Should Obama Be Impeached?

by Jerry Richardson   9/19/14

This is an invitation for reader comment.  Please use the “Leave a Reply” section at the bottom to comment on any or all of the following questions, or related questions that you provide:

If it were known for certain that Obama was insane would he be impeached?

“Insanity is a mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot manage his/her own affairs, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.”  —Legal Insanity

Does the US Constitution provide for impeachment (involuntary removal) due to insanity?  If so is insanity covered under the following Constitutional clause:

“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.” Article II, Section 4, US Constitution

Could political acts of bizarreness (strikingly out of the ordinary) ever legally construe insanity?

When does gross irresponsibility in political-office equate-to or become worse than insanity?

“Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has warned that the U.S. must “treat Ebola as a wake-up call.”
—-
Orient called the planned U.S. deployment a “dubious mission,” warning that the nightmarish scenario could bring Ebola to America.

“There is definitely a risk,” she said. “It seems irresponsible to send more people there when the ones already there are having trouble leaving. Probably anyone who has been exposed should be quarantined for 25 days since the last exposure.”

Orient echoed the concerns of Elaine Donelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, who told WND, “I’m just appalled. Judging from this, the United States seems to have a very confused vision of what ‘national security’ means.”
Doctors: ‘Irresponsible’ to send troops to ‘combat’ Ebola

Is Obama completed inoculated against impeachment because he is the nation’s first black President?

If Hillary Clinton runs in 2016 and is elected, will she be inoculated against impeachment because she would be the first female President?

If Bobby Jindal were to run for President in 2016 and be elected, would he be inoculated against impeachment because he would be the first person of Asiatic-Indian decent to be elected President?

Is it time to amend the constitutional provision for Presidential impeachment to explicitly include the failure of a President to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” as stated in his oath-of-office, or is that sufficiently covered under “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” in Article II, Section 4

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ ”
Article II, Section 1, US Constitution

Has the House of Representatives approved lawsuit against President Obama been filed?  Could it succeed?  Is there a need for this legal mechanism?

“A pair of respected legal scholars gave credence to House Republicans’ plan to sue President Obama for exceeding his authority in implementing the Affordable Care Act, warning that such action is needed to defend the system of checks and balances from an “uber presidency.

“George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, speaking at a GOP-led House Rule Committee hearing, said the suit, which accuses Obama of materially altering his signature health care law without a congressional vote, is necessary to restore constitutional equilibrium among the branches of government.”  House Suit against Obama


Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (987 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Should Obama Be Impeached?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    The Gangster-in-Chief is clearly a lawless president, and in fact started both his terms by perjuring himself (falsely swearing to an oath he never intended to fulfill). There can be no doubt that he merits impeachment. But there is probably nothing he can do that would cause any Senate Democrat to vote to convict — not even if Barry Screwtape Obama openly committed murder outside the White House. Much of this comes from being the First Black President, which makes it almost impossible to get the synoptic media to make the case that would be needed to force Democrats to vote to get rid of one of their own. Knowing this, and knowing that in the absence of such pressure this would be politically counter-productive, the Yellow-Bellied Republicans in the House leadership will never consider impeachment.

    • Jerry Richardson says:

      Tim,

      You are spot-on in your comments as usual. Thanks!

      “But there is probably nothing he can do that would cause any Senate Democrat to vote to convict — not even if Barry Screwtape Obama openly committed murder outside the White House.”

      It is a sad thing, but this is exactly what I believe.

  2. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    Jerry,
    As to insanity, Congress did once use impeachment to remove an insane judge, John Pickering, in 1803 and probably would consider impeachment of an insane president. However, that contingency is now covered by the 25th Amendment: the President himself or the Vice-President and a majority of cabinet officers (or other officers as provided by law) may send Congress a declaration that the President is unable to perform his duties, and the VP then takes over unless the President objects, in which case Congress decides, a 2/3 vote in both Houses being necessary to confirm the President’s removal.

    As to Obama’s mental health, that of any Leftist is always suspect because they function routinely by rationalization, never consciously admitting their desire for power as what it is. We have all observed at one time or another the cognitive dissonance Leftists exhibit, and yet this cannot be termed “insanity”. Obama is delusional, yes, especially in regarding himself as a great man, but he is not insane as that term is used in law. A determination to destroy liberty in America and impose socialism is evil, but it is not insane.

    As to the impeachment question, the first reality to be aware of is the one Tim pointed out: Senate Democrats will never vote to remove Obama from office unless failing to do so put their own worthless hides in jeopardy. That could be a factor in contested districts (i.e. where a Republican could conceivably win the election), a point to which I’ll return in a moment. Bearing in mind the fact that impeachment would almost certainly be fruitless, there would seem to be no point in going forward with it except under these circumstances:

    1. Cause. Yes, there is already sufficient cause for Obama’s impeachment. His active subversion of the laws in violation of his oath, his attempt to divide Americans into those who have to obey the law (Obamacare) and those who don’t, his fraudulent theft of health insurance from tens of millions of Americans are even by themselves sufficient cause in the legal sense, for they do constitute “High crimes and Misdemeanors” as that phrase was understood by the Founders. However, I think it’s politically unwise for House Republicans to impeach Obama on these grounds, because they’re been insufficiently attentive to pointing these things out. It’s the same old refusal to fight the Democrats on moral grounds which has led the Establishment to let Obama get away with his malfeasance; if they had been talking about it every day, waking up the citizenry, etc., they would be in a much stronger position now.

    But there is one thing that should force Republicans’ hands: if it can be proved that Obama either ordered or approved of the IRS’s harassment of Conservative (therefore incidentally Republican) groups, then the abuse of power is so gross he must be impeached, provided also that…

    2. Republicans take the Senate in November. Without a Republican majority, the Senate will never even hear the case against Obama. With a Republican majority, say 52 votes, the case can at least be heard. It would require 15 Democratic Senators to do their duty and vote to convict him to remove the monster from office, which is unlikely, but vulnerable ones up for re-election in 2016 just might do so. At the very least, the trial of Obama would weaken, divide, and embarrass Democrats, always a good thing.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This brings up the point I have frequently made on NRO: the great GOP failure is a failure of messaging. To be precise, it’s a failure even to try. Instead, they rely on those they know are actively on the other side (or, if they don’t realize that, then they’re phenomenally stupid, which admittedly is quite believable of GOP leaders) to spread their message fairly. I believe some on NRO thought I was complaining about media bias, but that isn’t exactly right. I would certainly be happy if the synoptic media were honest instead of Obama shills (many of whom are preparing to become Hillary shills), but the point is that the GOP has to adjust its methods to the reality of the situation.

    • Jerry Richardson says:

      NAHALKIDES,

      Excellent comment! Thanks much.

      I did not know about Congress removing an insane judge. Although I was aware of the possibility of the use of the 25th Amendment due to a episode on the Jack Bauer series.

      You point that “socialism is evil, but it is not insane” is no doubt true, but it is interesting for it relates to an issue I have long been interested. It the good fundamentally what is most rational? Is evil is irrational? What do think?

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        Evil is irrational if we regard the good as that which promotes human life, for then evil is that which injures or destroys human life. A free government is good because it secures man’s rights and therefore his chance at happiness; big government is evil because it acts to destroy man’s life. (Note that this need not be universal; income redistribution “helps” one man at the expense of another, and at the expense of his own self-reliance. But even if we ignore the harm done to the recipient of the stolen loot, the harm done to the taxpayer is sufficient to make redistribution evil). Therefore, under a reasonable definition of “good” and “evil” evil is irrational.

        Of course the Left inverts morality, turning what is good into evil (the rational pursuit of one’s own interest becomes “greed”) and evil (collectivism) into good. If we accept their poisonous code, we will find ourselves defending evil as rational, which it is if we believe that harming the individual for the alleged good of the collective is in fact “good”. It would seem, then, that Leftism would have to invert rationality as well, and certainly the Communists at least intended to evade the issue by positing polylogism to escape the logical deduction that communism was evil. American Progressives may approach the problem differently, usually by deprecating the value of reason since it is difficult to convince ordinary people to accept the individual’s destruction as a rational goal.

        • Jerry Richardson says:

          NAHALKIDES,

          “…and certainly the Communists at least intended to evade the issue by positing polylogism to escape the logical deduction that communism was evil.” –NAHALKIDES

          I am intrigued by your use of the term “polylogism.”

          I understand that it means “many logics” and that it would be used to argue that different logics are appropriate for different groups. But the possible formal nature of those logics completely escape me. My knowledge of exactly how the communist, or someone else might formally justify such a logic is nill. Has anyone documented anything on this?

          I am pretty familiar, and comfortable, with the concept of modal-logic (the logic of necessity and possibility);
          but when it comes to basic non-modal logic I’m such a conventional one-logic guy that I struggle with it’s inversion.

          I clearly get that there are those who simply assert that “evil” is “good” and “good” is “evil”. But how do even begin to formalize such an “inverted logic”?

          Do you have any thoughts on how such a logic might be formally axiomized?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      A determination to destroy liberty in America and impose socialism is evil, but it is not insane.

      I like that. And I think it’s short enough to fit on a bumper sticker. 😀

  3. John goodman says:

    Obamacare was passed illegally because it is not a tax. It is a fine and the Supreme Court cannot rule on a fine. A tax is something that everyone pays. A fine is a punishment for not obeying a rule. Since it is not a tax it should be rescinded. Not that honesty and integrity in this country matter any more. Obama has seen to that. I can’t even stand to listen to his lies anymore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *