High Crimes and Misdemeanors

It is always good to start with definitions when dealing with subjects like this. So let’s start there and then see if any of Obama’s actions would qualify. Please remember it doesn’t take repeat offenses, any more than any other law does. If you’ve done it then the consequences apply. I took the following from Wikipedia.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Let’s take a look at each of these and see if we can find any cases where these would apply?

Compliance with Congress

We have already on several Occasions where Eric Holder has said one thing under oath and then said something else; yet it has taken more than 18 months for a contempt of congress vote to happen. What is the matter with these people? Oh gee, we don’t want to cause a ruckus. WHAT ABOUT YOUR JOB!!! Perjury of Oath, refusal to Obey a Lawful Order.

Fast and Furious

The Fast and Furious gun running in general falls under at least several categories: abuse of authority, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming.

Defense of Marriage Act

Refusal by the president to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act: Abuse of Authority, intimidation, dereliction of duty, refusal to obey a lawful order.

Solyndra

Bribery?, Misuse of Assets,

New Immigration Policy

Abuse of Authority, Intimidation, Refusal to Obey a Lawful Order

Auto Bailout

Investors pushed to the back of the line when it comes to the bankruptcy. Abuse of Authority, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, Refusal to Obey a Lawful Order.

You may wonder why I keep saying refusal to obey a lawful order on so many of these, but that is because there are already laws on the books regarding what is to be done and this administration seems to think they don’t need to obey the law. If they don’t like it they just don’t obey it and declare by executive order that they don’t need to. One of the chief jobs of the executive branch is to enforce the laws.

Arizona Immigration Issues

In the case of Arizona the president through the Attorney General has not only determined not to enforce or help enforce the immigration law, but he has even made sure they are sued over it. He is now preventing the federal government from giving them any assistance in identifying illegal immigrants thus gutting the rest of what the Supreme Court would not.

His job is to support the immigration laws and defend the United States against enemies both foreign and domestic. This insurgence of illegal immigrants would seem to fall under this category and yet the president refuses to do anything about it. On what basis is this being done? The only basis that seems to apply is that he disagrees with it and it’s not politically expedient. So again we have Abuse of authority, intimidation, misuse of assets and refusal to obey the law.

Cabinet Appointments

Obama decides to make several cabinet appointments simply declaring that congress is out of session when they’re not. This is a violation of the constitution which he swore to uphold and defend. Abuse of Authority, Intimidation, Refusal to Obey a Lawful Order.

On the part of Congress we might also say it was Dereliction of Duty. They should have confronted the president about it and made him take back his appointments but again they just let it stand thus eroding their constitutional responsibilities and rights even further. For this all of congress should be held responsible for high crimes and misdemeanors. If they are not willing to faithfully do the jobs we sent them there to do then they need to be put out of office immediately. They have a job to do and they do answer to the American people or at least they are supposed to.

At what point do a president’s decisions become high crimes and misdemeanors? At what point will the congress decide to stand up and assume the power it has as the 3^rd branch of government? It would seem the congress doesn’t think they have any power to stop the president. If they do know they have power they are certainly too afraid to exercise it.

Obama has selectively applied laws or not as he pleases. He has bypassed congress and created his own immigration law, something the executive branch is not allowed to do. He has determined not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act and the list goes on. Whether the reason is for political purposes or the more simple power grab and seeing just how far congress will let him go doesn’t really matter. When he determined to rewrite immigration law on his own every said it was just because of political reasons like this somehow justifies it, or as though this means there’s nothing congress or anyone else can do about.

As I said in the title… What are high crimes and misdemeanors and at what point do the things Obama’s doing warrant such a charge. You would think he had to murder someone before it qualified for a high crime. Is this really what the founders thought?

At what point is enough, enough?! Does he need to commit 100 of these high crimes and misdemeanors? He is DETERMINED to ignore the constitution, and we are RELUCTANT to enforce it. What are people afraid of, that he’ll say they’re doing it because they’re racists? Isn’t this getting just a little bit old? Right out of the gate it’s clear that’s not the case or he wouldn’t have been elected president in the first place; so please let’s dispense with that tired cliché.

These are only a few examples of issues that have happened with this president and still our congress is intimidated to do anything. These were considered impeachable offenses by the founding fathers. Consider the words of Thomas Jefferson below…

I have spoken of the Federalists as if they were a homogeneous body, but this not the truth. Under that name lurks the heretical sect of monarchists. Afraid to wear their own name, they creep under the mantle of Federalism, and the Federalists, like sheep permit the fox to take shelter among them, when pursued by dogs.

These men have no right to office. If a monarchist be in office, anywhere, and it be known to the president, the oath he has taken to support the Constitution imperiously requires the instantaneous dismission of such office; and I hold the President criminal if he permitted such to remain. To appoint a monarchist to conduct the affairs of a republic, is like appointing an atheist to the priesthood. (Thomas Jefferson - From a newspaper letter, June 1803, Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 10 Vols. [New York; G.P. Putnam's Sons 1892-1899 8:237)

Yet we now have a man who is a Marxist/socialist as our president and everyone seems to feel that he has a right to his political views. The point of Thomas Jefferson’s writing was that someone opposed to the constitution had no right in office, ANY OFFICE and certainly it was grounds to get him out of the presidency.

So where is congress!!!!