Barack Obama, the Rule of Law, and Impeachable High Crimes and Misdemeanors

by: jim byrd | published: 08 09, 2011

The rule of law is the mechanism that renders the government subordinate to the law. The rule of law is superior to the day to day, month to month, or year to year capricious dispositions of the elected and their ideologies. The rule of law requires the government to operate within the bounds of law, and in American government, requires the government to enforce the laws. Under the rule of law, no one is above the law, including the President of the United States. The United States Constitution, Article II, Section 3, compels the President to “...take care that the laws be faithfully executed....”

There are myriad differences that differentiate and separate countries, nations, and societies. The adherence to the rule of law is one of the primary instruments that protects nations from the subjugation of anarchy, and ultimately a vacuum devoid of civility. Also antithetical to the rule of law is the rule of man. There are various examples of nations led by the rule of men rather than the rule of law: Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-il, Mao Tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Saddam Hussein. A society must have laws that are obeyed by everyone, spanning from the leader to the lowliest citizen. Under the rule of law, a society can prevail; without adherence to the rule of law, anarchy will prevail.

Searching for the categorically correct words to best characterize Barack Obama and his lawless performance as President of these United States is a simple venture, actually. By simply using the calculus of the aggregate of the preponderance of the prevarications caused by the pathological infirmity that prohibits Obama from telling the truth, even under the most benign circumstances, and the blatant and malevolent disregard of the foundational principles of this country, the United States Constitution, and the rule of law, several characterizations come to mind. With an abundance of empirical and substantive evidence from his rhetoric, actions, and policies, “racketeer,” “scofflaw,” and “malefactor” are the most generous and humane descriptions available. For Barack Obama, when compared to the first president of this country, “indecent” is a well-suited characterization as well.

Barack Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that what he cannot accomplish legally, he will circumvent with mechanisms of subterfuge. This has been Obama’s default modus operandi if he cannot have his way. Obama has refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, an active federal law, has decided to enforce the Cap and Trade Act, which is not a law, as it has never been approved by Congress, and has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the fundamentals of this non-existent law. These laws were either created or repealed by the Executive Branch by calculated lawlessness and empirical fiat. Obama has implemented the Dream Act via the same dictatorial mechanics. The Dream Act is not a law and should not be enacted by Obama’s criminal savoir-faire. There are myriad federal immigration laws that Obama is legally compelled to enforce, yet he has by executive order ratified the Dream Act, and circumvented and disregarded existing legitimate laws.

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM Act) was first proposed in the legislation during the 107^th Congress in 2001-2003, tried again in the 108^th Congress in 2003-2005, tried again in the 109^th Congress in 2005-2007, tried again in the 110^th Congress in 2007-2009, and tried again in the 112^th Congress in 2011-2013. It was never in the remotest danger of passing.

For ten years this preposterous act has been defeated. There is one reason the DREAM Act has been so persistently pushed by each Congress: is it is pregnant with progressive politics, ideology, and is a quantifiable vote purchasing mechanism for the Left.

The fundamentals of the DREAM Act for illegal aliens are thus:

·      Must have entered the United States before the age of 16 (i.e., 15 and younger)

·      Must have been present in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years prior to enactment of the bill

·      Must have graduated from a United States high school, or have obtained a GED, or have been accepted into an institution of higher education (i.e., college/university)

·      Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application

·      Have registered with the Selective Service if male

·      Must have good moral character

The first two provisions listed would be problematic to ascertain their validity, which would cause dubiety and void the next three provisions, but it is the very last and fractionally subjective provision that is a self-fulfilling prophecy for bad character: discounting an anemic defense of moral relativism, possessing a “good moral character” and breaking the law by living in this country unlawfully, using fake documents to gain employment and access to public services, is mutually exclusive of a “good moral character.”

Obama cryptically tried to cloak his passing the DREAM Act, in direct violation of the rule of law, and with lawless abandon, by executive fiat on a Friday afternoon news dump.

There is something eerily familiar between Obama’s directive to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the DREAM Act.

The dictator-esque directive that usurped the rule of law and rewrote the rules of deporting an illegal alien now considers...

·      The circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States

·      Whether they are in high school or college

·      Whether they have served or are serving in the military

·      Particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child

·      The person’s pursuit of education

·      Whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military

Barack Obama has given prosecutorial discretion to I.C.E. agents to determine whether or not to deport an illegal alien. The only provision missing from the detained is a sworn affidavit attesting that he/she will vote for the Democratic Party if ever granted citizenship.

Perspective: This is the equivalent of a mayor of Anycity, U.S.A. granting the municipal police department the ability to determine if they want to arrest a perpetrator committing felony A, B, or C. They could be required to ask them a few innocuous questions about high school diplomas, whether their dad served in the military, how long they have lived here, and lastly, ask them if they are of good moral character, then release them back into society at their discretion. Complete prosecutorial discretion in the field, which under U.S. law is reserved for prosecuting attorneys, violates the very core of the rule of law.

Prosecutorial discretion is also mathematically incoherent. Roughly 7,500 people cross our borders each day. The Border Patrol has 20 sectors, with 9 on the southern borders. If they could stop and interrogate just these 7,500 illegals per day, that would be 7,500 hundred prosecutorial discretion decisions made each day primarily in just 9 sectors for an agency with approximately 20,000 agents covering the entire country. This does not take into consideration the approximate 20,000,000 living here illegally. Obama’s executive order is not only breaching the rule of law, but dismisses the mathematical and logical fact that any form of immigration law is completely inconsequential without securing the borders first.

To complement Obama’s confidence-game with the rule of law, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin brings a refreshing and moronic take on the Constitution. Durbin said the following during a speech at a congressional hearing to a room, apparently full of youthful illegal aliens, after asking the young scofflaws to stand if they were undocumented: “When I look around this room, I see America’s future, our doctors, our teachers, our nurses, our engineers, our scientists, our soldiers, our congressmen, our senators, and maybe our president.”

Unfortunately for the under-uneducated Durbin, and the rest of the educationally challenged liberals in Congress, the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, states, No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4, 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.

Treason and bribery are serious criminal offenses, and should naturally be cause for impeachment, but “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not criminal offenses, nor do they exist anywhere in the U.S. criminal code. This impeachable political offense was intended to keep those of higher office morally in line. These “high crimes and misdemeanors” can only be committed by an occupant of a high office and position in the government. Abusing one’s power and violating one’s oath of office is the epitome of high crime.

Perjury was the proven charge against Bill Clinton by the House of Representatives that caused his impeachment. But periurus or perjury had a much broader meaning than its current meaning of lying under oath, as did Clinton. When the founders wrote the Constitution, perjury meant also a violation of one’s oath of office.

From the 1890 An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis: periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. This definition of perjury during the founding era would be cause for impeachment, especially if chronic, as it is directly related to those of higher office and status, who have an obligation to uphold the oath they took. Barack Obama does not need to be sworn in to commit perjury, as he took the oath of the presidency: “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.”

High crimes and misdemeanors is an extraordinarily vast and ambiguous dominion ruled by obvious breeches. This may seem a daunting, burdensome, and unattainable task for a 21^st century U.S. President, and this extraordinary standard may seem archaic and incomprehensible, but the moral, honorable, and dignified manner of the founders’ conduct and substance set the standard, and it was their moral and principled foundations that set the measure for the “high crimes and misdemeanors clause.” Barack Obama is bound by his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and be honorable and truthful in his conduct, and most importantly, to respect and abide by the rule of law. Barack Obama’s responsibility, as defined by the Constitution, is to execute this country’s laws, not adjudicate the laws he disagrees with from the Oval Office.

If the Congress faithfully abided by the Constitution’s meaning and intent of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause, Barack Obama would have been bounced out of the White House a long time ago, and sent back to Chicago’s iniquitous political abyss.

The greatness of this country, and the core of its exceptionalism, is adhering to the rule of law. Almost the entirety of this country’s shortcomings, failures, setbacks, digressions, and transgressions can be attributed to two things: violating the rule of law, and twisting and forcing meanings from the Constitution that do not exist.

The remedy would be to follow the rule of law: Congress faithfully writes the laws within the parameters of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, the Executive Branch signs or vetoes the laws presented by Congress, and dutifully executes the laws, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the laws.     

comments

• Reply to this comment

  Allen

  I hope we can save America post-Obama, but I am not sure we can. So many in academia and the nihilist Left want to damage America, and it looks like they will succeed.

  
  

add a comment