Time to Think – Suing the Executive Branch, a Primer

Editor’s Note – Of late, the ‘I-word’ has been thrown about liberally in relation to not only Obama, but also in relation to some of his cabinet, including AG Eric Holder. Great legal and political minds correctly determined that today, impeachment is a political solution to a legal problem. They are thinkers, not emotional, ideological reactionaries.

Additionally, it is likely impossible to proceed through to a successful conviction in the Senate due to politics anyway. But that does not leave much room left to alleviate a certain problem, an epic problem, – over-reach by the Executive Branch, usurping the power of the Legislative Branch.SCRAPBOOK.v18-47.Aug26.Ramirez.preview

There is a grave legal issue before us, a constitutional issue at crisis level and it is therefore up to the third branch to decide the issue between the other two branches, the Judiciary. Thomas Sowell asks, “has thinking become obsolete?” It has when politicians rely on people being ill-informed. It is time for thinkers, time to become informed.

The House therefore decided to bring suit, and passed a resolution to do so along party lines. This invites political grand-standing, but the question is why the left cheered when Obama spoke about his ‘pen and phone’ in his last State of the Union speech.

Why would sitting Congressman cheer about losing their own power, diluting their ability to represent their constituents of all stripes in their districts?

Therefore a ploy has been launched by the President’s supporters, the Democrat Party, and the White House itself to muddy the waters with talk of impeachment, to confuse America and diminish the real problem. “Sue me,” is the other childish retort to gin up his base, but there are very real reasons to sue, in a focused and detailed adult fashion.

It is time to think, not time to make more “Kool-Aid.” Time to think, just ask Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee R-TX, about impeachment and thinking. Some think and beat the drum that this is a frivolous lawsuit, we counter that it is time think, not run smear campaigns.

The left also loves to trot out the volume of Executive Orders each previous President has signed, but it has nothing to do with quantity. Rather, it is what the individual order covered, and what action each entailed. With this President, it is all about the details, which he always strives to keep hidden. Effectively, Obama has created a fourth branch – the “Pen and Phone” branch.

In order to help you understand what Speaker Bohner and the House are actually doing, we are posting two articles that we recommend you read thoroughly. The first is a question and answer session on the suit the House is bringing, and the second is a ten-point lesson on the details of the over reach:

Q&A: Ten Things You Need to Know About Boehner Suing Obama

By Elizabeth Slattery – Daily Signal

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to authorize Speaker John Boehner to file a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s failure to fully implement Obamacare. Specifically, the lawsuit will challenge the administration’s delay of the employer mandate—requiring many employers to provide health insurance or pay a fine—that was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1. It’s clear President Obama repeatedly has abused executive power to circumvent Congress and essentially rewrite the law, but this lawsuit still raises a host of questions.

Q1: Can you sue the president?CanCongressSue

Yes. Presidents enjoy immunity from lawsuits for civil damages resulting from their official acts, but they are not immune from all lawsuits. For example, the Supreme Court allowed Paula Jones’ suit for sexual harassment against President Clinton to proceed while he was in office. Further, members of Congress have filed dozens of lawsuits against presidents over the years. Most have been unsuccessful, usually because members fail to allege a sufficient injury. Since Boehner’s lawsuit will deal with implementing Obamacare, the suit likely will be brought against Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell and other executive branch officials charged with carrying out the law. It’s possible Obama won’t actually be named in the lawsuit.

Q2: Who will represent the House in court?

The House’s Office of General Counsel routinely represents the House in legal disputes, such as suits to enforce congressional subpoenas or the Speech and Debate Clause. In the past, the House also has hired outside counsel, such as when the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to handle the Defense of Marriage Act litigation.

Q3: How will this lawsuit be funded?

As with past lawsuits, the House will appropriate funds to pay for the litigation. The Committee on House Administration will make public quarterly statements in the Congressional Record detailing expenses.

Q4: Does the Senate have a role?

The Senate probably is not required to join in the lawsuit. Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, members of Congress have standing to assert personal injuries or direct and concrete institutional injuries. In Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court found a group of state senators demonstrated a sufficient institutional injury even though the suit was brought by 26 members of one chamber.

Q5: Why would the House sue when it has other remedies?

Boehner has determined filing a lawsuit will be the most effective way to rein in the executive branch. Other remedies do exist—mainly appropriations and impeachment—but they require the Senate’s involvement. The House could try to leverage appropriations to encourage the president to faithfully execute the law, but as Boehner has pointed out, the Democratic Senate could refuse to pass such an appropriations bill. Similarly, impeachment requires conviction by two-thirds of the Senate. Although Boehner’s lawsuit may face obstacles, it would not require Senate concurrence.

Q6: What happens if Obama loses?

Courts routinely enforce statutory mandates, such as the express deadlines in Obamacare that the executive branch has “relaxed.” Concerns the president would ignore the courts likely are unfounded. Even though Obama has complained about his losses, “There is no case in which he completely refused to follow a Supreme Court ruling he lost,” said Todd Gaziano, executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Washington, D.C., center.

Q7: What happens if Boehner loses?

Before a court considers the merits of Boehner’s lawsuit, it first must decide whether the House has standing to bring this suit. If a court determines Boehner failed to establish Article III standing (a constitutional requirement for all lawsuits), it would result in dismissal of the case, but it would not mean the court agrees the president acted properly. If the suit is dismissed, it’s possible a private party may file suit, although the lack of private parties is one reason Boehner says his lawsuit is necessary. After members of Congress failed in their challenge to the Line Item Veto Act in Raines v. Byrd in 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the law when the City of New York and a group of private parties challenged it the next year.

Smear campaigns abound!
Smear campaigns abound!

Q8: Didn’t Bush issue more executive orders than Obama?

Yes, but that is irrelevant to Boehner’s lawsuit. Executive orders are directives issued by the president to run the various parts of the executive branch—ranging from George Washington’s proclamation calling on the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion to Harry Truman’s order desegregating the armed forces. Most executive orders throughout our nation’s history are perfectly appropriate and non-controversial. Boehner’s lawsuit does not address Obama’s use of executive orders per se. Instead, the suit will challenge his failure to faithfully execute the law. The American Presidency Project, which has cataloged every executive order, says Bush issued 291 executive orders, Obama has issued 183 to date, and Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the most with more than 3,500.

Q9: Will this open the floodgates for Congress and the Executive Branch to turn to the courts to resolve their disputes?

No. There have been plenty of lawsuits brought by members of Congress against presidents and other executive branch officials in the past. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that courts should not entertain “sore loser” suits where members of Congress sue over a vote they lost. This suit will not change the judiciary’s reluctance to get involved in political disputes between the other branches of government.

Q10: Now that the House has authorized the suit, what happens next?

The Wall Street Journal reports the House “isn’t expected to bring the suit for at least another month.” The House Office of General Counsel and any outside lawyers that will be involved in the case likely are deciding which court would be most advantageous and drafting the complaint which will lay out specific allegations as well as the relief the House will seek in its lawsuit.

Peter Bigelow contributed to preparing this Q&A.

President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

By Ilya Shapiro – Forbes

One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”wecantwait

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation.Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

ElectKingObama

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department ofEducation’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Happy New Year!

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

This is why it is all about politics on the left as conservatives try to save the balance of power through thought and a law suit.
This is why it is all about politics on the left as conservatives try to save the balance of power through thought and a law suit.

Resolution of “No Confidence” –Obama Must Go Now

Editor’s Note – MG Vallely is following up on his most recent article to further help the reader understand his point of view. Here is the link to that article or click on the title in his article below.

By MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army-Ret.

MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)
MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)

As the President vacations in Hawaii for the holidays, we finally gain a moment or two here at year’s end to examine what just happened. What level of confidence or trust do we have in him now? This is now a time to digest the overwhelming flurry of events, words, speeches, and activities that have occurred in recent months, and then we must apply these lessons learned to the past five years. Having done so, you may very well arrive at the same simple conclusion I have, sans his voice and messaging schemes drowning out our own thoughts on these issues?

As most of you know, I have already achieved a level of ‘no confidence’ in Obama as a leader, but now I urge you to examine this concept while you come up for air during this short respite. If you agree with me that all confidence is lost, I urge you to then ask yourself what is in the realm of the possible. I implore you to push aside the urge to try and fix everything in one fell swoop.

In my recent article The “Uber-Presidency” – Time for a ‘Vote of No Confidence’, Time for a ‘Recall’, I laid out the argument in as short a manner as possible but with enough reference, expert opinion, facts and more to drive the point home and I hope you take the time to read it in full if you have not done so already.

In short, now is the time for something a dear friend calls “conviction without eviction,” an end that can be brought on through a vote of no confidence, locally, statewide, and nationally. This is just a first step in what can only be repaired over time, but it is achievable in the short term, and starts to remove Obama’s ability to continue his ruinous ways now. We cannot possibly believe that impeachment is attainable, and we know he will never resign, but at least we can show other leaders the way; show our collective voices that we have no confidence in him, or the system.no-confidence

I want to defuse the “nuclear options”, and take the ‘personal’ aspect out of the equation where all sides attack and defend their stances. What I urge you to do is to examine it all on a level of confidence that is yours, one you own. You are not calling anyone names, or labeling others. You are not trying to encapsulate each and every event; rather, what you are doing is telling the world that “I have no confidence in him or his team anymore.” They cannot take that away from you or attack you for it.

Think about this as you read the full transcript of his year-end press conference where he closed by saying:

“…the team I have now is tireless and shares my values, and believes the thing that I think I have repeated probably four or five times in this press conference, which is we get this incredible privilege for a pretty short period of time to do as much as we can for as many people as we can to help them live better lives.”

If you believe he and his team has been doing that, believe it, but not for what he says, rather, for what he has ruinously done. Please ask yourself this: “Am I better off because of his efforts?” When you add it all up, do you have confidence that 2014 is going to be a year of action you will benefit from as he stated? More from the Press Conference:

“…and I firmly believe that 2014 can be a breakthrough year for America.”

“…let me repeat: I think 2014 needs to be a year of action.”

“We’ve got to build on the process we’ve painstakingly made over these last five years with respect to our economy and offer the middle class and all those who are looking to join the middle class a better opportunity.”

“And let me conclude by saying just as we’re strengthening our position here at home, we’re also standing up for our interests around the world.”

If you honestly search your thoughts, it is clear that he has likely lost your confidence in him; he has lost our trust, and he has lost our respect. Can we believe anything he says anymore? Can we rely on a system that changes almost daily and prevents families and industry from planning anything? Can we rest easy all the while hoping some new fiat or Executive Order doesn’t befall us tomorrow at his whim? Can our allies trust him? The answer is clearly NO.

A vote of ‘No Confidence,’ albeit symbolic, at least focuses the discussion on something you can own as I own. This ownership is in your opinion; one based in fact and close analysis, not in emotion, ‘talking points’ or ulterior motives.

If asked or challenged tomorrow by his supporters that my lack of confidence is a political ploy, I will say no, I own my conclusions, I own my opinions, and I have a deep sense of NO CONFIDENCE in Obama. The House of Representatives must follow our lead and take up a resolution of no confidence as well as its very first act in 2014.

The “Uber-Presidency” – Time for a ‘Vote of No Confidence’, Time for a ‘Recall’

By Paul E. Vallely (Major General, US Army, ret.)

Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history. It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence, it’s time for a ‘recall’.

MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)
MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)

We are only surviving now, not thriving, and it is clear that the country is demanding new leadership; not the ones the media and the entrenched political machines force upon us.

America is seeking proven leaders, those who are experienced, trustworthy, and loyal; people like our retired military officers. These are the only ones unsullied by political debt or tainted by monied obligations. At this crucial moment, these are the only people who can do the job.

It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people. We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder.

Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved ObamaCare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the Tea Party caucus which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.

Vote+Of+No+Confidence+424127_226493830782362_1728183

Power likes to stay in power; we need to remove that power. The party in power under Obama has synchronized itself to one party rule, no other voice is permitted. It has also synchronized to a ‘single payer system.’

It is also time we reminded the Republican establishment that if not for the Tea Party, Nancy Pelosi would still be wielding the gavel in the House and Obama would be unrestrained beyond our wildest fears.

It has been just over one year since Obama was re-elected; do you think he would win if he had to face another election today with what we know now? Of course not! In less than a few months it is all unraveling and America has lost confidence in him.

Many who once supported him are now running for the hills. We were defrauded, America, and people are finally noticing and understanding what we have been telling you for five years.

Promise after promise, fraud after fraud, lie after lie, deception after deception, and then there are all those hidden items and the complete joke about being the most transparent administration ever. Even photographic journalists are now mad at how little access they get. Then there is the complete lack of accountability and stark ineptitude, home and abroad.

Let’s look at some of these examples

Excerpted from Obama’s Long List of Broken Promises. By Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine.

(This is obviously not all of the examples, but certainly it is a good sampling of the more outrageous ones. Some items were shortened for space.)

  • His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)boehner-pelosi-gavel-6390459ec62786beaa7e7ddb24240052a1d8c7d7-s6-c30
  • His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)
  • To be the most transparent presidency in history. (It’s not.)
  • To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on day one and continues.)
  • And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)
  • His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)
  • To treat super-PACs as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)
  • His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)
  • To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
  • To identify all those “shovel-ready” jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)
  • To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)
  • His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistence that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).
  • Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of the oceans. (It hasn’t.)
  • To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)
  • To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)
  • To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year–and nothing of consequence happened.)
  • That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)
  • gty_eric_holder_obama_thg_120620_wgAnd of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
  • And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of Gallup polling.)
  • Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)
  • And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

In his latest treatise on these subjects, Impeachment Lessons, Andy C. McCarthy tells us:

“Just as there is no mystery in Obama’s disregard for the Constitution, there is no secret about the Constitution’s answer to executive imperialism.

The Framers recognized that presidential abuse of power carried the greatest potential to wreck the republic.

Adamant that the presidency they were creating must not become a monarchy, they carried on debates over the Constitution that were consumed with precluding this very real possibility.

In the end, the Framers armed Congress with two responsive weapons: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment.

As we have seen through the years, the power of the purse is not a practical check on Obama. In the main, this is because the Framers, notwithstanding their prescient alarm over the problem of factions, did not anticipate the modern Left.”

Obama-constitution-burningAndy further states:

While Democrats quite intentionally defy the Framers’ design, Republicans frustrate it by aggressive passivity. The Constitution divides power by subject matter, not percentage of governmental control.

Nevertheless, Republicans incessantly tell supporters that, since they control only the House (just one-half of one-third of the government,” as the tired refrain goes), they are impotent to rein in Obama’s excesses.

Republican leadership turns on those conservatives with a ferocity rarely evident in their dealings with the president.

Two things, however, are certain. Absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up.

…and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed. (Read the whole column here.)

This “ferocity” was never more revealing than in a statement John Boehner made yesterday (excerpt from Fox News):

Ahead of the vote, Boehner sparred with the right flank of his party over the bill, produced out of weeks-long bipartisan negotiations. He specifically criticized conservative advocacy groups trying to pressure the rank-and-file to block the budget.

quotes-about-motivational_16828-1“Frankly, I think they’re misleading their followers,”… “I think they’re pushing our members into places where they don’t want to be. And frankly, I just think that they’ve lost all credibility.”

To which Matt Kibbe at Freedom Works responded:

“Speaker Boehner may not care about what fiscally conservative groups do, but grassroots Americans still care about what he’s doing in Washington…

When it comes to ‘credibility,’ actions speak louder than words. And right now, it looks like the Speaker is leading the charge for spending increases and recruiting Democrat votes in the House to help get it done.”

Time for a vote of “NO CONFIDENCE,” time to “RECALL” such faux leadership

A prominent Washington, D.C. insider with whom Stand Up America is coordinating — and who prefers to remain under the radar for the moment while conferring with potential House co-sponsors on both the basic rationale and the detailed content of such a House Resolution of NO CONFIDENCE — offers the following justification for this novel course of action:

First, in most of the world’s so-called “democracies” – actually, multi-party constitutional republics – a formal vote of “No Confidence” by the Lower House suspends or greatly limits the governing authority of the Party in power and, in a “Recall” of sorts, mandates new elections within 30-60 days.

Although we have no such instrument in our Constitution or in existing law, there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for Contempt of Congress, violations of Oath of Office and of the Constitution itself – for all of the reasons stated in such a Resolution.

Second, while most of the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” cited in pending Resolutions of Impeachment (and perhaps in new resolutions seeking Judicial Relief) would also be included in this Resolution, many lesser and largely “non-impeachable” reasons for disappointment, doubt, distress, distrust and detestation would be entirely appropriate – and would not require the high levels of legal proofs for a formal Impeachment by the House or for a formal Trial and Conviction by the Senate.wpid-UFPnews-tea-party-patriot-american-conservative-freedom-liberty-research-revolution-speech-universal-free-press-people-Obamacare-1

In effect, it would be much easier to cosponsor, to report to the House, to be formally adopted by the House and to achieve what might be called Obama’s “Conviction without Eviction” – in which wholesale repudiation by the House, loss of control of the Senate and a substantial diminution of power and influence during his remaining time in office would be the penalties.

Third, the “no confidence” targets of the Resolution will be so numerous as to require a dozen or more categories – within each of which several particular offenses will be briefly described and become what lawyers call the “Bill of Particulars” – which might number an incredible 60-75 items in all.

The credibility of our current leadership is gone, and now we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies, and all manner of chicanery. We know there is no ‘legal standing’ in a vote of “No Confidence” that would come of this act, but at least one thing will certainly occur; we take back the power of discourse.

We strangle those in power with our words loudly drowning out the tortured logic of their rhetoric and seize the day now. This includes the media.

What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama Administration?

How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?

What are we to do now that Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, has abolished the filibuster through the use of the ‘nuclear option’, effectively allowing yet another power grab by the executive branch?

These are but a few points to ponder as our nation races headlong into tyrannical centralized rule if we do not act now.

disciplinary procedure guide-resized-600Our nation is being kidnapped and we effectively have only a few ways to stop it. But these ways have many road blocks, and they take way too long to affect change. The founders never envisioned career politicians running any government, let alone a complicit media openly favoring one ideology.

They also did not anticipate technological advancements that created a 24-hour news cycle and such ease of communication. Therefore they did not give the people enough ‘teeth’ in the Constitution. This effectively allows groups to monopolize the discourse and apply tactics to further weaken the people.

The current administration and the Democrat Party know this and manipulate the system to prevent the people from gaining recourse for grievances. Republicans, although less nefarious by orders of magnitude, engage in some of these tactics, but they do not have the will to fight, especially against such entrenched enemies of the state.

This prevents the people from ultimately recouping their power so eroded these past 100 years, and specifically these past five despite the success of 2010 that gave the House back to Republican control.

Though the actual voting booth is less than a year away, does anyone have any confidence that this time, their vote will actually matter? Even if the Republicans retake the Senate, Obama is still the President, and his cabinet and appointees still remain in power.

A veto proof majority is very likely not in the cards as well, so who knows what the Republicans would be able to do, let alone ridding America of the destruction the ObamaCare has wrought upon us. Obama vowed that it would never be overturned while he remains in the Oval Office.

Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator.

Where that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers.

He will also further escalate the placement of his ideological kin into permanent positions within government, each able then to permanently run their operations ideologically as has been done in the IRS, DHS, DOJ, and more.

There are ways to rid America of these types but short of the vote we speak of, would they work?

Lie of the YearOn Tuesday, December 3rd, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the president’s duty to uphold the law. Why? Well the committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte, R-VA, said:

“President Obama has blatantly disregarded the Constitution’s mandate to faithfully execute the laws…

He has changed key provisions in Obamacare without congressional approval, failed to enforce our immigration and drug laws, and ignored his constitutional duties for the sake of politics.”

In that hearing, four witnesses testified and one in particular has spurred much talk of the word that shall not be spoken, the “I-word,” or impeachment. He was none other than Georgetown Law Professor, Nicholas Rosenkranz. He said:

“The ultimate check on presidential lawlessness is elections and, in extreme cases, impeachment.”

In his well crafted piece in the National Review Online, Jonathan Strong added the following:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a frequent guest of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow during the Bush years, described the situation in severe terms.

“I really have great trepidation over where we are headed,” Turley said. “We are creating a new system here…The center of gravity is shifting, and that makes it unstable.

Within that system you have a rise of an uber-presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. And I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift.”

The situation, Turley later said, is the “most serious constitutional crisis, I believe, in my lifetime.”Jonathan-Turley

Impeachment however is not an option. Why, because Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s days, forget about a finding of guilt. Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same. What else is available?

Some call for a set of Constitutional amendments, a process that can take place without Congress as the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon tells us:

“There is a procedure in the Constitution that allows the people to amend the Constitution without going through Congress. That is another method where the people can try to restrain the executive.”

Once again however, what confidence can we have in securing that device for use to correct Obama’s misdeeds and lies? Besides, it would take a very long time; a luxury we just do not have if we are going to save our Republic.

That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option.

This is an option we abhor and do not support in the least. Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route. So what do we do? We conduct a national “Vote of No Confidence.”

Like the parliamentary procedure that Great Britain uses, a vote of no confidence means a new election must take place there.

The Prime Minister is powerless after such a vote, and though our vote would not have that full effect, it would at least tell those who live behind the “Iron Curtain” that is the DC Beltway that ‘we are not pleased,’ as the Queen would say.

It would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!

Join us at Stand Up America US, it is time for a vote of “No Confidence!”

____________________

CONTACT Information:

For comment or request for interviews, please send an email to contact@standupamericaus.org.

Impeach Holder – Reps. to Introduce Resolution

Editor’s Note – With all the media time now spent on the ObamaCare implosion and our lying President, his administration continues it ways in other areas. But after such a long list of DOJ shenanigans over the past five years, the House is now positioned to impeach Eric Holder.

Here at SUA, we have been calling not only for his impeachment, but for him to also lose his law license forever. It may not move forward, and we doubt he would ever be convicted in the Senate, but the bell must be rung on him. We support these impeachment steps wholeheartedly.

House Republicans to call for Eric Holder impeachment

By John Bresnahan – Politico

A group of hard-line conservative House Republicans will introduce a resolution on Thursday calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder.

But there is no sign yet that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) or other House GOP leaders will act on the measure.

eric-holder-impeach-250x244Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and 10 other House Republicans — including Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Florida Rep. Ted Yoho — have drafted four articles of impeachment against Holder.

These include allegations that Holder violated federal law by refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena over the botched Fast and Furious gun-walking program; “failed to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986,”; did not prosecute IRS employees over allegations the agency improperly handled the applications for nonprofit status by conservative political groups; and misled Congress over whether he was aware of a search warrant issued for the emails of FOX News reporter James Rosen.

“This was not a decision that I made lightly,” Olson said in a statement. “Since the House voted in 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the pattern of disregard for the rule of law and refusal to be forthright has only continued. The American people deserve answers and accountability. If the Attorney General refuses to provide answers, then Congress must take action.”

(QUIZ: How well do you know Eric Holder?)

Boehner’s office declined to comment on the Olson impeachment resolution, referring calls to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Goodlatte’s panel would conduct any impeachment hearings against Holder.

In his own statement, Goodlatte was noncommittal on whether he planned to move forward with the resolution, although he did say that Holder should resign for the good of the Justice Department.

“Under Attorney General Holder’s watch, there has been a lack of leadership and a politicization of the Justice Department. Scandals from the Fast and Furious gunwalking operation to the seizure of reporters’ emails and phone records in national security leaks investigations have undermined the Department’s credibility and the American people’s trust. Attorney General Holder has also politicized the rule of law by refusing to enforce laws he doesn’t like.”

Goodlatte added: “The only way to restore credibility at the Department of Justice is through an improvement in the quality of leadership. President Obama should make a change in the leadership of the Department of Justice to restore the confidence of the American people in our nation’s top law enforcement agency.”

(PHOTOS: Eric Holder’s career)

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the impeachment resolution.

But Matthew Miller, a former top Holder aide as DOJ, dismissed it as laughable.

“The first thing I’d say is that I can’t believe they didn’t include Benghazi and the Black Panthers because this is a list of every other Republican bugaboo and conspiracy theory,” said Miller, now a communications consultant on K Street.

“The best thing that could happen to Democrats would be for Republicans to bring this up. The more time they spend on this, the crazier and more out of touch they would look.”

The House approved civil and contempt resolutions against Holder in June 2012 over the Fast and Furious program, the first time that has been done to a sitting Cabinet member. DOJ refused to enforce the criminal contempt resolution, as previous administrations have done. The civil contempt citation is mired in a legal fight in federal court between Justice and House attorneys.

No Cabinet officer has been impeached by the House since Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached in March 1876 , despite the fact that the he resigned minutes before the House vote. The Senate held a trial for Belknap, acquitting him on all five charges. Belknap was never criminally prosecuted over the allegations.