Barrack Obama: The Unconstitutional President

No, this isn't a birther post.  I'm not about to question whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen because quite frankly it's a waste of breath.  Whether he is or he isn't, the Drive-By Media isn't going to give enough scrutiny to the question to make it worth spending time on.  Besides, the President has done enough other things outside the Constitution to fill at least one good blog post, not to mention to warrant a serious discussion of impeachment.


The word "impeachment" gets thrown around an awful lot by bloggers and activists on both the left and the right.  Too many Americans seem to think that impeaching a President is, in effect, a national recall of a President performed by Congress.  It isn't.  Our founding fathers were quite wise to make the shortest term of office on the national level be two years.  Such a term guards against the general fickleness of people in general who would be quick to change representatives the moment said representative supported any bill that wasn't overwhelmingly supported by the voters.  The misunderstanding of impeachment was further advanced by the Drive-By Media in 1998-99 when President Clinton was impeached.


The average man on the street, to this day, seems to believe Clinton was impeached for having an extramarital affair. He wasn't.  History lesson: An investigation was launched about that affair and President Clinton was questioned under oath about it.  You can argue the validity of said investigation, but irregardless, once under oath, President Clinton was required to tell the truth.  He did not.  For committing the felony of perjury, Clinton was impeached.


Yet President Obama has made Clinton's crime of perjury seem like a six-year old stealing a Milky Way from Rite Aid.  President Obama has violated the Constitution not once, not twice, not three, but now four times!  He seems to believe the Constitution as simply an obstacle to be overcome.


First, when  U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman struck down the President's moratorium on deep water drilling, the President ignored the injunction and simply reissued a new executive order to replace it.  For this, Judge Martin Feldman declared the President to be in contempt of court. (1) This, for the record, is a felony.


Secondly, when U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vincent declared the President's Healthcare Law to be Unconstitutional and declared the entire law void, the President continued to enforce a law which was, by law, no longer valid.  The President had the audacity to ask the Judge to clarify his ruling. (3) Because "this law is Unconstitutional and therefore voided" is unclear.


Thirdly, President Obama, last week, committed troops to an open ended military engagement with zero goals in mind without consulting Congress.  The President did go tho the United Nations, mind you, but not the United States Congress.  He then proceeded to write them a letter "informing them" of the military actions already in progress.


But Chris, doesn't the War Powers Resolution of 1973 give the President the ability to commit troops for up to 60 days without Congressional approval?  Answer: The letter of that law does indeed give that ability to the President. But the precedent set by Presidents Reagan, Bush (41) Clinton, and Bush (43) also demonstrate that in such instances the President must still obtain a fresh War Powers Authorization from Congress.  When Reagan went into Grenada, he had a War Powers Act.  When George H.W. Bush began Operation Desert Storm, he had a formal declaration of war.  When Clinton began Operation Desert Fox, he had a War Powers Act.  When George W. Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq, he had formal declarations of war.


The Constitution remains quite clear that it is Congress which has the authority to declare war, not the President, in Article I Section 8 (Line 11) of that esteemed document. Granted, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 does muddy the waters a bit, making it a gray area in that it's hard to call for impeachment over it's use in this situation.  Yet Presidential precedent is clear on the application of the law.  Unfortunately, Mr. Obama does not care to listen to the Constitution on this matter either.


Fourthly, let's not forget President Obama's appointment of Czars. The Constitution of the United States clearly lays out the requirements for Presidential Appointment of cabinet members, judges and other individuals with official authority in the United States:


(The President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. United States Constitution Article II Section 2 (Line 2)





Notice that nowhere in this power is the President granted the right to create new offices on his own and invest them with official power over various departments of the Government.  Granted, this requirement is not placed upon Presidential advisers such as his Press Secretary and his National Security Advisor.  However, these individuals do not have official headship over any part of the government but rather serve specifically as Presidential advisers.  National Security Advisor is not a military rank .  Secretary of Defense is a military rank (the 2nd highest rank in the military, behind Commander in Chief), and because of that authority, must be confirmed by the Senate.


Article II of the United States Constitution and I'm afraid I cannot find the part where it says "the President may appoint whomever he wants to positions of authority within the government without Senate approval."  (For those of you from Palm Beach County, Florida, that's because IT'S NOT THERE.)


President Obama has overreached his Constitutional authority with these unconstitutional czars.  He has overreached his authority with the military actions in Libya.  He has ignored Article III of the Constitution and the principle of judicial review of all laws, both with the overturning of Obamacare and with the reissuing of his deep water drilling moratorium after it was struck down. He has failed his Presidential oath of office:


"I do solemnly swear 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." The United States Constitution, Article II Section I (Line 11)


President Obama has not preserved, protected, and defended the Constitution.  He has ignored it on at least four occasions, and that included committing a felony (contempt of court).  A felony is what the Constitution speaks of when it mentions "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a cause for impeachment. (For those of you from Palm Beach, high crimes = felonies.)  The President has failed to uphold the Constitution.


To the United States House of Representatives, your Constitutional obligation is clear.  Mr. Obama has rendered himself unfit to be President by his actions.  You must vote to impeach President Obama for these Constitutional violations. 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(1) Judge Holds Interior in Contempt of Court Over Deep Water Drilling Ban


(2) Florida Judge Rules Health Care Reform Unconstitutional


(3) Obama WH to Vinson: Please tell states to obey law you just struck down


(4) The United States Constitution, Article II