Congress Must Act to Stop Obama's Tyranny
Last Night President Barak Obama showed his contempt for the US Constitution and for the people. He issued an Executive Order granting amnesty to over 3 million illegal aliens in the US. Is this the promised fundamental transformation of America that the voters who elected him wanted? Is this the hope and change he promised? It may be! There was another man elected by a Democratic country who promised to fundamentally transform his troubled nation, who after he elected took it upon himself to subvert the legislature and do what he wanted: Adolf Hitler. In the case of Hitler the German public got exactly what they voted for.
In the case of Barak Obama the American people have gotten exactly what they voted for. America has been fundamentally transformed. This executive order subverts the legislative process, and is a serious threat to the Constitution as was Hitler's burning down legislative assembly hall, or Henry the VIII's decree that "Parliament must do, what I say they must do." Some will argue that my comparisons are extreme. He is merely doing what other President's have done before him, "Isn't that what Nixon's defenders argued?" I knew people who worked for Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President (Nixon's Campaign Organization) I personally heard some them defending Nixon. They said they had done nothing that Kennedy's people had not done to him, or that Johnson's people had not done to Goldwater and they were right. The dirty illegal electoral shenanigans of the Nixon administration were common in politics of both parties long before Watergate and continue to this day. That was no defense then, and it is no defense now. Do the democrats really want to argue that this is acceptable, because it's been done before?
The cases they cite of Presidential misuse of authority are dubious. The Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln's declaration that the 13th Amendment was going to be enforced. Did anyone see the movie Lincoln? With the passing of the 13th Amendment Lincoln had the authority to proclaim the slaves of the country free. President Reagan and Bush 41 both issued executive orders to enforce the Immigration Bill of 1986, but what Obama did is different. He acted where the legislature has rejected his proposed legislation. Extra-Constitutional executive orders are far from unprecedented. I can cite several better examples, none of which my democratic friends would cite, because of the harm they have done.
President Woodrow Wilson issued an Executive Order racially segregating the work environment in federal offices and the military, effectively nullifying the Emancipation Proclamation and setting civil rights back in this country for two generations. President Franklin Roosevelt issued an Executive order for the internment of American Citizens due strictly to their ethnicity. In both cases Congress did nothing. I doubt though that Obama supporters will cite either of those actions. The sad thing was that in each case it was not just the President who diminished the Constitution; the Congress was complicit by their failure to act in defense of liberty. It was politicians who were more afraid of not being re-elected than of harm caused by their inaction. Failing to do what was right allowed tyranny to prevail. Not since Woodrow Wilson have we had a President who so blatantly disregards the Constitution as has this one.
It is time for the New Congress to take three actions to protect our liberty: First, the next Congress should refuse to pass a budget, and should de-fund the department of Homeland Security and Obama care until the borders are secure, and should refuse to confirm any Presidential appointments for the balance of his term. Second, articles of impeachment should be submitted to the judiciary for the numerous violations of law this President or members of his administration have committed. Third, a Constitutional Amendment should be drafted defining the limits of the President's executive authority.
Some will argue that these actions would be unpopular. Some will argue that a government shut down will hurt the wrong people. The government is never really shut down, non-essential services are restricted. Not one democratic politician in the last election campaigned successfully by appealing to the harm done by the last government shut down. It had minimal negative impact on the public welfare or electoral opinion. Those who won the elections who ran on an agenda of reigning in an out of control government, repealing Obamacare and preventing amnesty, won. Some will argue impeachment will be viewed as racial. Can you name me any action the opposition party has taken contrary to the desires of the President that has not been labeled racist? Of course, some people would argue it was racist! Impeachment proceeding are never popular. People are disinclined to have their electoral will reversed, but when the case has been made and the evidence presented, public opinion always turns to favor it in each case, including Clintons.
Now some will point to President Clinton's popularity as an argument against impeachment. It is a specious claim. Clinton was unpopular in the first few years following his impeachment. One of the reasons Vice President Gore selected then Senator Joe Liebermann of Connecticut to be his running mate was that he was the only democratic Senator to vote for Clinton's conviction and removal from office. The nomination of Liebermann was Gore's attempt to distinguish himself from his, then, unpopular predecessor, saying to the American people that although he had worked for Clinton he was his own man. Americans hold past President's in high regard, disgraced or otherwise. Clinton has rebuilt his popularity in much the same way Nixon did, through some of his humanitarian and diplomatic service following his Presidency.
It is unlikely that Barak Obama's impeachment would hurt the Republican party. The biggest danger to the country in the impeachment of Obama would be the succession of Vice President Joe Biden. Biden is Obama's greatest impeachment trump card. I think the greatest fear of the Republican leadership is the specter of a Biden administration. The fear is unfounded. Of the two President's that have been impeached, Johnson and Clinton, neither were removed from office. There has never been a Vice President who has succeeded to the Presidency following his predecessor's removal from office. So there is no guarantee impeachment would succeed. While one, Nixon has resigned, there has never been a President removed from office The example of President Ford makes it clear how difficult it would be for Biden.
President Ford was the only Vice President to succeed to the office of Presidency after a President had resigned in disgrace. Ford found Nixon's staff and cabinet disloyal and complacent toward him. There loyalty had been to Nixon not him, and with an opposition Congress he was unable to sustain the Nixon agenda. He eventually replaced many of the people in Nixon's administration with his own. His own agenda and policies had little time to work. He ultimately lost election partially due to his inability to distinguish himself from Nixon and a lack of time for his own policies to succeed. A Biden Presidency would almost certainly fail. Biden would preside over a disgruntled, disloyal staff with no connection to him. With Obama's second term nearly complete and the length of time impeachment would take, Biden would not have the time to appoint a new administration and forge a new direction. He would almost certainly preside over an unpopular crippled administration with a a strong opposition Congress. He would be the lamest of lame ducks! Incumbency would offer him no more advantage in 20016 than it did for Ford in 1976.
When Barak Obama leaves office, which he will eventually, if the Republican Party is still in control of Congress, which they likely will be, the greatest service that Congress can afford would be a Constitutional Amendment checking Executive Action. Executive Orders should be required to cite there statutory authority and should be subject to veto proof legislative override, and should be subject to original review by the Supreme Court. What Congress intended as a tool for the President to use to enforce the law has been abused too many times to subvert the will of the people. It will not be easy but Obama and future Imperial Presidents like him must be stopped. A message must be sent to this and future President that Congress will defend the Constitution when the President want,or when he subverts it. There is one clear way to send that message: Impeach Obama!
In the case of Barak Obama the American people have gotten exactly what they voted for. America has been fundamentally transformed. This executive order subverts the legislative process, and is a serious threat to the Constitution as was Hitler's burning down legislative assembly hall, or Henry the VIII's decree that "Parliament must do, what I say they must do." Some will argue that my comparisons are extreme. He is merely doing what other President's have done before him, "Isn't that what Nixon's defenders argued?" I knew people who worked for Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President (Nixon's Campaign Organization) I personally heard some them defending Nixon. They said they had done nothing that Kennedy's people had not done to him, or that Johnson's people had not done to Goldwater and they were right. The dirty illegal electoral shenanigans of the Nixon administration were common in politics of both parties long before Watergate and continue to this day. That was no defense then, and it is no defense now. Do the democrats really want to argue that this is acceptable, because it's been done before?
The cases they cite of Presidential misuse of authority are dubious. The Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln's declaration that the 13th Amendment was going to be enforced. Did anyone see the movie Lincoln? With the passing of the 13th Amendment Lincoln had the authority to proclaim the slaves of the country free. President Reagan and Bush 41 both issued executive orders to enforce the Immigration Bill of 1986, but what Obama did is different. He acted where the legislature has rejected his proposed legislation. Extra-Constitutional executive orders are far from unprecedented. I can cite several better examples, none of which my democratic friends would cite, because of the harm they have done.
President Woodrow Wilson issued an Executive Order racially segregating the work environment in federal offices and the military, effectively nullifying the Emancipation Proclamation and setting civil rights back in this country for two generations. President Franklin Roosevelt issued an Executive order for the internment of American Citizens due strictly to their ethnicity. In both cases Congress did nothing. I doubt though that Obama supporters will cite either of those actions. The sad thing was that in each case it was not just the President who diminished the Constitution; the Congress was complicit by their failure to act in defense of liberty. It was politicians who were more afraid of not being re-elected than of harm caused by their inaction. Failing to do what was right allowed tyranny to prevail. Not since Woodrow Wilson have we had a President who so blatantly disregards the Constitution as has this one.
It is time for the New Congress to take three actions to protect our liberty: First, the next Congress should refuse to pass a budget, and should de-fund the department of Homeland Security and Obama care until the borders are secure, and should refuse to confirm any Presidential appointments for the balance of his term. Second, articles of impeachment should be submitted to the judiciary for the numerous violations of law this President or members of his administration have committed. Third, a Constitutional Amendment should be drafted defining the limits of the President's executive authority.
Some will argue that these actions would be unpopular. Some will argue that a government shut down will hurt the wrong people. The government is never really shut down, non-essential services are restricted. Not one democratic politician in the last election campaigned successfully by appealing to the harm done by the last government shut down. It had minimal negative impact on the public welfare or electoral opinion. Those who won the elections who ran on an agenda of reigning in an out of control government, repealing Obamacare and preventing amnesty, won. Some will argue impeachment will be viewed as racial. Can you name me any action the opposition party has taken contrary to the desires of the President that has not been labeled racist? Of course, some people would argue it was racist! Impeachment proceeding are never popular. People are disinclined to have their electoral will reversed, but when the case has been made and the evidence presented, public opinion always turns to favor it in each case, including Clintons.
Now some will point to President Clinton's popularity as an argument against impeachment. It is a specious claim. Clinton was unpopular in the first few years following his impeachment. One of the reasons Vice President Gore selected then Senator Joe Liebermann of Connecticut to be his running mate was that he was the only democratic Senator to vote for Clinton's conviction and removal from office. The nomination of Liebermann was Gore's attempt to distinguish himself from his, then, unpopular predecessor, saying to the American people that although he had worked for Clinton he was his own man. Americans hold past President's in high regard, disgraced or otherwise. Clinton has rebuilt his popularity in much the same way Nixon did, through some of his humanitarian and diplomatic service following his Presidency.
It is unlikely that Barak Obama's impeachment would hurt the Republican party. The biggest danger to the country in the impeachment of Obama would be the succession of Vice President Joe Biden. Biden is Obama's greatest impeachment trump card. I think the greatest fear of the Republican leadership is the specter of a Biden administration. The fear is unfounded. Of the two President's that have been impeached, Johnson and Clinton, neither were removed from office. There has never been a Vice President who has succeeded to the Presidency following his predecessor's removal from office. So there is no guarantee impeachment would succeed. While one, Nixon has resigned, there has never been a President removed from office The example of President Ford makes it clear how difficult it would be for Biden.
President Ford was the only Vice President to succeed to the office of Presidency after a President had resigned in disgrace. Ford found Nixon's staff and cabinet disloyal and complacent toward him. There loyalty had been to Nixon not him, and with an opposition Congress he was unable to sustain the Nixon agenda. He eventually replaced many of the people in Nixon's administration with his own. His own agenda and policies had little time to work. He ultimately lost election partially due to his inability to distinguish himself from Nixon and a lack of time for his own policies to succeed. A Biden Presidency would almost certainly fail. Biden would preside over a disgruntled, disloyal staff with no connection to him. With Obama's second term nearly complete and the length of time impeachment would take, Biden would not have the time to appoint a new administration and forge a new direction. He would almost certainly preside over an unpopular crippled administration with a a strong opposition Congress. He would be the lamest of lame ducks! Incumbency would offer him no more advantage in 20016 than it did for Ford in 1976.
When Barak Obama leaves office, which he will eventually, if the Republican Party is still in control of Congress, which they likely will be, the greatest service that Congress can afford would be a Constitutional Amendment checking Executive Action. Executive Orders should be required to cite there statutory authority and should be subject to veto proof legislative override, and should be subject to original review by the Supreme Court. What Congress intended as a tool for the President to use to enforce the law has been abused too many times to subvert the will of the people. It will not be easy but Obama and future Imperial Presidents like him must be stopped. A message must be sent to this and future President that Congress will defend the Constitution when the President want,or when he subverts it. There is one clear way to send that message: Impeach Obama!
Comments
Post a Comment