Connelly

I have repeatedly been asked by a number of different people if I think that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has committed any offenses that subject him to being impeached by the Congress of the United States. The answer is without a doubt, yes because he has repeatedly breached his oath of office. The oath of office of the President of the United States is simple and concise. It reads:
       "I do solemnly swear 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."
       Instead of living up to that oath, President Obama has actively attempted to subvert, ignore, and completely destroy large parts of the Constitution. I believe the President of the United States is well aware of what he is doing, and it is completely intentional. Listed below are what I believe are impeachable offenses and the list continues to grow.
       1. President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution. These individuals are given extraordinary power and independent funding, and are not under the scrutiny of Congress. The fact that Obama calls them Czars does not make them legal. He has also made illegal recess appointments of other members of his cabinet that required Senate approval. He simply declared that the U.S. Senate was in recess despite the fact that no such declaration had been made by the Senate. The President has no Constitutional authority to do this.
      2. The push by Pres. Obama to pass healthcare legislation in the Congress of the United States that he was fully aware was unconstitutional. He has continued to use his powers and executive branch of government to implement this legislation despite the fact that a federal judge had declared the entire law unconstitutional, and ordered that it not be implemented. In addition, Obama has directed members of his administration to violate the right to freedom of religion protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
      Religious institutions such as churches and schools have been ordered to provide contraceptives and abortion inducing morning after pills to employees as part of the health care bill requirements. The fact that this is a direct violation of their religious teaching is of no concern to Obama.
      3. Despite the fact that the United States Senate refused to pass the Cap and Trade bill, the President has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to use regulations to implement key portions of the bill, including those regulating so-called greenhouse gases. Obama himself has acknowledged that this will force energy prices in this country to skyrocket. He is taking these actions in direct defiance of the will of the people of the United States, the will of Congress, and the Constitution. The actions of the EPA include regulations that will force many coal burning power plants to close.
      4. Through the Department of the Interior (DOI) Obama has placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling or exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. He has also prohibited new drilling exploration on federal land in any states in the United States. These actions by the DOI have continued in direct defiance of several court orders issued by Federal Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans, Louisiana declaring that the department had no authority to issue such a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. In fact, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) has been held in contempt by the same judge. The administration has claimed to be complying, but has tied up the drilling permits in so much red tape that the effect is the same.
      5. Instead of allowing American companies to drill for oil domestically, Obama has betrayed the American people and authorized loans of billions of dollars to countries like Brazil and Mexico so that they can drill for oil, and then sell that oil to the United States. This will dramatically increase our dependence on foreign nations including Venezuela, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and even Libya that do not serve the interest of America or the American people.
      Obama has also refused to approve the keystone pipeline from Canada to the United States that would not only lessen our dependence on oil from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but create thousands of new jobs in the United States. The decision on the pipeline is one that belongs in the hands of the members of Congress, not the President.  
      6. President Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States against illegal immigration. He has virtually declared our southern border an open border by declaring certain areas of federal land in states like Arizona as off-limits to federal, state, and local authorities. This is despite the fact that these areas are being used to bring in thousands of illegal immigrants, massive amounts of drugs, and also being used by foreign terrorists to infiltrate the United States. He has also ordered the border patrol not to arrest most illegal immigrants entering the country, and has stopped deportation proceedings against thousands of people in this country illegally. He is in effect instituting the so-called “dream act” bypassing the Congress of the United States which has sole authority over immigration matters.
      7. The President and his Attorney General Eric Holder have clearly violated their oath of office by joining with foreign countries such as Mexico, Bolivia, and Columbia, in lawsuits against the sovereign states of Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama to stop them from enforcing the federal immigration laws.
      8. President Obama has ordered the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations giving the federal government control of the Internet and its contents, including providing Obama with a kill switch that gives him authority to shut down the Internet if he sees fit. This is in direct violation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to control the Internet.
      There were two bills pending in Congress to effectively give Obama the kill switch he wants over the Internet. When these two proposals, the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) were withdrawn amid public outcry Obama announced he will sign an international treaty that purports to give him the same authority. He has signaled his intention to do this as an “Executive Act” and not bring the treaty to the Senate for ratification as required by Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. I believe he intends to take the same action in regard to the United Nations Small arms treaty and the UN Law of the Sea treaty that are both unlikely to get Senate approval.
      9. One of the paramount responsibilities of the President of the United States and his executive branch of government is to enforce and defend laws adopted by Congress unless they are declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Obama has decided that he should ignore this Constitutional mandate, and that as President he is more powerful than either the Congress of the United States or the Supreme Court. He has unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress is unconstitutional, and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department defend it against lawsuits.
      His administration has also refused to enforce laws against voter intimidation and federal law that requires states to purge their voter registration lists of deceased individuals and those that are registered illegally. In addition, the Justice Department is refusing to allow states to enforce laws requiring proof of identity by voters at the polls. Obama has essentially said that he is the supreme ruler of the United States, and that the Congress and the Federal Judiciary are irrelevant.
      10. It has been widely reported that acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration was involved for months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners along our southern border to supply weapons to straw buyers who the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels in Mexico. This was billed as a sting operation against the cartels when in fact it was designed to produce fraudulent data showing that large numbers of weapons were going from the United States to the Mexican drug dealers.
      This data was then to be used, and is being used, to try to justify new gun control regulations to limit the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with arresting members of the drug operations. The administration has, in effect, armed our enemies, and one border patrol agent has already been killed by one of these weapons. Now, Obama continues to impose gun control laws by Executive order so he will not have to deal with Congress. The administration is also refusing to cooperate with the committees in the House of Representatives that are investigating the entire operation. It is even defying Congressional subpoenas.
      11. The President of the United States is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of the Congress of the United States. The only exception to this is the authority granted to the President by Congress under the War Powers Act. This law allows the President to take immediate action without the consent of Congress if there is an imminent threat to the security of the United States, or its citizens. Although there was clearly no such imminent threat caused by the Civil War in Libya, the President committed members of the United States military to combat missions in a foreign country without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on a United Nations resolution, and a resolution by the Arab League.
      Now, the President has carried it one step further. During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Senators that the President has authority to take our country to war without the Congressional approval required by Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. The administration is taking the position that it can ignore Congress as long as it has United Nations approval or NATO approval.
      However, these actions may be the least of the worries facing the American people. The White House insisted that language be included in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that gives the President sole authority to order the military to arrest and indefinite detain American citizens on U.S. soil if the President suspects them of terrorist ties. This was amazingly passed overwhelmingly by Congress. It appears to be another situation where few members read the bill before voting on it.
      This was almost immediately followed by another unconstitutional executive order titled the National Defense Resources Preparation order. It is similar to orders signed by past Presidents, but this one includes language that appears to give Obama the authority to declare martial law in peacetime, and take over the allocation of everything from food and fuel to transportation and health care. This violates the Constitution in a number of different ways.
      12. Last but not the least of my dirty dozen of impeachable offenses, is the fact that since taking office the President has used executive orders, laws pushed through Congress in the dark of night, and administrative actions by his departments to nationalize and control automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and portions of the healthcare industry. This is designed to take our country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy. There is absolutely no authority in the Constitution of the United States that allows the President to do this.
      Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides as follows: “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."
      I contend that among those high crimes and misdemeanors is the intentional violation of the oath of office administered to the President and all other federal officials. In fact, federal law at 5 U.S.C. 7311 specifically provides that violation of the oath of office includes advocating the overthrowing of our constitutional form of government. This is specifically declared a criminal offense in 18 U.S.C. 1918 and is punishable by both a fine and imprisonment.
      In the 12 areas I mentioned in the paragraphs above I firmly believe that Obama, Eric Holder, and numerous other members of his administration have gone beyond just advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. They are actually engaged in making it happen, and as a result should be impeached and convicted. There are also the emerging issues of corruption such as the Solyndra scandal caused by Obama using stimulus money to pay off campaign contributors.
      Will there be an impeachment and conviction in the current Congress? Probably not, since it takes a two thirds vote in the House of Representatives to impeach, and a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict. With Harry Reid and the progressives still in control of the Senate, and many of them guilty of some of the same impeachable offenses, they will resist it.
      However, we are the American people and we still have a right to control our government, and the people elected to represent us. Therefore, I am personally calling on the conservative members the House of Representatives to bring this action based on the grounds I have enumerated so that the American people can understand what is really at stake here. Then “we the people,” can make our voices heard.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was recently adopted by Congress, and signed into law by Barack Obama, contains language that has raised substantial Constitutional questions by civil libertarians on both the political right and on the political left. The bulk of the lengthy legislation deals with the routine authorization for military spending by the Pentagon, including items such as military pay, veterans’ benefits, weapons procurement, etc.  Such legislation must be passed on a regular basis if the United States military is to continue to operate.

  However, in the U. S. Senate version of the legislation, S.1867, there are sections dealing with the detaining of people suspected of being involved with terrorist organizations or any groups engaging in, or planning, hostile actions against the United States. These suspects can be arrested by American military forces and detained indefinitely, without formal charges being filed, and without trial, until the “hostilities” end. The term hostilities refers to the general war on terror, not to specific military actions, such as those in Afghanistan or Iraq. Therefore, there is no end in sight to the possible period of detention. This is the version that was ultimately passed by the full Congress.

  The question is, does the law allow members of the United States armed forces to detain American citizens, including those arrested in the United States, without granting them due process? The language in the bill is unclear, at best. In section 1031, the first paragraph states:

“(a) In general.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.” 

  The legislation then provides a definition of the individuals covered by the legislation:

“(b) Covered persons.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

 (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

 The legislation goes on to provide various options for dealing with the individuals arrested pursuant to the authority provided to the President. It states:

 “(c) Disposition under law of war.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

 (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).

 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”

 The next section of the law is 1032, and it requires the military to detain certain individuals that fall under the definition of the act. Critics point out that the language is so broad that American citizens can fall under the provisions of the act, and can be detained indefinitely, without the Constitutional protections provided to them under the 5^th and 6^th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. In other words, there would be no due process, no right to a speedy trial, no right of habeas corpus, and no right to a trial by jury.

 However, supporters of the law, including some members of Congress, point to additional language in the same section of the law that they say protects the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. The specific provisions state:

 “(b) Applicability to United States citizens and lawful resident aliens.—

 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”

 The problem is that when the language is carefully read, it becomes clear that this does not exempt U.S. citizens from being detained without due process, but only says that it is not required under the previously cited provisions. The decision of whether an American citizen can be detained indefinitely, without being formally charged, or tried, is, therefore, left in the hands of one person, the President of the United States.

 Giving the President of the United States, or anyone else, this kind of authority over American citizens was something that the framers of the U. S. Constitution, and, specifically, the Bill of Rights, were trying to prohibit.   Yet it appears that this law is doing what the founders of our country feared. One of the problems is that it has been done before. U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were interred by the U.S. government after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The detention was the result of Executive Orders issued by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 There were numerous challenges in the courts to the detention orders, and several cases reached the U.S. Supreme Court, including Yasui v. United States, 320 U.S. 115 (1943), Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), Ex parte Endo, or Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), and  Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). In all of these decisions, the court upheld the right of the government to place curfews on Japanese Americans, to exclude them from certain areas, and to place them in internment camps. These decisions were later considered a mistake, and, in the 1980’s, when evidence was uncovered that the government had been aware that there was no real threat, but withheld that information from the courts, the decisions were overturned.

 The latest case involving the detention of U.S. citizens by the military is Hamdi v Rumsfield 542 U.S. 547 (2004). Yaser Isam Hamdi was born in the United States, and, then, his family moved to Saudi Arabia. He was captured in Afghanistan during the U.S. invasion in 2001 and held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant. He challenged this status in court, and, in a plurality decision, the Supreme Court Justices ruled that U.S. citizens, even when arrested in foreign countries, and designated as enemy combatants, must be provided with an opportunity to have the legality of their detention decided in a civilian court.  

 This case would appear to settle this issue, but Congress has used language in NDAA that appears to be an attempt to circumvent this ruling. In addition, Congress has conferred the power to order long term detentions of U.S. citizens on an occupant of the White House that has repeatedly expressed his willingness to ignore the Congress, the courts, and even the U. S. Constitution itself. This establishes a dangerous situation for Americans.

 The new law also appears to repeal, or at least modify, the Posse Comitatus Act, that was passed in 1878 at the end of post Civil War reconstruction. That law is designated as 18 USC 1385, and it prohibits the states of the union, and local governments, from using members of the U.S. Army for law enforcement purposes. It was later amended to include the Air Force, and the Marines, and the Navy are under the same prohibitions, by order of the U. S. Department of Defense. If the critics of NDAA are correct, and members of the United States military can make arrests of U.S. citizens in the United States, then it appears that the intent of the Posse Comitatus law is negated.

 In conclusion, the language in the bill appears to be deliberately vague and confusing, and many members of Congress seem to be unaware of what they were actually voting for. However, that does not lessen the impact of a law that gives the President extraordinary powers to violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens. If Congress can’t be convinced to amend the law to remove those provisions, then the courts must be asked to declare the provisions unconstitutional.

This article was originally written by me for the U.S. Justice Foundation and is reprinted here with its permission.

               In my last article, “The State of the Constitution” I talked about how President Obama and his supporters in Congress and the federal judiciary are systematically destroying the delicate balance of powers that was set up by our founding fathers. Obama is forming the type of government that the framers of the Constitution feared, and had fought against, so they designed the Constitution to prevent that from happening. The scope and power of the Federal government was to be severely limited with most of the power remaining in the hands of the states and the people. That is no longer the case.

               Barack Obama and the other elitists in Washington consider themselves superior beings that have not only the right, but the duty to control the rest of us. We are no longer considered free citizens of the United States, but subjects who must be taught to obey our rulers. As subjects we have no inherent rights, only those rights granted to us by the elitists, who in their infinite wisdom have the power and authority to limit or abolish those rights as they see fit. Unfortunately, while many Americans are blissfully unaware of it that is exactly what is happening.

               The Bill of Rights that was designed to protect the God given rights of American citizens from intrusion by the Federal government and it is being shredded by the Obama administration.  Every one of the first ten amendments to the Constitution is under assault with the First and Second amendments being among the prime targets. The current attack on the freedom of religion is a prime example.

               In August of 2009 when I started this blog by writing my first article on HR 3200, the original version of Obamacare, I made the following observations:  “The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.”

               I was immediately attacked by the left for making false claims about what was in the health care bills, yet everything I stated is taking place. Catholic Bishops around the country were convinced to support Obamacare because they were assured that there would be no abortions paid for by the government, and no religious institutions or individuals would be forced to violate their religious beliefs. Now, these same Bishops are up in arms because they have learned that they were lied to. Through the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, the Obama administration has informed Catholic hospitals, universities and other religious institutions that they must provide health insurance coverage to employees that will have to include contraceptive devises and abortion inducing medication with no co-pay.

               This directly contradicts the teachings of the Catholic religion. Whether you agree with their position or not, the forcing of this on the Church is a direct violation of freedom of religion as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is clearly only the first step. The next order will be to force Catholic hospitals, doctors, and nurses to provide abortions. Ironically, the health care bill itself does not contain this mandate. This is being done by Executive action by Obama and it is certainly something he has no authority to do under the Constitution.

               Freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is also under constant attack. After our victory over the bills pending in the U.S. House and Senate that would have given Obama a virtual “kill switch” allowing him to shut down the Internet, Obama has decided to bypass Congress and sign an international treaty pushed by the United Nations that will give him the same type of control. Of course, any treaty signed by the President must be approved by two thirds of the Senate. However, Obama has reportedly decided to ignore this Constitutional mandate and bypass the Senate. He claims he has the authority to do this under the so-called “Sole Executive Agreement” doctrine. No such doctrine is provided for in the Constitution.

               There are also strong indications that Obama intends to invoke the same unconstitutional power to sign and enforce the U.N. Small Arms treaty. I have read the draft of this treaty and it is directly designed to force the disarmament of American citizens in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in 1957 that no treaty, even if signed by the President and ratified by the Senate can supersede the rights of U.S. citizens protected by the Constitution. Yet, clearly, Obama intends to ignore the U.S. Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution to impose his will on us. I will state it bluntly, Obama is out of control. He considers himself a dictator.

               I sincerely hope I am premature in declaring the Constitution dead. I will continue to fight for it, but obviously the President of the United States and his minions already consider it dead and buried. Americans must wake up now and take back our country!

            Great news! The two bills mentioned in my recent blog designed to regulate the Internet have been pulled out of consideration in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. I refer specifically to HR 3261, the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) and Senate Bill S 968, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).

            This is directly due to the loss of support the proposed bills suffered as a direct result of the public outcry made by people like you. I know that many of you had been working on defeating this legislation long before I wrote my article and want to say congratulations to all of you for a strong effort that paid off. This proves that in this election year we can have an impact by continuing to contact our representatives and senators.

            The fight is far from over because it is likely that the liberals will try to introduce this type of legislation again in a different form and it is also likely that Obama may try to bypass Congress by having the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) illegally implement similar restrictions on freedom by agency action. We must stay vigilant and I will keep you informed through my blog and radio show.

By the way, you can now listen to my radio show on your Smart phone. You find out how at this link http://www.radiosandysprings.com/index.php?id=1