Why President Obama must be impeached


INDIANAPOLIS, December 6, 2014 — There are cries all across America, with the exceptions of New York, Washington, and Democratic and Republican Party headquarters for the impeachment of President Obama.

The reasoning varies, from easily-proven derelictions of his duties of office and trashing of the Constitution, to ridiculous disagreements over policy. The fact is, there are plenty of impeachable offenses, a couple of which have already been noted by the Supreme Court. With very little digging, there are probably a few more, but speculation isn’t necessary.

In the House of Representatives, where timidity and stupidity reign on the majority side and fecklessness and deceit on the other, any voter or Constitution-inspired calls for impeachment are shunted aside. In the Senate, it’s worse: “We’d never get 2/3” is all anyone will say.

And in the Senate, of course, they’re right. President Bill Clinton got a 99-0 pass on admitted perjury and subornation, plus obvious witness tampering, even after the House did its job of impeaching him, giving Hillary effective control of the presidency for the last of Bill’s term.

But in order to preserve the Republic, impeachment is necessary. If Congress doesn’t step up to do its distasteful but necessary job, the Constitution and the very fabric of our Republic are meaningless. If this structural throttle isn’t applied to a usurper’s ambitions, a full-blown dictatorship will result; why shouldn’t it?

Objections, aside from the fact that impeachment would put more public pressure on Congress to do its obvious job, range from, “It would tear the country apart” to, “Are you kidding? President Biden?”

These objections don’t hold water.

Sure, impeaching, removing, and imprisoning the President would cause major angst across the nation. Some people would hate the idea because they love the Scoundrel in Chief. Others don’t even like him or his policies, but they really don’t want to acknowledge just what a criminal he is. And still others just don’t want to upset the status quo and see proper discipline applied; it would embarrass them to see their President get officially called out and put away.

Would President Biden be worse? It’s hard to imagine what he would do, and it’s hard to imagine that his policies would be any more appealing to the Ann Coulters of the nation than President Obama’s, but it’s a verity that President Biden, after he saw Obama behind bars (or even merely stripped of his perqs) would not stray far from the constraints of the Constitution.

And neither would the next several of his successors.

This action would not end controversy over how the country is run. It is entirely possible to have plenty of discussion of spending, structure, and policy — even radical policy — and still adhere to the Constitution. It is possible to enact all sorts of laws and steer in all sorts of directions, and have all sorts of discussions, without abusing Executive power.

But it is not possible to maintain this nation when its most-fundamental law is ignored.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Lt. Lockhart

    Let’s be honest: Obama is the problem.

  • I agree that he needs to go and that his disregard for the rule of law is disgusting, however it’s just not going to happen sadly. Well unless a bunch of Dems jump onboard which probably would never happen.

    • Guest

      Even if a Democrat wanted to “jump aboard,” there is no bandwagon. That is the

      fault of the (entirely too) “loyal opposition.” Cowardice is much more prevalent in D.C. than respect for the law.

  • Jeff Annis

    I love all the assumption here. Still waiting to hear all of the “impeachable offenses” that are mentioned as givens, but not specifically stated, much less proven.

    Anyone who can read and agree with the above is not of any kind of open mind, and simply disagrees with a president’s stances and policies, can’t stand the fact that he was reelected, and can’t point to a single thing this president has done that wasn’t done by one or both the last two republican presidents before him.

    Really, if you are going to take an expository stance, than expose something!

    • Tim Kern

      How about executive amnesty; refusal to prosecute vote fraud and intimidation; and illegal recess appointments, for starters?

      Then there’s decreeing various parts of laws changed from what they say — for example, three dozen+ modifications he’s made by decree to Obamacare. Dates, coverages, etc.

      He lies regularly to Congress and the American people, and he ignores subpoenae issued by Congress; he has weaponized our tax system, and obstructed investigations into these and other activities.

      Every time he refuses to enforce a law, that’s a breach of his oath of office. Every time he makes an extralegal decree, that’s a breach of the division of powers between Executive and Legislative branches…

      Ya know, Jeff, it’s hard to educate someone as far behind the curve as you are — maybe you can tell me where you’re having trouble understanding: is it that you never read the Constitution, or that you don’t know what Obama’s been doing for the last nearly seven years?

      • Jeff Annis

        Ya know, Tim it seems that:
        1) you missed the point of my original reply, that all of these accusations were not in the article itself.
        2) you also miss the point that any of the things you accuse our current president of could be applied to pretty much any other president that came before…at least you could do so if you hated any of them as much as you hate our current president.

        Really, Tim let’s not play games here. Your ilk selectively accuses and condones, not based on laws or principles, but on opinions and whether the application of laws suits your purpose of promoting these same opinions.

        • Tim Kern

          Hey, Jeff, the accusations I enumerated for you are all well-known among people who retain political consciousness. For most readers, it’s unnecessary to repeat parts of the litany; the list I provided in reply to jog your memory is in no way complete. But I’m disappointed that you think 1) others have committed comparable acts (please cite, and not the talking points but actual events), and 2) that the past crimes (and there were some whoppers) matter in the same way — we have a current president, who is a current criminal — whatever Lincoln did is not punishable or stoppable today. FYI, I railed against Bush and Clinton just as vehemently, when the former started an unnecessary war and the former covered up the FBI’s massacre at Waco, and later when he suborned perjury (with the complicity of the Chief Justice and the entire Senate).

          If you are conceding Obama’s crimes, why don’t you think he should be stopped? If you are denying Obama’s crimes, how?

          I didn’t start out hating the president, as you accuse me of. I voted for him (once). The hatred I have came about entirely from his actions, and is a result of his chronic destruction of all things American. And I don’t even hate Obama personally — on a personal level, he’s a charmer and apparently a good father; and like me, he’s a frustrated golfer, too.
          Further, I condoned nothing. And it’s intelligent to selectively accuse — blanket accusations (as you have made here) are simply signs of dim thinking or its subset, prejudice.

          Ya know, Jeff, it’s hard to educate someone as far behind the curve as
          you are — maybe you can tell me where you’re having trouble
          understanding: is it that you never read the Constitution, or that you
          don’t know what Obama’s been doing for the last nearly seven years?

          • Jeff Annis

            Ah, so now we see your true colors: In an article leading “why the president MUST be impeached” you don’t really need to say why the PotUS must be impeached because all your readers already agree that the president MUST be impeached. And obviously, anyboby reading this who does not agree, must be uninformed, unintelligent or both. No need for me to cite facts here (which, by the why, Tim, you still have not done, rather you just rattled off a list of vague accusations) in a reply that most of the original readers will never see.

            I am pretty sure that none of my profs would have accepted this line of reasoning in a college (yes, I have a four year degree) essay.

            It is of course pretty hypocritical to then demand the same facts from me, when I am not demanding impeachment nor insisting that preceding presidents, should have suffered the same fate.

            Again, Tim, we are talking FACTS here, not unprovable accusations (though not for lack of effort, i.e.: the unfortunate, but not criminal misteps of Benghazi and the right’s long and unfruitful attempts to prove that Obama and H. Clinton deliberately killed people because they are just awful human beings).

            Impeachment is NOT nor was never meant to be a means of political revenge. It is not about one set of “patriots” trying to save us from our duly reelected president who is guilty of putting forth ideas that his opponents disagree with. It is about High crimes and misdemeanors. To advocate its use otherwise is as destructive as is to defund and shutdown the government and cost taxpayers more in increased interest payments via falling credit ratings…oh wait, my guess is you supported that too….

          • Tim Kern

            Jeff, I did say why the President must be impeached, and I cited several (though not all) of the reasons, some of which have been noted by the Supreme Court.
            As for that degree, you might look into seeing if you can get your money back for any critical thinking classes you may have taken.

          • Jeff Annis

            Well, one thing my degree taught me, that perhaps yours did not is that even if I don’t agree with someone, does not necessarily mean they are stupid, or even entirely wrong. Of course that is not the popular mode of thinking, especially on the right where one cannot possibly disagree and yet still hold a valid opinion.

            Again, you cite “Supreme Court” (which is, by the way a VERY political body, a fact you doubtless only recognize when they side AGAINST you – as they did in the first ACA case to reach them) as some sort of “proof” without stating their support for your cause. It seems strange that if the Supreme Court had supported impeachment so openly that it should be obvious to me (who listens to/reads news EVERY day) that your side had not jumped on it more fully. Seems like it should be a slam dunk, and your well-considered and well-supported article should not even be necessary. I guess it must be all that media bias that your side talks about, where the whole break-down in the capitalist system dictates that they should NOT report blockbuster stories because they uniformly support a president beyond their own selfish interests. Yeah, I really should learn to think critically.

            Politics is a battle of ideas. Every President, every PERSON wins some and loses some, pushes the rights of their office, and sometimes gets called on it. EVERY recent president has had this happen. These are NOT impeachable offenses, NOT “High Crimes or Misdemeanors” as I (my uneducated self) believe to be the litmus of impeachment.

            Either put up the “impeachable offenses” that are strong enough to be taken up by your party, and that you keep alluding to or shut up, that is all I have to say on the matter.

            Otherwise, it has been nice engaging with you Tim. I think if there is one thing on which we can agree, it is that we are both blessed to be living in a place where we can have such a discussion in an open forum. Happy Holidays, and Merry Christmas. I will cede to you the last word that you will surely take.

            Very Best Regards.

          • Tim Kern

            Thank you for that past paragraph. And here, we do agree.