Impeachment
This, not a lawsuit, is the remedy
Jun 29, 2014 | 1461 views | 1 1 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
As Congress has lost more and more power to the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, regardless of which party holds either, those who seek to return to what the framers of the Constitution envisioned as a more Congressional form of government have become more and more frustrated.

The base of the Republican Party has been demanding another impeachment for many months. It would be the second impeachment of a sitting President since 1998.

Instead, embattled U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has announced he plans to “sue” the President.

Way back in March, the House of Representatives approved a bill to fast track civil lawsuits filed by Congress against President Barack Obama for allegedly abusing his powers. According to Scott Bomboy of the National Constitution Center, the bill does raise some interesting constitutional questions, but it also faces steep challenges.

He blogged the following at constitutioncenter.org:

Before the constitutional questions, there is the basic political question of how the bill, proposed as the Enforce The Law Act by U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, would clear a Senate with a Democratic majority. And then there is the issue of the 100 percent probability of a presidential veto, which would need to be overcome by a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate.


Read more: Congressional lawsuits against Obama would face steep hurdles



Under the proposed bill, the House or Senate could fast track for any civil lawsuit against the President if that President “failed to meet the requirement of Article II, section 3, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States to take care that a law be faithfully executed.” Once such a lawsuit is decided in a three-judge district court, any appeal would be sent directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to write the laws and the Executive to enforce them,” Gowdy said. “We don’t pass suggestions. We don’t pass ideas. We pass laws.”

Republicans are upset about President Obama’s enforcement of the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare), his immigration policy, and his refusal to defend a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid called the bill “dead on arrival” and said, “House Republicans voted to prevent the President from fixing the problems that are within his constitutional authority to solve.”

In a statement, the White House said the bill exceeded constitutional limits, and alleged that Congress was trying to assign itself additional constitutional powers.

This all gets to a bigger constitutional issue that the Supreme Court has partially addressed before: Can Congress launch a civil lawsuit against a sitting U.S. president?

In 1982, the Court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that a President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages based on his official acts.

Justice Lewis Powell, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, said that this broad immunity was a function of the “President’s unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers and supported by our history.”

Powell added that there were other ways to guard against alleged presidential misconduct, without a stream of lawsuits.

“A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President’s traditional concern for his historical stature.”

A later case, Clinton v. Jones, established that a President didn’t have immunity from a civil lawsuit regarding his or her conduct before and after holding office.

And in his footnotes in the Nixon v. Fitzgerald decision, Powell said the decision was about private lawsuits. “We need not address directly the immunity question as it would arise if Congress expressly had created a damages action against the President of the United States,” he said.

Back in 2011, 10 members of Congress did sue President Obama over his decision to use military force in Libya. According to the Congressional Research Service from 2012, a reviewing federal district court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds due to lack of standing.

The CRS did say that in prior cases, “the reviewing courts have found that neither side has taken steps that would give the courts a viable statutory or constitutional issue to resolve, rather than a policy dispute. … litigation by Members of Congress to force a decision has not been preceded by legislative actions that have been sufficient to create the ‘irreconcilable conflict’ between the executive and legislative branches that might make a judicial decision possible, if not probable.”

David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley explained the standing problem in more detail in a January article on Politico.com.

“Congress’s ability to reclaim its powers through litigation faces a substantial roadblock in the form of a presumption against congressional ‘standing,’” they said. Rivkin and Price point to another court decision, Raines v. Byrd (1997), that seemingly banned individual members of Congress from suing the President.

But they didn’t eliminate the possibility of congressional lawsuits against a President.

“Raines is best understood as establishing only a presumption against congressional standing that can be rebutted in the right circumstances. Indeed, there are powerful reasons why members of Congress should be permitted to sue the president when the situation warrants,” they said. “Standing should not bar enforcement of the separation of powers when there are no other plaintiffs capable of enforcing this critical constitutional principle.” (Rivkin and Price also explain this point in relation to a Colorado court decision they believe should inspire Congress.)

In another analysis from 2001, the CRS didn’t close the door on the issue.

“Raines, the first ruling of the Court on the issue of the standing of Members of Congress when they assert an injury to their institutional authority as legislators, revealed the Court’s reluctance to grant standing to Members because of separation of powers considerations, but the case did not fully define the circumstances in which congressional plaintiff suits may be permissible,” the service said.

Louis Fisher, a congressional expert who spoke with the Christian Science Monitor about the recent House bill, told the Monitor that he was doubtful any court would take a congressional lawsuit targeted at a President. He said the typical reaction would be: “You’ve got remedies of your own. Don’t bother us.”

And in the case of the 10 congressional members who sued President Obama over Libya, federal judge Reggie Walton said as much in his decision.

“While there may conceivably be some political benefit in suing the President and the Secretary of Defense, in light of shrinking judicial budgets, scarce judicial resources, and a heavy caseload, the Court finds it frustrating to expend time and effort adjudicating the relitigation of settled questions of law,” Walton said.

Judge Walton expressed dismay that the plaintiffs wanted “to achieve what appear to be purely political ends, when it should be clear to them that this Court is powerless to depart from clearly established precedent of the Supreme Court and the District of Columbia Circuit.”
Comments
(1)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Captain Mack
|
June 29, 2014


The answers to all of the problems at hand are quite simple except that those capable of solving the problem have chosen to ignore the solution because they fear being enjoined and therefore subject to legal entanglement. READ ON;

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” No man is above the law, and Barack Hussein Obama because of unconscionable and fearful men is being placed above the law and those that concede to such are placing themselves above the law as well. This is the underlying issue of what our Constitutional Republic faces. If Mr. Obama’s father was indeed Barack Obama Sr., it is a known and irrefutable fact he (Obama’s father) was born in Kenya which was a British colony. Obama Sr. was deported back to Kenya in 1964 after the INS refused to renew his VISA.

We are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis and the Congress, and the major media know full well that is exactly what is happening. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Ignore is what you have done as Mike Zullo, the AZ Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator has shared with the public this fact: “In my meetings with Mr. Bennett on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio, he (Mr. Bennett) was uninterested in reviewing the evidence the Cold Case Posse has accumulated.” This is in reference to the ongoing criminal investigation regarding the individual who has obviously usurped the office of president and has been helped by numerous others who should have prevented this from happening in the first place. This is outrageous!! The fact that we have an ongoing criminal investigation in AZ should alarm everyone and cause without hesitation to withhold the name of Barack Hussein Obama from the ballots everywhere until forensic authenticated documentation is proven to verify Mr. Obama is who he says he is.

May I return to the point of this and that is one who desires to occupy the White House as POTUS and Command in Chief MUST be a natural born Citizen. In the Records of the Federal Convention New York 25 July 1787 our first Chief Justice, John Jay submitted to George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention what would become one of the Constitutional qualifications for Commander in Chief in stating, “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. The Law of Nations provides the Constitutional definition of a natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter. Furthermore, we have U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishing Article II Section I with the ruling of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. pg. 167-68 (1875). If one U.S. Supreme Court ruling is not sufficient may I share with you the following five other rulings on this very matter holding to the fact and the law one MUST be a natural born Citizen (not just citizen) in order to be POTUS: Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814); Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830); Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857); United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

It will also be necessary to note as part of historical record from June 2003 to Feb. 2008, Congress made 8 attempts to remove from Article II Section I the “natural born Citizen” clause, both Republicans and Democrats. It is most obvious those in Congress know what the meaning of a natural born Citizen is otherwise they would not have made such efforts to remove this clause from our U.S. Constitution. These are the Bill numbers, dates and sponsors: HJR 59 June 11, 2003 Sponsor: Vic Snyder (D); HJR 67 Sept 2, 2003 Sponsor: John Conyers (D); SB 2128 Feb 25, 2004 Sponsor: Don Nichols (R); HJR 104 Sept 15, 2004 Sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher (R); HJR 42 Jan4, 2005 Sponsor: John Conyers (D); HJR 15 Feb 1, 2005 Sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher (R); HJR 42 April 14, 2005 Sponsor: Vic Snyder (D); SB 2678 Feb 28, 2008: Claire McCaskill (D) Co-Sponsors: Barack Obama(D) Hillary Clinton (D).

Being POTUS requires the individual be a natural born Citizen. There is a distinction in what separates a natural born citizen from all other types of citizenship relevant in the U.S., such a distinction, in that this qualification is only stipulated for office of Vice President (12th Amendment) and President of the United States, not for Senator, Congressman or Governor or any other U.S. governmental office. May I also alert you to the fact that there are unanswered questions regarding if Mitt Romney is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS as his father, George Romney was born in Chichuahua, Mexico. Whether George was actually naturalized as a U.S. citizen has yet to be proven by Mitt Romney. Furthermore, Marco Rubio’s name has been mentioned as being a possible Vice Presidential candidate and it is known his parents did not become U.S. Citizens until Marco Rubio was four years old:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6205...

The reason I bring this to peoples attention is so they know this is not about one man, this is about the U.S. Constitution, our Supreme rule of law. Public servants oath of office is to uphold the Constitution and laws of their state and our country, and that oath can only be witheld by following the law. We all look forward to continuing to work this issue under those parameters.”This is all we ask of anyone, but most importantly this is what is required. Failure in doing so violates this solum oath of office and puts anyone at risk for committing a felony and even treason: U.S. Code Title 18 Section 4; Misprision of Felony: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”. Furthermore, under U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2381; Treason: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States”.Please know and be forewarned plausible deniability cannot be used and will not stand.

The issue at hand is one of historical significance. What happens in every state affects each and everyone in this Constitutional Republic and for that matter the entire world as the office of president is that powerful and influential. That is why it is one of the reasons so many who have the responsibility to do what is right and lawful has been difficult for many, but should not be the impossible, for with God all things are possible.

British Statesman Edmund Burke has been quoted as saying, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.

Discussion on WND

CNN raises alarm over Cruz' eligibility



CAPTAIN MACK • 11 months ago

The birth certificate and other forged documents are certainly a valid concern, however they fall to the wayside opposed to the real issue which most already know is Obama's failure to be a natural born citizen as required by the constitution stated quite clearly below. The real bottom line is there is no way he was ever actually eligible in the first place. I might also add that Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindel are not eligible for the very same reason.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” No man is above the law, and Barack Hussein Obama because of unconscionable and fearful men is being placed above the law and those that concede to such are placing themselves above the law as well. This is the underlying issue of what our Constitutional Republic faces. If Mr. Obama’s father was indeed Barack Obama Sr., it is a known and irrefutable fact he (Obama’s father) was born in Kenya which was a British colony. Obama Sr. was deported back to Kenya in 1964 after the INS refused to renew his VISA.

We are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis and the Congress, and the major media know full well that is exactly what is happening. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Ignore is what you have done as Mike Zullo, the AZ Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator has shared with the public this fact: “In my meetings with Mr. Bennett on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio, he (Mr. Bennett) was uninterested in reviewing the evidence the Cold Case Posse has accumulated.” This is in reference to the ongoing criminal investigation regarding the individual who has obviously usurped the office of president and has been helped by numerous others who should have prevented this from happening in the first place. This is outrageous!! The fact that we have an ongoing criminal investigation in AZ should alarm everyone and cause without hesitation to withhold the name of Barack Hussein Obama from all ballots everywhere until forensic authenticated documentation is proven to verify Mr. Obama is who he says he is.

May I return to the point of this and that is one who desires to occupy the White House as POTUS and Commander in Chief MUST be a natural born Citizen. In the Records of the Federal Convention New York 25 July 1787 our first Chief Justice, John Jay submitted to George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention what would become one of the Constitutional qualifications for Commander in Chief in stating, “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. The Law of Nations provides the Constitutional definition of a natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter. Furthermore, we have U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishing Article II Section I with the ruling of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. pg. 167-68 (1875). If one U.S. Supreme Court ruling is not sufficient may I share with you the following five other rulings on this very matter holding to the fact and the law one MUST be a natural born Citizen (not just citizen) in order to be POTUS: Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814); Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830); Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857); United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

It will also be necessary to note as part of historical record from June 2003 to Feb. 2008, Congress made 8 attempts to remove from Article II Section I the “natural born Citizen” clause, both Republicans and Democrats. It is most obvious those in Congress know what the meaning of a natural born Citizen is otherwise they would not have made such efforts to remove this clause from our U.S. Constitution. These are the Bill numbers, dates and sponsors: HJR 59 June 11, 2003 Sponsor: Vic Snyder (D); HJR 67 Sept 2, 2003 Sponsor: John Conyers (D); SB 2128 Feb 25, 2004 Sponsor: Don Nichols (R); HJR 104 Sept 15, 2004 Sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher (R); HJR 42 Jan4, 2005 Sponsor: John Conyers (D); HJR 15 Feb 1, 2005 Sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher (R); HJR 42 April 14, 2005 Sponsor: Vic Snyder (D); SB 2678 Feb 28, 2008: Claire McCaskill (D) Co-Sponsors: Barack Obama(D) Hillary Clinton (D).

Being POTUS requires the individual be a natural born Citizen. There is a distinction in what separates a natural born citizen from all other types of citizenship relevant in the U.S., such a distinction, in that this qualification is only stipulated for the office of Vice President (12th Amendment) and President of the United States, not for Senator, Congressman or Governor or any other U.S. governmental office. May I also alert you to the fact that there are unanswered questions regarding if Mitt Romney was Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS as his father, George Romney was born in Chichuahua, Mexico. Whether George was actually naturalized as a U.S. citizen has yet to be proven by Mitt Romney. Furthermore, Marco Rubio’s name has been mentioned as being a possible Presidential candidate and it is known his parents did not become U.S. Citizens until Marco Rubio was four years old:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6205...

The reason I bring this to peoples attention is so they know this is not about one man, this is about the U.S. Constitution, our Supreme rule of law. Public servants oath of office is to uphold the Constitution and laws of their state and our country, and that oath can only be upheld by following the law. We all look forward to continuing to work this issue under those parameters. This is all we ask of anyone, but most importantly this is what is required. Failure in doing so violates this salome oath of office and puts anyone at risk for committing a felony and even treason: U.S. Code Title 18 Section 4; Misprision of Felony: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”. Furthermore, under U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2381; Treason: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States”. Please know and be forewarned plausible deniability cannot be used and will not stand.

The issue at hand is one of historical significance. What happens in every state affects each and everyone in this Constitutional Republic and for that matter the entire world as the office of president is that powerful and influential. That is why it is one of the reasons so many who have the responsibility to do what is right and lawful has been difficult for many, but should not be the impossible, for with God all things are possible.

British Statesman Edmund Burke has been quoted as saying, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.