web analytics
≡ Menu

Bachmann, et al. should take the impeachment/removal pledge

The Constitution vests Congress with the power to discipline the President. What sense does it make for Congress to seek such disciplinary action from the judicial branch, which has no power to enforce its opinions without the President’s aid? The Constitutional obligation to hold the President accountable for dereliction of duty clearly follows the responsibility for impeachment and removal. The U.S. Constitution gives that responsibility to Congress, not the Supreme Court. (Why de facto government (Tyranny) is replacing the Constitution)

The words quoted above are from an article I wrote in March of last year.  I thought of them recently as I was reading a report that “Michele Bachmann says House conservatives are preparing to sue President Obama for executive overreach in response to his threats of unilateral action on a host of issues.”  Apparently Bachmann and some others in Congress believe that “legislation allowing lawmakers to hire an attorney…can force the president to act under the Constitution.”

The key word here is “force”. Bachmann and her colleagues need to remember that the Judicial Branch doesn’t have any. As Hamilton observes in Federalist 78:

The judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever.  It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive even for the efficacy of its judgments.

Obviously, in contrast with many politicians these days, Hamilton took pains to think things through.

Let’s assume, for instance, that Bachmann and her colleagues succeed in passing the legislation they seek. (Alright, it’s unlikely given the fact that the Democrats presently control the U.S. Senate. But “for the sake of the argument…” as they say, let’s ignore that difficulty.)  Let’s further assume that their case gets to the Supreme Court, which issues an opinion supporting their view that the President’s actions are unconstitutional.

What happens next?  Perhaps Obama rolls over, bows to the Supreme Court, and retracts his Executive orders.  That might happen, or it might not.  Let’s say that it doesn’t happen. Instead Obama rejects the Court’s view. To support his stand, he argues that his actions are necessary in order establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare of the country.

Let’s say he further argues that, by failing to pass laws essential for achieving those ends, Congress has endangered the nation, exacerbating a serious situation which, without his timely preventive measures, threatens to plunge the country into a dire state of national emergency.

If the issue in question is immigration, for example, I think it’s very likely that such arguments would be sufficient to allow Congressional Democrats to back Obama, and use the whole situation as a new stick with which to beat up on the recalcitrant, reactionary forces in the GOP, who they claim are endangering the country. If the past is precedent, the quisling GOP leadership will eventually be persuaded to join their jeering chorus, stepping forward with a pretense of statesmanship to put the querulous GOP diehards in their place.

The problem is that the whole sequence of events would set a precedent for successful dictatorship that Obama (and the elitist faction he serves) would abuse for the remainder of his occupation of the White House. It would also directly confirm, for better or worse, the ultimate impotence of the judicial branch (especially when dealing with disputes between the other branches), which Hamilton’s lucid thinking foreshadows.

The approach proposed by Bachmann and her colleagues reminds me of the emails I get occasionally from people wondering why the House doesn’t just cite Obama for contempt of Congress and send somebody to arrest him.

I respond with a question, “And who would that “somebody” be?”  The Constitution vests the whole executive authority of the U.S. government in the President of the United States (in the person not, as some people carelessly say, in the office.)  That person wields the Executive power of the U.S. Government.

Strictly speaking, that person is the Executive Branch.  All the Departments, agencies and forces that make up the Executive are, as it were, the organs, limbs, nerves and sinews of that person.  For as long as that person is vested with the executive power of the U.S. government, any move to arrest or otherwise physically constrain, menace or attack that person is an assault against the government of the United States. It is, therefore, an act of insurrection.

As the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, the person the Constitution vests with the U.S. government’s executive power has warrant to repel an attack on his person as he would  any other attack on the U.S. government.

Bachmann and her colleagues need to think this through.  They need to ask themselves the key strategic question: If we succeed in getting a favorable opinion from the Supreme Court (which is no foregone conclusion) what do we do if Obama simply refuses, on Constitutional grounds, to enforce it?

There is only one answer: Appeal to the people.  But if the efficacy of your action depends in the end on an appeal to the people, then from the outset everything you do you must do with a view to making that appeal.  The nature of your arguments, the timing of your actions, all must have the appeal to the people in mind.  But by going through the judiciary you lose control of almost every aspect of the situation, especially the timing, which is most critical.

Why? Because elections are the only Constitutional means of appealing to the people effectively.  And those elections can have a forceful effect on the situation only if they might result in majorities in the U.S. House and Senate sufficient to impeach and remove a President from office.

When you think it through, building these impeachment/removal majorities is the only Constitutional way to “force” the Executive to respect the Constitution.  The Courts can’t do it.  And even the people can’t do it, constitutionally, except at election time.

This is precisely the thinking that led me to propose the impeachment/removal strategy for the 2014 election.  Instead of spinning their wheels in an ineffectual appeal to a judicial branch that is ultimately powerless to enforce its opinions, Bachmann and her colleagues should take the impeachment removal pledge, and campaign as hard as they know how to get every like-minded Senator and Representative they can to do likewise.

Combined with an energetic grassroots mobilization of voters demanding that candidates for either house of Congress take the pledge, their campaign would help to make the 2014 election an effective vote of no-confidence in Obama’s lawless, unconstitutional administration.  Instead of risking a precedent for ambitious, lawless dictatorship, it would set a precedent that restores government of, by and for the people, through elected officials honestly pledged to represent them.  Given the gravity of the present crisis, this would be nothing short of saving America’s liberty, for us and our posterity. Will Bachmann and her colleagues rise to the occasion?

{ 5 comments… add one }
  • aloha February 2, 2014, 9:22 am

    There are other ways to deal with a lawless wannebe dictator president : Convention of the States , nullifying unconstitutional overreach & executive abuse , returning power to the states & people ? Nullification is another . Mark Levin has written “Liberty Anendments ” which provide a channel to amend the constitution to deal with this .

    • Alan Lee Keyes February 2, 2014, 7:45 pm

      Let me see. Our crisis arises from the fact that at present Obama is willing to violate the Constitution, and the GOP quisling leaders lack the political will to stop him.

      How will adding more words to the Constitution change this situation, as a matter of political fact? Once you’ve had such a convention (which will not go as you expect, I assure you) you’ll still face the problem of electing representatives and civil officers who will abide by the Constitution’s words. But if you can’t meet that challenge now, in order to use the instrument that’s already available to you, what makes you think you’ll do any better after you’ve tinkered with the words?

      On the other hand, if we do what’s necessary to muster our political will now, and use the existing Constitution to remove impeach and remove those who are attacking the Constitution, the political mobilization that results will have already filled Congress with representatives who keep their word, and are committed to liberty. Mark Levin’s approach spends time and energy on something that a) will probably produce an unpredictably bad result and b) wastes time, resources and energy while the elitist faction creates facts on the ground that consolidate their tyranny.

      It also fails to build the enormous resentment Obama’s socialist push is generating into a concrete result in the upcoming election general election.

      I am sometimes tempted to suspect that the latter result is the whole purpose of these tinker with the words proposals, but only when I’m being uncharitably rational about it.

      Nullification doesn’t address the current crisis. Rather, It is one of the inevitable results of the crisis. Its likely result is to dissolve the union, which is exactly what the globalist enemies of liberty want. Better to end the abuses that are pushing states toward nullification, as the impeachment/removal strategy seeks to do.

      • aloha February 2, 2014, 10:57 pm

        A constitutional convention of the states is not tinkering or adding words to it . It is a legitimate channel left by our founders to employ , which allows power to be returned to the states & citizens if the federal government ever becomes tyrannical /dictatorial of its power . Our Founders left us this available avenue to deal with the kinds of unconstitutional levels of corruption we have today . If they are worthless as you imply , the founders would not have bothered to create them to rein in executive abuse of power ? I believe our Founders knew what they were doing .. I certainly believe in impeachment but unfortunately our Congress has grossly failed to do its sworn duty to protect & defend the constitution against foreign & domestic enemies , refusing to charge Barack Obama with criminal charges under articles of impeachment !

        • ken February 3, 2014, 10:45 am

          Given the current state of the States, I think the founders would have dealt with the people first, then the States, then the perversions to the original Constitution. I certainly wouldn’t trust my State (CA) with Article V powers. Would you?

  • ken February 1, 2014, 2:40 pm

    Donation with private message/question attached sent through PayPal.
    Please respond.

Leave a Comment

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

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: