Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Impeachment and revolution, American style

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012

    Impeachment and revolution, American style

    July 8, 2014
    Impeachment and revolution, American style

    By Alan Keyes

    As the territorial and constitutional walls of their authority as a people are being sapped and battered down, Americans are beginning urgently to consider what, if anything, they can do. Some seem content to let things go until experience with the harsh reality of tyranny leaves no alternative but to resist, even if it means war. Though many of them profess to admire the wisdom of America's founders, apparently in this respect they believe that the founding generation offers no instruction.

    This is partly the result of the degenerate understanding of revolution the word presently invokes. Since the horrors of the French Revolution, it evokes an explosion of pent-up hatred and indignation. Political, religious, and racial ideologies have harnessed these two congenital passions. The always durable vengefulness of human nature sustained them over generations. This made for revolutions that spun off purges, pogroms, and other campaigns of mass extermination, salting "killing fields" with vast populations of death throughout the 20th, and now into the 21st century.

    This explosive paradigm of revolution, driven by unreflecting hatred and resentment, is alien to the America tradition. America's prevalent founders saw the revolution that produced America's Declaration of Independence in a very different light. As Madison wrote:

    "[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it."

    John Adams thought that this reflective foresight effected the historic change that most of all constituted the substance of the American Revolution:

    "As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by the revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760–1775, in the course of 15 years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington." (Letter to Thomas Jefferson, Aug. 24, 1815)

    For the founders, the best proof of the success of the American Revolution was not victory in war, but the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. In light of that fact, we ought to take the time to ponder the logic of its provisions. Why, for example, does the Constitution require a simple majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in order to impeach a civil officer of the U.S. government, but a two-thirds majority in order to convict at trial in the U.S. Senate? What is the sense of that?

    Well, impeachment is essentially the equivalent of an indictment, an accusation of wrongful action or behavior. So where U.S. civil officers are concerned, the Constitution makes it easier to accuse than to convict them. But like a formal indictment, impeachment does not involve groundless charges. It requires that a reasonable argument be presented to substantiate the charges, as to both the facts and the law involved in any given case.

    When it comes to high crimes and misdemeanors within the purview of the president of the United States, the case involves matters so fundamental to the justice and legitimacy of the U.S. government that a decision one way or another inevitably has revolutionary implications. Seen in this way, the process of impeachment (the investigation, formulation, and approval of the charges to be tried) is analogous to the process that took place in the years Adams alludes to, before America's Declaration of Independence. Impeachment is the process that informs, articulates, and confirms the will of the people, bringing them together in the righteous conviction required to sustain liberty.

    The foresight of America's founders lay in the fact that they saw the consequences of tyranny in principle, and avoided those consequences by opposing it in principle. In like fashion, in order to make out an argument for impeachment in any given case, the representatives of the people are called upon to rely on principle. They are called upon not only to ascertain the facts, but to make clear the laws, the constitutional provisions, the tenets of justice and unalienable right, in light of which those facts warrant the charges they allege against the president and/or other civil officers.

    Thus the impeachment process reminds people of the process of principled reflection whereby true revolutions are made and sustained. It calls upon people to re-familiarize themselves with the premises of law, right, and justice that distinguish free government from tyranny. It forces would-be tyrants to justify themselves before the people in terms of those principles, or else risk losing the minimum of support they must have in the U.S. Senate constitutionally to retain their office.

    Today, there is good reason to know that the elitist faction leadership in both parties is seeking to overturn the Constitution. The Obama Democrats are working feverishly to establish precedents that will entrench elitist faction tyranny. In line with that, the elitist faction GOP leadership works to suppress effective opposition to this entrenchment, until the question of liberty becomes so mired in precedents that it can never rise again.

    When they made the task of impeachment easier than conviction at trial, the founders obviously expected impeachment to be the more frequent occurrence. Could this be because they had the common sense to realize that the capacity to recognize and defend against threats to liberty requires frequent practice? Could this be because they knew that perpetuating the blessings of liberty is not just a matter of this or that immediate outcome, but of maintaining the spirit of thoughtful, informed resistance to tyranny that gave birth to America in the first place?

    This past week, we celebrated the day on which America's Declaration of Independence was adopted. The Declaration was the paradigmatic bill of impeachment, clearly stating the charges against King George III and the timeless principle of God-endowed unalienable right in light of which his actions violated the "laws of nature and of nature's God."

    Thanks to the elitist faction's adamantly tyrannical ambitions, we again live at a time when it is appropriate to ponder the wise example of America's founding. It's also a good time to consider acting upon it. The Pledge to Impeach mobilization offers a way for the people themselves to call candidates for national office in the 2014 election to take a stand against the ongoing betrayal of America's constitutional government. Have you committed yourself to the Pledge To Impeach mobilization and to the work of encouraging others to do likewise?

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/keyes/140708



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Conservative Leaders Play Useful Idiots: Only Willing to Uphold Constitutional Impeachment if “American People are Desirous of it”

    Suzanne Hamner 19 hours ago

    Many have said that the House of Representatives will not impeach Obama because of the 1998 impeachment fiasco over then President Bill Clinton lying under oath about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Speaking on impeachment as it concerns the current occupant of the Oval Office, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele stated, "I don't see the passion for it, quite honestly. It obscures the issues we want to talk about. I don't think Speaker Boehner or (Senate Minority Leader Mitch) McConnell want to dance on that pin. People remember 1998."

    Even some tea party leaders are calling impeachment talk an "unwanted distraction." Sal Russo, a co-founder of Tea Party Express, has said, "You have to think we learned a lesson from Clinton's impeachment. To do it, you have to have public support for it, and I don't think that's present. I don't see it [talking about impeachment] as an issue today."

    Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk show radio host, agrees with Russo and Steele. Even though Limbaugh believes Obama has committed violations against the Constitution, he doesn't believe the public "has an appetite for impeachment." In a recent statement, Limbaugh maintained, "Without that, it's a waste of time, if you don't have the political will. Meaning, if the Republican Party doesn't have the gonads, and if the American people are not desirous of it, then it's just whistling into the wind."

    So, according to these two "leaders" of parties and one conservative talk show host, the American people have to have the "desire" to enforce the law of the land before the law of the land can be enforced or it's considered an "unwanted distraction" or "just whistling into the wind." Funny thing is there is nowhere in the oath of office that says a member will "uphold, protect and defend the Constitution only when the people are desirous of it."

    Democrats, riding on the 1998 failed impeachment of Bill Clinton, believe an "Obama impeachment would be bad for the country and good for the party."
    Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist, who worked in the White House under Clinton, imparted this tidbit; "From the Republican perspective, it may be good politics in their primaries, but it would also be helpful to Democrats in midterm elections to bump up Democratic turnout. It would be the GOP 'Thelma and Louise' approach: Let's get in the car and drive off the cliff."

    It seems both Democrats and Republicans look at impeachment as "political maneuvers" to gain Congressional seats instead of impeachment being a remedy for a lawless, out of control executive branch that violates the law of the land and other laws of our nation.

    Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about his activities with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Lying under oath constitutes perjury, which is punishable by law – well it is for the average American. However, then President Clinton was given "a pass" on perjury which established a precedent for future presidents, along with government agency personnel, to commit perjury with impunity. Anyone else that lies under oath is subjected to perjury charges not to mention what happens if you lie to the police these days.

    No one really cared what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky, how often it was or where it happened. What America expected from a president was honesty and truthfulness when answering questions under oath. America didn't get the truth from Clinton, but perjury. However, America was willing to "overlook" that character flaw because it was deemed a "political stunt." Maybe it was. The fact remains that "Slick Willy" committed a crime and according to the law, impeachment was the appropriate remedy.

    The President of the United States, in addition to the eligibility requirements to hold office, should possess qualities of honesty, truthfulness, integrity, impartiality, fairness, respect for the law and dignity. In today's society, one would be hard pressed to find an individual seeking public office to have high moral character. But, because the office is the highest held elected position in our country, America should expect its president to have that high moral quality to avoid the possibility of coercion, blackmail or undue influence that could be detrimental to the country. The case in point is the current man occupying the Oval Office.

    It has been reported that South Dakota's Republican Party has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of Obama for violations of his oath of office in many ways. Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) has expressed support for Obama's impeachment on his website and Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) handed out the book, "Impeachable Offenses: The Case For Removing Barack Obama From Office" by Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliot, to members of the House last year. Andrew McCarthy has offered a template for removing Obama from office in his book "Faithless Execution: Building the Case for Obama's Impeachment."

    The news media and some members of Congress accuse "the far political right" as the only sect urging for the impeachment of Obama. Based on Obama's actions, documented in the media and elsewhere, there have been clear violations of his oath of office, criminal activity and over-reach in violation of the law of the land. Should not everyone be calling for accountability when violations of the law occur? News organizations and leftist liberals label conservatives and "the far political right" as being against government and supportive of anarchy. However, when a government fails to follow the law and that action is supported by a sycophantic portion of the public, how is that not considered anarchy?

    According to the 1828 Noah Webster's dictionary, "anarchy" is defined as "want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity, political confusion."

    From this definition, America could be said to be experiencing anarchy. So, to call for the rule of law and adherence to the "supreme" law of the land, The Constitution, is anything but anarchy. Every American should support the rule of law; without it, America has descended into anarchy.

    Obamacare was passed without the overwhelming support of the people, which is in contradiction to what leaders are saying now – that the public must support the action of Congress to impeach. Growing opposition to Obamacare is increasing, however, that is one piece of legislation America will be stuck with from here on out. Even though Obamacare is unconstitutional, Congress and the Oval Office usurper are willing to enforce it with the goon squad IRS, while the states refuse to do their Constitutional duty to nullify, in clear violation of the Constitution.

    Immigration is another issue. Our government is refusing to enforce Constitutional immigration laws, as a growing number of Americans, including Hispanic immigrants, are opposing the unprecedented influx of illegal aliens into the nation.

    To claim Congress must have support to uphold the law is a straw man argument. All any member of Congress is worried about is keeping their seat of power through whatever means. If they have to overlook the law to do it, then so be it. And, anyone supportive of enforcement of unconstitutional law and/or against enforcement of Constitutional law is, in essence, an advocate for anarchy. Right now, that is almost everyone in the federal government, some political party leadership, and some hot air talk show host bloviates.

    Many will say and do say impeachment is useless as the Senate may not or will not convict. Well, based on that, America might as well throw out criminal laws as they are useless since a jury may not or will not convict. Yes, that sound ridiculous because it is ridiculous. To refuse to follow the Constitutional remedy of impeachment amounts to the same thing as doing away with criminal laws when the rationale is based on the possibility of "failure to convict."

    Some holding out against impeachment because the Senate would not convict may see the lawsuit by the House initiated by Boehner as a solution. Well, the Supreme Court has slapped Obama on several of his over-reaches only to have Obama ignore their ruling by continuing his lawless path. Yes, one can see how Boehner's lawsuit will make Obama toe the line. Besides, that lawsuit is useless as a judge may throw it out or fail to find in favor of Boehner and the Republican establishment. If a judge does find in favor of Boehner and establishment Republicans, who is going to enforce the ruling on Obama?

    Impeachment may go the same route. However, impeachment is the Constitutional remedy while a lawsuit is a grand stand political maneuver. The Constitution and Constitutional laws are not a Chinese buffet to pick and choose what you like to enforce or to only enforce when popular with the citizenry but to enforce those laws to maintain the rule of law. Anything else is contrary to the founding principles of America.

    Alas, America's travel down the path of anarchy that began over 100 years ago has picked up speed.

    Welcome to the post-Constitutional, third world America – brought to you by politicians, American icons and a growing number of low information individuals.
    Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/co...RLI2meFCkdb.99

Similar Threads

  1. Hearings on Presidential Power: Uber Presidency, Impeachment, and Revolution
    By kathyet2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 05:05 PM
  2. Revolution, French-style
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2011, 08:08 AM
  3. THE AMERICAN & ANTI-AMERICAN REVOLUTION
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 10:46 PM
  4. The 2nd American Revolution
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2009, 11:15 PM
  5. The Second American Revolution
    By florgal in forum Videos about Illegal Immigration, refugee programs, globalism, & socialism
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-26-2008, 05:57 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •