyond the left field warning track.  On the other hand, it is no farther “out of the box” than the theory being floated by some Democrats suggesting that if Biden (or his marionette-masters) could persuade Harris to resign, he could then appoint California radical Gavin Newsom Vice President…, then himself resign, elevating Newsom to the presidency.  OOOoooo….

Under that scenario, at the end of the day, an addled and incompetent presidential candidate would bow out of the 2024 race and a guy who would seek to remake the country into California – YIKES – would be an incumbent president.  They forget, conveniently of course, that under the 25th Amendment, such a result would require majority approval of both the Senate and the House …, which after the mid-term election is not going to happen.  Stated otherwise, the Democrats’ “Hail-Mary-save-us-from-Biden-in-2024” proposal is DOA for Newsom or any other Democrat wannabe president.

In short, the 12 GenerationAmerican “tandem impeachment” proposal has a delicious appeal to it and a better chance of succeeding than the Newsom gambit.  But this is true only if the backbone to first make the effort in the House is discovered.  Memo to P&E readers: don’t hold your breath, as you will likely pass out.

But hey, we’re only talking about the future of the Republic…, right?  As Confucius is rumored to have noted: “May you live in interesting times.”  

Join the Conversation

7 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Considering no attorney even filed in 2020 a legal challenge to Vice President’s eligibility, it would be beyond left field to believe the House would impeach her on this basis.

      1. Numerous attorneys participated in all aspects of impeachment proceedings. No attorney filed any of the few eligibility challenges against against Vice President Harris.

        So expecting the House’s legal staff to do anything suggested in this article would be beyond left field.

        Especially considering the House never sought to impeach President Obama on this basis.