Sunday, January 25, 2009

Enough of the "impeach Obama" talk already!

I am definitely no fan of Barack Obama. I don't like a socialist in office as my chief executive. Then again, George W. Bush has not exactly been a small government type, either and was a huge disappointment in many ways. In other ways, he did the right thing. They both deserves praise where warranted and criticism where warranted.

Obama has already made some huge mistakes, in my opinion, and has been in office less than a week. The decisions to allow embryonic stem cell research, fund abortion in foreign nations, close Gitmo, and nominate a huge tax cheat as head of the Treasury Department (including IRS) are the ones that readily come to mind.

However, I have a huge problem with the movement to impeach the sorry excuse for a decision taker. Just because a President takes decisions that I do not like, that I find repulsive, or are unethical does not make him a candidate for impeachment. It makes him a candidate for unelection.

The Constitution has specific states in Article II, Section 4, "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Bad decision taking as described in the last paragraph do not qualify as treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors.

There are other things such as a disputed qualification for the presidency, also outlined in that same article, such as being a natural born citizen. If that qualification can be proven to be truly unmet, then I am all for removing Obama from office. Until then, I do not much care for the constant call by hypocritical conservatives for Obama's impeachment. I have gotten a bunch of emails, invitations, and solicitations to join internet groups, message boards, social networking groups, and messages from those who are calling for impeachment or are already planning for it. This makes us no better than the whack job liberals who constantly called for George Bush's impeachment and now for his arrest and prosecution.

Impeachment is akin to the indictment for a crime. Impeachment itself is NOT removal from office. A conviction after impeachment will result in removal from office. I am not into removing someone from office with whom I happen to disagree strongly and certainly not for unconstitutional reasons.

Rest assured, however, if Barack Obama commits acts consistent with a constitutional reason for removal from office, as did Bill Clinton, then I will be all for the clarion call and will be sounding it myself.

If you want to impeach someone, start with Hillary Clinton, who was not eligible to become Secretary of State under Article I section 6 of the US Constitution.
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."
Hillary voted for a pay increase for the Secretary of State. Therefore, she is not eligible to receive the benefit of its salary. This is not just a political stance as some boneheads have alleged. It is the intent of the writers of the Constitution to prohibit the very thing that is happening. A legislator assented to raise the pay for a job that she herself was going to end up taking. The clause does not say that if the salary is lessened that she is then eligible. Law is law.

4 comments:

Ted said...

Take the test.

FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

ANSWER: Joe Biden

Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)

This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.

SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?

ANSWER: Hillary Clinton

One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.

THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?

ANSWER: Yet undetermined.

troylaplante said...

Thanks for the comments, Ted. You bring a valid point about which most people would not be aware. The terms for President and Vice President under Amendment XX end at noon on January 20th. Since Joe Biden was sworn in prior to noon and the timing of the ceremony was off because of pompous grandstanding and needless celebration, Joe Biden was technically ACTING President until Obama was sworn in, which was approximately six minutes.

I agree that the proper oath of office was not administered at the ceremony because of some boneheaded mistakes. They should have stopped and began anew right then and there with the required verbiage as written. Failing that, they did do the right thing and have a re-swearing in.

However, I disagree that Biden was the 44th President. He was the VP with acting authority since the declared next President was standing right there and would be sworn in next. The 20th Amendment is designed to deal with succession because of death, not because of a delay in the ceremony. The fact is that Obama was chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, as required under Amendment XX. As soon as Obama took the proper oath, the argument of who was President was moot.

As to qualifying for office, he was duly elected by the electoral college and declared as the victor by the President of the Senate. I do not believe that a challenge to the legitimacy of his natural born status will be successful, and I do not believe that it is "clear he is NOT" at all. It is possible he is not, but unless it can be proven that he was born in Africa, as some such as Jerome Corsey allege, and not in Hawaii, then I doubt it will be a hanging point.

The purpose of my original post was regarding the call for impeachment. Unless the disqualification from holding office can be proven, from what I read, the issue of Obama being actual President is a moot point.

In answer to your second question, I don't buy the hypothesis that Hillary will be the 45th President. Hillary could end up being the next VP in the unlikely event that Obama is ruled ineligible as President if Congress should so appoint her such a la Gerald Ford.

What would have been interesting is if some natural disaster or enemy attack had happened and both Biden and Obama had been wiped out at the inauguration ceremony and Nancy Pelosi became President under the law passed for succession in accordance with Amendment XX.

In commentary on your second and third questions, I am not so much into conspiracy theories. I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job and I find it possible that JFK was indeed killed by a lone gunman, based upon the numerous documentaries I have seen.

salamander said...

wow, you americans take the cake! you elect obama, then decide if it is constiutional. crass, stupid, dumb. but oh so typical

troylaplante said...

Well, Salamander, it was the minority of Americans that voted for the electors to select Obama. Actually, under our system of government, a candidate can actually lose the popular election total and yet win the majority of electors and win the Presidency.

There were a lot of factors that went into Obama's victory, primarily uneducated voters, racism, and years of socalistic inroads.

There is a process to follow. The system works a certain way for a reason. There were some who attempted to stop Obama's eligibility ahead of time, and personally I wish they had been able to do so.