Stephen
Kershnar
Throw Him Out: The Overwhelming Case for
Impeaching and Convicting Obama
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
November
23, 2014
Via
executive order, President Obama recently amnestied five million illegal aliens.
The amnesty applies to people who have been here illegally for the past five
years, although one doubts whether the five-year requirement will be enforced,
and to parents of anchor babies. Many of these aliens will likely not be
prosecuted for identity theft and document fraud they committed in order to
work here in the past. This amnesty follows a previous one, which occurred when
Obama enforced the DREAM Act despite Congress’ refusal to pass it.
If,
in the absence of an emergency, a President who nullifies valid law and, in so
doing, significantly subverts the Constitution should be impeached and
convicted. Obama’s amnesty fits the bill.
His
action is clearly illegal. There are laws that have been passed by Congress and
signed by a President that constitute American immigration law. The law simply does
not allow for such an amnesty. The best the President’s defenders can do is
argue that the amnesty is permitted by prosecutorial authority. Under this
doctrine, a prosecutor has the sole discretion to decide whom to charge, what
to charge them with, and whether to dismiss or plea bargain down the charges.
This, however, has to be done on the basis of limited resources, not on the
basis of whether or not a prosecutor approves of the law.
Consider,
for example, if President Rand Paul tried to get Congress to eliminate all
taxes on capital gains. Congress refused and, instead, raised these taxes. Paul
then announced that he was in effect nullifying all taxes on capital gains by
giving an amnesty for anyone who doesn’t pay them, despite the fact that
Congress had allocated money to enforce such a law. Does anyone honesty think
this would be legal?
The
Constitution permits impeachment and conviction. It says, “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
clause is best interpreted to include not only criminal acts, but also neglect
of duty even when not an indictable offense.
This interpretation is supported by the original intent of
those who wrote and ratified the Constitution, the power’s historical lineage, and
precedent. People who helped to frame and ratify the Constitution, such as
Alexander Hamilton and George Mason, intended the power to cover violations of
public trust that were not indictable offenses. Historically, the clause was
modeled on power had by the British legislature had that was not limited to
indictable offenses. The broader interpretation is also in line with precedent.
Within 30 years of the country’s creation, Congress impeached and convicted a judge
for such non-indictable acts as being drunk, foul-mouthed, and blasphemous
while on the bench. The purpose of the impeachment clause, then, is to allow
Congress to remove government officials who abuse their power, especially when
their doing so subverts the Constitution.
Obama’s amnesty is a clear-cut abuse of power and one that severely
harms the country. Relative to current Americans, illegal aliens are poorer, less
educated, less intelligent, and less committed to family values. Relative to
other members of the third world, Mexicans, which includes many of the aliens,
are neither poor nor oppressed. Compare them, for example, to the many
desperate people from Sudan, Congo, or India. Thus, they are neither a good
source of skilled workers nor strong candidates for economic or political
compassion. What’s more, the U.S. is not like a restrictive country club. In
the last few decades, the country has been so flooded with legal immigration
that roughly one out of four people in this country are either immigrants or the
children of immigrants. The Democrats, along with Republican collaborators,
have decided to import a new people, despite the ardent opposition of the American
people.
The
Obama administration did not make the aliens eligible for some public benefits,
such as food stamps and Medicaid, but no one who has watched this
administration and the Democrats in Congress expects this restriction to remain
in place. Consider that 42% of the new Medicaid signups are immigrants or their
children and that Obama and the Democrats repeatedly tried to include illegal
aliens in Obamacare. If this amnesty is not smacked down, Obama will undoubtedly
move to convert the newly amnestied into citizens, grant amnesty to millions of
the remaining illegal aliens (there are at least another six million), and make
them all eligible for government benefits. No one can seriously doubt that
these moves are on the horizon, by executive action, again, if necessary. Also,
no one can doubt Obama’s two amnesties will encourage a massive new wave of
illegal aliens hoping for yet another amnesty.
The
precedent here is important. Recently, Presidents have been violating the
public trust with increasing frequency and severity. Obama claimed the
unilateral right to take the nation to war in Libya and against ISIS without
getting a declaration of war or following the War Powers Act. He has previously
engaged in blatantly illegal acts such as rewriting Obamacare and breaking
immigration law (see DREAM Act). The Internal Revenue Service targeted political
enemies and blatantly ignored Congressional oversight with few repercussions.
His attorney general has been held in contempt of congress. His Veteran’s
Administration was awash in illegalities. His administration just ignored the bankruptcy
laws to favor his political ally (UAW) in the General Motors and Chrysler
bailouts.
One
shudders to think what another Clinton presidency would do if this pattern of
abuse is left unchecked.
One
objection is that the U.S. can’t and won’t deport masses of illegal aliens.
First, the country has done so before during President Eisenhower under
Operation Wetback. Second, even if the country lacks the integrity to enforce
the law, it does not follow it has to retroactively validate the law breaking
as opposed to putting it on a list of things to do.
The
only fitting response to Obama’s lawlessness is to throw him out the hell out. Impeach
and convict him posthaste.
No comments:
Post a Comment