President Barack Obama is being inaugurated for a second term as President in a few days, but is already being threatened by reckless critics with the idea of impeachment, if he takes action on the economy, gun rights, the war in Afghanistan, immigration, or just about any other issue that causes fury among his critics, including the moronic “Birthers”, who still insist that Obama was born in Kenya, not America.
But the reality is that the threat of impeachment is a “paper tiger”, a totally useless exercise which will not, under any circumstances, lead to the removal of Obama from the Presidency.
The reasons for this conclusion include:
The fact that Obama has done nothing and will do nothing that is truly impeachable, meaning he will not “commit high crimes and misdemeanors in office”.
The fact that the critics know this, but may want to besmirch his reputation, using the same tactics against Bill Clinton in 1998-1999, a development which actually raised Clinton’s popularity and reputation and undermined the Republican Party image and standing.
The fact that removing Obama will not improve the situation politically, as Vice President Joe Biden would continue the same policies and initiatives of the President, and this would give him a leg up for the next Presidential election.
Finally, there is the interesting fact that Obama would have an unusual and ideal situation were he to be impeached, and face a Senate trial. This is that Obama would be the only President facing impeachment who would have a Senate with a majority of the membership being of his own party!
55 Senators are Democrats, and with the need to gain 67 votes to remove, it would require 40 percent of the Democrats and all of the Republicans to remove the President from office, and that will never happen!.
In comparison, Andrew Johnson, Democrat, had 42 Republicans in a 54 member Senate in 1868.
Richard Nixon, Republican, had 57 Democrats in a 100 member Senate in 1974.
Bill Clinton, Democrat, had 55 Republicans in a 100 member Senate in 1999.
So realize that impeachment is a political weapon that only demagogues will utilize, and while a majority of the House of Representatives can vote to impeach on flimsy grounds, and while such an action becomes part of the obituary of that President, there is no threat at all to Barack Obama asserting his powers and leading us for the next four years!
I did not know that the President of the United States could legislate by Executive orders.. interesting how President Obama resembles more and more the past Peronist Presidents of Argentina, like Menem , Kirchner and now Cristina Kirchner , who just legislate by Executive decree when Congress does not do as they say. I understand many members of the Democratic party urged President Obama to by pass Congress Constitutional prerrogative regarding the issuance of debt and raising of the debt, this is fascinating! I studied and lived the downfall of the Argentine Republic, how nobody saw it coming, and now I seem to see it happening here! All in the name of emergency and efficiency! I also read that President Obama wanted to have this debt cieling prerrogative all to himself, so he doesn’t have to waste time negotiating with Congress! It’s truly amazing how no matter what country they are in, populist tend to govern the same way.
For example , the use of children. Just like Peron and Evita and all the Peronists in Argentina and other populist in latin america, tomorrow President Obama is going to announce his executive orders concerning gun control surrounded by children! Truly a masterful propaganda event that will be covered by the compliance media.
This is interesting, as Hitler, Stalin, Mao have all been used as examples to compare to Obama, but now we have Peron too!.
The one thing you do not seem to understand is that executive orders have been used throughout American history, for the good of America. This is not the first President to utilize them when felt to be necessary. We have the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln, the Arming of Merchant Ships by Wilson, the Destroyers for Bases deal of FDR, the integration of the military by Truman, as just examples of this, and yet, somehow, we did not end up with a Fascist or Communist dictatorship.
You forget that this is the United States, with a tradition against authoritarian government, not an unstable country such as Argentina has so often been, or a country with a history of dictatorship of one kind or another such as Russia, China, or Germany.
The fact that our President surrounds himself with children as he works to prevent further gun violence is not demagogic. It is showing a greater concern for their welfare than the National Rifle Association and others who think gun rights include assault weapons and vast magazines of bullets, something the Founding Fathers never envisioned!
Rest assured the Republic will survive, and Obama will leave office on January 20, 2017, and we will have future elections and Presidents, unlike what was so under Peron, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other dictators. Obama is not a dictator, and neither was Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman or all the other Presidents who have used executive orders when necessary, because action was either blocked by Congress or immediate action in a crisis was necessary!
Excuse me but the examples you metioned of Executive orders all dealt with the Presidents prerrogative as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation actually was meant to deal a sever blow to the Confederates economy based on slavery. By emanicpating them, thier assets were worthless as such, plus it gave the southern slaves more hope to rebel. I was not talking of Hitler,Mao or Stalin, but of Argentina , a country that from 1853 to 1930, based on a Constitution that was mirrored to that of the US, went from being the poorest country in latin america, with 1.5 million people and 75% illiteracy rate, to by 1930, having 8 million people, 75% LITERACY rate and the 8th economy in the world. It was the economic miracle of the 2nd half of the 19th century. All because it respected the rule of law and individual rights. Even thought it was not perfect, it was compared to the rest of south america. But in 1930 the Constitution was broken, corporatism invaded politics, and populist demogoguery promoting social justice and class warfare, destroyed the country. And all politicians, not only Peron, were responsible. And guess what? Nobody back in 1930, in Argentina or abroad imagine that 70 yrs later Argentina would be in such a miserable state. Its a slow process, and the majority never sees the colapse coming until its too late. If President Obama breaks the consitutional order, we won’t see the consequences now, but generations down the road when Obama will be long gone.
Obama is not Peron, and this is not Argentina. Obama is no threat, but rather the corporations behind the House Republicans and the Tea Party Movement.
Class warfare is not being promoted; and the rule of law and individual rights is being enforced, more so than under Reagan and Bush II, who helped to bring about extreme stratification of wealth, greater now than Great Britain or any other stable democracy.
I do find it odd and ironic that, apparently, you are named after Peron!
I use Peron name as to remind me of the damage populism has done. I really do not understand how the rule of law and individual rights are being enforced when President Obama and the Democratic Party plus 5 justices of the SCOTUS have declared that the healthcare mandate is constitutional. How can the rule of law be upheld when 5 Justices of the SCOTUS say that the mandate is a tax when the law says its a penalty, as if Congress wouldn’t know what a tax is, and even President Obama said it was not a tax. How can there exist the rule of law when President Obama by executive order modified and imposed the dream act that was rejected by Congress. That is clear cut legisltating, that is usurpation of legislative powers by the Executive. The fact the moderates establishment polititians, the media and some part of the populace accept it, does not mean that is it Constitutional.How can the rule of law be enforced when President Obama has assume authority not only to detain american citizens suspected of terrorist activities,but just assassinates them directly with drones attacks and does not even read them their rights? I am really confused as to why the anti-war protest all of a sudden has dissapeared. Finally since around 2009 a new Mason Dixon line has been drawn up by this administration. The line that divides those earning more than 250k per yr and those that earn less. We, the ones who earn less, are suppose to despise and hate them. All of them, jet owners, bankers , corporate officers and CEO’s , doctors, businessmen, the list seems endless. Thus I see class warfare being promoted ,as it has been promoted by the populist peronist in Argentina. Obama is a prime example. Believe me , I know a populist peronist, chavista or you name it , when I see and hear one. Not only President Obama, but many from his administration and Congressmen. Why even you, your last post is Peronism 101 and you don’t even realize it!!
It is clear that you are set in your views, and we are not going to agree on anything. But I must say it is a new thing that I am called a Peronist, since I despise what he represented in his dictatorship in Argentina, and his anti Semitism, which led him to back Nazi Germany and allow war criminals to escape to Argentina after World War II.
Actually your understanding of Argentine history is very poor. He was not a dictator, he was duly elected in 1946 and then again in 1952 by an enormous majority. It was in essence a democracy. True that the Republic dissapeared, but it was replaced by a popular democracy, like in Venezuela today. Pure democracy does tend to end in some type of tyranny, as the Greeks have taught us. But then again, is that not what the progressive movement in the US advocate?
Also,He actually and personally was not an anti-semite, he just entered the competition for German engineering and science, just as the US did.Of course some Nazis did enter Argentina, but then again, they also entered the US. Furthermore he never backed Germany, as a matter of fact he was the Secretary of War in 1945 when Argentina declared war on a practically defeated Nazi Germany. He did admire Mussolini in the 30’s, but then again so did Time magazine and great part of the american progressive movement of the decade. And during Israel war of independence the Eva Peron Foundation provided tons of goods, oil, and water for Israel to fight. As a matter of fact my old man, as a Peronist that he was, was invited by the Israelies to go join them ,fight and live in Israel back then. You should not get your information on Peron from the play Evita. Also you should read the 1949 Argentine Constitution, I believe that you will come to admire it, if you are intelectually honest. I of course do not, since it copied parts of the Italian fascist Constitution and FDR Second Bill of Rights, same thing if you look at the social rights parts.
I will certainly agree that you, as an Argentinian, you have focused more on the history of Argentina. But to say that the progressive movement admired Mussolini and Peron is not true, as I have researched the movement, and while there are, certainly, exceptions, you are painting a broad stroke on a whole group of reformers, and that is unfair and unjust.
And to say that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights is Fascist makes you lose all credibility.
I suggest you read my words correctly. First I wrote “great part” of the american progressive movement admired Mussolini, as they also admired the Soviet Union, not all the progressive movement. Second, I never said the american progressive movement admired Peron, I wrote Peron admired Mussolini. Third, I said that the Argentine Constitution of 1949 copied “parts” of the Italian fascist Consititution and FDR Second Bill of Rights, concerning the “social rights parts”. It is not my fault that the Italian Fascist Constitution established “social rights” before FDR claimed for a Second Bill of Rights. It is you who is saying that it is fascist, as a matter of fact you could also say its communist, if you look at the Soviet Constitution which also contained so called “social rights”. There was a movement in Constitutional law, called “social constitutionalism” , mainly in continental Europe and Latin America, during the first half of the 20th century, which opposed the classic liberal constitutions of the 19th century, like the US Constitution and Argentine Constitution of 1853 which established the Rule of Law. This movement was independent of FDR and predated him. He just copied and did not do anything original. So I am not calling FDR a fascist, I am just pointing out a constitutional law preference regarding social rights. I of course oppose “social constitutionalism” because of its disastrous consequences.
Ok, you have certainly made yourself clear. Thanks!