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

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

“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 ]

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