Re Obama/Holder Contempt for the Constitution-Why ‘going to court’ is not enough

by Dr. Keyes on June 23, 2012

[This morning I received an email from a concerned citizen that included a link to an article with the headline "House could send Holder to Jailer without Approval of Senate or US Attorney".  The article cited as precedent a 1935 case in which a US Senate action for "inherent contempt" against an individual named William MacCracken resulted in his arrest by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the US Senate.

The article prompted a train of thought which I shared with my correspondent.  I thought that it would also interest readers here at LTL because it illustrates the need to consider all the ramifications of the Obama faction's assault on the Constitution, which is a far graver crisis for the nation than most people yet realize.  It will not be resolved by "going to court", especially  since the Judicial Branch must deal with an inability to appeal to Constitutionally warranted Executive power more complete than that of the legislature.  At best the opinion of the Judicial Branch may influence the contest for  public opinion among the people in their respective States.

We are in a crisis that demands a degree of intrepid statesmanship the present sham party system doesn't tolerate, much less produce.  That's because the elite faction leadership in both the so-called major political parties want to burst apart the bonds the Constitution imposes on their abuse of government power, and cast away its cords. (To understand the root of this desire, read and ponder Psalm 2 in the Bible's Book of Psalms.) Here is the reply I sent:]

MacCracken was a private citizen.  The present situation is a contest between Constitutionally co-equal branches of the government.  The House must use the means the Constitution provides for dealing with civil officials of the US government who are guilty of violating one of the prerogatives of the legislative power which the Constitution vests in the Congress.

There is no Constitutionally warranted executive power in the nation higher than the President.  By formally invoking “executive privilege” Obama extends the cloak of the executive power of the United States (rooted in the President’s reprieve and pardoning power) over the Attorney General.  If the Sergeant at arms of the House attempts to arrest Holder, he would be engaging in an act of force against the United States, which the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States has the duty to resist by force if need be.

Impeachment is the only remedy available to the House which Constitutionally nullifies this use of executive power, since the President has no Constitutional authority to use the Executive power of the United States to protect himself or any other civil official of the US government from the impeachment process.  Since the Constitution grants Congress the impeachment power, common sense and reason (as well as the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution) grant it all the powers necessary to implement the process of impeachment, including gathering all documents, testimony etc. the House deems necessary to pursue the process.  Any President who invokes Executive Privilege against the impeachment process does what the Constitution says he cannot do. He exercises the protective cloak of the Executive power in the one case the Constitution withholds from its purview.  Simply by thus unconstitutionally invoking the power such a President breaches the most fundamental provision the Constitution makes against abuses of Executive power.  His act corresponds to the very definition of a high crime, i.e., an immediate attack on the whole society (literally represented in this case by the Constitutionally empowered House of Representatives engaged in the performance of its duty.)  But this is not true until and unless Congress moves to use the power of impeachment, whether against Holder or Obama.

As I say in my WND article this week, impeachment is the only way.  (If you follow the link in the article to my blog post re impeachment of Obama for his abusive EO on immigration, the discussion in that post explores the ramifications of dealing with an abusive occupant of the White House, including the role the States might be called upon to play.  If you fully appreciate those ramifications, you realize that this is the gravest crisis our country has faced since the Revolution.  If the Constitution is to survive, it will require more understanding and courage than the GOP leaders have ever shown, or seem likely to show.  I look at the reasons for that in another recent post on my blog.

Plaxo PulseStumbleUponLinkedInFacebookDeliciousShare
  • stereotyped

    It seems to me to be the only solution to get the true terrorist of the our State and Consitiution…….My only concern or question would be how would we uproot this political corruption tree and insure we get real God fearing people in this system like it’s intended?

  • http://thecaptiansquarters.blogspot.com/ Capt-Dax

    we have a President who allows our borders to be violated by illegals of any country while we are at war.

    There is enough evidence presented to Congress to arrest him and prosecute him for an Act of War against the nation of Mexico, accessory to murder of thousands of innocent citizens in Mexico and America as well as the murder of United States Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Resign??

    Besides sending illegal guns to Mexico, Holder and Obama sold guns to criminal street gangs inside the United States where the guns will be used inside the United States. It will take years to find the thousands of guns these criminals sold to killers.

    Eric Holder and his criminal operatives in his office and the Department of Justice need to be dragged out in handcuffs, jailed with no bail and put on trial with a jury of American citizens who are not federal government employees.

    He allows them work permits, access to our services and when apprehended by law enforcement refuses to have them jailed or deported.

    Barack Hussein Obama has crossed the line, and under Article III, Section 3 of our Constitution is guilty of treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy and attempting to overthrow our government from within.

    Now is the time for members of Congress,to finally do your Constitutional duty and hold Barack Hussein Obama accountable for his crimes against America.

    Mr. Obama is a fraudulent president who is selling out America.

    It’s time Mr. Obama is called accountable for his treasonous actions.

  • http://N/A Dominic McLaughlin

    Long-time reader, first time commenter. First, thanks for your continued posts, Dr. Keyes. Always informative!

    Just one minor detail: I think that there is a misspelled word in the second paragraph; did you mean “discreetly” instead of “discretely”?

  • Dawg em

    You know, there was a time when I had that level of discernment. I pray God I’m blessed with such knowledge. Well done, Ambassador.

  • Chiu Chun-Ling

    Dr. Keyes, I think that you are being ungenerous in your interpretation of what the structure of the Family Research Council is saying.

    They are not in any way claiming that there is any validity to the idea that we should focus on economic prosperity rather than moral concerns. They are making the point that the excuse of putting economics ahead of morality simply doesn’t make sense even from an economic perspective.

    True, they have made this point rather better in other cases, but that they have a history of reinforcing and promulgating the argument in favor of morality being the only sound basis for real prosperity is evident to anyone that gives a fair reading to their material rather than striving mightily to wrest a few of their words in a particular press release.

    Nor do they base their argument in favor of morality entirely on the economic superiority of morally grounded policies. They make the argument as a necessary counter to those who claim that focusing on prosperity somehow can be achieved by disdain for moral considerations. You yourself often speak as though the reason we ought to value morality and God’s laws are simply as a means to ensure the prosperity of the nation, and I have rebuked you for it many a time, which you do not always seem to appreciate.

    I hold fast to the truth that the primary reason to embrace God’s commandments is to be able to face His final judgment with a clear conscience. I caution all, even yourself, against treating morality solely as a means to some worldly end. But the fact of the matter is that it is needful that those who invent a false dichotomy between doing what is right and what is prudent be refuted firmly. And the truth is that the material crisis is and will always be founded on the failure of moral restraint.

  • Mike

    An excellent article. Just shows the number of “moral” Christian groups who support the GOP and put money issues first. Surelt morality and “social” issues should have equal if not greater priority. Just shows that for the GOP money is the key issue. The business wing of the party relies on the social conservatives for votes but gives nothing in return. Bush showed this with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, immigration reform and nothing on social issues (where is the proposed federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage?)

Previous post:

Next post: