05 January 2012

Time For Impeachment

A defiant President Barack Obama, tired of Senate Republicans stalling his nominee to lead a new consumer protection agency, put him in charge Wednesday over their opposition. [Hat tip: Karl Denninger.]

And what does the constitution—which he swore to uphold and defend, by the way—have to say on the matter?

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Here’s the thing:  congress is currently in session.  Therefore, Obamao cannot simply appoint someone to head a new agency.  He is clearly in violation of the constitution.

Now, the question that remains is this:  what is congress going to do about it?  The president has clearly violated the constitution, and there is no excuse for his behavior.  If he doesn’t like how his political opponents act in opposition to him, he should never have entered the big boy world of federal politics.  As such, congress needs to call for his impeachment and kick him out.  He has violated his oath of office, and he has violated the constitution.  If that’s not a high crime or misdemeanor, then nothing is.


  1. The foundation of law is force. If no ono is willing or has the force to enforce the law, it in fact has no effect.

    In other words: Obama is above the law. Holder is above the law. Congress will not impeach a black president or AG because that would be racist. There are no superior legal authorities that can be appealed to. Courts may offer opinions, but without force to back them up, they are just wind.

  2. And who controls the force? Why the president does, natch.

    This is one glaring oversight of the constitution that seems readily apparent in hindsight. It simply does not seem wise to have trusted one branch with all the enforcement power, for what would happen if the president were in the wrong and had control over all those who would enforce the law?

  3. The Constitution is just fine. The checks and balances system works most of the time. Ultimately, the People can "check" a bad president out of office at the end of his term. Congress could impeach him and then he wouldn't have any power. Secret Service, military and federal marshals would be bound to their oaths to ignore his further orders.

    But if Congress doesn't have the stomach for it because 1/2 of the congress is on his side and 42% of the People are too stupid to care, then there is no hope for it.

    The framers of the Constitution did not envision a system where the malcontents would share unlimited power instead of competing for it.

  4. I guess the biggest problem with the political system (not necessarily the constitution) is that change is never radical enough. Political change is gradual, and no one recognizes how terrible the usurpations of power are until its too late. Ultimately, the problem with the system is people. Namely, most of them are short-sighted idiots. At least there's a perverse sense of justice to it, for people always get the leaders they deserve.

  5. the problem is universal suffrage. simply put, many/most people are not deserving of the ability to vote as they are selfish and lack foresight.

    in my mind, only people with a demonstrable vested interest in the long term health of society over the short term and no conflict of interest via already accepting money from the government via employment or welfare should have the ability to vote.

    as such, my dream system would be one vote per married couple with at least one child biological or adopted. military, police, fire, teachers, any elected official, any welfare recipient, and anyone else who accepts money from the government would be barred from voting until 1-4 years after they cease accepting that money.

  6. @CLAR- your proposal sounds interesting. I think I would swap the requirement of children for the requirement of owning land, but I could live with your system. The thing that's great about democracy is that it does truly represent the voters. When most voters are stupid, it stands to reason that the government will be as well.