Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Law That Can Save America And Put Obama In Jail
To The Point News.com ^ | 10 January 2013 | Dr. Jack Wheeler

Posted on 01/11/2013 5:52:33 PM PST by Windflier

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution states:

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

This is the "Power of the Purse" clause, which Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 makes clear is exclusively held by the House of Representatives:

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Actually, there are two "powers of the purse" - to spend money or to deny its being spent. For the US Federal Government to spend any money, one single dime on anything, three things need to happen in this order: 1) an Appropriation must be authorized and passed by the House, 2) such Appropriation must then be passed by the Senate (any differences in the House and Senate versions must be reconciled via joint agreement and passage), and finally 3) be signed into Law by the President.

To deny the federal government the authority to spend any money, one single dime on any program or activity, only one thing needs to happen: the House does not pass an Appropriation for it. Period. Neither the Senate, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court, nor any federal agency secretary or bureaucrat, has the constitutional authority to spend one single dime by themselves, without a majority of the House giving it to them. That is the power of the purse.

There is, however, a problem - a legal problem, not just a psychological one, such as Congressistas being spendaholics or too cowardly to refuse the begging of various constituencies for handouts.

This problem is epitomized by the Senate Republicans' inability to force Harry Reid to pass an annual budget, even though there is a law requiring the Senate to do so. Thanks to Reid's blocking all attempts, the Senate hasn't passed a budget since April, 2009, which clearly violates federal law - the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

So how come Reid can't be prosecuted? Why can't the Senate Pubs take legal action against him? As Byron York explains, "the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. Lawmakers are required by law to pass a budget each year by April 15, but there's no provision to punish them, or even slightly inconvenience them, if they don't."

So we arrive at what may well be the single most important question to ask in America today.

Given that the current President of the United States seems determined to bypass the House's appropriation authority and spend gigantic sums on whatever programs he wants or enforcing whatever Executive Orders he issues, is there an enforcement mechanism for his violating the power of the purse clauses in the Constitution?

The answer is yes. There is a federal law that specifically codifies the power of the purse clauses, and provides specific punishment for their violation by any "officer or employee of the United States government."

This punishment is "suspension from duty without pay or removal from office," and up to two years in federal prison.

This Federal law is: The Antideficiency Act. The original version was enacted into law in 1884. Although revised occasionally since to make its meaning clear in terms of "modern" language, its purpose remains: to be the enforcement mechanism implementing Article I, Sections 7 & 9. It was last revised during the Reagan presidency, and is codified as Title 31 of the United States Code (31 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342, 1349, and 1350).


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: obama; tyranny
A very interesting article by Dr. Jack Wheeler. A solution, perhaps?
1 posted on 01/11/2013 5:52:53 PM PST by Windflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I guess you didn’t hear, the Constitution is a living document and it’s words have no meaning any more.

So what are you going to do about?

I am prepared. Will you fight with me. CWII


2 posted on 01/11/2013 5:56:56 PM PST by ConservativeInPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Sounds great, but who’s going to enforce it? The Magnificent Mulatto does
what he pleases and gives the finger to the law.


3 posted on 01/11/2013 5:57:24 PM PST by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Interesting, but since 2008 the law has been basically ignored by both parties. Who might enforce a broken law, Eric Holder? A nation that lists for American Idol, Honey BooBoo and All My Babies Mamma’s doesn’t give a crap about Obama crapping on our Constitution. Sadly, “Our little book” just isn’t as cool as “The One.”


4 posted on 01/11/2013 5:58:26 PM PST by RobaWho (I Love the U.S. Constitution, as written.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Congress has demonstrated that, without exception, it will not challenge the Great Obama.

They are inside the Beltway and will do nothing to upset that paradigm.

On the other hand, just as King George started the American Revolution trying to take our weapons, Obama has started a new American Revolution.

Obama is a tyrant...see the tagline.

5 posted on 01/11/2013 6:02:29 PM PST by RoosterRedux (The 2nd Amendment is our defense against tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

The GOP has no guts. Articles like this are simply an academic exercise. If the GOP intended to stop anything, they would already made an attempt.

Unfortunately, the reality is that no one in DC even cares.


6 posted on 01/11/2013 6:04:42 PM PST by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

"Screw the law, the Constitution, and you little dhimmi suckers
who will die for, and serve, us under ObamaCARE
(unlike OUR families and staff).
"

7 posted on 01/11/2013 6:06:22 PM PST by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeInPA
The folks that are my neighbors are armed and ready...some of us are old and wobbly, but some of us are youngish and getting stronger...and getting prepared.

Bring it Obama...bring it.

The U.S. Military doesn't support you...perhaps your homeys in the hood would like to try.

Bring it, Obama...bring it.

8 posted on 01/11/2013 6:08:07 PM PST by RoosterRedux (The 2nd Amendment is our defense against tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Unfortunately not a solution. No one with the power to do so will enforce it.


9 posted on 01/11/2013 6:08:59 PM PST by SaxxonWoods (....Let It Burn....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeInPA
I guess you didn’t hear, the Constitution is a living document and it’s words have no meaning any more.

Read the excerpt again. There's a federal law which forbids any federal official (including the president) from spending monies that aren't specifically authorized in a Congressional spending bill.

I am prepared. Will you fight with me. CWII

Of course I will. I wouldn't think of shaming my forefathers, who fought to create this nation.

10 posted on 01/11/2013 6:26:38 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
Rooster ... perhaps your homeys in the hood would like to try.

At this point, I want them to bring it.

It means less crime.

Less food stamps.

Less section 8 housing.

Less Medicaid.

Less daycare.

Less Obama phones.

Less wasted dollars on drop outs.

Less wasted dollars on illiterates graduating from government schools.

Less people who don't speak the American language.

Less crime.

Less socialists.

And no, I am not a racist, but 96% of Obama's people voted for him.

11 posted on 01/11/2013 6:31:07 PM PST by ConservativeInPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT SHOULD BE REPEALED ON DAY ONE

Ed Rollins, National Campaign Director for the Reagan-Bush ‘84 campaign, insists that the AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT IS A TAX AND SHOULD HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE HOUSE.

This is a tax. The Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. All taxes have to start in the House of Representatives. So, even if you don’t repeal it, this was a Senate sponsored health care bill. This is an illegal bill.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGJHcxkUEqQ


12 posted on 01/11/2013 6:32:44 PM PST by Jonah Vark (Any 5th grader knows that the Constitution declares the separation of powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan; RobaWho; RoosterRedux; vmivol00; Diogenesis; SaxxonWoods
Sounds great, but who’s going to enforce it? The Magnificent Mulatto does what he pleases and gives the finger to the law.

From the article:

§1341 states:

1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not-

(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;

(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law;

§1342 specifies that the "unless authorized by law" exception in 1341 (1)(B) applies only to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property," which does "not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property."

§1349 states:

"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office."

§1350 states:

"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."

(snip)

There are 30 Republican Governors now. If a number of them banded together, with their States suing Zero for violation of the Antideficiency Act, then, under the Original Jurisdiction clause of the Constitution - Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: "In all Cases... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" - the case must go directly to the Supremes, bypassing all lower courts.

So we don't even need lily-livered Congress Pubs, just Pub Governors, a number of whom do have the moxy.

Granted, since Chief Justice Roberts has become Obama's poodle, the SCOTUS may not find the president guilty. Nonetheless, prosecution of the president under the Antideficiency Act is a far easier way to remove him from office than impeachment.

Impeachment of Obama would be a high bar for the House, and verdict of guilty in a subsequent trial by the Dem-controlled Senate an impossibility. So the only possible way to remove him from office is via Antideficiency Act violations. Further, such violations can put him in jail.

In sum:

*The Constitution explicitly states that the President and the Executive Branch can only spend money first appropriated by the House.

*The enforcement mechanism for violation of this Constitutional provision is the Antideficiency Act, under which the president may be personally prosecuted as an officer of the United States government, and if found guilty, may be removed from office and imprisoned for up to two years.

*Our current president has indicated his intention to blatantly, knowingly and willfully violate the Antideficiency Act.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon Republican leaders in the House and Senate to publicly announce and repeatedly state their intention to seek the criminal prosecution of President Barack Hussein Obama should he violate the Antideficiency Act, in response to the House's refusal to 1) raise the debt ceiling, 2) pass a Continuing Resolution in lieu of a Federal Budget, or 3) provide funding for the implementation of Presidential Executive Orders, particularly those regarding gun-control.

Republican Governors and conservative legal foundations should then join in support.

We have the Constitution and the specific federal law to put an end to the Tyranny of Zero. It's time to go on offense. Mr. Obama must be given a choice: obey the Antideficiency Act or be thrown out of office and go to jail.

13 posted on 01/11/2013 6:33:56 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Read the excerpt again. There's a federal law which forbids any federal official (including the president) from spending monies that aren't specifically authorized in a Congressional spending bill.

You are kidding, right? When did that every stop anything? Have you recently notice who is on the Supreme Court? And their recent rulings?

Yeah, it is ok to kill 3,000+ innocent babies per day since 1973.

Those are the people standing between US and the old USA.

14 posted on 01/11/2013 6:37:47 PM PST by ConservativeInPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
:-)

15 posted on 01/11/2013 6:43:33 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeInPA

Cowboy up, friend. No one said it was going to be easy. You might actually have to fight to preserve your liberty.


16 posted on 01/11/2013 6:44:09 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

(No offense to you, the poster).....but give me one huge, honkin’ break. This so-called ‘president’ could go down on a 7 year old boy in public, on national TV, and the media and Congress and the Supremes would still ignore it.

This country is now getting EXACTLY what it deserves.


17 posted on 01/11/2013 6:54:39 PM PST by RightOnline (I am Andrew Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

FREE REPUBLIC
Working together for conservatism and America
TOGETHER WE WILL PREVAIL



Click the Pic


Support Free Republic

18 posted on 01/11/2013 6:57:59 PM PST by RedMDer (Those that believe in gun free zones should wear GUN FREE ZONE T-SHIRTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Windflier

How can they use the constitution when not one of them know it?


19 posted on 01/11/2013 6:59:49 PM PST by ronnie raygun (Being Breitbart, Lexington / Concord, America's first gun grab attempt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
This so-called ‘president’ could go down on a 7 year old boy in public, on national TV, and the media and Congress and the Supremes would still ignore it.

Don't mind me. I'm just trying to share a small ray of hope. Y'all want to blot it out with darkness, go right ahead.

20 posted on 01/11/2013 7:01:06 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

What a picture... Pelosi looks even more demented than usual.


21 posted on 01/11/2013 7:02:10 PM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun
How can they use the constitution when not one of them know it?

Sorry for interrupting your normally scheduled Doom and Gloom. My bad.

22 posted on 01/11/2013 7:03:46 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux; Windflier

Did you ever noticed that Andrew Breitbart was breitbarted???


23 posted on 01/11/2013 7:04:37 PM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux; ConservativeInPA

Have just forgotten how the military big time supported Barry Soetoro AGAINST Patriot Lt.Col. Terry Lakin and stripped him from his livelyhood, hmmm???


24 posted on 01/11/2013 7:09:21 PM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Did you ever noticed that Andrew Breitbart was breitbarted???

Well, I guess we'd all best turn in our guns now, and save Dear Reader the trouble, eh?

Geez Louise....where's the patriot channel?

25 posted on 01/11/2013 7:09:39 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: danamco

The degenerate nobama can do whatever he wants to...until someone stops him. Constitution??? nobama don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution.


26 posted on 01/11/2013 7:15:30 PM PST by ogen hal (First amendment or reeducation camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Good find, Windy.

We have to use every tool that presents us with an opportunity to fight back.


27 posted on 01/11/2013 7:17:20 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exit82
Good find, Windy. We have to use every tool that presents us with an opportunity to fight back.

You bet. I'm going to pass this article along to my state and national reps. Can't hurt, and who knows - it might actually make a difference.

28 posted on 01/11/2013 7:45:53 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Again....I don’t shoot the messenger; nothing against you.


29 posted on 01/11/2013 7:59:22 PM PST by RightOnline (I am Andrew Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
You might actually have to fight to preserve your liberty.

I don't like it. But I am ready. I am not one of the many that have back orders on pmags.

30 posted on 01/11/2013 8:02:58 PM PST by ConservativeInPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

The power of the purse is not granted to the house exclusively. The house is the primary holder of said power, meaning appropriations must start there. However, after that, they must pass the senate and the president, or if there’s a veto Congress alone and by a supermajority. So they have the power of the purse, too, in a sense.


31 posted on 01/11/2013 9:22:53 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan

“who’s going to enforce it?”

Congress, or at least it could clear the way for enforcement. They must try and convict before a president can stop being president and therefore meet the law by regular people. That will never happen, and should it Biden would no doubt pardon him. So who’s to enforce it is moot point.


32 posted on 01/11/2013 9:29:00 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“prosecution of the president...is a far easier way to remove him from office than impeachment.”

You cannot prosecute the president until he has been removed from office. The only (legal) means of removing him from office is impeachment. Your proposal is a nonstarter.

Obama has qualified immunity and de facto complete immunity until such time as the house chucks him out. The courts can allow him to be sued like Clinton with Paula Jones or order him to turn over tapes like Nixon. But it’s not as if Nixon could’ve been attested for obstruction of justice while he was president. In the first place all he’d have to do is plead guilty and pardon himself.


33 posted on 01/11/2013 9:42:11 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

attested = arrested


34 posted on 01/11/2013 9:45:45 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
You cannot prosecute the president until he has been removed from office.

Read the whole article. It's not about impeachment. The relevant portions of the statute are detailed there. If Obama violates any portion of that law (which he probably will), he most certainly can be prosecuted and removed from office.

The only question is, who's going to have to cojones to do it? The author (Dr. Jack Wheeler) suggests that several red state Governors could band together and bring suit, as provided for in the law.

I'm going to send this to my Governor, Rick Perry, my House rep, Kenny Marchant (R-TX), and both of my Senators, one of which is Ted Cruz (R-TX).

35 posted on 01/11/2013 10:17:35 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

[[The Law That Can Save America And Put Obama In Jail]]

There isw NO law that can save ANYONE in a lawless nation- which is exactly what we’ve becoem as the left has brazenly dismantled our constitution bit by bit- the constitution means NOTHING to left anymore- and apaprently it means NOTHING to the supreme court either- The laws of the cosntitution are no logner able to save anyone!


36 posted on 01/11/2013 10:25:19 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“he most certainly can be prosecuted and removed from office”

No, he MUST be impeached first. Breaking this law may be grounds for impeachment, but you are talking as if immediate prosecution can replace impeachment. It can’t.

“several red state Governors could band together and bring suit”

They could, but they can’t remove him from office. Only Congress can: the house through impeachment and the senate by trial and conviction.


37 posted on 01/11/2013 10:27:05 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
“he most certainly can be prosecuted and removed from office”

No, he MUST be impeached first. Breaking this law may be grounds for impeachment, but you are talking as if immediate prosecution can replace impeachment. It can’t.

You're not reading the wording of the statute. Here it is, and it is quite clear:

§1341 states:

1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not-

(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;

(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law;

§1342 specifies that the "unless authorized by law" exception in 1341 (1)(B) applies only to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property," which does "not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property."

§1349 states:

"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office."

§1350 states:

"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."

38 posted on 01/11/2013 10:44:03 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

It doesn’t matter what the law says. The Constitution preempted it, and according to it the president, vice president, and certain judges can only be removed from office via the impeachment process. He can’t be prosecuted or jailed before removal from office. The president is subject to various legal proceedings, but not what you’re talking about without impeachment.


39 posted on 01/11/2013 11:08:39 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
It doesn’t matter what the law says. The Constitution preempted it, and according to it the president, vice president, and certain judges can only be removed from office via the impeachment process. He can’t be prosecuted or jailed before removal from office. The president is subject to various legal proceedings, but not what you’re talking about without impeachment.

So that's it? Obama skates again? I think I want a second opinion.

40 posted on 01/12/2013 3:09:26 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“So that’s it? Obama skates again?”

Yes and no. Like I said, the house could impeach him on your grounds. They won’t, and even if they did, the Dem senate won’t convict. But we’re not any worse off, because your way we wouldn’t get any authority to press the issue, anyway. I don’t know what if anything a bunch of governors could accomplish. There really isn’t any precident for that.

They’d have to get federal judges to play along, and though that’s a little more likely than impeachment, it’d end up at the dead end of SCOTUS eventually.


41 posted on 01/12/2013 4:45:13 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Vark

The “fiscal cliff” bill started in the senate, too, didn’t it? Sad truth is that it doesn’t really matter. No one is going to redress it. No one important cares.


42 posted on 01/12/2013 4:51:58 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

What’s the relevant part of the Constitution that backs up your assertion in this matter?


43 posted on 01/12/2013 8:22:20 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Article I, section III; Article II, section IV.

It takes a bit of figuring, though. And, like everything else, there’s the long history of how it’s been construed along with what it says.


44 posted on 01/12/2013 9:03:25 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; Windflier

I came across this a few days ago.......

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q115.html

Q115. “What is the impeachment process?”
A. The Constitution details impeachment in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 2, Section 3, and Article 3, Section 2. The word “details,” however, is a bit strong for what the Constitution provides. As with many things, the Constitution primarily gives us a skeleton of a process. The House brings charges for impeachment. The Senate holds a trial and votes to convict or acquit. THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, OR ARTICLE 3 JUDGE IS THROUGH IMPEACHMENT. Impeachments are not tried by a jury. The rest of the process is left to the rules of Congress.

The process begins with the House. It votes on passing articles of impeachment against a member of the Executive or Judicial branches. If the articles pass, then it is said that the person has been impeached. The vote is a straight up-or-down, majority vote.

After the House votes, the impeachment goes to the Senate. There, members of the House who were advocates for impeachment become the prosecutors in the Senate trial (they are called the House Managers). The accused secures his own counsel. The judge is the Senate itself, though the presiding officer acts as the head judge. In the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides; in other cases, the Vice President or President Pro Tem presides.

After all testimony has been heard, the Senate votes. If the Senate votes to convict by more than a two-thirds majority, the person is impeached. The person convicted is removed from office. The Senate may also prevent that person from ever holding another elective office. The Senate may set its own rules for impeachments, and the rules are not subject to judicial review. The Senate has streamlined rules for trial of impeachment for persons holding lower offices. There is no appeal in the case of conviction of impeachment.
# # # # #

The House could impeach Obama for some of the crimes he has committed but the Senate will never convict him with a 2/3 majority. Unless he does something so awful that even they turn from him.


45 posted on 01/12/2013 10:51:30 PM PST by Jonah Vark (Any 5th grader knows that the Constitution declares the separation of powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Vark
THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, OR ARTICLE 3 JUDGE IS THROUGH IMPEACHMENT

That becomes a lot easier to do if a court has found him guilty of a crime and the appellate process has upheld the convictions. It would take a while, but I'd not be surprised if it changed his behavior.

46 posted on 01/13/2013 8:35:00 PM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson