Published On: Sun, Jun 22nd, 2014

Does Obama Deserve Impeachment?

There are many who see impeachable offenses in the actions Barack Obama has taken as president, but before beginning an examination of that question, it would be prudent to recognize that no matter what happened in the House,  he would never be convicted in the Senate. There is no Democrat Senator who would place his or her country above party loyalty. The Democrat party would not survive alienating its base of African-American voters if it removed a black president from office by impeachment and conviction. The question of whether Barack Obama be impeached is simply a matter for a philosophical discussion.

The evidence;

1. Barack Hussein Obama has violated the law by unilaterally making changes to the Affordable Care Act without the consent of Congress. Before Obama was inaugurated as president he took the familiar oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

That oath simply means that a president must follow the US Constitution which clearly states in Article II Section 3 that:  “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Obama’s actions concerning the ACA can in no way be defined as taking care that the law be faithfully executed. He has made at least 23 unilateral changes in the Act since it was signed into law with his pen.

2. The matter of the abuse of the power of the IRS by its targeting of groups in opposition to Barack Obama is not as clear cut. There is no doubt that the abuse took place since the IRS has apologized for doing it. There is also evidence that nine Democrat Senators put pressure on the IRS to harass the Tea Party and other conservative groups. Since the key figure at the IRS involved in the targeting of  the Tea Party groups has refused to answer questions before a congressional committee by claiming her Fifth Amendment rights, we do not yet know how high up in the White House this unlawful abuse of power went.

To establish context and gain a frame of reference, it is instructive to review one of the articles of impeachment that were prepared against Richard Milhouse Nixon concerning the manipulation and abuse of that same agency:

Article 2 Section 1:

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

Nixon only contemplated these acts. It seems likely that the Obama White House actually pursued them. Surely, such an offense would be a matter worthy of investigation by a committee on impeachment.

3. Is governing by executive fiat without allowing the Congress to “advise and consent” constitutional, or is it too an action that should be considered as grounds for impeachment? The President freely admitted that this was his intent;

“One of the things I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting,” he said, “is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need.”

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” the president asserted, “

It would seem that ignoring Congress is in direct contravention of the oath that Obama took when he assumed office. Of course, Barack Obama knows he can get away with these violations of his oath of office because his Democrat caucus in Congress would never penalize him regardless of what he might do.

4. Also worthy of consideration is Obama’s latest violation of the law when he ignored the legal requirement to give the Congress 30 days notice before releasing detainees at Guantanamo.

S.1197 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014113th Congress (2013-2014)

Subtitle D: Counterterrorism – (Sec. 1031) Authorizes the Secretary to transfer or release any individual detained at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Guantanamo) to such individual’s country of origin or another country if: (1) the Secretary determines that the individual is no longer a threat to national security, (2) such transfer or release is to effectuate an order by an appropriate U.S. court or tribunal, or (3) the individual has been tried in such a court or tribunal and has been acquitted or has completed the sentence under a conviction. Requires, as further determinations prior to such transfer, that: (1) actions have been planned or taken that will substantially mitigate the risk of such individual engaging or reengaging in any terrorist or hostile activity that threatens the United States, and (2) the transfer is in the U.S. national security interest. Outlines factors to be considered in making such determinations, including any confirmed cases of recidivism of individuals previously transferred to such country. Requires the Secretary, at least 30 days prior to such a transfer, to notify the defense, appropriations, and intelligence committees. Defines a detained individual as one located at Guantanamo as of October 1, 2009, who is not a U.S. citizen and is in the custody or control of DOD. Repeals superseded authorities. (Emphasis added)

When the bill was signed into law by President Obama on December 26, 2013, he made his reservations known:

“When President Obama signed into law the latest version of those attempts at restraint, he made clear that he was signing under protest and he put Congress on notice that he would not necessarily feel bound by the restrictions. “In the event that the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees…operate in a matter that violates constitutional separation of powers principles,” he said, “my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.” That is as close as a President can come to saying that he will not regard such legislative restraints as binding even those he has signed them into law.”

Presidents have had such reservations before, but Democrats in Congress cut President Ronald Reagan no slack when he allegedly violated the Boland Amendment which prohibited support for the Contras in Nicaragua. The Democrat calls for Reagan’s impeachment were both loud and shrill.

These are just a few of the arguments that address the question of whether President Obama guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?

“The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.”

It would appear that there is a case to be made that Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of just such crimes and misdemeanors such as the abuse of authority, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise and dereliction of duty. Examine the evidence and decide for yourselves.

About the Author

- Paul Bianco, retired from a career in sales, now spends his spare time as a gadfly on the many political blogs. Paul says he is just going through a phase, but that phase seems to have lasted two decades. Paul's conservative political philosophy was formed well before conservative talk radio and Fox News came along. Paul remembers the days when conservatives like William F Buckley Jr were voices in the wilderness "standing athwart history, yelling stop!" From time to time Paul contributes some of the insights he has gained from observing politics for so many years, and hopes that readers will be entertained and perhaps even enlightened.