- This topic has 2 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
Talk of impeachment has been in the air for some weeks now, though keeping this issue in the news may be something that the left actually wants. So should Obama be impeached? Should he join Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson as the only two U.S. presidents to be branded with this? In my opinion, the answer is no. While I think that Obama has been arguably the worst president ever, I don't know that his individual actions could be perceived as clear-cut cases of "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Whether he is actually guilty of these things is not the point; rather, there has to be a straightforward instance of him breaking the law that is pretty plain to see. I think that impeachment needs to be reserved as a selective legal tool, rather than a political weapon. If it is used as the latter, it likely will be used as the latter by parties not in power. Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere, if impeachment talk is on the horizon, then that will be the talk of the town. Right now, Obama's horrid performance in office should be potent enough for the Republicans to hold the upper hand come the elections.
I think that talk of impeachment is not only stupid but counter-productive. Impeachment itself is political and will go nowhere as long as Democrats hold the Senate. The important thing I think is for Republicans to maintain control of the House to stymie Obama's legislative agenda and force him to go back to his pen as he has been doing. Obama's reliance on EO and regulatory rewrites has exposed him and Democrats for the anti-democratic people they are. Democrats are doing a very good job of destroying their own brand right now and I think Republicans should let them.That being said, I am not certain that enough people realize the full implications of how much damage Obama's executive actions are doing to the notion of American Democracy. I think that we are on the road to a national showdown about government, it's role, and it's power. I also think that showdown will be ugly although I am not sure if violence is in the offing. The constitutional crisis is here, I just do not think it is 100% ripe yet.
Democrats are doing a very good job of destroying their own brand right now and I think Republicans should let them.
That's a good line. And you are right that most people likely don't understand the full implications of what Obama is doing. We could choose several things, but for now I'll simply point to Obama's modifications of Obamacare as being dangerous to the Separation of Powers. A site has tracked 24 changes that the Executive Branch has made so far, which does not include additional changes made/influenced by Congress or SCOTUS. Does this mean that in the future, POTUS will be able to get any general kind of legislation pushed through Congress, and then enforce it as he chooses so that it's effectively a different law than Congress passed?
Does this mean that in the future, POTUS will be able to get any general kind of legislation pushed through Congress, and then enforce it as he chooses so that it's effectively a different law than Congress passed?
No, what it means is that the executive is moving towards a uniquely American version of the Fuhrer Prinzip. Obama is only the most egregious abuser of executive power we have yet seen, other presidents have done it too (notably FDR). All with the excuse that they could not afford not to act. The only thing that has saved the Republic so far from dictatorship is the presidential term limit. I expect that to go away within the next 20 years and when that day comes, the American experiment is dead.
I see it a bit differently. Each POTUS is going to try to exercise his authority to its full extent to either serve the nation and/or to push his policies through. In fact, if you're a president who is not doing this, you're probably going to be a weak president. It's almost inevitable that POTUS will rub elbows with Congress in this matter, so Congress has a right – we could perhaps say a duty – to oppose POTUS in court if he exercises authority which breaches separation of powers. Constitutional law is not always clear about the extent of POTUS' power, so we should expect SCOTUS to step in from time to time and clarify it. This is the way our system works.The problem with Obama is that a) he seems to have taken this idea too far, and b) he has also given himself the ability to refuse to execute laws he doesn't like (e.g. enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act). When a president has become rulemaker, executive, and arbiter of the laws he wants to enforce, then we have a problem.
I recently heard Charles Krauthammer's view on this (I'm paraphrasing his ideas here). He said that the White House may have been behind the push to keep impeachment talk in the news, which then forced Boehner to proclaim that impeachment was off the table. Now, Obama has the ability to do something drastic with immigration – something which would otherwise get him impeached – and the House would be in a difficult position to go back on its word.Did anyone else hear about this? I don't know if I buy it, but it's an interesting scenario.
I think Krauthammer is wrong on this one. Mainly, because I don't think the GOP rank and ile in Congress would let politics get in the way of impeachment over such a blatantly impeachable act as amnesty by EO.What I do see is an executive that increasingly turns to expanding executive authority to get around Congress because Congress will not do the will of the executive. It is the aggrandizement of executive power and presidential side-stepping of Congress that is the biggest threat to democracy. That the courts are hit and miss on reining the executive in only make the current course more dangerous.What we have seen with Obama is that legislation does not matter. He can take any bill and change and twist it through EO to what he wants it to be. What he is creeping towards is taking a bill passed naming a post office and making it into a bill allowing indefinite detention of dissidents. That is an extreme example but shows the logical conclusion of where he is heading I think.
