By Alan Caruba
“In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal…” (Article Two, U.S. Constitution)
Since the President takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, a President who acts contrary to the Constitution or is found guilty of breaking the law should be subject to removal.
Constitutionally, removal can be secured by “impeachment for, conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Here’s a question I would pose to you. If the Supreme Court can act within days to approve the sale of Chrysler to Fiat, why can it not act to hear cases filed months ago regarding whether President Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States? Why have some lower courts refused to hear such cases citing that the parties bringing them, citizens under the rule of the Constitution, have no “standing” to do so?
The Supreme Court is famous for trying to dodge such cases. The likelihood of impeachment is zero because Democrats control Congress and only one President ever resigned from office and that was Richard M. Nixon. It took an excruciatingly long time to reach that point as anyone who lived through the Watergate scandal will tell you. The nation was shocked to learn that a President engaged in a criminal enterprise while in office.
The question of preserving and protecting the Constitution would be hard to prove except in hindsight, but by then it would be too late for the nation, ruined by excessive, unjustified taxation and borrowing that threatens the collapse of the economy.
I would argue that a President who appoints over twenty “czars” to supersede the powers of the secretaries of various federal departments; people who are apparently exempt from Congressional approval or oversight, and people who apparently do not feel the need to hold press conferences to explain what they are doing, is distinctly unconstitutional.
It will be argued that there have been various such “czars” in the past, mostly particularly “drug czars” whose purpose was to oversee and coordinate efforts to address the nation’s problems with illegal drugs, but the imposition of people to virtually replace members of the President’s cabinet is unprecedented. Cabinet officers must receive the approval of Congress, but these “czars” have not.
Even the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has been reduced to a mere figurehead as various personal envoys of the President have been authorized to act for him regarding sensitive diplomatic affairs, answerable presumably only to him.
What we have is a President who is running the government through an invisible network of people who are not answerable to the citizens of the nation, yet granted powers to determine the extent of the rights of those citizens including how much compensation they may receive.
This is a President who has said during a C-Span interview that the government is out of money, but who is pressing forward for legislation to impose trillions in taxes on all energy use, who advocates the borrowing of tens of billions by the nation for a proposed healthcare “reform”, and who has already signed a so-called stimulus bill of nearly 9,000 items representing $700 billion that he deemed “imperfect.”
The economy does not need a stimulus. It needs the government to get out of the way of the free market system to correct itself and for the nation’s famed entrepreneurial spirit to initiate new businesses and new jobs. We do not “rescue” people who took on too much debt.
He has approved “bailouts” to private companies that should have been allowed to seek bankruptcy protection and he has demanded that the former head of General Motors be fired by its board of directors. He has launched an attack on the Constitutional sanctity of contracts, abrogating the rights of lenders. Banks which received TARP funds are desperate to return such funding to the U.S. Treasury rather than give up control over their affairs.
We have all watched the President in action since January 20, 2009 and what we have seen and heard has been constant criticism of America that has been an affront to our great history and our defense of human rights. He has done this in one foreign nation after another.
A speech in Cairo to the worldwide Muslim community President Obama distorted the facts of American history and conflated the deliberate murder of six million European Jews in the last century with the suffering inflicted on so-called Palestinians by their fellow Arabs; the result of repeated wars on Israel. No such comparison can be made and is by definition obscene.
Within months, “tea parties”, citizen protests, occurred from coast to coast and others are being planned for July Fourth. Not since the advent of the Civil War under threat of secession has a President faced such widespread opposition after taking office.
In State after State, resolutions are being passed in opposition to his proposed legislation and policies. An organization of “Oath-Keepers”, members of the U.S. military, the reserves, the National Guard, peace officers, and veterans, has emerged to say they will not blindly “follow orders” issued by this President that are contrary to the oath to uphold the Constitution they have taken.
This is a President whose Department of Homeland Security has defined as “extremist” anyone who criticizes or disagrees with his policies.
Americans who are fearful of the havoc President Barack Obama has let loose on this nation need to flood Congress with the demand that he be removed from office for his failure to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution. Indeed, to conclusively prove he was constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency.
The White House has to hear from Americans calling on the President to resign.
He and the Democrat-controlled Congress are proposing onerous taxation and reckless borrowing that will destroy the nation’s economy.
Americans cannot afford to let this President hold power until the next election in 2012. They cannot hope that the midterm elections in 2010 will be sufficient to protect them against the damage he will do to them, to their children, and to their grandchildren before they are held.
We cannot even be sure that as the result of the White House takeover of the Census and its close association with ACORN that those elections will not be rigged.
President Barack Hussein Obama must go!