Translate

Monday, August 4, 2014

Impeachment?

The Democrats have been bandying about the ludicrous idea that the Republicans are trying to impeach Obama. Of course, the desire to do so, and actually taking steps along that path are two different things. The House Republicans would not impeach Obama right now because doing so would be futile--the Democrat controlled Senate would never conduct a trial, let alone actually oust the President. At this point, it is merely (mostly!) a fund raising scare technique by the Democratic elite against gullible Democratic voters (but I repeat myself).

If the Republicans were to gain control of the Senate, there might be a possibility of impeachment. However, Angelo M. Codevilla warns against giving into impeachment because it would introduce a parliamentary-type government, exactly as the Progressives have been wanting for over 100 years.
[Obama's] flaunting of impeachment sets up the alternative between the unfettered power of any president supported by a Senate majority and, on the other hand, the unfettered power of any Congressional majority coherent enough to remove presidents politically unpalatable to it. 
Either way, Obama is opening the door to the partisan erasure of the distinction between executive and legislative power. 
The question before us has far less to do with President Obama than it does with whether America will be governed by a succession of parties, each working its unfettered will. Anyone (including Obama) who imagines that the Democratic Party is an extension of the Obama presidency and hence that Obama is merely adding to the presidency’s powers has reality precisely backward. By underlining that the foundation of presidential power – what keeps the president in office – is partisan power in Congress rather than the Constitution, Obama is transforming the American system into a parliamentary one, just like in Europe, just as Woodrow Wilson advocated in 1885. Obama, by breaking down the separation between the presidency and his party in Congress, is eliminating the distinction between the executive and legislative branches ....
... Impeaching Obama misses the bigger part of the problem, namely a Democratic party so partisan that it places its desires above the Constitution. This party not only supports its own executive regardless of the Constitution but, in the past, was ready and willing (but it lacked the requisite majority) to remove the opposite party’s president simply because it disagreed with him. Quite simply, the Democratic Party is moving beyond the Constitution because a majority of its voters is doing so. But how does one impeach a party that represents a substantial part of the body politic? 
What is the solution? The Constitution offers only the prayer that patriotic good sense will prevail. But in its absence? The Hydra-like Administrative State in which we now live offers so many temptations to stick it to one’s least favorite people as to render it unlikely that rival sectors of society will divorce amicably and agree to let the other live in its own way. Most likely, we will get one form or another of what Woodrow Wilson wanted: alternating governments by parties so partisan as to unite legislative and executive power. ...
 Unspoken here, but raised in his other writings, is that we may get revolution. Frankly, I believe that is the more likely result of where we are headed.

Imagine, if Obama could be impeached this coming Spring. What would be the result? President Andrew Jackson famously said of a Supreme Court decision prohibiting the removal of the Sioux from their native lands in Appalachia something to the effect that the Supreme Court has issued their order, now let them enforce it. Would Obama say the same thing? Refuse to step down? How would Congress enforce it? Whether he stepped down or not, imagine the reaction--riots in every major city and most smaller one's in between.

And imagine what would happen if the Democrats were to, at some point, impeach a Republican president simply because they do not like him. The protests would be more muted, but the consequences would be just as irreparable.

No comments:

Post a Comment