If Barack Forces Passage of Health Care “Reform” – Should He Be Impeached?
By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, March 21, 2010
Would a straightforward, unbiased analysis of the presidential actions of Barack Obama through March 2010, lead to a demand for his immediate impeachment and removal from office? Yes, for a most transparent reason: Obama is purposely undermining the US Constitution. In doing so, his actions make unstable every institution and office below the presidency, since the Constitution is the foundation of every government power and official decision. In fomenting institutional unrest across the US, he threatens the safety of every American man, woman and child, and all our citizens abroad.
The malign deeds of Barack include issues with: Honesty: Obama’s campaign was based upon a mass tissue of lies, undermining his legitimacy by deriving election results based on sheer falsehoods; Loyalty: When Obama flies around the world and criticizes America, or bows down to kings and despots, who is he actually representing? Fiscal Integrity: Deficit spending appears Barack’s only theory of government economic growth, eventually necessitating US insolvency. Knowledge & Competence: Obama repeatedly appears disinterested or ill-informed about important issues; Constitutional Fealty: Obama reveals contempt for the US Constitution; World-view: Barack often seems to identify more with socialists, or other radicals, than typical Americans; America’s Future: What possible strong tomorrow can America hope for if Obama’s ideas become default public policy?
I. A Natural Law Constitution
The preeminent American political document is the Constitution. Its chief drafter was James Madison, the most gifted political theoretician of his day. 1 He and other Founders would claim the Constitution could not be changed without debasing the natural law theory behind it. 2 It offers the classic model of virtuous self-rule government, proposing an enlightened concept of law and the public good. It propounds wholesome truths regarding human nature and revealed religion. Because the Constitution rests upon a natural law foundation 3, being an appeal to immutable principles, it must not be quickly re-molded for a mere superficial switch in public opinion. Yet, Obama’s inane tinkering with our written foundation reveals a shocking lack of acceptance or understanding of the concepts that underlie our system.
John Locke
The architectonic thinker of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism, John Locke, was the source of many concepts used in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Ideas on natural law, the need for consent of the governed, the sanctity of contracts and property rights, and a perpetual privilege to rebel against tyranny were some of his many contributions. Locke had absorbed the Puritanism of his upbringing and helped secularize many biblical concepts, like turning the covenant notion into a secular constitution. 4 Yet, just like today, many non-Believers also strongly supported the Founder’s cause.
Thomas Paine
Referred to as the Father of the Revolution, Founder Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” proclaimed the greatest American Revolutionary tract, sold almost 150,000 copies and was even read aloud by Washington to inspire his troops. Ironically, Paine was nearly as famed for his atheism as patriotism, merely proving the Founder’s principles did not appeal just to Believers, but were relished by the greatest minds of the age. Paine wrote in Common Sense, “In America, law is king.” 5 He believed a country must have a written constitution hedged by the rules of law before anyone could claim they were a free people. He dedicated the 4th chapter of his Rights of Man, Book II to the topic, titling it “Of Constitutions.” He wrote here;
All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either. 6
Paine also stated that constitutions are “to liberty, what a grammar is to language.” Elsewhere he claimed, “A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.” He added, “A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.”
Paine eloquently summed up in Rights of Man, Book II, what a constitution really is:
Here we see a regular process- a government issuing out of a constitution, formed by the people in their original character; and that constitution serving, not only as an authority, but as a law of control to the government. It was the political bible of the state. Scarcely a family was without it. Every member of the government had a copy; and nothing was more common, when any debate arose on the principle of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority, than for the members to take the printed constitution out of their pocket, and read the chapter with which such matter in debate was connected.
Barack Obama
What is Obama’s attitude towards our Constitution? Even before Obama went to law school he had a serious disagreement with America’s secular bible. In his undergraduate college thesis, according to Liberal columnist Joe Klein, Barack complained:
The Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy. 7
Obama is not a fan of the Constitution. But why not? As good a guess as any, based upon a background soaked in socialism and communist influence, and his many comments to this effect, is that the main flaw of the document is it does not focus upon Barack’s chief aim—“justice” via redistribution of wealth.
After he became a lawyer, Barack did admit in a 2001 radio interview that the courts could not supply the abortion, expanded health care, and wealth “redistributive” changes he fought for as a community organizer, which explains why he originally ran for office. Obama said,
Typically, the court can be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives taken, but in terms of funding of abortions and Medicare and Medicaid, the court it not initiating those funding streams. Essentially, what the court is saying is at some point this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not, and I think those are very important battles that need to be fought and I think they have a redistributive aspect to them. 8
II. What is Impeachment?
“Impeachment” describes the trial and conviction of elected officials for acts deemed deleteriously injurious to the state, sometimes followed by removal. The Middle English word empechen originally comes from Old French, meaning “to accuse, bring charges against.” The first English example occurred when Peter de la Mare, first Speaker of the English House of Commons, initiated impeachment and removal proceedings against Lord William Latimer in 1376 for raiding the public treasury for personal enrichment.
The Founders adapted impeachment from the British model. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, claimed it is a “method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.” 9 In the American version, the House assembles articles of impeachment and then votes on whether the charges are credible. If the House passes these by simple majority, the Senate then acts as court of impeachment, voting on removal by 2/3rds super-majority.
Two separate Constitutional amendments were passed by the First Congress for impeachment. Article I states “the House of Representatives…shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,” and “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Article I addresses punishment and proceedings for impeaching the President of the United States. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states, “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.” 10
Treason, High Crimes & Misdemeanors
“Treason” is defined as “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign; a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state; or the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.” 11 The Constitution defines “Treason” in Article III, section 3 as: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” But many acts that are profoundly disloyal and dangerous to America would not fit into that simple definition—which is why the Framers allowed some latitude in defining the subject. William Blackstone, the legal writer widely read in the colonies, develops in his Commentaries on the Laws of England a definition of High Treason that includes these words,
TREASON, proditio, in its very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith… As this is the highest civil crime, which (considered as a member of the community) any man can possibly commit… 12
Generally speaking, the House frames the Articles of Impeachment, and then the Senate votes upon them. The House acts like a prosecutor, while the Senate sits as a judge. But is there enough latitude in the impeachment definitions and rules to allow Congress to act? Specifically, if the two bodies believed a president were making socialist or communist machinations, based simply on this, could they remove him or her from office? Absolutely.
III. Communist Strategy of Forced Crisis
A main tool for fomenting Socialist Revolution, and then keeping power in Marxist countries is the production of government-developed crises. Both Stalin and Mao realized a communist tyranny needed a doctrine of “permanent crisis.” For example, Mao precipitated a peasant war when these poor farmers did not deliver his utterly fantastic expectations for food production. So he took all their food by force, allowing upwards of 40 million Chinese to starve to death during the Great Leap Forward campaign. Of course, the Chairman claimed the problem a natural “famine,” as described in Jasper Becker’s Hungry Ghosts. Both Stalin and Lenin did the same exact thing to Russian peasants, causing tens of million more to die.
Marxism assumes revolution against capitalism will inevitably occur, and always have a beneficial result. Therefore, a policy causing crises merely helps the inevitable upheaval to occur, which might even include fighting a war against another country to “liberate” the people into communism, according to Robert C. Tucker’s “The Marxian Revolution.”
What is the purpose of the “permanent crisis” theory of government? First, folks in crisis are unlikely to attack the government. Second, it’s a great way to liquidate enemies. Third, crises bring a lot of confusion and allow the government to focus on other strategic goals while the people are trying to survive. This is especially effective when the government is trying to shrink the middle class and reallocate assets. Of course, given the inevitable arrogance and lack of education by the typical communist tyrant, at times its hard to know which programs are willfully stupid versus accidentally so.
Obama’s Beliefs
A person’s actions are the best statement of what they believe. Since Obama seems on the verge of losing both houses of Congress as a result of his leftist policies, he must really be a profound leftist. This, since he is losing support, and politicians need power to achieve their goals. On another level, we must ask—Does it even matter what Obama believes? By his actions—sincere, or not—Obama is doing an amazing job of mimicking a wanna-be socialist dictator, burning all his political capital in a mad dash to amass as much power as soon as possible.
So, why did Obama choose health care as his raison d’etre? First, Ronald Reagan answers this question astutely in his 1961 “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine.” 13 He said:
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. (audio: youtube.com)
Obviously, fifty years ago, Ronald Reagan nailed the entire logic behind the insatiable desire for leftists demanding socialized medicine. Reagan added, “James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” Reagan believed if the mere outline of such a program were enacted, over the next decades, the government would slowly fill it in and take increasingly more freedoms away from the people until their liberty was extirpated like a python slowly suffocating its victim.
Second, if Obama can break the Constitution on the health care reform battle, he knows he will be too hard to stop his Machiavellian machinations to develop a junior tyranny. He will then use the same method to relentlessly drive his entire agenda.
IV. Obama’s Questionable Deeds
A long list of Obama’s wicked acts could be listed for sake of a remonstrance. But only a few ought be mentioned as possibly impeachment worthy. First, did Obama massively lie when campaigning to win so he could then enact a secret socialist campaign? This one is obviously true. Second, has Obama been trying to spend America into oblivion to force it to accept socialism and a reduced international profile? This seems quite likely. Third, and most important—Is Obama doing what he can to get his “health care reform” enacted, against historic procedure and in complete defiance of the direct language of the Constitution? The answer here seems yes, despite his acting coy with journalist Bret Baier on the irrelevancy of the method used, suggesting he wasn’t engaging in sedition by asking others to undermine the Constiution. 14
Further, consider the fact that during what Barack himself called the worst economy since the Great Depression, and in the midst of two wars, Obama has set everything else aside to battle for “Health Care Reform”? Is this possible, that he subjectively chose a fight out of the blue during a financial typhoon? These facts literally make no sense, on the surface. Therefore there must be a reason that Obama is keeping all these crises in the air, like so many plates at a Chinese circus.
We do well to remember Igal Halfin’s observation in his book “From Darkness to Light: Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia.” Halfin stated that Russian specialists disagreed over every subject, save one, when discussing the Russian Revolution. Everyone agrees that all the communist programs, with the many colorful titles, all had one thing in common—they were only proposed to further amalgamate government power at the cost of the people’s liberties.
The Heritage Foundation succinctly explains why the Slaughter Rule, which Obama’s side designed, where no votes are taken, but a bill is passed, is unconstitutional: “According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.” 15
Conclusion
Thomas Paine wrote these words in The American Crisis, that still ring true today,
THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph….
Barack Obama took the presidential oath, did he not? He repeated: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Was Barack telling the truth when he did this? Has he followed this promise and supported our Constitution, whether he agreed with the outcome? In defying the Declaration of Independence’s demand the government listen to the will of the people, or act as a tyrant—Does not Obama desecrates our core democratic principle?
And in laying an ax at the root of the mighty oak of the Constitution, does Obama not menaces the very source of America’s 250 years of unfettered vitality, and the very wellspring of our perennial genius? Barack should heed Paine’s statement, “The Rights of Man are the rights of all generations of men, and cannot be monopolised by any. “
Has Obama not presented the profile of an indefatigable socialist rebel, admitted by his own mouth? Does he not battle against America’s history, ideals and standards, whenever possible? Doesn’t Obama seem to strain like Atlas to erect a socialist kingdom over America and against the people’s will? Much as Satan likewise sought to erect his throne over the Lord’s? 16 If so, Barack must be impeached, according to the Constitution itself.
Post Script: Constitution Article I. Section. 7.
Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
