…GOP Texas Congressman Steve Stockman, who has said he’ll file articles of impeachment against President Obama if the President uses executive orders to enact new gun control measures. Here he is in his own words:
Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”
“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.
Supposing the House did vote to impeach, which it won’t. Then suppose the Senate took it to trial, which it won’t. (Harry Reid won’t even discuss a constitutionally-mandated budget — going on four years now. Skipping out on a trial to remove the President from office is nothing.) Then the Senate would hold an extraordinary lopsided vote to retain Obama in office, including enough Republicans for all the bipartisan cover anyone could ever want.
In the meantime — in the weeks and months it would take to get all these things done, supposing they could get done — the MSM and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) would have endless excuses to paint the GOP as the Crazy Party. And in a sense, they’d even be right.
Optics matter in politics, and politicians rarely look crazier than when they’re tilting at windmills. So Congressman Stockman is being just a little bit nuts if he thinks waving around articles of impeachment is helping his party or the Second Amendment.
Once Clinton decided to fight VRWC and not resign (which would have easily led to a AlGore presidency, but that’s another story), I think he shrewdly maneuvered GOP into impeaching him, thus inoculating any Democrat president from impeachment threat probably for 10 generations, if there even is anything like a US Constitution that far into the future.
If Obama signs Executive Orders restricting gun rights and it goes unchallenged by Congress, there is no U.S. Constitution now. The Republic would be over.
Yet, you might have noticed, Stephen, that a quarter to a third of the posters here denigrate the Republican leadership as RINOs for NOT bringing articles of impeachment despite the compelling arguments against it. Mel Laird famously said in reply to President Nixon’s assertion that the Congress had no evidence against him, “Mr. President, they don’t evidence, they just need votes.” Impeachment is just crazy talk with the small majority in the House and a Democrat controlled Senate.
Executive Orders have to be within the scope of specific statutory and Constitutional authority. If Comrade Obama tries to rule by decree, then the proper response is to go to the place where evidence and argument, not votes, can prevail; the courts. Of course, as we recently saw, sometimes votes count there too.
Yeah, he’s CRAZY to believe in the Constitution. How CRAZY must he be to think we shouldn’t have to tolerate tyranny!
How dare a Congresscritter actually do his job and observe his oath of office!
Good for Stockman.
Optics?
Dude, you’re drunk all the time. What kind of optics is that?
Um Mr Green?
I think you are on the wrong side of this one.
Step back from the bottle and realize that this might be the issue most of us “out here” care about
We need to keep pushing the message that the insanity is on the part of a President who wipes his ass on the Constitution, and a Senate who cheers him on. In the meantime, if you want “bad optics,” I suggest you turn your cameras on 10,000 middle-class Americans who are going to be perp-walked for refusing to submit to the President’s pending gun-grab.
Let’s game out how those Executive Orders would be implemented.
Who’s the enforcer? The FBI? US Marshals? State and Local Police? County Sheriffs? Are people placed under arrest people for violations?
How would the trials proceed? What “law” would be cited?
I don’t say Bambi cannot do it, but it might open the door to further ridicule such tin-pot assertions. And the power of ridicule can be substantial.
Mr. Green, with all due respect, there are further implications in your stand. I am not saying, by the way, that impeachment is a “good” option. But that all others are worse.
1) The “Gun Control” Executive Orders would be nothing less than the establishment of the legal precedent of the President of the United States assuming the power to rule by decree in direct contravention of the terms of the Constitution as already interpreted by the court system you would depend on.
2) It takes up to 4 years to have a case heard in Federal Court, twice that for the appeals chain. During that period, Obama [and any putative successors] would be free to rule by decree at will.
3) Counting the votes in the Supreme Court is not only or even largely a matter of law. The highly ideological Supreme Court follows politics, avoids direct confrontations with the other branches, and in any case is already in the hands of the Left. When Chief Justice Roberts suddenly reversed himself on the Obamacare decision [what became the dissent in the case was actually the text of what was originally going to be the majority opinion written by Roberts before he changed sides without warning to his colleagues], his majority opinion included the ruling that Obamacare was in fact unconstitutional under one part of the Constitution, but since it included a tax, it was constitutional in his view because taxes can over-ride the Bill of Rights. That kind of sudden reversal means in real life [and I am a retired Peace Officer who has seen this before, professionally] that someone has been gotten to, and is under the control of the person who benefits from the reversal.
3) This is a conflict between the 3 Branches over a Constitutional issue. If the courts are neither timely, likely to intervene, and fairly sure to rule for the demise of the Constitution, the only alternative for a stand is the Legislative.
4) The only tools the Legislative has to oppose the Executive are a) the power of the purse, and b) impeachment. The Legislative has had the power of the purse taken away from them. Or perhaps more accurately has purposely given it away with both hands. The Democrat Senate is only loyal to the Democratic Party, and not the Constitution. The Republicans in the Senate and the House have a years long track record of refusing to stand and fight the Democrats. We have not had a constitutional budget for 5 years [and Senator Reid says we will not have one for a few more years], and the White House is again in violation of Federal law in reference to required budget submissions. Ain’t gonna happen.
That leaves impeachment. I do not argue that your prediction of what is going to happen is not broadly accurate. But it is the only form of resistance to the usurpation of powers that can take place, be public, and have a chance of being resolved before a full blown dictatorship is in place. While I have no confidence in the ability or desire of the Institutional Republicans make a stand, winning or losing that battle will be of pivotal importance for the future of the nation. A failure to fight means yielding the Constitution forever.
If they refuse to stand and fight, or deliberately botch it, it will mean that the Institutional Republicans will have their Whig Party moment sooner rather than later. Which will also clarify the issues before the entire country and put us that much farther towards the “Re-Constitution” [sorry, had to do it] of the country. If somehow they do fight credibly, it will still clarify the issues, and may delay the imposition of the dictatorship.
There is another outside possibility that the Republicans might try, and in fact its forlorn nature means that it is far more probable than it deserves. They could try to overturn the Executive Orders with a statute. If it passes the House, it will die in the Senate, and the Institutional Republicans can then yield to the White House while claiming that they tried. That won’t prevent the Whig moment, just delay it; which would be their goal.
I may be missing something. If I am, I would appreciate any corrections you may offer.
Subotai Bahadur
No you’re right, you have the better argument. Impeachment should take 5 minutes, it will be on Reid’s desk for 5 msecs on it’s way to the circular file.
Contra Moran, these Democrats want nothing reasonable, and employ no reasonable means. There is no one there to compromise with.
The GOP did not have the right man or path with Romney.
Time to try something new.
If the man intends to create law by diktat, doing worse is a matter of his humility and imagination.