time to say - yes we can
Johnny Ray Huston | 29.10.2009 10:05 | Anti-militarism | Repression | Social Struggles | Sheffield
Can we actually impeach Barack Hussein Obama? Should we impeach Barack Hussein Obama?
To borrow a phrase from the "anointed-one," ... "yes we can."
But before going on, we really need to address the often misunderstood subject of what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense, in order to illustrate that Barack Obama's actions are grave enough to warrant impeachment.
Former-President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was, "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "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 key phrase here is "high crimes and misdemeanors," a concept in English Common Law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.
Here's a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution:
"'High crimes and misdemeanors' entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment - treason and bribery - were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered... so Mason then proposed 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a 'misdemeanor' meant 'mis-demeanor,' or bad behavior."
In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act (as some would lead you to believe) and our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were... well... simply put... egregious... grossly incompetence... grossly negligence... outright distasteful... or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."
And make no mistake, for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Hussein Obama would be a simple matter of "playing politics," the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting President be a political act.
As C-Span.org notes:
"The Congress decides the definition [of impeachable offenses]: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is 'whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'"
The Obama Administration exemplifies maladministration. It qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.
Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.
Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.
It could be easily argued that we have a duty to impeach Barack Hussein Obama.
Of course, our elected officials won't have the back-bone to go it alone. That's where you come in.
Help us spread the word far-and-wide and our elected officials will come to know that Impeachment is the will of the American people and they ignore the will of the people at their own political peril.
The question is not whether we should impeach Barack Hussein Obama. Rather, the question is, can we impeach Barack Hussein Obama before it is too late?
Johnny Ray Huston
2940 16th St, Ste 216
San Francisco, CA 94103
Repost ASAP
To borrow a phrase from the "anointed-one," ... "yes we can."
But before going on, we really need to address the often misunderstood subject of what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense, in order to illustrate that Barack Obama's actions are grave enough to warrant impeachment.
Former-President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was, "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "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 key phrase here is "high crimes and misdemeanors," a concept in English Common Law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.
Here's a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution:
"'High crimes and misdemeanors' entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment - treason and bribery - were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered... so Mason then proposed 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a 'misdemeanor' meant 'mis-demeanor,' or bad behavior."
In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act (as some would lead you to believe) and our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were... well... simply put... egregious... grossly incompetence... grossly negligence... outright distasteful... or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."
And make no mistake, for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Hussein Obama would be a simple matter of "playing politics," the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting President be a political act.
As C-Span.org notes:
"The Congress decides the definition [of impeachable offenses]: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is 'whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'"
The Obama Administration exemplifies maladministration. It qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.
Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.
Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.
It could be easily argued that we have a duty to impeach Barack Hussein Obama.
Of course, our elected officials won't have the back-bone to go it alone. That's where you come in.
Help us spread the word far-and-wide and our elected officials will come to know that Impeachment is the will of the American people and they ignore the will of the people at their own political peril.
The question is not whether we should impeach Barack Hussein Obama. Rather, the question is, can we impeach Barack Hussein Obama before it is too late?
Johnny Ray Huston
2940 16th St, Ste 216
San Francisco, CA 94103
Repost ASAP
Johnny Ray Huston
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
the Gman is on board with it
29.10.2009 10:10
the Gman is on board with it
Gman9999
Perhaps a bit more specific?
29.10.2009 12:41
Not exactly. I agree with the idea that the Founding Fathers of the US, many having backgrounds in late 18th Century British law, thought that "high crimes and misdemeanors" were things that weren't necessarily criminal. But the examples given here just don't hack it.
If you look at cases from this time in Britain you see that the term is associated with persons in authority using the monarch's power (hence the "high") for private or faction gain. An example might make clearer the difference between criminal or not. Thus if charged with giving out contracts to shipyards for the navy, took a bribe in exchange for a contract, that would be crimina, a "high crime". But how about restricting awards of those contracts to cronies? Impeachable as a "high misdemeanor".
In US precedent extended to "incompetence" only in the sense that judges impeached for things like being drunk on the bench. Again, not criminal and not strictly speaking incompetence in the geenral sense but allowing oneself to be in a state incompetence while on duty.
But back to the original question could we should we. Not we can't (total lack of votes) and no we shouldn't (no reasonable grounds). A bit of confusion here about the powers. Yes not specifically defined so in that sense "whatever Congress decides". But there aren't restrictions on silly Congressional decisions in general so why would you expect one in this case. Congress COULD declare it illegal for the tide to come in.
MDN