Alan Keyes
The real scam: Obama/Boehner 2-party charade
Congress, not the courts, must deal with our would-be dictator
By Alan Keyes
Last week, I read a story in the Washington Times with the headline "Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats.'" If impeachment is a scam perpetrated by Obama and the Democrats, then the framers of the Constitution must have been in on it. They made it the responsibility of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president of the United States, and all other civil officers of the U.S. government, for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Does Boehner believe that Barack Obama was around to orchestrate things as the framers did so?
When it comes to scams, is it easier to believe that Obama is working a scam with John Boehner, or with Publius, the pen name for the authors of the Federalist Papers? As I've pointed out before, it was Publius (Federalist 65) who talked about impeachment as a national inquest into the conduct of public officials. It was Publius who defined impeachable offenses as "injuries done immediately to the society itself," not to particular persons. The framers of the Constitution foresaw the legal mire Speaker Boehner pretends to ignore when he scams Americans with the notion that a federal lawsuit is likely to check Obama's advance toward dictatorship.
Boehner surely knows that such a lawsuit stands little chance of being effective in a timely way, even in the unlikely event that his case can be successfully argued. The Federal Judiciary is dependent on the Executive to enforce its decisions. The man who presently commands the Executive power of the U.S. government has repeatedly demonstrated he is willing to ignore or supersede the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the Constitution and the laws made pursuant thereto). Why is it rational to believe the "lawless" Mr. Obama will respect the decisions of U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, when they derive all their authority from the Law he is already brushing aside?
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly vest the Judicial Branch with the power to try, or even take cognizance of, instances of presidential dereliction or usurpation, unless and until demonstrably injured parties sue for relief. Not long before I read the article reporting Boehner's latest dismissal of impeachment, I read an article recounting (in the context of Obama's prospective dictatorial edicts regarding illegal immigration) the legal arguments likely to be deployed in order to cut the ground out from under Boehner's purported efforts to use the Federal Judiciary to check Obama's abuses:
"Legal experts see any challenge to the expected immigration policy changes headed for the same key roadblock facing House Speaker John Boehner's planned suit over Obamacare implementation delays: finding a way to show the injury needed to press a case in the federal courts."
This is an argument about whether plaintiffs (in this case Boehner, et al.) can plausibly show that they have suffered, or will suffer, from Obama's allegedly harmful acts. In any given instance, this is literally a judgment call, as they say.
Is it just a coincidence that this is the very argument used by the federal courts to dismiss suit after suit brought in search of a decision with respect to Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office of president? On that issue, the Judicial Branch repeatedly used it to evade responsibility, pointing to the fact that other bodies (e.g., the Electoral College, the Congress) were explicitly charged by the Constitution with the effective power to deal with the matter.
The Judicial Branch thus shirked responsibility when it came to what is arguably a matter of constitutional administration. Is it reasonable to pretend that the Judiciary will take charge of confronting the Executive in matters that obviously involve "injuries done immediately to the society itself"? How so, when the Constitution explicitly gives the U.S. Congress the power to investigate, try, and conclusively adjudicate such "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
To the contrary, it is patently unreasonable. Such fundamental issues of constitutional authority are not just matters of law; they are, in every instance, fateful crises of statesmanship. They have implications that may lead to civil war, in which arms are the ultimate argument of those abusing sovereign power, or contesting its abuse. In that event, the people themselves must undertake the final appeal against the crimes of would-be tyrants, relying, as America's founders did, on the Providential aid and justice of Almighty God.
Precisely because it is composed of representatives of the people, Congress is charged with the impeachment and trial of would-be dictators. Its members are, perforce, in a position to inform and mobilize the will of the people. When it comes to any presidential "breach of the fundamental laws" (Federalist 25) their first responsibility is to investigate the facts. The Constitution gives the U.S. House of Representatives the responsibility and authority to do so and, if the facts warrant it, to make clear in a bill of impeachment whether and how the provisions of the Supreme Law of the Land have been breached or disregarded. This is preparation for lawful trial by the U.S. Senate, as the Constitution provides.
But what if the tyrant or tyrants, with or without the support of collaborators in the U.S. Senate, are determined, by force if need be, to push their breach to its logical end – i.e., the overthrow of constitutional government? In that event, the impeachment process is intended to prepare the mind, heart, and moral spirit of the people for the civil war that thereby inevitably becomes the only alternative to slavish submission.
House Speaker Boehner's de facto compliance with the Obama faction's agenda for tyranny makes it plain that he and others like him have already made their peace with this prospect of tyranny (in exchange perhaps for the tacit assurance that they will continue to form part of the inner circle of dictatorial power). For decades, elements of the elitist faction have worked to corrupt the will and moral spirit of the American people. Now they are counting on the self-obsessed indifference to public matters that this campaign of corruption was intended to produce. They expect Americans will now let them replace the U.S. Constitution with dictatorial rule, according to the age-old pattern of abusive elitist-faction domination.
This is now the main purpose of the twin-party sham, which is the real scam being perpetrated against the people of the United States. Will it be the last act before the curtain descends upon the final scene of liberty's demise? Not if enough Americans recover their faith – in God and the goodwill He has invested in their nature, the goodwill by which He made and may yet keep us decent, strong, and free. Are you there yet? If so, go to the site where others like you are recruiting the political will and courage America needs to make sure the 2014 elections demonstrate that it is so. Join them, and encourage everyone you can influence to do likewise.
August 5, 2014
Last week, I read a story in the Washington Times with the headline "Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats.'" If impeachment is a scam perpetrated by Obama and the Democrats, then the framers of the Constitution must have been in on it. They made it the responsibility of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president of the United States, and all other civil officers of the U.S. government, for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Does Boehner believe that Barack Obama was around to orchestrate things as the framers did so?
When it comes to scams, is it easier to believe that Obama is working a scam with John Boehner, or with Publius, the pen name for the authors of the Federalist Papers? As I've pointed out before, it was Publius (Federalist 65) who talked about impeachment as a national inquest into the conduct of public officials. It was Publius who defined impeachable offenses as "injuries done immediately to the society itself," not to particular persons. The framers of the Constitution foresaw the legal mire Speaker Boehner pretends to ignore when he scams Americans with the notion that a federal lawsuit is likely to check Obama's advance toward dictatorship.
Boehner surely knows that such a lawsuit stands little chance of being effective in a timely way, even in the unlikely event that his case can be successfully argued. The Federal Judiciary is dependent on the Executive to enforce its decisions. The man who presently commands the Executive power of the U.S. government has repeatedly demonstrated he is willing to ignore or supersede the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e., the Constitution and the laws made pursuant thereto). Why is it rational to believe the "lawless" Mr. Obama will respect the decisions of U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, when they derive all their authority from the Law he is already brushing aside?
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly vest the Judicial Branch with the power to try, or even take cognizance of, instances of presidential dereliction or usurpation, unless and until demonstrably injured parties sue for relief. Not long before I read the article reporting Boehner's latest dismissal of impeachment, I read an article recounting (in the context of Obama's prospective dictatorial edicts regarding illegal immigration) the legal arguments likely to be deployed in order to cut the ground out from under Boehner's purported efforts to use the Federal Judiciary to check Obama's abuses:
"Legal experts see any challenge to the expected immigration policy changes headed for the same key roadblock facing House Speaker John Boehner's planned suit over Obamacare implementation delays: finding a way to show the injury needed to press a case in the federal courts."
This is an argument about whether plaintiffs (in this case Boehner, et al.) can plausibly show that they have suffered, or will suffer, from Obama's allegedly harmful acts. In any given instance, this is literally a judgment call, as they say.
Is it just a coincidence that this is the very argument used by the federal courts to dismiss suit after suit brought in search of a decision with respect to Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office of president? On that issue, the Judicial Branch repeatedly used it to evade responsibility, pointing to the fact that other bodies (e.g., the Electoral College, the Congress) were explicitly charged by the Constitution with the effective power to deal with the matter.
The Judicial Branch thus shirked responsibility when it came to what is arguably a matter of constitutional administration. Is it reasonable to pretend that the Judiciary will take charge of confronting the Executive in matters that obviously involve "injuries done immediately to the society itself"? How so, when the Constitution explicitly gives the U.S. Congress the power to investigate, try, and conclusively adjudicate such "high crimes and misdemeanors"?
To the contrary, it is patently unreasonable. Such fundamental issues of constitutional authority are not just matters of law; they are, in every instance, fateful crises of statesmanship. They have implications that may lead to civil war, in which arms are the ultimate argument of those abusing sovereign power, or contesting its abuse. In that event, the people themselves must undertake the final appeal against the crimes of would-be tyrants, relying, as America's founders did, on the Providential aid and justice of Almighty God.
Precisely because it is composed of representatives of the people, Congress is charged with the impeachment and trial of would-be dictators. Its members are, perforce, in a position to inform and mobilize the will of the people. When it comes to any presidential "breach of the fundamental laws" (Federalist 25) their first responsibility is to investigate the facts. The Constitution gives the U.S. House of Representatives the responsibility and authority to do so and, if the facts warrant it, to make clear in a bill of impeachment whether and how the provisions of the Supreme Law of the Land have been breached or disregarded. This is preparation for lawful trial by the U.S. Senate, as the Constitution provides.
But what if the tyrant or tyrants, with or without the support of collaborators in the U.S. Senate, are determined, by force if need be, to push their breach to its logical end – i.e., the overthrow of constitutional government? In that event, the impeachment process is intended to prepare the mind, heart, and moral spirit of the people for the civil war that thereby inevitably becomes the only alternative to slavish submission.
House Speaker Boehner's de facto compliance with the Obama faction's agenda for tyranny makes it plain that he and others like him have already made their peace with this prospect of tyranny (in exchange perhaps for the tacit assurance that they will continue to form part of the inner circle of dictatorial power). For decades, elements of the elitist faction have worked to corrupt the will and moral spirit of the American people. Now they are counting on the self-obsessed indifference to public matters that this campaign of corruption was intended to produce. They expect Americans will now let them replace the U.S. Constitution with dictatorial rule, according to the age-old pattern of abusive elitist-faction domination.
This is now the main purpose of the twin-party sham, which is the real scam being perpetrated against the people of the United States. Will it be the last act before the curtain descends upon the final scene of liberty's demise? Not if enough Americans recover their faith – in God and the goodwill He has invested in their nature, the goodwill by which He made and may yet keep us decent, strong, and free. Are you there yet? If so, go to the site where others like you are recruiting the political will and courage America needs to make sure the 2014 elections demonstrate that it is so. Join them, and encourage everyone you can influence to do likewise.
To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com and BarbWire.com.
© Alan KeyesThe views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
