Lately the "I" word, Impeachment, has been given some attention in a few media sources. It's not in the mainstream, of course, since they have been and continue to be in the "tank" for President Obama, but in some non-traditional sources on the internet and on talk radio it is beginning to be heard. Even the Democrats are starting to show an inkling of concern about it.
Is it possible that Barack Obama can be impeached or is this a "pipe dream"? And if so, is there any chance he can be convicted? Let's spend a little time and discuss this.
First off I think it's important that we all understand exactly what impeachment means. Many think of the term as the process of removing the President from office which it is not. No, impeachment is the process of bringing him up on charges for high crimes and misdemeanors. This is serious stuff, and as we learned with the case of Bill Clinton who was impeached, that trial ended up in many instances turning into a three ring circus. Case in point, Bill Clinton's answer to a question in his trial with the answer "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." And afterwards, for the first time that I can recall, little boys were running around on the schoolyard talking about the President having oral sex. Not something anyone would have thought of a few years prior, was it? You can't make this stuff up, folks.
When a bill of impeachment is taken up, it results in a determination by the House of Representatives as to whether or not the charges are sufficient to bring the President to trial. That's it; it merely means that a trial will be held and the Senate is the body that serves as the jury. The House, or at least a select team of Representatives, argues for the prosecution before the Senate. And since we are talking about a hyper-partisan situation, unless the charges are sufficiently grave that the American public clamors strongly for removal, it is highly unlikely that the Senate would convict. Frankly, in today's climate with Harry Reid running roughshod over Senate tradition and age old rules, I doubt the Democratic majority would convict under any circumstances.
So if this is the case, would there be any value in the House proffering charges to the Senate? Would it all just be grandstanding and a waste of time or could there be value in doing so?
Again, it's all in your point of view. Here's what I think but, remember, everyone has their own opinion, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
I think the evidence is clear that President Obama has committed impeachable offenses. In saying this, I think we only need to look at the separation of powers as delineated by the Constitution of the United States. The President does not have the power to unilaterally change laws that have been passed by Congress and which he has signed into law. Amendments to law require action by Congress, but the President has changed law unilaterally on multiple occasions and the most grievous is obviously Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act. While this law is horrible under any circumstances, the current law as being implemented by his administration is nearly unrecognizable from what was passed and he made his independent changes for political reasons.
So why hasn't Congress acted on this clear violation of power? Quite simply, the House of Representatives, under the flawed leadership of John Boehner, lacks the fortitude to do anything about it and, furthermore, since they like the changes better than the original law they just look the other way. Unfortunately, when you act this way you are opening the door to new precedents which have the possibility of "gutting" the Constitution, which is exactly what the President wants. I think there is a potential majority to opt for an impeachment bill, but I don't know if they are willing to stand the onslaught of Boehner's attempts to silence them. Only time will tell.
As for the Senate, as long as Harry Reid tries to act like a dictator and none of the Democrats in office are willing to stand against his tyrannical behavior, an impeachment trial would not result in conviction. Why Democrats who have been elected refuse to put the welfare of the nation first remains a mystery. Perhaps they are all true believers in the "fundamental change of America" that Obama is so blindly pushing, much to the detriment of the land he is supposed to protect.
I've limited my argument to just Obamacare but there are many other possibilities with all of the scandals that have not been resolved and for which so many answers have not been forthcoming. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, NSA, IRS overreach and many others are out there.
And still the question remains despite the likely outcome of a trial, should impeachment still be considered? I answer this with a qualified yes. The qualification involves whether or not the prosecution team is willing to go after the whole truth or would they just be putting on a show. If the answer really is they want the truth, then they should go for it and here's why. A trial allows for full disclosure. The prosecution team will carry with it the force of law with subpoena power. They would be able to call witnesses under oath and take the challenge where it needs to go, to the heart of the matter. And the American public would be able to see for themselves just what has been going on in this administration for the last five years. If no further action is the result, at least it would be publicly shown who did what to whom and the truth would finally come out. Remember, folks, the truth could set the entire country free. Since everyone is now clearly aware of the lies that have been told, at least we would finally know what the real purpose was for the lies and I don't think the answers are pretty. I think most would be outraged.
What will happen? Since no one has a crystal ball, no one knows. But I do know this: America is at a crisis today, a crisis that was self-inflicted by our own officials and we need to face reality once and for all. With the help of God, hopefully we will.
If
Is it possible that Barack Obama can be impeached or is this a "pipe dream"? And if so, is there any chance he can be convicted? Let's spend a little time and discuss this.
First off I think it's important that we all understand exactly what impeachment means. Many think of the term as the process of removing the President from office which it is not. No, impeachment is the process of bringing him up on charges for high crimes and misdemeanors. This is serious stuff, and as we learned with the case of Bill Clinton who was impeached, that trial ended up in many instances turning into a three ring circus. Case in point, Bill Clinton's answer to a question in his trial with the answer "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." And afterwards, for the first time that I can recall, little boys were running around on the schoolyard talking about the President having oral sex. Not something anyone would have thought of a few years prior, was it? You can't make this stuff up, folks.
When a bill of impeachment is taken up, it results in a determination by the House of Representatives as to whether or not the charges are sufficient to bring the President to trial. That's it; it merely means that a trial will be held and the Senate is the body that serves as the jury. The House, or at least a select team of Representatives, argues for the prosecution before the Senate. And since we are talking about a hyper-partisan situation, unless the charges are sufficiently grave that the American public clamors strongly for removal, it is highly unlikely that the Senate would convict. Frankly, in today's climate with Harry Reid running roughshod over Senate tradition and age old rules, I doubt the Democratic majority would convict under any circumstances.
So if this is the case, would there be any value in the House proffering charges to the Senate? Would it all just be grandstanding and a waste of time or could there be value in doing so?
Again, it's all in your point of view. Here's what I think but, remember, everyone has their own opinion, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
I think the evidence is clear that President Obama has committed impeachable offenses. In saying this, I think we only need to look at the separation of powers as delineated by the Constitution of the United States. The President does not have the power to unilaterally change laws that have been passed by Congress and which he has signed into law. Amendments to law require action by Congress, but the President has changed law unilaterally on multiple occasions and the most grievous is obviously Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act. While this law is horrible under any circumstances, the current law as being implemented by his administration is nearly unrecognizable from what was passed and he made his independent changes for political reasons.
So why hasn't Congress acted on this clear violation of power? Quite simply, the House of Representatives, under the flawed leadership of John Boehner, lacks the fortitude to do anything about it and, furthermore, since they like the changes better than the original law they just look the other way. Unfortunately, when you act this way you are opening the door to new precedents which have the possibility of "gutting" the Constitution, which is exactly what the President wants. I think there is a potential majority to opt for an impeachment bill, but I don't know if they are willing to stand the onslaught of Boehner's attempts to silence them. Only time will tell.
As for the Senate, as long as Harry Reid tries to act like a dictator and none of the Democrats in office are willing to stand against his tyrannical behavior, an impeachment trial would not result in conviction. Why Democrats who have been elected refuse to put the welfare of the nation first remains a mystery. Perhaps they are all true believers in the "fundamental change of America" that Obama is so blindly pushing, much to the detriment of the land he is supposed to protect.
I've limited my argument to just Obamacare but there are many other possibilities with all of the scandals that have not been resolved and for which so many answers have not been forthcoming. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, NSA, IRS overreach and many others are out there.
And still the question remains despite the likely outcome of a trial, should impeachment still be considered? I answer this with a qualified yes. The qualification involves whether or not the prosecution team is willing to go after the whole truth or would they just be putting on a show. If the answer really is they want the truth, then they should go for it and here's why. A trial allows for full disclosure. The prosecution team will carry with it the force of law with subpoena power. They would be able to call witnesses under oath and take the challenge where it needs to go, to the heart of the matter. And the American public would be able to see for themselves just what has been going on in this administration for the last five years. If no further action is the result, at least it would be publicly shown who did what to whom and the truth would finally come out. Remember, folks, the truth could set the entire country free. Since everyone is now clearly aware of the lies that have been told, at least we would finally know what the real purpose was for the lies and I don't think the answers are pretty. I think most would be outraged.
What will happen? Since no one has a crystal ball, no one knows. But I do know this: America is at a crisis today, a crisis that was self-inflicted by our own officials and we need to face reality once and for all. With the help of God, hopefully we will.
If
RSS Feed
