Skip to content

Impeachment: Food For Thought

02 June 2014 @ 21:18

Law-yers are creatures of the Law. Impeachment is not a matter of law but is of a higher plane which created that which then creates the law.

Law breaking can be grounds for impeachment and removal but it is oath breaking that is the real grounds on which an impeachment is based and on which removal from power is required.

—GeoffB, Friend In The Ether, 15 March 2014

With the publication of Andrew McCarthy’s latest book, of Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, undoubtedly the subject will enjoy some popularity.  Mr. McCarthy, unlike many on our side, pretty much ‘gets it’.  He understands the peril this country is in that, as Samuel Adams put it in 1772: ‘We are at this moment upon a precipice’.

For a good number of us, however, the subject of Impeachment of the current President is a long-standing issue.

Since he took the Oath Of Office on 20 January 2009, ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ has been violating that Sacred Oath.  He has conducted himself as if The Constitution Of The United States Of America did not exist, as if it had no power or control over his actions, as if it were merely a relic from a dead age.  In action after action taken, ‘Obama’ has conducted himself like a Despot, paying contempt-filled lip service to The Constitution only when it serves his scheming.  As with George III, this ‘King’ is a Tyrant*.

Despite a long train of abuses and usurpations committed by this Administration, none of our elected officials seem willing to bring-up the subject of Impeachment.

Andrew McCarthy has his theories as to why we find ourselves in such a depressing situation.  He explains these in his book, but he recently gave us a glimpse into his thinking in a recent column.

A highlight:

The Framers of our Constitution…understood how divisive the removal of a president could be for our society. Thus, as the book makes very clear, impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. You can have a thousand provable impeachable offenses, but before Congress may remove the president from power, there must be strong popular support — a public will that cuts across partisan and ideological lines.

That is to say: Unless there is such public outrage over presidential lawlessness that two-thirds of the Senate can be pressured into voting for the president’s removal, it would be pointless for the House of Representatives to file articles of impeachment. Not just pointless but counterproductive. That is why I spend most of a chapter in the book rebutting arguments from some on the right that, because Republicans control the House, impeachment articles should be filed right now.

By all means, impeachment must be considered. It is the Constitution’s ultimate answer to presidential lawlessness, and the only way to build public support for it is to consider it.

Yet, moving ahead with articles of impeachment without strong public support for the president’s removal would not just guarantee the defeat of impeachment in the Senate. It would be spun as a public endorsement of presidential lawlessness. Ironically, it would guarantee more abuses of power.

Impeachment cases have to be built…

That is the dilemma: because Impeachment and removal of a President is a political act, it requires political actions to successfully achieve the end desired and, in America, that means enough of the People must be willing to support the effort from the beginning to it’s just conclusion.

With his book, Mr. McCarthy seeks to, as he puts it:

…The purpose of illustrating rampant presidential lawlessness is not to show how easy it would be to file articles of impeachment. It is to persuade the public that when a president betrays his basic constitutional obligations, when the laws are not executed faithfully, all of us are threatened.

And, in my opinion, that threat is constant and growing ever more powerful as this Administration continues.

Back in February Sdferr made many of the points Andrew McCarthy does:

Jeffrey Lord: Should the President Be Impeached?

Yeah, it’s a rhetorical question, answered in the asking.

But there’s a problem . . . and yet, while Lord, as others, sees the problem, the primary, the most direct avenue to addressing that problem has not been brought to grips.

If the votes aren’t there (and who wouldn’t concede they are not?), then how will the votes be engendered without persuasion to the effect that those votes must be engendered?

Which is simply to say, everyone who sees the proper solution — the lawful solution — to a present tyranny in the United States lies in impeachment of the tyrannical party, must also see that the people of the United States must be persuaded of the rightness of that solution. This in turn means public discussion of the rightness of that solution, persuasion on that ground, such that the people of the United States take their sovereignty in hand to demand this right, just and proper solution, doing so lawfully and within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Anything less amounts to an abandonment of propriety, and with it, further abandonment of the Constitution as our law.

effrey Lord: Should the President Be Impeached?

Yeah, it’s a rhetorical question, answered in the asking.

But there’s a problem . . . and yet, while Lord, as others, sees the problem, the primary, the most direct avenue to addressing that problem has not been brought to grips.

If the votes aren’t there (and who wouldn’t concede they are not?), then how will the votes be engendered without persuasion to the effect that those votes must be engendered?

Which is simply to say, everyone who sees the proper solution — the lawful solution — to a present tyranny in the United States lies in impeachment of the tyrannical party, must also see that the people of the United States must be persuaded of the rightness of that solution. This in turn means public discussion of the rightness of that solution, persuasion on that ground, such that the people of the United States take their sovereignty in hand to demand this right, just and proper solution, doing so lawfully and within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Anything less amounts to an abandonment of propriety, and with it, further abandonment of the Constitution as our law.

– See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=52688#comment-1057599

If we are going to persuade enough of the people that this President mus be Impeached, then we will be confronted with the problem of the current leadership of the GOP, as Jeff Goldstein remarked back on Valentine’s Day:

And then they tell us that moving for impeachment is just bad politically — presumably because they can’t sell constitutional arguments to what they consider to be a dull, demanding public, a task made even more difficult for them because they themselves don’t believe in the thing.

But we must soldier on and continue the battle to persuade our fellow Americans because it is our Duty as citizens and guardians of The American Republic.

Nil Desperandum!

SIDENOTE: In an report The London Daily Mail of today, by David Martosko, Andrew McCarthy expresses his thoughts on whether any aspects of the acts taken by ‘Obama’ to get soldier Bowe Bergdahl released were impeachable offenses and makes a Constitutional point that [surprise] the GOP and many conservatives are overlooking:

…the president may also have written a new chapter in the case for his own impeachment, according to a former federal prosecutor who helped bring the 1993 World Trade Center bombers to justice.

‘The return of senior terrorists to the Taliban [is] … a “high crime and misdemeanor”,’ author Andrew C. McCarthy told MailOnline.

It’s not flouting the defense law that upsets McCarthy, the prosecutor-turned-author.

He thinks the NDAA itself is unconstitutional since it forbade Obama from moving chess pieces around the battlefield – instead of continuing to prohibit him from spending money to do it, which is Congress’ job.

But putting senior Taliban leaders back in a position to harm U.S. national interests, McCarthy argues, could be Obama’s undoing.

‘I don’t think it’s an impeachable offense for violating the NDAA,’ he told MailOnline.

‘Congress unconstitutionally restricted the president’s war power over the disposition of enemy combatants.’

‘They could have properly done it by using the power of the purse to deny funds for the transfers, but that’s not what they did [this time].’

But transferring the five high-value prisoners to Qatar, as Obama has authorized, ‘violates the law against material support to terrorism,’ McCarthy said.

‘And because high crimes and misdemeanors are not statutory offenses but political wrongs that endanger the United States, the return of senior terrorists to the Taliban while we still have soldiers in harm’s way is, in my view, a “high crime and misdemeanor”.’

McCarthy said he’s spoiled for choice with Obama’s impeachable offenses, and the Bergdahl affair doesn’t crack the top tier.

‘If it was a standalone, I would never impeach based solely on it, but I would add it to a larger indictment,’ he told MailOnline.

One has to ask: Is the GOP bad arguments based (1) on the political calculation that the American people are too stupid to understand the Constitutional argument or (2) on the fact the they, themselves, are so ignorant?

_________________________________________
*Why are so many on our side afraid to use that
word? Have we been so neutered that we can no
longer summons that testicular fortitude required of
every citizen of The Republic when Freedom and
Liberty are threatened?

3 Comments
  1. Starless permalink
    03 June 2014 @ 07:47 07:47

    Unlike all of the relatively recent hyperbole in the Senate, impeachment is the real “nukular option”. There’s currently a change of leadership going on in Thailand which is happening through a military coup (there’s been something like 13 coups within the last several decades there). It’s been mostly bloodless, but it’s still been extremely disruptive in many ways within the country, not the least of which has been economic. What American Leftists who admire strong man (or woman, I suppose) Socialist rule in other parts of the world, while pooh-poohing American exceptionalism, forget is that built right into our system are instructions for how to execute such an extreme political change completely bloodlessly and with a minimum of disruption. And that while populist demands for regime change in other parts of the world usually demand nothing short of either blood or exile, the worst that they call for here is incarceration, which, AFAIK, has never happened.

    So while calls for impeachment are thrown about freely (see: the Left and the entire span of the GWB administration) because the consequences are relatively benign, McCarthy is right to point out that we have to be careful when deciding to actually start the detonation sequence lest we completely forget the political lessons of the Clinton impeachment.

    • thecampofthesaints permalink
      03 June 2014 @ 07:59 07:59

      Agreed. Just as we must always be cautious in charging someone with Treason. The Founders wanted to make this as hard as possible because they had seen it abused since the times of Henry VIII.

      On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:47 AM, The Camp Of The Saints wrote:

      >

  2. Bob permalink
    05 June 2014 @ 18:41 18:41

    “One has to ask: Is the GOP bad arguments based (1) on the political calculation that the American people are too stupid to understand the Constitutional argument or (2) on the fact the they, themselves, are so ignorant?”

    You forgot the MOST obvious answer:

    Or (3) he is the POTUS chosen for us and that decision will not be overturned.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: