Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
116^th Congress of the United States

Representative Jerry Nadler
116^th Congress of the United States
House Judicial Committee Chair

Representative Adam Schiff
116^th Congress of the United States
House Intelligence Committee Chair

Dear Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Chair Jerry Nadler and Chair Adam Schiff;

Comes now “Qualified Voter” and “United States’ Citizen” in good standing the laws of this REPUBLIC and begs for the following relief.

A “Citizen’s Amendment” be allowed entered into the record as an addition consistent with the “U.S. President Donald John Trump - Articles of Impeachment” now before the House of Congress, now before “We the People”, an amendment based on the “Law of Nations” in the sense of Congress the origination the treatise of that “law” promulgated by the Founding Fathers.

No doubt, a United States President’s “Executive Power” enjoying “Immunity” is far reaching. But if such power can find a question of “abandonment” due lack of “Ability”, then actions or inactions under diminished ability a sitting President invites the test of Congress. A Presidential Oath considers this “Ability” to defend the Constitution, wherein Congress does not find such a caveat as it is an inherent quality that is not emphasized in any Congressional “Oath”. With members of Congress, it is observed by virtue of a Patriotic Duty. This “Ability” clause consistent with the Constitutionality mandated “Presidential Oath” is cause for concern and today finds a vulnerability. When Donald John Trump proposed the proposition that “he(I) could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and he(I) wouldn’t lose any voters,” and on review before the Court wherein Trump’s legal advisor was asked to opine on such “Presidential Immunity” as it is understood today, and how Donald John Trump understood it so in initiating affairs as a President, it was acknowledged behind the precedence of due process that “Local authorities couldn’t investigate? They couldn’t do anything about it?” That was an inaccurate statement of fact, unless through self-defense, but for a diminished “ability” to understand the difference between wrong and right in a civilized society.

Thus the power to determine and address the suitability of this “Ability” and or any subsequent “diminished capability” causing abandonment to defend the Constitution of the United States based on that “Ability”, one finds the “Necessary & Proper Clause” along with the “Define & Punish Clause”. The latter two clauses as one finds the “Closet Clause”, either through separate or combined in consideration, such obligation falls upon the Congress to address the facilitation of this “Closet Clause” therein - wherein the Founding Fathers did not differentiate the “prime” responsibility such action to either controlling elements of the Congress. That being the House and or Senate upon the merits of the “Necessary & Proper Clause” supporting the “Define & Punish Clause”. Engaging the necessity of the “Closet Clause” finds equal opportunity upon the House and or Senate when actions or inactions deem it necessary and proper under such considerations. Wherein a single element of Congress shall prevail the merits upon action taken with respect to the “Closet Clause”, either the House or Senate to fulfill the intent of the Founders when dereliction maintains a separation between these elements. When a “Do Nothing House” and or a “Do Nothing Senate” finds deadlock, thus denying the merits of this “Ability” to be challenged. It is cause for concern and the Founders applied the “Closet Clause” as a ways and means to disrupt this separation based on political challenges. This is a tool in obligation for both the Senate and the House to use for “Order”, it was designed to be used as a “safe haven” when all else fails including the popular demand opinion that “Impeachment” is the last remaining self-defense and when a “Divide” is cause for concern as forewarned by the Founders, “We Fall, We Fail”.

The addition of these two all important “Clauses-of-Action” threaded within the framework of the U.S. Constitution, is but for a ways and means to arrest control away from the “vote” when the diminished “Ability” of the President affects the ability of the citizens to comprehend right from wrong. This is what we are observing today, a “green light” of abuse because the President can get away with it, unless the “Closet Clause” is activated. Regardless of “Immunity”, if “No Action” by either the House and or Senate to test this lack of “Ability”, it can and will set precedence and or allow for anarchy.

No doubt, the Constitution is a living document, and over 243-years in the waking making and has served us well. Yet it is still a valuable document in its infancy at times, the reason there exists such a “Closet Clause” as an escape route against anarchy and or dereliction of conviction either element of Congress. It allows the Congress the ultimate power, to arrest all factions disruptive, including the sitting President. Members of Congress so sworn do not enjoy such dereliction in convictions to abandonment due “Ability”, that which may arise out of a planned and or unplanned dereliction wherein a sitting U.S. President was acting carelessly behind a sovereign “Immunity”. A deadlock due political challenges should not be allowed to abridge the sanctity or sanctuary of the Constitution and the reason the Founders embedded last resort measures to circumvent such an insurgency, else only a Revolution could provide a resolution.

All actions or inactions by a sitting U.S. President fall within the purview the domain of that “Necessary & Proper” along with the “Define & Punish” oversight. Thank God it is a virtue in obligation that has been called upon so seldom, and this “Closet Clause” unveiled only in the time of dire straits when all else fails. Time is of the essence, to frown upon the use of this “Sleeping Giant” obligation in pursuit of “Order” in favor of retribution through voter demands down the road is not an option. “We the People” cannot wait out this storm. When such an obligation is today at the disposal of the Congress, either the House or the Senate must act!

The Continental Congress of 1781 saw merit in a “define and punish” defense consistent with the “Law of Nations” as it pertains to an “ambassador” under attack through immunities abandoned, wherein a guilty citizen could be held accountable for any adverse actions directed at an “ambassador” - an eye-for-an-eye a tooth-for-a-tooth as it denies any “state” sponsored immunity to the perpetrator.

Case in point Causal Connection #1: Donald John Trump was not acting as a President and instead acting as an impostor “member of Congress” while withholding funding from Ukraine, as only Congress gavels the appropriations earmarked for a foreign nation our nation finds support upon. To make a point, it is exampled by parents guarding their kid to the school bus and giving the bus driver the kid’s lunch money for safe-keeping and the bus driver withholds that money and allows the kid to go hungry for nothing in return, except a pain and suffering enjoyment. And when Donald John Trump attacked a U.S. Ambassador, the “N&P and D&P Closet Clause” kicked in as Trump’s planned attack violated the “Law of Nations”. The Supreme Court has ruled and allowed Congress broad respect for the “Define & Punish” and since it is the only clause in the U.S. Constitution that allows abandoning any “immunity” relief, Donald John Trump should be tried accordingly. And in that moment wherein the crime of “Ability” abandoned was perpetrated, that immunity so abandoned should find a guilty assessment punishable by the “Define & Punish” verdict. It is the Congress that has the sole right to determine the merits under the “Closet Clause” and it is necessary and proper now to define and then administer the appropriate punishment for the seriousness of Donald John Trump’s misaligned behavior - be it incarceration or termination from office. Said again, it does not specify which “Congress” bears the responsibility for enacting the “Closet Clause”, as this was the intent of the Founding Fathers should a “Divided Congress” be not willing to hold accountable itself or each-other a national crisis confronting us. Be it known, “Impeachment” is the ultimate self-inflicted national crisis.

When the “Ability” of a sitting President finds a diminished capability, wherein that ability can no longer “preserve, protect and defend” the U.S. Constitution, there is no longer “Total Immunity” as the grant of “Immunity” does not protect “inability” as such is a violation of the Oath of Office. The “Ability” sustained is the domain wherein “immunity” only survives.

To reiterate, when Donald John Trump orchestrated this “smear campaign” against an Ambassador detailed to the Ukraine, an attack upon the character of a dedicated American citizen sworn to her duty and performing that duty without dereliction and according to the “Law of Nations”, that is the very nature that formulated the “Define & Punish Clause” by the Continental Congress in 1781, protection through the “Law of Nations”.

The House should seriously consider holding Donald John Trump in contempt by orchestrating a guilty verdict by ordaining the “Closet Clause” along with the “Articles of Impeachment”. But the latter appears to be heading towards a show-down with “Insurgent Impediment”. Therefore the House should immediately enact a “New Law” by virtue of the “Closet Clause” that which finds Donald John Trump “guilty” under the “Necessary & Proper in concert with the Define & Punish” clauses for falsely impersonating a member of Congress, by withholding appropriations - as that is a task governed by the Congress. It is not a purview to allow this action to subrogate responsibilities to go without punishment, else it dismisses the rules and regulations set-forth by the Constitution for abiding members of Congress. In consideration an indictment under the “Closet Clause” the fact that Donald Trump was an accomplice in an entangled plot encouraging an attack on a U.S. Ambassador, it is but for a violation of the “Law of Nations” and Trump should be held accountable and indicted by the House.

This “Closet Clause” in “Necessary” and in “Proper”, with “Define” and in “Punish” embracing the “Law of Nations” yields a viable indictment against Donald John Trump and is an option outside an “Impeachment Trial”, as that attempt has already failed in the GOP Senate. A  “New Law” bargained for today by the House under the auspices of the “Closet Clause” should also deputize and legitimize the Sergeant of Arms to arrest Donald John Trump and be held accountable then tried for John Doe Crime 1 through 1000, to be tried by a competent jury of peers already in deliberations with the evidence already collected by a competent House of Representatives. Yes guilty until proven innocent, not as a precedence-set as that goes against the grain of how we as a nation have enjoyed “peace and quiet” in a civil society withholding abusive constraints upon an arrest, but based on the fact that the use of sovereign immunity by Donald John Trump requires a different “law” and thus enacted will set-precedence for a sitting President only. It will suffice as a “preferential law”, and when a President takes that “Oath” in the future, that “Closet Clause’s New Law” will be respected. It is apparent that “Impeachment” today lacks the merit of its original intent, as it is the first time wherein “We the People” as a nation so “Divided”, so it cannot and will not work. The scare tactics being distributed by the political spectrum warrants a “New Law”, because the threat of all future presidencies being subject to an “automatic” Impeachment is a Constitutional sacrilege and only a “New Law” consistent with the merits of the “Closet Clause” will release this nation away from a Constitutional mess.

If the Senate of the 116^th U.S. Congress denies “We the People” a remedy of removal of office mandate following a vote of confidence upon the “Articles of Impeachment”, then the House should use the “Closet Clause” to enact an additional law that which refuses the recognition Donald John Trump as the U.S. President and that edict shall stow away all power that which flows from the House to the “Executive” in efforts to strangle-hold the use of Taxpayer funds to further an abusive and destructive  administration.

With all due respect;
American Patriot S. Pam McGee
Founding Father, Lousy Hat Solidarity Party

~ of Yankee Blood ~