Judge Napolitano says IMPEACH


by Right March on March 1, 2013

ALERT: Judge Andrew Napolitano, now a Legal Analyst at Fox News, is the latest legal figure to suggest that President Obama could be impeached over spending cuts in the so-called “sequester.”

HE’S CORRECT — it’s just another impeachable offense by Barack Hussein Obama!

After Fox’s Steve Doocy noted that Obama and his administration were “scaring the living daylights out of people,” and that “He’s become President Panic,” Napolitano replied:

“This is almost an impeachable offense. If the president is deciding how to spend money in order to hurt us, rather than in order to provide us with the services for which we have paid and for which we have hired him, he is doing the opposite of what he has taken an oath to do… He has taken an oath to uphold the laws. That means make the government work. Don’t make it painful, find a way to make it work on 2 percent less… That’s the way the constitution works!”

More and more reports are coming out, saying that Barack Hussein Obama is blatantly anddeliberately violating the U.S. Constitution — which is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE! The latest article is in the Washington Post, entitled, “Obama’s recess appointments are unconstitutional” — calling Obama’s actions “a constitutional abuse of a high order“!

The United States Constitution isn’t “optional” — it’s the law of the land. And it states very clearly in Article II, Section 4: “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.”
President Barack Hussein Obama has committed multiple ”high crimes and misdemeanors” — because deliberately violating that same Constitution IS a high crime!


The recent Washington Post article, written by Edwin Meese III and Todd Gaziano (a former U.S. attorney general and a former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer who provided advice to presidents on recess appointment issues), laid this issue out very clearly: “President Obama’s attempt to unilaterally appoint three people to seats… is more than an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role. It is a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers and the duty of comity that the executive owes to Congress… never before has a president purported to make a ‘recess’ appointment when the Senate is demonstrably not in recess. That is a constitutional abuse of a high order.“

The United States Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, states that before anyone can be President, he has to take the following Oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Obama took that oath. Again. This time, he put his hand on TWO Bibles when he spokethose words. And in so doing, one thing is very clear: HE LIED.

So exactly how has Barack Obama blatantly and repeatedly violated the very Constitution that he has sworn to uphold?

Well, let’s start with the most recent example: he made unconstitutional “recess appointments” to the CFPB and the labor union-friendly NLRB. As reported by Michael Barone at Real Clear Politics:

“Unfortunately, the 44th president is running an administration that too often seems to ignore the rule of law. “We can’t wait,” Barack Obama took to saying after the Republicans captured a majority in the House and refused to pass laws he wanted. He would act to get what he wanted regardless of law.

One example: his recess appointments in January 2012 of three members of the National Labor Relations Board and the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously that the NLRB recess appointments were unconstitutional.

YOU READ THAT RIGHT – a federal court found Obama GUILTY of deliberately violating the U.S. Constitution, when he granted “recess appointments” to his cronies… when the Senate was NOT in recess!

As Barone went on to explain, “The decision, written by Judge David Sentelle, noted that the Constitution speaks of ‘the recess,’ not ‘a recess,’ and reasoned that it could only be referring to the recess between annual sessions of Congress.”

Now, granted, a lot of presidents have interpreted the phrase as referring to any recess during which Congress is not in session. But that wasn’t enough for Obama — he decided to take things much further. As Meese and Gaziano report, not only was the Senate NOT in recess when these purported appointments were made; it constitutionally could not have been!

Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither house of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days.

The president and anyone else may object that the Senate is conducting “pro forma” sessions, but that does not render them constitutionally meaningless, as some have argued. In fact, the Senate did pass a bill during a supposedly “pro forma” session on Dec. 23, a matter the White House took notice of since the president signed the bill into law. The president cannot pick and choose when he deems a Senate session to be “real.”

It does not matter one whit that most members of Congress are out of town and allow business to be conducted by their agents under unanimous consent procedures, because ending a session of Congress requires the passage of a formal resolution, which never occurred and could not have occurred without the consent of the House.”

When Harry Reid became Senate majority leader in 2007, in order to keep George W. Bush from making any recess appointments that Reid didn’t like, he started holding what are referred to as “pro forma” meetings of the Senate every three days, and stating that the Senate was not in recess. President Bush, who had made recess appointments before, stopped doing any more of them, because of Reid’s actions.

President Bush took the view that, since the Constitution says that each branch of Congress makes its own rules, the Senate WAS in session if the Senate SAID it was. But NOT Barack Obama! HE took the view that HE would decide whether or not the Senate was in session.WHO CARES what the Constitution says, right?

Well, as federal judge Sentelle pointed out, Obama’s view would entitle the president to make a recess appointment any time he wanted to — even if the Senate just broke for lunch! “Thiscannot be the law,” the judge wrote!


Obviously, this is NOT the only blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution under Obama’s regime. For example, Obama’s Defense Secretary has told Congress that they would seek “international permission” before engaging in war in Syria or elsewhere – NOT the Constitutionally-required declaration of war!

YOU READ THAT RIGHT: the Obama regime would ask for “international permission”instead of Congressional permission before intervening militarily in a country like Syria’s civil war — and according to the Defense Secretary, “whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress” is something they would “discuss as we decide what to do” about sending American troops to war!

This is almost unbelievable! The Obama regime is admitting that they will IGNORE the U.S.Constitution, and go by what the United Nations, NATO, and other countries say instead!

According to The New American magazine, “Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey testified at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearingWednesday that the Obama administration would seek ‘international permission’ before intervening military in Syria’s civil war.”

“Again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this,” Panetta replied. “Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues I think we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here… If we are working with an international coalition and we’re working with NATO we would want to be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. That’s something that all of these countries would want to have — some kind of legal basison which to act… If the UN passed a Security Resolution as it did with Libya, we would do that…If NATO came together as it did in Bosnia, we would rely on that…”
In other words, even though the U.S. Constitution, in Article I Section 8, REQUIRES the President to get permission from CONGRESS in order to use offensive military force…BARACK OBAMA DOESN’T CARE!

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was stunned by Sec. Panetta’s statements, telling him, “what I heard you say is, we are going to seek international approval and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek Congressional approval… I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat. I don’t believe it is close to being correct.They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that is required to deploy the United States military is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.”

As it stands, the Obama regime is openly rejecting the Constitutional requirement of seekingcongressional approval for U.S. military engagement, and is looking only for “international permission” to send our troops where they want to send them.
The Obama administration has previously violated the Constitution in electing to involve the United States in an attack on Libya without congressional consent. But ironically, in 2007, Senator Obama declared, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

THAT would be the Constitutional position! BUT, since he became President, Obama seems to have changed his mind — as we’re seeing in his determination to IGNORE the Constitution and it’s requirements for a Congressional declaration of war.
LOOK, either the Constitution limits the president’s powers, or it does not. Either Barack Obama is required to get Congressional approval before going to war, or he’s able to ignoreCongress and do what the “international community” (in other words, the UN and NATO) says instead.

There are plenty more examples. Michael Barone points out, for instance, that for several years, the Obama administration has refused to obey a law requiring the president’s budget to be submitted on a certain date. As Budget Director, Treasury nominee Jack Lew refused to obey the law requiring him to issue a report in response to the trustees’ report on Medicare:

During the 2012 campaign, the Pentagon told defense contractors not to inform employees that they may be laid off if the sequester took effect as required by the WARN Act. They were even told that the government would pay any fines for not complying. What law authorizes that?

Similarly, Health and Human Services has stated that the federal government can fund health insurance exchanges run by the feds for states that refuse to create their own exchanges. But nowhere does the Democrats’ hastily crafted Obamacare legislation say that.

In spring 2009, we got our first glimmers of this modus operandi. In arranging the Chrysler bankruptcy, administration officials brushed aside the rights of secured creditors in order to pay off the United Auto Workers.

University of Pennsylvania law professor David Skeel pointed out that this violated the standard rules of bankruptcy law established, interestingly, during the New Deal. “We have just seen an episode of gangster government,” I wrote at the time. “It is likely to be a continuing series.”

It gets much worse, of course. We all know how President Obama has resorted, over and over again, to issuing Executive Orders to get around the Constitutional requirement that laws actually be passed by CONGRESS before they can go into effect. For example, one Order, signed by Obama last July, give him dictator-type powers over ALL communications during any so-called “crisis” that he might declare!
As reported by “Tea Party Economist” blogger, Dr. Gary North:

“Obama has signed an executive order outlining the nationalization of the entire communications system. It is written in bureaucratese. I have no doubt that it was not understood by Obama. It is too detailed. It sets up a powerful new bureaucracy. The language is limited to a national emergency. But an emergency on this scale is almost inconceivable. The government never discusses what could justify an executive order this comprehensive.

If such a threat to the nation (and the world) really exists, the voters should be given a detailed description of its nature. Congress should debate this. Solving it should be a high national priority. If the answer is, “discussing this would create panic,” then democracy is a sham. If the answer is, “we don’t know what might happen, so we are asserting total control in advance,” then this executive order should never have been signed. It transfers too much power to bureaucrats to determine when to implement it.

As Dr. North declares, “This is no longer a nation run by the Constitution.”
The executive order itself is long, and very few people will actually bother to read it. But what it does is very clear: it authorizes the White House to take over the entire communications system, simply on “the authority of the President.”
The bottom line is this: Obama thinks that this power belongs to the President.
Of course, he also thinks that he has the power to ignore the SECOND AMENDMENT to the Constitution!

By now, you’ve probably read about the 23 “Executive Actions” that the Obama regime announced as they try to trample on our Second Amendment rights, which include:

  • Telling doctors to ask their patients — including kids – about guns in their homes — inviolation of Obama’s own healthcare law.
  • Demanding federal access to the details of private gun sales between private parties.
  • Waiving medical privacy laws (HIPPA) in some cases so individuals can be reported.
  • Make new rules that make it harder for individuals falsely accused of crimes to get their own personal weapons returned to them after they were seized.
  • Directing the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to “research the causes and prevention of gun violence” — in direct violation of federal statutes that keep the CDC from conducting any research or analysis related to “gun violence,” since “gun violence” isn’t a disease.
  • “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers” — after crucifying the NRA for proposing exactly the same thing.
  • Telling the Attorney General to double-check the categories of “dangerous people” who shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun — remember when Obama’s Justice Departmentdeclared anyone who is “reverent of individual liberty” to be a potential terrorist, or the infamous 2009 Missouri Information Analysis Center governmental report, which tagged people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, pro-lifers, or even people who fly a U.S. flag, as potential terrorists?



To top everything off, there’s not ONE SINGLE THING in Obama’s 23 “Executive Actions” that would have stopped the massacre that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School.NOT ONE THING! This is ALL just political grandstanding – nothing more than “kabuki theater,” with a final goal in mind of getting around one of the most vital parts of the U.S. Constitution!


It seems like a drastic step to take: impeaching and removing the President of the United States. But with SO MANY repeated and deliberate violations of the U.S. Constitution,drastic times require drastic measures.

WE MUST at least TRY to get Obama OUT of the White House, before he completely GUTS the Constitution — but we can’t do it without YOUR HELP! If we can FLOOD the offices of every single Senator and Congressman, demanding that they IMPEACH Obama and REMOVE him from office – we CAN save America! But we need YOUR help – send your Blast Faxes to every single Member of Congress NOW!
Sincerely,

William Greene, President
RightMarch.com
P.S. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) wrote recently in regards to Barack Hussein Obama’s actions, “President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. THAT MUST CHANGE.”

As Tancredo noted, the grounds for House impeachment proceedings have been laid by Obama’s own actions. A list of his unconstitutional and illegal actions “would embarrass any honest public official and makes Nixon’s Watergate cover-up look like a college fraternity house panty raid.”

IT’S TIME TO STOP BARACK OBAMA’S DIRECT VIOLATIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! THESE PEOPLE WON’T STOP UNTIL THEY HAVE DESTROYEDTHE CONSTITUTION ITSELF! You and I need to STAND UP and DEMAND that Congress finally do their duty… and IMPEACH OBAMA! TAKE ACTION NOW!
SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERY SINGLE MEMBER
OF CONGRESS, DEMANDING THEY IMPEACH
AND REMOVE FROM OFFICE PRESIDENT
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA:
SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW!

As always, you can also send a FREE message to your Congressman and Senators by selecting here. Thank you.

The work of RightMarch.com is funded entirely by voluntary contributions.

Help us spread the word with a donation to RightMarch.com!
https://secure.conservativedonations...tmarch/?a=2565

If you prefer to donate by check, please send to:
RightMarch.com
Dept Code 2565
PO Box 94463503 #33585
Washington DC 20090-4463503

Paid for by RightMarch.com