******************************************************************************
By J.B. WilliamsJune 10, 2013

NewsWithViews.com

As the nation searches for the proper peaceful remedy to the crisis known as Obama, good people of good intentions often research a common subject and arrive at a different conclusion. Such has been the case on the topic of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama can be impeached.

In a WND column dated July 14, 2011 titled Why Obama Cannot be Impeached, the writer states, “Rage continues to build across this country over the obvious forged birth certificate Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, released April 27, 2011, as do calls for his impeachment. However, Obama cannot be impeached.”

The author’s position is based upon statements from Dr. Edwin Vieira, a Harvard trained attorney, who’s works are focused primarily on land rights and militias. Dr. Vieira issued his position in a 2008 piece written and released before the 2008 election, Vieira suggests that once Obama takes office via fraud, he cannot be impeached, on the basis that impeaching a usurper of the office would somehow validate his tenure in office. Is he right?

To be sure, the Obama Crisis presents a highly unusual set of circumstances, rising to the level of constitutional crisis in a number of ways. The proper peaceful remedy is indeed worthy of research and debate. Only once the people agree on a proper course of action, can action be taken… so, it is imperative that the people reach agreement on this matter.

Who is right in the debate is much less important than reaching an actionable position of agreement. The endless debate on the subject only leaves all concerned citizens paralyzed by confusion and lack of coherent direction in how to solve the crisis.

It is for this reason that I have returned to historical data on the subject of impeachment in search of the foundations for impeachment remedies found in Article II – Section IV of the U.S. Constitution.

“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.” – Article II – Section IV of the U.S. Constitution

I fully understand and even agree with the claim that Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) gained access to the Office of President via massive fraud, including identity fraud, campaign fraud and campaign finance fraud, just for starters.

I further agree that Mr. Obama’s acts during his unconstitutional and illegal seizing of the Oval Office, as well as his unconstitutional acts while in office, rise to the level of impeachable offenses, high crimes, usurpations and likely even treason.

But I do not agree that Obama/Soetoro cannot be removed from office via impeachment. In fact, I believe that Obama can only be removed from office via impeachment. Here’s the basis for my belief…

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

In Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton explained that “impeachment of the president should take place for offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”

And indeed, in Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) explained: “The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature… What are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.”

Common throughout historical references to the impeachment process is the concept that a violation or breach of public trust, or habitual disregard for the public interest is the fundamental definition of other high crimes and misdemeanors, as it relates to the Founders intended use of the impeachment clause found in Article II.

The legal debate over use of impeachment concerning immunity from criminal prosecutions of any individual occupying the Oval Office is covered quite extensively here. In conclusion, seizing the Oval Office by way of fraud, usurpations of the office, and acting in a manner at odds with public interests, constitutional authority or in breach of the public trust, are all impeachable offenses.

In Federalist Paper No. 70, Hamilton further explained: “Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious and subject to legal punishment.” – “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.”

In short, the Oval Office (not the individual occupying the office) has protections against criminal charges or prosecutions during the tenure of office, be it legitimate tenure or not.

“In 1973, the Justice Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.”Full legal reference here

This means that before any occupant of the Oval Office can be charged with or prosecuted for crimes, they must first be removed from office via impeachment, so that the business of the people can continue while the individual is being prosecuted for criminal activities.

Read Full Article Here

*******************************************************************************

Petition to Impeach Barack Hussein Obama

Fellowship of the Minds

impeach Obama

PETITION URGENTLY REQUESTING THAT  CONGRESS LAUNCH AN INDEPENDENT AND  COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ON THE  PART OF  PRESIDENT  BARACK OBAMA

To: All members of the U.S. Congress:

Whereas, President Barack Obama not only failed to aid U.S. personnel under lethal and prolonged terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, resulting in the deaths of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but also led an outrageously deceitful cover-up for weeks afterward, rivaling the Watergate-era cover-up that ended the presidency of Richard Nixon;

Whereas, the IRS under Obama – in accord with direct instructions from congressional Democrats – has engaged in the most egregious and widespread attack on conservative groups in modern history, with the knowledge of top agency officials;

Whereas, the Obama Justice Department, on top of its many first-term scandals, has spied on and harassed journalists at Fox News and the Associated Press, prompting widespread, bipartisan condemnation of the DOJ for “criminalizing journalism”;

Whereas, top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors”;

Whereas, one of these offenses – that of illegally conducting war against Libya – has been deemed by a bipartisan panel of constitutional experts to be “clearly an impeachable offense” and “gross usurpation of the war power”;

Whereas, Obama’s policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process – including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner – is unanimously deemed by experts, both liberal and conservative, as “an impeachable offense”;

Whereas, Obama’s Justice Department has presided over the disastrous “Fast and Furious” operation in which approximately 2,000 firearms were directed from U.S. gun shops across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the deaths of as many as 100 people, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry – a scandal that constitutional experts agree constitutes, at a minimum, clear grounds for impeaching Attorney General Eric Holder;

Read More Here

*******************************************************************************

Why Isn’t the Murder of an American Boy an Impeachable Offense?

by Jacob Hornberger, FFF

Article 2, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: 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.”

In 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for matters arising out of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.

If perjury and obstruction of justice constitute high crimes or misdemeanors, then doesn’t it seem rather obvious that the murder of an American citizen by the president would also constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, especially if the citizen is a child?

That’s precisely what President Obama, acting through U.S. national-security state agents, did on October 14, 2011. He murdered a 16-year-old American boy who was traveling in Yemen. The boy was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was the son of accused terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, who the CIA had assassinated two weeks before.

Why did President Obama and the CIA or the military kill Abdulrahman? The president, the CIA, and the Pentagon have all chosen to remain silent on the matter, refusing to even acknowledge that they killed the boy. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs implicitly provided the justification: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

So, there you have it: the boy was apparently killed because he was considered to have the wrong father.

But if that’s a legitimate justification for killing a child, there are obviously a lot more children at risk in this country.

Proponents of the war on terrorism argue that the killing of the teenager wasn’t really a murder but rather an assassination. But isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

After all, compare Obama’s killing of Abdulrahman with Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s killing of Orlando Letelier. Pinochet took power in 1973, during the time that the Cold War and the war on communism were being waged. Pinochet, who the U.S. national-security state had helped install into power, not only began rounding up, incarcerating, torturing, abusing, and executing suspected communists without any judicial process, he also embarked on an program to assassinate Chilean communists found overseas.

Agents of Pinochet’s counterpart to the CIA, a secret police force called DINA, planned and orchestrated the killing of Orlando Letelier on the streets of Washington, D.C. Why was Letelier targeted for death? He was a socialist, a Chilean citizen who had served in the administration of President Salvador Allende, the democratically elected Marxist president whom Pinochet, President Richard Nixon, the CIA, and the U.S. military ousted from power and replaced with Pinochet’s military dictatorship. Therefore, as part of the war on communism, Letelier was considered to be a legitimate target for assassination.

On September 21, 1976, an assassination team headed by a man named Michael Townleyexploded a bomb that the team had planted under Letelier’s car. Letelier was killed, along with his American assistant who was also in the car, 25-year-old Ronni Moffitt.

Interestingly, the U.S. Justice Department did not consider the assassination to be legitimate under the concept of war and enemy combatants, notwithstanding the fact that the Cold War and global war on communism were still being waged. The Justice Department treated the killings of Letelier and Moffitt as murders. Townley and his team were indicted and prosecuted for the murders of Letelier and Moffitt.

How is Obama’s killing of Abdulrahman any different from Pinochet’s murder of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt? In the one case, a 16-year-old boy has had his life snuffed out because he had the wrong father. In the other case, a man had his life snuffed out because he had the wrong philosophical beliefs. Given that the Letelier and Moffitt killings were treated as murders, why shouldn’t the Abdulraham killing be treated as murder too?

Read More Here

*******************************************************************************

About these ads