Thursday, July 29, 2010
Talk of Impeachment
By Alan Caruba
The last time I recall the nation being this concerned over the state of the presidency was during the Lewinsky scandal and ensuing impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Before that it was during the slow revelation of the Watergate scandal that finally forced Richard Nixon’s resignation.
On Thursday, July 22, an editorial opinion by Tom Tancredo in The Washington Times called for the impeachment of President Obama. A column by Jeffrey Kuhner was titled “President’s socialist takeover must be stopped.”
Tancredo, a former five-term member of Congress, is now the chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation. Kuhner, a Times columnist, is president of the Edmund Burke Institute.
Burke, an Irish orator, philosopher and politician (1729-1797) is best known for his warning that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", but he also said, “Men have no right to put the well-being of the present generation wholly out of the question. Perhaps the only moral trust with any certainty in our hands is the care of our own time.”
It is the conceit of every generation that those that preceded it were less sophisticated, but it is clear from Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper number 65, published in the New York Packet on March 7, 1788, that the question of impeachment as defined in the Constitution was being debated, the subtleties of the issue were not only understood by the author, but by Americans of his era as well.
Hamilton wrote: “A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.”
The removal of Barack Hussein Obama from the office of the presidency is increasingly spoken of among concerned Americans and now has risen to the level of discussion in print. The two Times articles enumerated the reasons why.
Tancredo began by reminding us that “every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position” must swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
“For the first time in American history,” said Tancredo, “we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.” Going straight to the heart of the issue confronting all Americans, Tancredo said, “Our president is an enemy of the Constitution and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security, and our personal freedoms.”
Kuhner wrote that Obama is “slowly, piece by piece, erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there yet, but he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances, subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law…”
Tancredo listed what he regards as impeachable offenses which the Constitution describes as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment has twice been attempted in the nation’s past and neither succeeded. Among those cited by Tancredo are:
# Disenfranchising General Motors and Chrysler bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers;
# Implementing a third ban on off-shore drilling despite the rejection by two federal courts.
# The appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it.
# The failure to defend the nation’s southern border against an invasion of illegal aliens.
Tancredo could have added the questionable demand that BP create a $20 billion fund to cover the cost of the oil cleanup and the losses incurred by those affected by it. That was entirely without any previous historic or legal precedent.
The creation, too, of an entire level of presidential advisors (czars) within the White House who appear to have been granted greater powers than Secretaries of various federal departments in determining policy is highly questionable. Few underwent any examination by the Senate.
Kuhner warned about Obamacare’s funding of abortion, along with the creation of “a command-and-control health care system, “a frontal assault on property rights”, the new financial reform act that he deemed “essentially nationalize the big banks” while noting the same effect on the financial sector, and the student loan industry. He too noted the takeover of the automakers.
Kuhner warned that Obama’s “comprehensive immigration reform” would grant amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal aliens “would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty.” The Obama Justice Department’s decision to sue Arizona for its immigration law was deemed as “siding with criminals against his fellow Americans” and desecrated his constitutional oath. Kuhner deemed it “treasonous.”
Kuhner urged that, should the Republicans win back Congress in November “formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration” should be launched.
I doubt that even Republican control of Congress in both houses would undertake impeachment proceedings against Obama. That did not go well when it was tried against Clinton.
At best a Congress in which they controlled either or both houses would become a bulwark against further predations by the first Marxist president ever elected in America and, hopefully, the last.
© Alan Caruba, 2010
Posted by Alan Caruba at 3:01 PM
Labels: impeachment, President Obama
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
the problem with impeachment of Obama is that the next in line would be Biden, then Nancy Pelosi, then Daniel Inouye, then Hillary Clinton, then Timothy Geitner. Lord help us all....
Wow, this is amazing. And what is even more amazing is that, for a president who deserves impeachment more so than any other in the history of this country, even a Republican-stacked Congress wouldn't attempt it? The founding fathers set up impeachment as an option for a reason. It's tragic that in an instance in which it definitely SHOULD be invoked, it won't be? If this president can't be impeached, then what does one have to do to be able to be impeached? Another holocaust?
As far as deserving impeachment Obama is head and shoulders above Clinton. Clinton was in fact only an Obama wannabe but couldn't do it because of Republicans. Those of us who see and understand whats happening are fearful, angry and determined to rid ourselves of not only Obama but his henchmen in the Senate and House. I laugh when I hear people on our side use the term soft tyranny. Tell that to the unemployed oil workers and associated businesses or the victims of illegal crime or the auto dealerships closed because of race or political affiliation.
This and the other crimes against Americans by this government are the very definition of tyranny and to most there's nothing soft about it.
The last time I recall the nation being this concerned over the state of the presidency was during the Lewinsky scandal and ensuing impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.
Alan, I know Clinton lied about his tryst with the little fat girl, but right about now, I'd take Ol' Bubba back in a heartbeat, at least he's an American..
What sort of fantasyland do you live in, Caruba, where one of most popular politician in the country is in danger of impeachment?
You obviously haven't checked Obama's falling approval ratings. They stand at around 47% who DISAPPROVE of him.
My guess his disapproval rating will continue to increase as unemployment remains high and perhaps get higher.
Fine analysis ... thoughtful and well-reasoned!
There is insufficient fibre in the backbones of either party these days to launch impeachment proceedings. And, sorrily, this "I want it now" generation doesn't have the attention span to grasp the real issues involved.
I am not certain about what is needed but by the Grace of God I will join others trying to restore this grand Republic and will die trying if need be.
Obama should most certainly be impeached for not, as CIC of our armed forces, directing our military to defend the state of Arizona from an armed invasion as the Constitution requires the federal government to do.
The Department of the Interior is forbidding American citizens to so much as step foot on a large swath of American soil north of the state of Arizona border with Mexico.
As far as Joe Biden is concerned, he contended for the nomination for president in the last primary elections of the Democratic Party. He got almost no, zip, nada, votes in any state primary election. He would be a "lame duck" president immediately. Democratic Party voters demonstrated no confidence in Joe Biden.
Eric Holden should be immediately be impeached as he filed a lawsuit in a federal court which, according to the Constitution, has no jurisdiction to deal in any way in the matter, as the Constitution provides that when a state itself in named party to a lawsuit, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction.
The federal judge who agreed to hold a hearing on the federal lawsuit should be impeached for even consenting to hold a hearing for an immediate injunction regarding the lawsuit as she had no legal jurisdiction in the matter.
Post a Comment