In the words of Mortimer Zuckerman, hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper.
"The hope that fired up the election of Barack Obama has flickered out, leaving a national mood of despair and disappointment. Americans are dispirited over how wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again. Hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper."
– Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, US News & World Report, July 2, 2010
This from a man who on Fox News recently said he voted for Obama, his newspaper, the New York Daily News, endorsed Obama, and that he even helped one of his speeches!
The problem is an ancient one. How to remove from office a king or, in a republic, an elected leader who has broken the law and/or is perceived to be a threat to both the present and future of the nation? In earlier eras, the solution was usually bloody.
"Who will rid me of this meddling priest?" England's King Henry II was reputed to have said of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1170, his complaint was obliged when Becket was murdered on a cold December evening.
I cite this famous quote only because the tide is rising among Americans who would be rid of Barack Obama. I would never suggest or condone the sword, but surely one would think we the People might have recourse to the courts or Congress.
The fear in both the courts and Congress is the torturous process involved and, of course, the outcome.
Twice in our history, impeachment has been tried and failed, first with Andrew Johnson whose Reconstruction policies following the Civil War were in much disfavor and, in more recent times, with Bill Clinton whose perjuries and other problems were not deemed to rise to a level worthy of removing him from office. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
The Constitution stipulates that, "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."
The drawback of impeachment is the way it would inevitably cast Obama as the victim of predatory politicians. It is not a good choice.
Presumably, lying about one's eligibility to hold the office of President and spending huge sums to ensure that one's birth certificate and actual place of birth shall remain unknown would justify removal.
We all know by now that, constitutionally, only a "natural born" citizen may serve as President. Obama's father was a British citizen and both parents must be American to qualify as natural born. We all know that considerable controversy exists as regards the birthplace and citizenship status of Obama. Was he a Kenyan? Was he an Indonesian citizen at one point?
The enduring question on the minds of many is why the court cases filed to get at the facts regarding his eligibility have encountered so much resistance. Surely this is a matter of major national concern. What nation would permit an imposter to serve in its highest office?
Alas, early cases were dismissed when those bringing them were deemed to have no "standing" before the court though one might think the lowliest citizen should have standing.
As wrenching as the process of removing Obama from office via the judicial process might be deemed, there is no legitimate reason not to proceed.
There appears to be no evidence his birth was registered with the American embassy or consulate in Kenya. I have seen a photo of a document said to be his Kenyan birth certificate. Having no way to authenticate it, I am reluctant to pass judgment.
The birth certificate from Hawaii, offered during the 2008 campaign, is said to be one issued upon request as opposed to the "long form" issued for those actually born there. There was some question raised at the time as to its authenticity with allegations that it was photoshopped. There is a question whether a long form certificate exists.
My personal view is that many in government fear the consequences of removing even an illegitimate President from office, given that it would require that all legislation signed into law and all executive orders issued by him would be rendered invalid. I suspect some fear that chaos more than waiting and hoping the electoral process will end his term in 2012.
My problem is that the nation must endure some 900 more days of the malevolence or sheer incompetence he will initiate; including a lame duck session of Congress following the midterm elections that would impose Cap-and-Trade, card check, and other legislative abominations.
A large majority of the electorate presently wants Obamacare repealed and will likely feel the same about the alleged financial "reforms."
There are constitutional scholars who know far more about such things than me, but I confess to remaining baffled by the failure to attend to the critical question regarding the right of Barack Hussein Obama to be the President of the United States.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ryan Renell, IC Politics. IC Politics said: Ridding Ourselves of Obama: In the words of Mortimer Zuckerman, hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has p… http://bit.ly/ckpqKw [...]
I have thought a possible way to push for impeachment of our Dictator in the Making. We could also make it a requirement at the state level for Senators to actively pursue impeachment of a President who goes to war unconstitutionally or who continues unconstitutional wars. Senators who did not do so would be recalled to their States, tried, and jailed for failing to uphold the Constitution.
For what it's worth, the U.S. Congress has not formally declared war on any nation since World War II. I am no constitutional scholar, but since we have fought in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan since then, one must assume they were "deemed" constitutional, though I too have my doubts.
In each of our undeclared wars, presidents have gotten authorization and funding from Congress without requesting the constitutionally specified declaration of war. The various congressional resolutions allow a president to prosecute a war and get our military funded without the debates and conflicts that typically surround our undeclared wars. Congress did pass the War Powers Act of 1973, given public opposition to the Vietnam War, but no congress since then has ever seriously tried to use the act against a war-making president.
There is some reason to think that the act itself would be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because it violates the separation of powers. The violation consists in Congress trying to reign in the president who is, constitutionally, commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the US.
Under the new theory of the "unitary executive," developed by Stanford constitutional lawyer John Yoo, and defended by such right-wing intellectuals as Harvard's Harvey Mansfield, Jr., the president has virtually unlimited power to act to defend the nation, a view Bush 43 clearly loved. De facto, Obama has continued to operate on this basis.
So, like it or not, the US has had, for over half a century, the practice firmly in place of waging undeclared wars. Don't expect this to change in your lifetime or mine.
As for Obama's legitimacy, I just wish birthers would give this a rest. Pounding away at this makes conservatives sound like cranks (except to other conservatives). For us liberals, the birther theory is just one short step away from black helicopters and reverse engineered alien spacecraft now operated by the Council for Foreign Relations, George Soros, and the Bilderbergers.
Gestell, under the laws in effect when Obama was born it is clear that Obama's mother could not confer citizenship on her child if said child was born outside the United States. This issue makes the Hawaiian certificate of live birth unusable as proof of citizenship let alone native. When you consider the native born requirement, if Obama was actually born in Hawaii, his father was Kenyan therefore Obama was a British citizen as well as defacto Kenyan.
There is enough doubt to suggest clarification is necessary. Unfortunately the unwashed public believes what they are fed by the media. Fact: at the time of the Obama birth certificates of live birth were issued whether or not the individual was born in Hawaii. Fact: at Obama's birth his mother was under 18 therefore unable to confer citizenship on a child born outside the US. Fact: Obama's father was not a US citizen. Fact: Obama went to school in Indonesia where citizenship was required for attendance.
A court case examining the facts could defuse the entire birth situation or cause a constitutional crisis. The only thing that bothers me about getting rid of the pretender is that the VP seems to have an IQ hovering around zero.