Several months ago, I penned an article at Freedom Outpost, discussing the truth as the only thing that is relevant and getting to the truth required entertaining new thoughts and possibilities, investigating and examining theories, and to question what politicians and the main stream media are feeding us. Being as that I have been "designated" by some to be "on the bandwagon" for impeachment, I felt that a reworking of that article was appropriate.
What I believe, what you believe, or what anyone else believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth. So let's look at the truth as contained in the law of the land, The Constitution of the United States of America. According to Article I, Section 2, last paragraph, "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment." (emphasis mine) So, the House has the sole power of impeachment. In other words, only the House of Representatives can initiate articles of impeachment. So the truth is, no where is the Senate involved in "impeachment" as the power to call for impeachment, voting to impeach and drafting articles of impeachment lies with the House.
Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6 states,
Trending: How Could Stanley Ann Dunham Have Delivered Barack Hussein Obama In August Of 1961 in Hawaii, When Official University Of Washington Records Show Her 2,680 Miles Away In Seattle Attending Classes That Same Month?
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, the shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." (emphasis mine)
So, the Senate, according to the law, is the body given the power to try impeachments. The House has no power to try impeachment – only the power to initiate impeachment proceedings through articles of impeachment. In order to convict regarding impeachment, a concurrence of two thirds of the members present must occur – not members of the entire Senate, but members present.
Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7 states,
"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." (emphasis mine)
This section establishes that impeachment is the remedy to remove an individual from office only. Once the individual is removed, the individual is subject to indictment, trial and judgment under laws established for the criminal violations. So, once an official is impeached and found guilty or convicted, the official is then subject to criminal indictment. To be clear, filing suit against someone is different than criminal prosecution and different from impeachment.
So far, the truth in the Constitution reveals that impeachment is the legal remedy to remove officials from office, not just the President, and once removed from office, the individual is then subject to additional indictment, trial, judgment and punishment. That is irrefutable and what is relevant. Because of the nature of the office of president, the Constitution outlines that the Chief Justice will preside over the proceedings of impeachment regarding removing the president from office.
One must look at Article II, Section 4 in order to determine the qualifications that would justify removal from office with regards to impeachment. It states,
"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." (emphasis mine)
The truth is documented evidence of Obama's crimes and misdemeanors have been compiled by Sen. Ted Cruz, the alternative media, bloggers and the Committee for Justice. Misdemeanor could be something as simple as telling a falsehood or engaging in mismanagement.
While not an expert on impeachment, it appears to me the Constitution is quite clear. However, should those who seek truth and desire to learn what is relevant, "Impeachment: All you need to know (and you do need to know it)" by Publius Huldah can assist with discerning truth from rhetoric.
Impeachment is not a "bill" that the Senate and Harry Reid must approve or allow to go forward. The House has the sole power of impeachment while the Senate is responsible for trial and conviction with the Chief Justice presiding when impeachment involves the president. The fact remains and it is documented that Boehner disagrees with impeachment.
Now ask this question: "Where does Boehner get the authority for the House of Representatives to file a lawsuit against the president for failure to faithfully execute the laws, according to the Constitution?" Interesting, I might add, Boehner only identifies this one area of failure when plenty others abound. As a rhetorical question, "Wonder why that is?" It's highly suspicious.
Personally, I cannot find anywhere in the Constitution that authorizes the House to "sue" the president when the president is accused of being derelict or is derelict in his duty by failing to faithfully execute the law. So for those supportive of this action by Boehner, what is the basis for your support in law, not what someone tells you and not what you have heard? Boehner admits he disagrees with impeachment – the law – thereby telling the entire American public the actual reason articles of impeachment will not be forthcoming. His position is not based in law, but on his personal beliefs and thinking. Where does Boehner get the "legal authority?" He is not forthcoming with that information leaving the masses to "assume" that legal authority is present, when it is not. Why is the media not asking these questions or pointing all of this out to the public?
The House does not need the Senate to file impeachment charges. The Constitution proves that. The Senate, however, is needed to convict on impeachment charges. Once articles of impeachment are filed by the House, the Senate cannot ignore it's duty to try on impeachment charges as the Chief Justice presides over impeachment proceedings concerning a president. Just as in a court of law, evidence would be presented detailing Obama's violations, which have been repeatedly documented, irrefutably, by video, print and television media. Obama has already relinquished his Fifth Amendment rights by admitting to several infractions, which amounts to a confession – one in particular is releasing 5 Taliban members without informing Congress 30 days prior according to law. Obama has, and admits to, taking unilateral action regarding Obamacare (unconstitutional as it is) legislation. But, I digress.
Since the supreme law of the land, The Constitution, indicates impeachment as the legal remedy and that remedy is considered a "bandwagon" by some, then I'll be happy to climb aboard any day of the week.
Yes, Obama is a criminal and should face criminal charges. However, Obama must be removed from office via impeachment; then, he should face criminal charges. According to some, I would not be classified as "a patriot" because I refuse to buy their "I know why Obama has to be taken to court" and "impeachment is a slap on the hand" rhetoric while providing no constitutional reference to support their "ideas." For those interested, check Federalist Paper no. 69, paragraph 4. The reason a president must first be removed from office via impeachment before being subjected to criminal prosecution is very simple; the prosecutors of the president would be the Attorney General of the United States, who serves at the discretion of the President – the president appoints the individual to hold that office. All the president would do is fire those who would prosecute him. (paraphrased from Publius Huldah)
Impeachment removes the president from office which then opens up the filing of criminal charges in order to prosecute for criminal behavior and activities.
Instead of repeating the same old rhetoric handed out by the media, self-appointed spokespersons for conservative causes and any one who claims "to know," Americans should think for themselves and question why the laws are not being followed. In order to do that, Americans should know what the laws are in the first place. Sadly, too many, even well meaning conservatives, do not know or understand the Constitution. Some are simply too lazy to take the time to find out. Others have no interest in finding out and remain content to repeat whatever is heard. While some are still suffering under the effects of indoctrination, they are embracing the principles and trying to wake up fully, but still fall back into "comfortable" habits. Americans have to be proactive in their own education instead of soaking up whatever flavor of the month politicians, talk show hosts and MSM decide to throw out.
In order to understand the Constitution, Publius Huldah has an excellent website that guides a study of the Constitution in order to learn what it entails. Topics of interest are listed and broken down. In addition, questions can be asked about particular sections you do not understand and Publius will answer and guide you using the Constitution and Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are a great resource to guide the understanding of the framer's intent – who better to explain the intent of the Constitution than the ones who drafted the document – and it is available online. An online version of Webster's 1828 dictionary is also available to assist with the actual meaning of the words at the time so as not to muddle the intent with slang interjection or modern meanings applied to words contained in the Constitution.
Patriots are the keepers of the Constitution, those individuals who will uphold it, defend it, support it and, most of all, learn it. Without knowing what is being supported and defended, it becomes all to easy to be swayed into a rhetoric detrimental to this nation. This is what is happening with the constitutional remedy of impeachment, among other issues. In order to be a nation based on the rule of law, the nation must follow the rule of law.
We are living in a time where we must question what is being done in our government and compare that with the Constitution. It is obvious the main stream media is the propaganda machine of the federal government. This silence and complicity of the media, dubbed the "fourth branch," compels many Americans to seek their information through alternate sources. It prompts many individuals to research and investigate everything seen in the news and every incident that unfolds. When radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh begin imparting information that is less than accurate, one should begin to question certain "alternative personalities" that are associated with main stream media.
Sometimes, in searching for the truth, we have to review and acknowledge information presented in a straight forward, non emotional, logical manner whether it is liked or not, or whether we believe it or not, or whether it falls under misnomers such as "conspiracy theories," "truthers," or any other "movement" being labeled to discredit the information. In the search for truth, one must be open to all possibilities which means developing an ability to think for oneself and admitting error when faced with truth and fact.
Opinion does not for fact make. While there are many that frequently voice their opinion, me included, my opinion is not fact but an opinion based on facts, truths, possibilities and plausibility. Can I say for certain that impeachment proceedings will result in conviction and removal from office? No, I cannot, but neither can I say that it won't. What I can say is that is the remedy under the law.
Can I say for certain that the lawsuit filed by Boehner will be thrown out? No, I cannot. However, there is no provision in the Constitution for suing a sitting president to "force" the faithful execution of the law. Can I say for certain that the lawsuit will produce the desired outcome? No, I cannot and neither can I say that it won't. Will the House even follow Boehner's lead? I don't know. However, I will stand on the law, known as the Constitution, before I will climb on a "bandwagon" concocted by a politician that has no basis in the law at this juncture in time.
In the end, all that matters is the truth. What you or I believe or think is irrelevant. Only the truth is relevant.
We must strive, now more than ever, to find that truth instead of accepting what we are told by supposedly "those in the know," those who "claim to know," the MSM, talk show host bloviates, politicians, those who claim to be smart, those we may deem smart, or those we believe may be smart or smarter than ourselves. As a final comment, sometimes the truth is never pleasant and is not something that one wants to face. However, continually denying the truth is to continually be lying to oneself which obscures the ability to find the truth.
Flame On!Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.