Articles of Impeachment

According to the Constitution, you know the supreme law of the land; the President of the United States must ensure that laws be faithfully executed. This is something he has to do and has pledged to do whether he likes it or not.

The following is the presidential oath of office (emphasis added):

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

The following is the Congressional (House and Senate) oath of office (emphasis added):

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: so help me God".

I don't know about you, but I could not help but notice the difference in the two of oaths. The one crafted by the founders (the presidential oath) is short, concise and uncluttered whereas the Congressional oath, adopted in the 1860s, is about double. Just imagine if it were written today. The oath would take an hour to recite with a lot of "yeah buts" plugged in. Just an observation.

When a president, or for that matter, a member of Congress doesn't take care to defend the Constitution and laws be faithfully executed as described in the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, he or she should fully expect not just impeachment but removal from office. The same could be said of any neglectful employee.

As many may not realize, impeachment and removal are two different things. One can be impeached (e.g. Bill Clinton) by the House of Representatives without being removed from office, which is determined by the Senate.

Recently a few brave souls in Congress have drafted articles of impeachment against King Barack for failure to execute his oath of office. Sadly it will go nowhere and they will, of course, be mocked for their attempt.

There are few "High Crimes" (Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution) more serious than the failure to protect and adhere to the Constitution or usurpation of congressional authority.

A wise man once said, to the low information citizen, history begins on the day of their birth. Even to those who think themselves informed, it seems that many believe that Barack Obama is our first president to fancy himself a monarch.

But this is not the first time a president has been referred to as King. Andrew Jackson was often called King Andrew due to his near Monarchical control of the country. He, like Obama, was often said to govern based on personal opinion and biases, rather than adherence to law, despite protests from Congress.

It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Once you begin to look back on America's political history you will notice nothing is ever really new, just recycled.

The difference between now and Andrew Jackson's day is that unlike today, some congressional leaders of that era actually had the courage to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

During the Jackson administration, Sen. Henry Clay spoke on the Senate floor for three straight days against the imperialism of Jackson. Clay warned America that Jackson's actions were "dangerous to the liberties of the people" and if left unchecked would soon result in "a concentration of all powers of government in the hands of one man".

Clay explained that throughout his two terms, Jackson did what he wanted, how he envisioned things ought to be, regardless of the legality or constitutionality of any given issue.

Does any of this sound even remotely familiar; the same as today's real conservatives, warning of Obama's want for concentration of power? It's unfortunate that none of today's elected Republican leaders would dare have the courage of Henry Clay.

Today most consider impeachment to be an impossibility. Why bother. Why even start down that road.

Well, the fact is, that when bills of impeachment were first filed against the hated Richard Nixon, only a paltry 25 members of Congress supported the idea of impeachment at that time.

So what offenses has the King committed that may warrant impeachment? Here are just a few examples, thanks to the help of Rick Santorum, that rise to the level of impeachment:

Executive Order rescinding the "Mexico City Policy"
Unilateral decision to stop enforcing the "Defense of Marriage" law
The instruction to DHS to stop deportation of young illegal aliens as required by law
Instruction to the Justice Department to cease prosecution of the Black Panthers
Recess appointments without Senate in recess
Unilateral dismissal of the Second Amendment through executive orders

Now, do I really think impeachment is possible? Probably not. Removal by the Senate is a pipe dream, of course. So why try?

One tries because it is the right and Constitutional thing to do. It's just unfortunate that there are so many progressives on both sides of the aisle that just don't care to do the job that they all pledged to do.