Red James Cash
Banned
- Aug 20, 2009
- 12,824
- 7,899
- Detector(s) used
- Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Forbes Magazine: Impeach Obama For Rejecting the Constitution Instead of Protecting It
truther November 25, 2013
Allison Martinez
It is no longer a fringe idea, but quite mainstream. Indeed, it is long overdue. In fact, if the things that Barack Obama has done had been done by George Bush, I think the people would have long over-ran the White House and removed him themselves.
Forbes Magazine is now calling for he impeachment of President Barack Obama. The author of the editorial is M. Northrup Buechner, who is an Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University of New York. He is an avid writer in the field of Objective Economics, and is closely aligned with the writings of Ayn Rand. There is no disclaimer with the editorial. Buechner begins with a brief backdrop into the waivers granted by the Affordable Healthcare Act, or Obamacare. By unilaterally waiving the employer mandate, which he has done five times, he is legislating without authority.
Then he delves into the heart of the matter, the violations of the constitution.
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing law. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point, what limitations, if any, he does accept.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can re-write laws–and since this is a principle–not just this law, but any law.
The main responsibility the constitution assigns the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change and ignore laws he does not like, then what?
Buechner then considers several scenarios, not of them positive, regarding constitutional checks and balances. They are paraphrased below:
a)If the President can ignore laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. … in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant.
b)Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated the United States Supreme Court Justices… during the 2010 State of the Union Address. The lack of respect for the Supreme Court by the Obama Administration is manifest.
c) Obama has repeatedly talked about a system that is more “fair.” But that “fairness” requires the force of the state to enforce it. Buechner then ponders what country could possibly be more fair than the United States?
d) If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, then the denouement would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces. It would suddenly become obvious that Americans have been living in a Banana Republic.
While Buechner doesn’t point it out, we all know that our military is being refashioned to some other end.
Buechner reveals the shocking fact is that our system of government depends upon a leader who actually believes in its ideas and principles. When you have a president who does not, you put the system in jeopardy. That is how fragile our Republic is.
Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed.
In the end, Buechner states that we are losing our Republic. We all need to find a way to shout “No! Not Now! Not Yet! Not Ever! “
My question for Buehner is this, if Obama rejects the Congress and the Supreme Court, what good is impeachment at this point?
truther November 25, 2013
Allison Martinez
It is no longer a fringe idea, but quite mainstream. Indeed, it is long overdue. In fact, if the things that Barack Obama has done had been done by George Bush, I think the people would have long over-ran the White House and removed him themselves.
Forbes Magazine is now calling for he impeachment of President Barack Obama. The author of the editorial is M. Northrup Buechner, who is an Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University of New York. He is an avid writer in the field of Objective Economics, and is closely aligned with the writings of Ayn Rand. There is no disclaimer with the editorial. Buechner begins with a brief backdrop into the waivers granted by the Affordable Healthcare Act, or Obamacare. By unilaterally waiving the employer mandate, which he has done five times, he is legislating without authority.
Then he delves into the heart of the matter, the violations of the constitution.
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing law. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point, what limitations, if any, he does accept.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can re-write laws–and since this is a principle–not just this law, but any law.
The main responsibility the constitution assigns the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change and ignore laws he does not like, then what?
Buechner then considers several scenarios, not of them positive, regarding constitutional checks and balances. They are paraphrased below:
a)If the President can ignore laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. … in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant.
b)Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated the United States Supreme Court Justices… during the 2010 State of the Union Address. The lack of respect for the Supreme Court by the Obama Administration is manifest.
c) Obama has repeatedly talked about a system that is more “fair.” But that “fairness” requires the force of the state to enforce it. Buechner then ponders what country could possibly be more fair than the United States?
d) If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, then the denouement would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces. It would suddenly become obvious that Americans have been living in a Banana Republic.
While Buechner doesn’t point it out, we all know that our military is being refashioned to some other end.
Buechner reveals the shocking fact is that our system of government depends upon a leader who actually believes in its ideas and principles. When you have a president who does not, you put the system in jeopardy. That is how fragile our Republic is.
Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed.
In the end, Buechner states that we are losing our Republic. We all need to find a way to shout “No! Not Now! Not Yet! Not Ever! “
My question for Buehner is this, if Obama rejects the Congress and the Supreme Court, what good is impeachment at this point?
