Thread: A "No-Confidence" Vote or Censure?

A "No-Confidence" Vote or Censure?

Posted by Jim Delaney on January 17, 2014 at 1:40pm
View Blog

Gen. Paul Vallely of Stand Up America US, who is also helping to spearhead "Operation American Spring" beginning May 16th in DC, has suggested that to counter Obama's imperious overreaching that Congress should tender a vote of "no-confidence" against him.

Alternatively, a person on another conservative site recommended that the House censure Obama. For me at least, "censure" seems more impactful, more significant than merely a vote of no-confidence. So, perhaps censure is the better route to take.

In any event, I researched the matter of censure and found that while the process is, per intra- congressional rules, limited to members of Congress, in 1834 Pres. Andrew Jackson was censured by the Whig-dominated Senate. When the Democrats reclaimed the Senate in 1837, the censure was officially expunged from the records, suggesting to me that censure is of no small consequence to the parties affected. The net legal effect of the Jackson censure was nil; however, from a public relations standpoint, the evidence suggests it was, indeed, impactful.

It is interesting to note that to avoid the disgrace of impeachment, Pres. Clinton actually agreed with his Democratic supporters to accept being censured in lieu of the historical embarrassment of impeachment. Net effect: he was impeached anyway, only the second president, Andrew Johnson being the other in 1868, to have endured this shame. Neither, of course, was convicted and removed from office.

Censure is a formal public reprimand/rebuke for an infraction or violation. It appears nowhere in the Constitution and is, as said, an internal creation of Congress intended to deal with its own members--not sitting presidents, et. al. government officials.

That said, for those who opt to censure Obama, the precedent is there. The question is which poison would have the greater impact on public opinion and support for the president. A no-confidence vote or censure? I would say censure. It certainly can't hurt, and might actually further diminish Obama's credibility as Chief Executive and substantively impair his ability to govern or to otherwise perpetrate more unbridled mischief against the Republic, the Constitution and the American people.

My view is that to stem what appears to be a veritable flood of federal usurpations, we should commit to a multitude of remedies. As said, we can, after all, walk and chew gum at the same time. While censure is certainly a compelling action to take, we must also think in terms of what will actually stop this Progressive tyranny cold. The obvious answer is, of course, State Nullification of all federal actions (legislation/court rulings/bureaucratic regulations/executives orders) which do not comport with the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Realistically, all peaceful remedies should be on the table and vigorously acted upon until such time that constitutional order is restored, the doctrine of separation of powers is fully practiced, and co-equality of the States with the Federal Government is achieved.

Going forward, the most compelling remedial grassroots action we should all get solidly behind is, of course, "Operation American Spring" which will be launched in earnest on May 16th. I urge readers to check it out on the Patriots for America site. You have the option of participating in the protracted occupation or volunteering your services and talents in support of the operation.

Finally and very importantly, if all of these peaceful remedies fail to achieve our constitutional goals, then ALL other remedies sanctioned by our Founders and "natural law" must necessarily be relied upon by the American people. Let the Founders ALWAYS be our guide.

Postscript: Earlier this week, Mark Levin called on Congress to boycott Obama's State of the Union address this month. Boycott, censure, State Nullification. An unbeatable combination!

http://patriotaction.net/profiles/bl...msg_share_post

nat·u·ral law

noun
noun: natural law; plural noun: natural laws

• 1.
  a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
  
  
  
  
  
• 2.
  an observable law relating to natural phenomena.
  "the natural laws of perspective"
  
  
  
  

http://www.alipac.us/f9/liberal-icon...t-weve-295999/

WATCH: Congressman Says House Has Enough Votes to Impeach Obama (VIDEO)



There are countless reasons that Obama should be immediately impeached but, for whatever reason, Congress has done little to call for it — until now.

Obama is behind the Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, and NSA scandals. He has unilaterally bypassed Congress to change laws (including his signature heathcare legislation). He violated the War Powers Act to militarily intervene in Libya and does not believe he needs congressional approval to bomb Syria. He thinks he has the power to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil without charge or trial and he is committed to piling on as much debt as humanly possible onto the backs of unborn generations.
If Obama really believes he is a king (as his actions suggest), he is sorely mistaken. It is time for him to go.

Representative Bill Flores (R-TX) spoke at a townhall meeting recently and told the attendees that “if the House had an impeachment vote, it would impeach the president.”

video at link below

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) recently distributed “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office” to every single member of the House of Representatives. He says that impeachment is “a last resort; it’s a very serious step. And, quite frankly, this president has done a lot of actions which [...] could be challenged in court.” He cites Obama “tearing out pages” of his own healthcare law and granting members of Congress exemptions from participating in it as two of the many justifications for Obama’s impeachment. He continues, “should we decide [impeachment is] an option we can take, we will go ahead and move forward.” You can listen to his full commentary here:




Flores and Stockman are not the only members of Congress and the Senate who have publicly offered impeachment as an option for finally putting and end to Obama’s tyrannical rampage.
WND reports:

Other members of Congress who have made comments about impeachment include Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
“I think he’s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told the Washington Times regarding Obama’s plan to bomb Syria. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”

It seems every day we learn of a new way Barack Obama has unabashedly violated the Constitution he was elected to uphold, enforce, and protect. To quote Rep. Justin Amash, his actions are “setting the stage for something very dangerous.” Congress must step up and hold him accountable. Impeachment would also pose a credible threat to any future president by sending a clear message that the American people simply will not stand for having a king. If we do nothing, that threat is lost.
Help us support these principled representatives and spread the word by clicking the link to “recommend” this article on Facebook.

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/e...r-impeachment/