Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Failure to defend the Constitution is Grounds for Impeachment!
26 Jun 2005
The Supreme Court's decision to remove a private owner by another private owner ends property rights for all. This is part of THE PLAN of the New World Order. Both the Supreme Court Judges and the Bush administration should be impeached for destroying the Constitution and treason.
ngress: Impeach the President and the Suprme Court Justices who are selling out the Constitution:
You're a Veteran and you were lucky to survive fighting for America's good, and you managed to buy some property for your family, by the ocean. According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, another private owner who pays more taxes than you can take your land supposedly for the public good. This commentary is based on the following article appearing today in www.worldnetdaily.com. You are a happy positive person who sees the good in government, and the sun is shining over your sky, as you relax by your home by the Sea.
According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, another private owner who pays more taxes than you can take your land supposedly for the public good.
This commentary is based on the following article appearing today in http://www.worldnetdaily.com.
Along come some developers, who go to court to take your property because they want to build a resort, The Supreme Court told you to pack up, and move because they pay more in tax!
Now is the time for Congress to act and impeach these Unjustices!
Now is the time for the Congress to Act!
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
Justices 'erase' key clause
Breyer: Any seizure of private property could benefit public
Posted: June 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Comments by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer during oral arguments in the landmark Supreme Court property-rights case appear to support Justice Clarence Thomas' assertion that the ruling essentially has erased a key clause from the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
The 5-4 decision Thursday allows a local government to seize a home or business against the owner's will for the purpose of private development.
The debate centered on the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Until now, that has been interpreted to mean projects such as roads, schools and urban renewal. But officials in New London, Conn., argued that private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth, even though the area was not blighted.
In his addition to the dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote: "If such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use,' any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."
Breyer, who sided with the majority, appears to make Thomas' point in an exchange with Scott G. Bullock of the Institute For Justice in Washington, D.C., which represented New London residents whose homes are slated for demolition in favor of an office complex.
Bullock argued that for more than 200 years, the court has recognized "that there are limits on eminent domain power, that they cannot be used for private cases."
But Breyer, citing the late Justice William O. Douglas, says, "as long as it's an objective within Congress and legislature's legitimate grant of power, they can do it, I mean, as long as there's a – so why does there have to be a limit within that broad limit?
The exchange continued:
BULLOCK: Well, Your Honor, the limit is that there cannot be takings for private use.
BREYER: Of course, there can't, purely. But there is no taking for private use that you could imagine in reality that wouldn't also have a public benefit of some kind, whether it's increasing jobs or increasing taxes, et cetera.
That's a fact of the world. And so given that fact of the world, that is law, why shouldn't the law say, okay, virtually every taking is all right, as long as there is some public benefit which there always is and it's up to the legislature.
BULLOCK: Your Honor, we think that that cuts way too broadly.
BULLOCK: Because then every property, every home, every business can then be taken for any private use.
BREYER: No. It could only be taken if there is a public use and there almost always is. Now, do you agree with that, or do you not agree with my last empirical statement?
BULLOCK: Well, again, the eminent domain power is broad, but there has to be limits.
BREYER: Now, that's, of course, my question. The question is, if you agree with the empirical statement that there almost always is some public benefit attached, then my question is, why must there be a limit within that broad framework?
BULLOCK: Well, Your Honor, I think with public -- with just having a simple public benefit, then there really is no distinction between public and private uses. And that is what we call upon this Court to state, for instance, in the Berman case and in the Midkiff case, which we think are really the outer limits of government's eminent domain.
Writing in dissent of Thursday's decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said cities shouldn't be allowed to uproot a family in order to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Along with Thomas, O'Conner was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including – but by no means limited to – new jobs and increased tax revenue."
Along with Breyer, he was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
O'Conner's concerns about large corporations wielding power over small businesses came out in this exchange during the oral arguments.
Scalia asked the lead attorney for New London, Wesley W. Horton, whether it would be "OK to take property from people who are paying less taxes and give it to people who are paying more taxes."
"That would be a public use, wouldn't it?" he said.
Before Horton could answer, O'Conner broke in.
O'CONNOR: For example, Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?
HORTON: Yes, Your Honor. That would be okay. I – because otherwise you're in the position of drawing the line. I mean, there is, there is a limit. I mean –
JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Well, if that, if that's so then the occasional statements that we see in the writing that you can't take from A to give to B is just wrong?
HORTON: No. I don't agree with that. A good example is – well, there is Missouri Pacific.
KENNEDY: You think you can't take from A to give to B, that there is some substance and force to that proposition?
HORTON: There is some force to it. I certainly wouldn't
SCALIA: Let me qualify it. You can take from A to give to B if B pays more taxes?
HORTON: If it's a significant amount. Obviously, there is a cost –
SCALIA: I'll accept that. You can take from A and give to B if B pays significantly more taxes.
HORTON: With that –
JUSTICE SCALIA: You accept that as a proposition?
HORTON: I do, Your Honor.
High court's property decision stirs anger
Violation of 5th Amendment
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This clearly states for public use, not for private profit.
Apparently the Decision was reached based on Scalia’s comment that the private owner who pays more taxes has the right to remove the owner who pays fewer taxes!
Citizens have lost their r rights to own property. I thought that was the basis of our economy and government!
It is my belief that this decision was for the benefit of The New World Order that David Rockefeller spoke of:
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries. We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
—David Rockefeller (a/k/a Rockenfeld/Rockenfield/Rockafield), owner of the $11-Trillion oil cartel (Standard Oil temporarily split under antitrust law and criminally convicted of perpetrating racketeering and organized crime against America - it is now merging back to its former power. Since Georges' Bush and Bill "Clinton" Blythe IV's (Rockefeller JR?) 13-year war and occupation of Iraq, gasoline prices in that OPEC nation inflated from 10-cents per gallon to 2-dollars per gallon), banker, builder and former owner of the World Trade Center
by 5th Amendment eroded
Agenda 21: Rockefeller’s UN and the Supreme Courts BOW TO BIG Business:
Property control a U.N. dream
Posted: June 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
John Prescott, deputy prime minister, told the House of Commons that 10,000 homes would be demolished in a $2 billion program to create "sustainable communities." This massive "Pathfinder" program has been adopted to transform the UK into sustainable communities, a major step toward compliance with goal seven of the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals and further implementation of the U.N.'s Agenda 21.
A similar program is under way in the United States, but proponents are careful to deny that the U.N. has any influence or involvement. The facts tell a different story.
In 1976, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) was held in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Among the recommendations endorsed by the U.S., and adopted, are these:
A (1) (b) All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population ... over the national territory.
(c) (v) Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources.
D (1) (a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of ... achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.
(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation.
(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements. ...
In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development adopted Agenda 21, also endorsed by the U.S. Chapter seven, on human settlements, says:
7.4. The overall human settlement objective is to improve the social, economic and environmental quality of human settlements and the living and working environments of all people, in particular the urban and rural poor. These approaches should form the core principles of national settlement strategies.
What could possibly be wrong with this objective? It requires government to make all the decisions about where and how people must live, rather than a free market.
The promotional literature in England [a .pdf document] blames "market failures" for slums and degraded housing that the government must now step in to improve.
Actually, slums and degraded housing are not market failures; they are simply the evolving market at work. As people enter the work force, often they can only afford slum or degraded housing. But as they climb the economic ladder, they move to better housing, fueling the real estate and construction industries. When the slum area becomes so bad that no one wants to live there, the price of the property becomes very attractive to developers, who buy up the slums and replace them with properties that the developers hope to sell to new buyers. That's the way the market worked – until the latter part of the 20th century.
After the 1976 U.N. meeting in Vancouver, governments began to take a more active role in community development. The 1981 "Poletown" decision, in Michigan, allowed a city to take the homes of 4,200 people. Since then, governments, at every level, have created dozens of ways to gain "public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest," as recommended in the 1976 U.N. document.
Now, under the guise of improving the lives of everyone and protecting the environment, government, in England and in the United States, is taking control over the housing decisions of everyone. The fine print in the housing section of virtually every "comprehensive plan" proposed or adopted in recent years contains language that gives government the authority to dictate minute details, often including colors that may be used and the type of vegetation that must be used in landscaping. In King County, Wash., 65 percent of a private owner's land must be unused and left in natural condition. “
The recent Supreme Court decision to rule eminent domain for city business shows who's kissing up to them in their Kosher banquetts.:
An American Veteran who risked his life fighting for the defense of America's good, can be forced to evacuate his home if some Big business group decides they want to improve the area. They now have the Supreme Court in their pocket too.
These are the Same Not SEEs that decided BUSH was Prez. (See note 1)
Justice Scialia was the one who loves the Noahide laws, without even knowing what they are. See Carol Valentine's website how the Talmudic Zionist Jews are responsible for "education day"
The Noahide laws also give death to an idolater. That is according to them, one who worships any other God than that of the Torah. So Christians could be the targets of these dominant Jews.
From Carol Valentines: Come and Hear: New America
1. America's New Government Church
”Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court judge, is said to be a devout Catholic with a fascination for Jewish law. Under circumstances that are not explained, Justice Scalia developed a correspondence with Rabbi Noson Gurary (a disciple of the late Rabbi Schneerson). During this exchange, Scalia mentioned his "fascination with Jewish law." That prompted Rabbi Garary to found the National Institute for Judaic Law (NIJL). (45) The Institute promotes courses on Talmud-based law in American law schools and otherwise injects Talmud-based law into American society.
The founding of NIJL was celebrated by a gala kosher dinner on November 5, 2002. Justice Scalia and two other Supreme Court judges were among 200 dinner guests. Where was the dinner held? In the Supreme Court building.
Site of Kosher Banquet
The American public first learned of the Supreme Court kosher dinner by reading the news in The Jerusalem Post, November 9, 2002. (45) This remarkable event was not reported contemporaneously by either The Washington Post or The Washington Times. Missing from The Jerusalem Post coverage was the role Scalia may have played in securing the use of the Supreme Court building as a banquet hall for Rabbi Gurary.
Why a devout Catholic like Justice Scalia would promote Talmud-based law is not clear. The Talmud classifies Christians as idolaters, and the Noahide regulations require that idolaters — devout Catholics, for example, people exactly like Justice Scalia — be put to death. Could it be that Rabbi Gurary did not tell Justice Scalia about the Noahide provisions to execute people like Scalia?
Justice Scalia has demonstrated a soft spot for Judaism in other ways. He was the first judge to use the world chutzpah in a Supreme Court decision. (41)
According to an article in Jewish Law, "… Justice Scalia … has repeatedly called for more expressions of tradition and religion in American society. The use of the word chutzpah, with its historical roots and association with Judaism, may fulfill such a role. It also comports with his legal philosophy. He favors the 'nonpreferentialist' view, which posits that government may support religion in general but not in a way that prefers any particular religion. For Justice Scalia to use a term of a Jewish cultural language in a Supreme Court decision could be viewed as in keeping with the nonpreferentialist legal doctrine." — Jewish Law (54)
The word chutzpah is not a religious word, nor is it a traditional American word. It is a Yiddish word meaning, roughly, "unmitigated gall." It is surprising that Jewish Law would attach such significance to the incidental use of a Yiddish word.
If given a judicial opportunity, will Justice Scalia rule in favor of the Noahide Laws? He could describe them as "nonpreferentialist," in the much the same way that Congress described them as "the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization." That sounds most "nonpreferentialist," provided one does not mention death sentences for Christians.
Equal Justice Under Law
Talmud law also provides that Jews and non-Jews be judged by dramatically different standards. For example, in capital cases, 23 judges must sit in judgment on a Jew; two eyewitnesses must have witnessed the offense, and warned him of the potential penalty. In contrast, a Gentile gets one judge, and is convicted on the testimony of one eyewitness with no warnings. See US v. Talmud Law for more details on capital cases. See The Talmud Lives for Jews for details on civil cases.
Justice Scalia has sworn an oath to uphold the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Given that the words Equal Justice Under Law are emblazoned over the cornice of the very building that houses Scalia's office, Justice Scalia is one Very Interesting Person. “
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT: Failure to Defend the Constitution
By allowing FEMA to have complete control and no remedy to restore the Constitution, the Executive Branch fails to preserve the Constitution. Mr. NOT SEE BUSH is allowing a porous Mexican border to go unsecured, and illegals are coming across in record numbers. They could be bringing in the stolen WMDs from Iraq, that the military failed to secure, and this situation is a hair's breadth from a disaster in which Martial law will be declared. I thought it was the American President's duty to defend the United States and its Constitution. What will you do about this hair's breadth threat to your country?
President NOT SEE BUSH, refuses to adequately protect our border with Mexico. Does he really want a biochemical, or nuclear attack in this country? He knows our military failed to secure the WMDs that the US gave Sadamn in the invasion, so why is he not protecting America?
We're a hair's breadth away from Martial law, thanks to the current administration. What will you do about it?
Israel is being used by the Jesuits to defeat the Catholic creation: the Moslems. Without history were bound to repeat... Mohamad's first wife who he loved, was a strong Catholic, and inspired him to form a one God religion among the Arabs, who were worshipping various idols. His own tribe had an idol, and he incorporated it into the formation of Allah. See Chick Publications Comics.
When the Moslems failed to rid the Jews from their lands, the Church turned against them. The founders of the Inquisition, killed more than 64 million non believers, Jews and Arabs, and even there own throughout time. Every pope who tries to abolish their order has been silenced. Do a google search on the Jesuit Oath.
Loyolasts are sworn to smash babies’ heads against the walls. It is a well know fact Mein Kampf was ghost written by a Jesuit priest, and that most of the SS were Jesuit believers.
Jesuits helped form the Zionist movement, knowing that by creating a small state in the heart of Palestine, battles would commence. Israel with its right of return would need more space for themselves, hence take over more and more Palestinian lands. The Jesuits have succeeded in getting the Jews to fight the Arabs.
Israel, like an octopus has its connections in the USA. Like an octopus, it camouflages itself to blend in, and through it's tentacles the ADL, the Israeli Lobby, spies and assonates the reputations of any not favorable to them in politics. Like an Octopus it squirts out ink, then ink is the word anti-Semitism. By this ink it gets away, again and again and again.
The Rockefeller dynastyw with its control of the Federal Reserve,, along with the Jesuits wants one World government. To that end they succeeded in monopolizing the Federal Reserve System, edited the Encyclopedia Britannia, throwing out most references to the Inquisition etc. They needed an event to bring the New World government into reality. That is why 911 was a false flag operation. Pinning the blame on Moslems, CIA (seeded with ex Nazis) and Mossad pulled off one of history's greatest lies.
We're a hair's breath away from Martial law now. Will the US Constitution be replaced forever with FEMA control? The other Rockefeller-Jesuit creation, the UN will enforce their rules, with foreign soldiers gunning down any American protestors, all in the name of peace and order, while our own National Guard and Military are fighting Israel's wars for oil and expansion in the Middle East.
I wish it weren't so but FEMA has about 150 CONCENTRATION CAMPS already in place with barbed wire pointing in already constructed here in the USA. The plan also closes down military bases. Have you read about the Pentagon's move to close military bases here in the US? I have.
Now why in GOD's name is the sitting, goat loving President allowing porous borders with Mexico, knowing that in the Iraq invasion, hundreds of WMDS that The US Gave Sadamn went unprotected? Why for "cheap labor" allow illegal immigration WITH THE VERY REAL THREAT OF CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, or nuclear WEAPONS FROM IRAQ CROSSING THE BORDER, VIA EITHER CONSTRUED OR NEWLY CREATED JIHADISTS BRINGING THEM IN?
There is only one answer. They want it to happen! The BUSH DYNASTAY WANTS THE RICH TO RULE OVER THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE WORKING CLASS OF AMERICA, A major biological or chemical or nuclear attack will bring in those UN forteign troops to stablize the Country, with resulting Loss of the CONSTitution and your Bill of Rights to speak and Protest.
BUSH and friends want to rule over the world, and they're using American taxpayers' money to do it. They bow before the Pope, and would gladly see the Vatican Chief sitting in the Third Temple in Jerusalem.
The only recourse is to urge Congress to immediately write a Bill resorting the Constitution if FEMA takes over, stop all funding to Israel now, (they have Nukes to protect themselves) and let them work out a new Tourist industry to get the money they lost from selling drones to China which could disable US radar. The US should throw out all Jesuits, and send them back to Rome. Let Israel say it will not expand another inch; it will build tall towers for its returning Jews to live in. Britain should compensate the Palestinians for they lands they gave in the creation of Israel, and the Palestinians can build their country in GAZA. JERICHO and Bethlehem. BECAUSE BY HAVING A COMMON INTEREST, HOLY LAND REAL ESTATE, they'd be forced to work together for mutual gain.
WHAT about the Third temple? BUILD it over the DOME of The Rock!
Here you have the beginning of it's end: No safe and secure home:
FBI Turned Loose
Privacy rights may disappear if a new Senate Intelligence Committee bill passes
by Nat Hentoff
June 23rd, 2005 6:16 PM alert me by e-mail
write to us
[Since 9-11] the Constitution has gone from an objective to be satisfied to an obstacle to national defense. . . . As these changes mount, at what point do we become other than a free and democratic nation? George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, Los Angeles Times, January 2, 2003
Civil liberties had their origin and must find their ultimate guarantee in the faith of the people. If that faith should be lost, five or nine [votes on the Supreme Court] could not long supply its want. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Douglas v. City of Jeannette (1943)
On June 6, in a closed-door session, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved a bill that, if Congress and the president agree (and he will), would dramatically expand the FBI's powers under the Patriot Act to issue secret administrative subpoenas for an unprecedented range of personal records—without having to go to a judge.
The FBI will write its own subpoenas—just as British customs officials in the colonies did before the American Revolution—using general search warrants (writs of assistance) to go into homes and offices at will to look for contraband. These raids so inflamed 18th-century Americans that the "general search warrant" was one of the precipitating causes of our revolution.
The ACLU's superb Washington staff bluntly explains the impact of the proposal: "This power would let agents seize personal records [it deems relevant to an intelligence investigation] from medical facilities, libraries, hotels, gun dealers, banks and any other businesses, without having to appear before a judge, and without any evidence that the people whose records are collected are involved in any criminal activity." (Emphasis added.)
If the FBI is targeting you in its dragnet operations for some amorphous connection to terrorism (do you go to a mosque or organize against the war?) you will not know that your personal records have been seized—and put into any number of data banks.
Since these are secret administrative subpoenas, the third-party record holders who get them can't tell you what they've given up to the FBI.
While this unleashing of the FBI was being debated at a May 24 open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, several Democrats asked a highly pertinent question of a witness, Valerie Caproni, general counsel for the FBI: Is there any evidence that the delay—caused by having to get a judge's approval for a subpoena—has ever harmed national security?
This was her answer: "Can we show you, because of delays, that a bomb went off? No, but it could happen tomorrow. It could."
The administration's shadow Constitution, made up as Bush goes along, trashes the rule of law on the basis of what might happen.
That's how so many thousands of Japanese Americans were herded into internment camps during the Second World War as the army gave false prospective information to President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court. If anything like 9-11 happens here again, startled speculation, fueled by fear, could bring back those internment camps—with a multicultural range of inmates.
Listening to the FBI general counsel's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee was Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who, until that moment, had been a stalwart defender of the Patriot Act, much to the administration's delight. Hearing Valerie Caproni justify awarding the FBI such overwhelming authority that this administration had previously failed to get through, Senator Feinstein was somewhat shaken.
"This is a very broad power," she said, "with no check on that power. It's carte blanche for a fishing expedition." She got it!
Because that vote was taken at a closed session of the Intelligence Committee, the yeas and nays have not been officially revealed. (And George W. Bush calls this "a transparent democracy"!) But I have learned that four Democrats voted against the bill as a whole, including the FBI's expanded administrative subpoenas. They were Dianne Feinstein, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Republican Pat Roberts of Kansas, the aggressive chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, moved this bill fast to steal a march on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which also has oversight authority over the Justice Department and its FBI.
Among the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, ranking minority member Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Richard Durbin of Illinois, and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin—the latter being the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001—should mount strong opposition to the administrative subpoenas and other parts of the bill.
For example, empowering the FBI to get from postal inspectors, The New York Times reports, the "names, addresses and all other material appearing on the outside of letters sent to or from people connected to foreign intelligence investigations."
(These mail covers also fish widely, and with little meaningful judicial supervision. It's the FBI that guesses how you may be "connected.")
Lisa Graves, the admirably knowledgeable senior counsel for legislative strategy at the ACLU, says the Intelligence Committee, fearing this bill would lose in the Judiciary Committee, quickly moved to get it out first as a fait accompli, so those who oppose it can be charged with being "soft on terror."
In the May 18 Counterpunch, Lisa Graves adds: "I guess now we'll have to see whether the people on the Judiciary Committee will have the political courage to stand up on this."
I also wonder how long before New York senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton address themselves to these secret FBI vacuum cleaners of information.
And it would be useful if the so-called Democratic leadership (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the strutting Howard Dean) would join Bob Barr of the American Conservative Union in saying loud and clear that this bill "would essentially render the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizure completely meaningless." To be continued. go to next article in news ->
ISN'T THE FAILURE TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION GROUND FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENTS,AND THEIR ADMINISTRATORS AND JUDGES?
This work is in the public domain