Connect with us


Impeachment talk quietly builds



The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.

Talk of impeachment of the (de facto) President went beyond outraged citizens and conservative pundits. Yesterday a Member of Congress signaled his interest in it. He has had this interest for nine months, and now has renewed it.

Why impeachment?

The report on the Congressman’s interest came from Garth Kant at WND. The particular cause that impels Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, to think of impeaching Barack Obama is gun control. On Monday, a disgruntled and deranged “contractor” bought a shotgun, somehow got onto the Washington Navy Yard, and shot and killed twelve people before finally dying himself. In the process he stole two more weapons, including either an AR-15 or an M-16 (the two are almost the same weapon), and used them. For that reason, the first media reports said the shooter, Aaron Alexis, somehow got an AR-15 onto the base. And in light of that false report, de facto President Obama proposed two more Executive Orders to expand background checking before on-line sales and gun-show sales. This although Alexis bought his shotgun at a brick-and-mortar store, and in person.

And, of course, Senator Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., made her usual lament that anyone other than an LEO may even touch a gun.

This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough?

No, Senator, it didn’t work out that way. Alexis started with only one weapon, killed two people for their weapons, and used those weapons to go on killing. But you don’t really care about that, do you? But I digress.

All of this is of a piece with many policies of this administration to disarm the American public. They probably began with the Department of Defense destroying spent shell casings instead of reselling them to ammunition makers. (That policy stopped within a week after a loud outcry.) They certainly continued with Operation Fast and Furious. And Rep. Stockman warned back in January that Executive Orders could go only so far without becoming impeachable.


Even this might not be the only basis for impeachment. Glenn Beck recently talked impeachment for the first time. His grounds: Obama waived the usual rule against selling arms to terrorists, to sell or give arms to Syrian rebel forces. This, after he signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty that is supposed to curtail just such sales!

He’s taking guns away from the people while giving guns to al-Qaida. What else do you need for impeachment?

What, indeed? And Glenn Beck alleges more than lawbreaking. He alleges treason.

Grounds for impeachment

The Constitution. Does Obama deserve impeachment under it?

The US Constitution. Photo: National Archives of the United States

Angry talk of impeachment is a frequent staple of partisan politics. The first-ever impeachment and trial of a President was that of Andrew Johnson, after the War Between the States, over the firing of a Cabinet officer. That affair set two precedents, one good and one bad. The good: Cabinet officers serve at the pleasure of the President, and Congress, once confirming someone in office, may not try on its own to say how long that person may stay. (That is, apart from impeaching that officer for some offense he made.) The bad: any President must face often loose talk of impeachment from any person who leads with emotion, not investigation. And in turn, the people can too easily dismiss anyone who talks impeachment as a crackpot or a charlatan.

The Constitution (Article II, Section 4) reads:

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.

The Constitution defines treason in Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Given the First Amendment, such aid must be material, not merely “moral.” But arming a rebel faction with ties to a group that calls itself an enemy of the United States, would be “giving aid and comfort to an enemy.”


Infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment), breaks the Constitution. That in turn breaks a President’s oath of office. Surely that is a “High Crime and Misdemeanor” that deserves impeachment.

Of course, the same people (most of them, anyway) who voted for Barack Obama, will summarily dismiss Glenn Beck as a crackpot and a charlatan. But can they so easily dismiss a former judge?

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, formerly of the Superior Court of New Jersey, in and for the Vicinage of Essex, recently warned the people about another ground for impeachment. He told Glenn Beck the de facto President would bomb Syria anyway, vote or no, “to appear tough.” And:

If he does that, he will be a candidate for impeachment.

On this ground: going to war with another country when Congress has declined to declare war.

The House of Representatives has brought Articles of Impeachment against two Presidents, for far less. What Barack Obama has done, goes far beyond firing a Cabinet secretary in breach of a dubious law (Andrew Johnson), or perjury in a civil case (Bill Clinton). It strikes at the heart of the liberties of the American people and whether the chief executive is a President or a king.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

1 Comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] Impeachment talk quietly builds ( […]


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x