By Alan Caruba
According to Wikipedia: “United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive
orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of
discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to
the Executive by the Constitution.”
“However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when
authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding executive
authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal
validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal
proceedings.”
I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I am aware of the consequences of
past executive orders. The nation now has a rogue government agency, the
Environmental Protection Agency, by virtue of an executive order by President
Nixon. Later, President Carter reorganized the executive branch and created a
separate Department of Education. Currently, executive orders permit the
President to seize control of the entire nation in the event of an attack or the
declaration of a national emergency.
Now we are told that President Obama is planning to issue up to nineteen
executive orders to do an end run around Congress and the Second amendment on
the issue of gun control. Whereas Social Security was often referred to as “the
third rail” if presidents or Congress attempted to reform it, it would appear
that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the new third raid and
touching it is likely to enflame both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Former Attorney General, Edwin
Meese, recently went on record to say that the proposed executive orders
would be an “impeachable offense.” There is a growing chorus of resistance to
Obama’s “imperial presidency”, but whether it is the executive orders or a
judgment rendered by a forthcoming Supreme Court conference, it would appear
that Obama has over-reached.
The Supreme Court has scheduled a conference—not a hearing—regarding a
case that challenges President Obama’s eligibility to be President. Court
observers believe this will lead nowhere. If the justices were to favor
elevating the case to a hearing that found Obama guilty, he could face
impeachment hearings or possibly be summarily removed from office by
Congress.
The Constitution says (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.”
The scheduling of a Supreme Court conference to discuss a lower court
case has gone virtually unreported. The case is led by an attorney, Orly Taitz,
and is called Noonan,Judd,
MacLaren, Taitz v Bowen. Having made it to the highest court in the land,
the Taitz asserts it will provide evidence to prove that “Barack Obama using a
last name not legally his, forged a Selective Service application, forged a long
form and short form birth certificate, and a Connecticut Social Security number,
042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS.”
The conference is scheduled for February 15, 2013. Obama will be sworn
into office on January 21 and will deliver a State of the Union speech on
February 12.
The conference arises out of a Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decision
to agree to hear a petition for a Writ of mandamus to expedite a default
judgment and post judgment discovery against the Commissioner of Social Security
Administration, Michael J. Astrue, resulting from a previously filed case.
Commissioner Astrue did not reply to Taitz’s inquiry.
If the Court finds that the evidence of forged Social Security numbers
Obama is alleged to have used over the years is valid and irrefutable, it would
be scheduled for a hearing, but conferences are often meetings in which cases
are returned to a lower court. It has taken four years just to be
discussed in conference. Despite the weight of the evidence, it may go no
where.
A hearing could generate a Constitutional crisis that could lead to
Obama’s impeachment and removal. It would mean that Obama was ineligible to run
for office for both terms and would render his previous executive orders and the
laws that he signed null and void.
Former President Nixon saw impeachment proceedings initiated in the wake
of the Watergate scandal and resigned to avoid that fate. He was later pardoned
by Gerald Ford. President Clinton faced an impeachment in the wake of the
Lewinski affair, but Congress gave him a pass on it.
This year could initiate a political tsunami that would engulf the
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidency.
For many the Supreme Court is seen as a politicized entity. The failure
to take up the case regarding Obama’s eligibility would damage the integrity of
the Court in the same way the ruling that Obamacare was a “tax” evoked a loss of
faith in its judgment—or it might go unreported and the public remain unaware
of it.
A constitutional crisis is looming. Only the Congress has the power to
pass laws. If the President ignores Congress and issues executive orders that
impose new restrictions on the Second Amendment, the people of the United States
will have lost the power of the Constitution to protect them. There are already
legislators prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings if he
does.
© Alan Caruba, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment