April 11, 2013 | 0 comments
March 28, 2013 | 1 comment
September 9, 2011 | 5 comments
September 8, 2011 | 3 comments
September 7, 2011 | 4 comments
Not that I’ve been watching closely, but so far I count at least four possible grounds for the impeachment of the president of these United States.
I am not suggesting impeachment proceedings would be a good idea. I’m just keeping score, the same thing the president does.
The latest impeachment ground, if President Obama follows through on it, is his kingly proposal to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling without congressional approval.
Liberals are often impervious to reason, preferring to see the Constitution as authorizing everything they see as good and prohibiting everything they see as bad. “When a crisis occurs, instead of solving it, Democrats use it as an excuse to expand their power,” notes Republican historian Michael Zak.
So it wasn’t terribly surprising the other day when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner waved the Fourteenth Amendment around like a magic wand. The fourth clause of the amendment states
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Obama zombies like liberal Bruce Bartlett seem to think that because “[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned” somehow this means a) that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional and b) the president gets to authorize borrowing without congressional approval. Maybe in their eyes there is also an option c) which fantasizes that because debts are falling due borrowing is automatically authorized or mandated by operation of law.
In other words, even though Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power “[t]o borrow money on the credit of the United States,” it doesn’t matter. Congressional control over borrowing is irrelevant because the Dear Leader says so.
Why bother having a Congress with the power of the purse then?
In reverse chronological order, the other three prospective grounds for impeachment are:
* President Obama’s recent funding of ACORN, contrary to federal law. News of the HUD grant to ACORN Housing (now called Affordable Housing Centers of America) came mere days after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal funding ban.
* The president’s inexplicable refusal to seek the approval of Congress before going to war in Libya. Despite insisting such approval was absolutely necessary when he was a U.S. senator, now that he’s in the White House he sees things differently.
* President Obama’s pigheaded refusal to enforce the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). (Not defending the statute in court is tantamount to not enforcing it.)
Feel free to keep score yourself. I’m sure I missed a lot.
* * * * *
America needs to know that ACORN is restructuring in time to help re-elect President Obama in 2012. Obama used to work for ACORN and represented the group in court as its lawyer. These radical leftists who use the brutal, in-your-face, pressure tactics of Saul Alinsky want to destroy America as we know it and will use any means to do it.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?