Obama is Begging for Impeachment
According to
Wikipedia: “United
States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and
agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government
itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of
certain Acts
of Congress, some of which
specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated
legislation), or are
believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by
the Constitution.”
“However, these
perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders
have come under criticism for exceeding executive authority; at various times
throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for
an order have resulted in legal proceedings.”
I am not a
Constitutional scholar, but I am aware of the consequences of past executive
orders. The nation now has a rogue government agency, the Environmental
Protection Agency, by virtue of an executive order by President Nixon. Later,
President Carter reorganized the executive branch and created a separate
Department of Education. Currently, executive orders permit the President to
seize control of the entire nation in the event of an attack or the declaration of a national emergency.
Now we are told
that President Obama is planning to issue up to nineteen executive orders to do
an end run around Congress and the Second amendment on the issue of gun
control. Whereas Social Security was often referred to as “the third rail” if
presidents or Congress attempted to reform it, it would appear that the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the new third raid and touching it is
likely to enflame both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Former Attorney
General, Edwin Meese, recently went on record to say that the proposed executive
orders would be an “impeachable offense.” There is a growing chorus of
resistance to Obama’s “imperial presidency”, but whether it is the executive
orders or a judgment rendered by a forthcoming Supreme Court conference, it
would appear that Obama has over-reached.
The
Supreme
Court has scheduled a conference—not a hearing—regarding a case that
challenges
President Obama’s eligibility to be President. Court observers believe
this
will lead nowhere. If the justices were to favor elevating the case to a
hearing that found Obama guilty, he could face impeachment hearings or
possibly be summarily removed from
office by Congress.
The
Constitution says (Article II, Section 4) “The President, Vice President and
all 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.”
The scheduling
of a Supreme Court conference to discuss a lower court case has gone virtually
unreported. The case is led by an attorney, Orly Taitz, and is called Noonan,Judd, MacLaren, Taitz v Bowen. Having made it to the highest court in the land,
the Taitz asserts it will provide evidence to prove that “Barack Obama using a
last name not legally his, forged a Selective Service application, forged a
long form and short form birth certificate, and a Connecticut Social Security
number, 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and
SSNVS.”
The conference
is scheduled for February 15, 2013. Obama will be sworn into office on January
21 and will deliver a State of the Union speech on February 12.
The conference
arises out of a Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decision to agree to hear a
petition for a Writ of mandamus to expedite a default judgment and post
judgment discovery against the Commissioner of Social Security Administration,
Michael J. Astrue, resulting from a previously filed case. Commissioner Astrue
did not reply to Taitz’s inquiry.
If the Court
finds that the evidence of forged Social Security numbers Obama is alleged to
have used over the years is valid and irrefutable, it would be scheduled for a
hearing, but conferences are often meetings in which cases are returned to a
lower court. It has taken four years just to be discussed in conference. Despite
the weight of the evidence, it may go no where.
A hearing could
generate a Constitutional crisis that could lead to Obama’s impeachment and
removal. It would mean that Obama was ineligible to run for office for both
terms and would render his previous executive orders and the laws that he
signed null and void.
Former
President Nixon saw impeachment proceedings initiated in the wake of the
Watergate scandal and resigned to avoid that fate. He was later pardoned by
Gerald Ford. President Clinton faced an
impeachment in the wake of the Lewinski affair, but Congress gave him a pass on
it.
This year could
initiate a political tsunami that would engulf the Congress, the Supreme Court,
and the presidency.
For many the
Supreme Court is seen as a politicized entity. The failure to take up the
case regarding Obama’s eligibility would damage the integrity of the Court in
the same way the ruling that Obamacare was a “tax” evoked a loss of faith in
its judgment—or it might go unreported
and the public remain unaware of it.
A constitutional
crisis is looming. Only the Congress has the power to pass laws. If the
President ignores Congress and issues executive orders that impose new
restrictions on the Second Amendment, the people of the United States will have
lost the power of the Constitution to protect them. There are already
legislators prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings if he does.
****************************
Alan Caruba's commentaries are posted daily at "Warning Signs" and shared on dozens
of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 2 million page views.
If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional
skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place to go!
You can find Alan Caruba on both Facebook and Twitter as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment