15 June 2011
By Jacob G. Hornberger Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution states
in part: "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." Article I, Section 8, states in part: "The Congress shall have Power To Declare War
."
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It
is the law that the citizenry of the United States
imposed on federal officials as a condition to calling
the federal government into existence. Since the Framers delegated the power to declare
war to Congress, the Constitution prohibits the
president from waging war without first securing a
declaration of war from Congress. Everyone acknowledges that President Obama has
waged war against Libya without the constitutionally
required congressional declaration of war. By ordering
U.S. armed forces to attack Libya, Obama
intentionally, knowingly, and willingly violated the
law the law of the Constitution. Obama's war on Libya has resulted in the deaths of
untold number of people who have never attacked the
United States. His war of aggression has also exposed
the American people to the increased threat of
terrorism, which federal officials commonly cite as
the justification for further infringements on the
civil liberties of the American people. Obama's war on Libya clearly falls within the
category of a "high crime or misdemeanor." In fact,
given the death and destruction and the real and
potential harm to the safety and freedom of the
American people, Obama's war is akin to a political
felony. So, I say: Impeach him. In fact, I can't see any
reason why he shouldn't be impeached. He has broken
the law the people's law the law of the
Constitution, and he has done so knowingly,
intentionally, and willfully. What would be Obama's defense at his impeachment
trial? Unable to deny the charge, his only claim would
be that since other presidents have violated the same
law and nothing was done to them, he should be let off
the hook too. But is that a valid defense? It certainly isn't
permitted in criminal cases in which the feds charge
citizens with violations of their laws. If a citizen
is charged with illegal possession of drugs, for
example, he isn't permitted to defend against the
charge by claiming that others similarly situated
weren't charged. So, why should Obama's "defense" be treated any
differently? Even if Obama were to be acquitted, wouldn't it be
constructive to finally bring a president to account
for his willful violation of this particular provision
of the Constitution? At the very least, a powerful
message would be sent to Obama and all future
presidents: Try this again and you will be removed
from office. Given that the U.S. Supreme Court long ago signaled
that it would not enforce this particular provision of
the Constitution no matter how important it was, it's
up to Congress to do so. If presidents can ignore the
law, then what's the point of having a Constitution?
It's time for Congress to enforce our law the law
of the Constitution the law that we the people have
imposed on federal officials. What better way to do
that than by impeaching President Obama for the high
crime or misdemeanor of waging war on Libya without
the congressional declaration of war required by the
Constitution? Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the
Future of Freedom Foundation. Comments 💬 التعليقات |