In just four short months, President Barack Obama has unofficially suspended the Constitution and the rule of law. Without the authorization of Congress or the consent of the people, he has nationalized America’s premier industrial business and placed generations of citizens yet unborn under the burden of unsupportable debt. In the process, he has declared de facto war on capitalism.
Adhering to the philosophy of Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx and following the lead of Hugo Chavez, he seems to be on a path that will place him in complete control of the government within a very short time. By appointing a series of Czars, with unprecedented powers reporting only to him, above the heads of Cabinet departments authorized by Congress, he has effectively taken control of the key government bureaucracies, most of which are unconstitutional to begin with.
George Washington, in 1796 warned of the danger of a charismatic leader getting control of a dominant political party in a time of crisis, and using his position as a springboard to despotism, to the detriment of liberty and freedom. With uncanny accuracy, he described the ascension of Barack Obama.
The election of Obama to the office of President is shaping up to be the most colossal mistake ever made by the American electorate in the history of our nation. There are three seemingly insurmountable obstacles to correcting that mistake; (1) the unsupportable optimism of the American people that refuses to believe any President could ever aspire to a position of totalitarian power, (2) seventy-five years of conditioning by the incremental advances of liberalism that prepared us to accept totalitarianism without being aware of it, and (3) the blasé temperament of the average citizen that keeps them in ignorance of political reality.
We can accept the yoke of socialist tyranny, or we can cast off that yoke before it becomes so entrenched it cannot be removed without armed revolution. Based on the speed with which Obama has moved to consolidate his power during his first months in office, waiting until 2012 or 2014 to take decisive action will condemn future generations to a wretchedness never before experienced in our history. Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers left us the means of correcting our mistakes in choosing leaders, without the use of violence or resorting to arms.
Success depends on the American people deciding they value their liberties more than the idle promises of socialism. Reversing the damage administration policies have already done, and will continue to do, to our economy and our freedom will require elected representatives with a level of patriotism not seen since the Continental Congress of 1776. It will require the replacement of most of our elected officials, including those who “bring home the bacon” to our own communities.
The first step is to elect only candidates with a clear understanding of and fidelity to the Constitution. In addition, they must have the courage to stand in opposition to those who insist on ignoring or violating the Constitution even when it seems politically unpopular to do so. If we are to turn control of Congress back to the people, we must reject any elected official of whichever party, that has shown an ignorance of the Constitution or a willingness to ignore it in order to support unconstitutional policies for political expediency. The 2010 elections are critical to our future as a free republic.
The second step is to establish a very real threat of recall for any elected or appointed official who violates his or her oath of office by violating or ignoring the requirements of the Constitution by usurping authority not delegated to them by the Constitution. Many states have provisions for recall in their constitutions. The Founders incorporated a similar provision in the Constitution, although it remains unrecognized by the average citizen and unacknowledged by the average politician. The recall provision in the Constitution by which officials may be removed from office is seldom used other than in partisan political squabbles between the two parties. However, that does not mean it is not a valid instrument for enforcing fidelity to the Constitution. The authority for recall is found in Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution,
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Politicians have done a good job of misleading the American people into believing the grounds for impeachment is limited to criminal activities such as treason, bribery and other forms of corruption. They are able to do this because few citizens understand the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, those who debated and eventually agreed on the wording of the Constitution were quite familiar with the phrase.
Ilona Nickels, of C-Span gives us some insight into the meaning of the phrase.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment — treason and bribery — were not enough. He worried that other “great and dangerous offenses” might not be covered, and suggested adding the word “maladministration.” Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase well known in English common law. In 18th century language, a “misdemeanor” meant “mis-demeanor,” or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while “high crimes” was roughly equivalent to “great offenses.”
In 1974 during the “Watergate Scandal” of Richard Nixon, the House Judiciary Committee identified three categories in which Congress had issued articles of impeachment in the past: “(1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.”
The sole purpose of impeachment is for the removal from office of officials who fail to fulfill their oath of office or effectively execute their duties. That impeachment is unrelated to criminal activity is further indicated by the clause in Article 1, Section 3,
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
In the next election, voters need to execute a wholesale replacement of elected officials in both parties, to be followed by holding those elected accountable for enforcing adherence to the Constitution. Fidelity to the Constitution is not a political question; it is a question of freedom. Those who argue that the meaning of the Constitution is a matter of interpretation are being intellectually dishonest and endeavoring to advance their own agenda ahead of the welfare of the American people.