Impeaching the President, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Over the past six years, the current President, Barack Hussein Obama, has engaged in numerous activities that clearly rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and our elected officials in Congress have a responsibility to their constituents and to the entire nation to draw up articles of impeachment against him. As our nation has seen its principles slowly eroded by politicians with ever-increasing power, the very foundations of this great country are being worn away. The United States Constitution establishes a government of, by, and for the people, and it this same document that gives us both the power and the responsibility to remove from office a President who does not live up to his oath of office. In order to preserve the principles in the Constitution and to secure the future of this nation it is imperative that Congress move to impeach Barack Obama. The following paper will lay out the case against the President and make it clear that he must be removed from office.

Background and Overview: The Impeachment Process

Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that “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.” There are a variety of specific process involved in impeaching officials at various levels of government; for the purposes of this discussion we will focus solely on those specific rules that pertain to the impeachment of a sitting U.S. President.

The impeachment process is two-fold, and it begins in the House of Representatives. If and when a President is accused of one or more impeachable offenses, it is the responsibility of the members of the House to draw up articles of impeachment. These articles are analogous to the charging and indictment of a defendant in a criminal court, and they largely serve as a formal list of the charges against the President.  Any member of the House can call for an impeachment of the President, and can set forth an informal list of charges (or proposed charges). In contemporary times the impeachment process has been formalized to the extent that it is the responsibility of the House Judiciary Committee to determine whether the process will move forward, and if it is believed that the President has committed one or more impeachable offenses, the Committee will present a resolution to that effect. At such time as a resolution is passed, it is then sent to the House chamber for debate and voting. In other words, the Judiciary Committee determines whether grounds for impeachment exist, while the entire House of Representatives must then vote on whether to move forward based on the findings of the Judiciary Committee. If the House votes to impeach, it draws up formal articles of impeachment which are then sent to the Senate.

If the House of Representatives can be seen as analogous to arraignment court where impeachment is concerned, then the Senate is analogous to the criminal court in which the actual trial takes place. It is not the responsibility of the Senate to decide whether the President should be subject to impeachment proceedings; once it receives formal articles of impeachment from the House it has a duty to move forward with the impeachment trial. In the case of sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court serves as the presiding judge. In the first phase of an impeachment trial the Senate Trial Committee hears the list of charges and evidence against the President and then prepares a report and recommendation for review by the Senators. Once the evidence has been reviewed and the Senate Trial Committee has issued its report and recommendations, the members of the Senate fulfill the role of the jury and vote to convict or acquit at the end of the trial.

In the history of the United States only two Presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. In both instances the Presidents were acquitted during their impeachment trials. While some Americans may have felt that the two Presidents should not have been acquitted, the results at least demonstrate that the process is as fair as possible, and allows for a public airing and discussion of grievances related to presidential conduct in office. A third U.S. President, Richard Nixon, was subject to articles of Impeachment by the House of Representatives, but he chose to resign from office before his impeachment trial in the Senate. As such, President Nixon is the only President who has left office as a direct result of the impeachment process, and is the only U.S President to resign from Office. The fact that only three out of forty-four  U.S. Presidents have faced impeachment demonstrates that it is not a process that has been used frivolously, and that it is considered a measure of last resort when evidence exists that a President has failed to live up to his Constitutional duties.  As the following sections will show, the evidence supporting the impeachment of Barack Obama is clear and compelling.

The Decision to Impeach Barack Obama

Before laying out the specific acts for which Barack Obama should, and even must, be impeached, it is necessary to establish the context in which these arguments are being made. There are a significant number of specific allegations, concerns, and outright accusations against Barack Obama that, if true, could be reason enough to impeach him and remove him from office. Taken together, they combine to form an airtight case for impeachment. To be completely fair and entirely transparent, however, not all of these accusations can necessarily be proven in a Senate trial, nor are all of these accusations necessarily true. Even for those concerns about President Obama’s conduct that are clearly and inarguably valid, it can be argued that not all of them rise to the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In order to make a convincing argument that Barack Obama must be impeached by Congress, it is first necessary to make it clear that he has committed acts that do, in fact, rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Because the impeachment process has been used so sparingly in the past, it is absolutely imperative to demonstrate that calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama is not simply an act of political revenge or partisan gamesmanship. The argument against Obama is not being made by those who have simply not gotten their way in the political arena; it is being made by those who recognize the serious existential threat his actions represent to the republic, and the duty our elected representatives have to respond to that threat.

Making the Case Against Barack Obama

In this section we will examine several of the most serious charges against Barack Obama, and present the evidence for how and why they rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Each of the charges will be examined individually, and will subsequently be considered in terms of how their combined weight has the effect of establishing a compelling argument for removing him from office. There are a number of grassroots organizations that have formed to lay out arguments in favor of impeachment, and literally dozens and dozens of charges have been made by such organizations and the individuals who comprise them. Because it would be difficult to discuss all of them here without devoting hundreds of pages to the task, only the most serious and pressing charges will be examined. It is fair to note that a complete detailing of these charges would conceivably fill a book, so it must be noted that the choice to focus only on several charges is in no way intended to imply that the charges not listed herein are not significant. One final note: these charges are discussed in no particular order, and should not be seen as being ranked by their order of importance. All of these charges are serious, and virtually any one of them could be considered reason enough to remove Barack Obama from office.

Illegal Immigration and Undocumented Aliens in the U.S.

For over two centuries the United States has historically been a beacon of hope and freedom to the rest of the world, and millions of people have immigrated to this country since it was founded. The U.S. has a proud tradition as a welcoming place for those seeking a better life, and who wish to take advantage of the opportunities presented in a free society. Immigrants from Europe, Asia, Latin America, and other parts of the world have come here over the centuries to help forge the world’s greatest nation, and it is this “melting pot” of different traditions, and mutual respect among all Americans, that continues to make this country the leader of the free world. With the freedoms and rights granted to American citizens and even to authorized visitors, however, comes the duty to ensure that those who follow the rules and enter the country legally are not usurped by those who break the rules.

The issue of protecting our borders and halting illegal immigration has always been an important concern, but this concern has grown to become one of the most important issues of the day since the events of September 11, 2001.  With the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 it became clear to all Americans that our nation faced a new threat that may be greater than anything we faced in history. While President Obama allows the situation in the Middle East to rage out of control, millions of ordinary Americans recognize that global jihad represents a clear and present danger to our nation. We have seen overwhelming and indisputable evidence that our national borders are not secure, and that millions of people have entered the U.S. undetected. As we learned on 9/11, it only takes a small number of people to wield devastation on a massive scale, and our porous southern border leaves us open to the possibility that terrorists could easily cross into our country undetected.

This is, of course, not the only threat that the U.S. faces with regard to illegal immigration and illegal aliens. There are, by some estimates, at least 20 million undocumented aliens currently living in the United States. These millions of people present a massive strain on our nation in economic terms, as they often work for low pay and take jobs away from American citizens. Many of them also take advantage of our social welfare systems, and receive benefits such as food stamps and even cash payments, both of which are funded by hardworking American taxpayers. These same illegal aliens also often work jobs where they are paid “under the table,” so their paychecks are not taxed like the paychecks of American citizens and legal visitors to this country. When illegal aliens get sick or injured, they go to hospital emergency rooms which are already overcrowded and overworked. Their children attend our public schools, draining resources away from the children of the taxpayers who pay for these schools. As long as our government refuses to do anything about illegal immigration and protecting our borders, these problems will only get worse.

Despite the crushing defeat of Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections, Barack Obama has made no indication that he intends to follow the clear will of the people or acknowledged the obvious mandate that was given to the Republicans as they took back control of the Senate. Instead of working with the Republican leadership to craft real immigration reform legislation that will help turn back the tide of illegal immigrants flooding across our borders, Barack Obama has made it clear that he intends to issue Executive Orders intended to protect millions of illegal aliens from being deported.  While it is within the purview of the President to issue Executive Orders for some actions, the decision to override Congress in such a serious matter represents a flagrant abuse of power by the President.

Barack Obama must realize that he is treading on dangerous ground if he decides to use Executive Orders to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He has clearly decided to make a calculated risk, because the potential benefits to the Democratic Party, in his mind, could outweigh the consequences. By allowing millions of illegal aliens to remain in the country, Obama is setting them on a path to citizenship. If millions of new voters who have been dependent on the federal government are allowed to participate in our electoral processes that would obviously offer a huge boon to the Democrats. With only two years remaining in his Presidency, Obama is clearly counting on the idea that the Republicans in Congress will not have the stomach to impeach him. If he manages to leave office with his Executive Orders on immigration intact, the damage will have been done. That is why this represents such a serious issue and a long-term threat to our nation.

The Death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya

On September 11, 2012, the eleventh anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, a group of Islamic terrorist attacked a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. As the terrorists stormed the compound they attacked dozens of people inside, and killed a U.S. ambassador and a Foreign Service agent. Within hours another attack took place at a spate compound during which two CIA contractors were killed and dozens of others were injured. At a time when security should have been heightened at facilities such as these, it was clear that the decision makers at the highest levels, such as the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had failed to meet their responsibilities.

It was immediately clear in the aftermath of these attacks that the White House was moving to cover up its failures in Benghazi. In the first public comments about the attack, the President –who was running for reelection at the time- refused to acknowledge that Ambassador Stevens had been killed in a terrorist attack. This was nothing less than a blatant political strategy, as Obama could not afford to admit that he and his administration had allowed the compound in Libya to go unprotected at a time when it would have been so obviously vulnerable. Before and during the attacks there were calls from individuals on the ground at each of the two sites for backup and support from the military and the CIA, but in both instances the potential respondents were told to stand down. It is impossible to know what may have happened if proper security had been in place or if backup had arrived in a timely manner, but we do know what happened with it: an American ambassador was killed by terrorists.

The President and his administration have done everything they can to avoid taking responsibility for what happened at Benghazi, and have also taken steps to cover up their actions both befo0re and after the attacks. While Secretary Clinton was still in office there had been repeated calls for increased security in the weeks and days prior to the attack, as the people serving our nation in Libya understood that September 11 represents a triumph for the jihadists who wish to destroy the United States. The evidence uncovered in subsequent investigations shows that these requests for additional security were repeatedly ignored by the State Department, leaving the compound and the CIA annex vulnerable.

Compounding their egregious failures and dereliction of duty in the days leading up to the Benghazi attack, Secretary Clinton, Barack Obama, and other members of the administration have repeatedly stonewalled investigators and thwarted all attempts to get at the truth of what happened that day. The President refused to acknowledge that it was in fact a terrorist attack, and the White House put out the story that it was simply a “protest” that had gotten out of hand. By describing it as a protest, rather than a planned and coordinated terrorist attack, the White House hoped to argue that it was a spontaneous event that they could not have prevented, and that it happened too quickly for any security response or support to be sent in to protect the Americans in the compound. Subsequent investigations led by Congressman Darrell Issa and other Republican members of the House of Representatives, overwhelming evidence has been uncovered that shows how Obama, Clinton, and other members of the Obama administration abdicated their responsibilities on that day. Moreover, they have since taken steps to hide the truth of their failures from the members of Congress and the American people, including attempts to get other people to lie to Congress. For these reasons, President Obama should be impeached for his failure to protect the U.S. Ambassador and for his efforts to cover up his crimes.

Obamacare

One of the first things Barack Obama did when he took office was to announce that he intended to implement health care reform. While there is no question that our health care syste at the time had some problems, and could have been improved in many ways, it was still the best health care system in the world. Although critics of the U.S. health care system complain about costs, or about access for some people, people from all around the world come here seeking the best medical treatment when the systems in their own countries fail them.  The United States is home to the greatest doctors, nurses, hospitals, teaching institutions and research facilities in the entire world. While our system arguably needed some improvements, what it did not need was a complete government takeover that forced millions of Americans off their current plans and into government-controlled “health care exchanges” that mandated their coverage, often at significantly higher expense. One of the central promises made by Barack Obama was that “if you like you current health care plan, you can keep it.” As far too many Americans have discovered, the passage of the so-called Affordable Care Act has meant that they lost their insurance plans, were forced to purchase more expensive plans, and in many cases were no longer able to see the doctors and other health care providers of their choice.

In recent weeks it has come to light that one of the architects of Obamacare admitted that the planners of the program purposefully misled Congress and the American people in order to get the legislation passed. The designers of this unworkable and outrageously expensive government takeover of health care counted on the “stupidity” of many voters when creating a plan that was complicated and poorly organized. Even before this legislation was passed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly announced that the only way to see what was in the bill was to pass it.  President Obama and the willing Democrat-controlled Congress rammed this legislation through over the unanimous objections of Congressional Republicans, knowing that once that was done it would be difficult to undo the damage.

As the rollout of Obamacare drew closer, the American people who had not been paying attention began to see what a disaster this legislation really was. As many critics had predicted, the rollout of the ACA website was completely botched, serving to support the idea that the government has no business talking over a system that is better left to the private sector, where a combination of competition and common-sense regulatory oversight would be a much better way to ensure quality, affordable health care access. By some accounts, the combined cost of the Obamacare website system –not the entire ACA plan, but just the computer system- has cost in the neighborhood of $500 million or more. Moreover, millions of Americans were forced off their insurance plans and into the Obamacare system under threat of fines and legal penalties, yet when they tried to enroll for new insurance on the Obamacare website they found that the system was completely unworkable. Not surprisingly, the botched implementation of this unwieldy and poorly developed system led to the eventual resignation of Obama’s Director of Health and Human Services, but by that time much of the damage had already been done.

To add insult to injury, Barack Obama then violated the laws that he had pushed so hard to have passed, when he issued Executive Orders delaying implementation of some aspects of Obamacare. The decision to implement such delays may have been politically expedient, but it was hardly fair to those who had tried to follow the rules in good faith. Moreover, it was in direct violation of the rules of Obamacare that were supposedly intended to ensure that the system was fair and workable. Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress argued that the implementation of Obamacare would simply make it possible for more people to get health insurance. What they did not emphasize was that the federal government would be subsidizing the costs of premiums for tens of millions of Americans, which actually means that the same hardworking Americans who are paying for their own health insurance are now also paying more in taxes to cover the costs of health insurance for other people as well.  In addition, the rules of Obamacare force millions of Americans to purchase a product that they may not even want, which would appear to be a direct violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law as mandated by the U.S Constitution. Despite this obviously unconstitutional rule, the Obama administration managed to convince the courts that the costs of Obamacare to individuals were legal under the government’s authority to levy taxes.

Several of these issues are currently serving as the basis for state and federal lawsuits. Among the issues under review is the mandate of Obamacare to provide subsidies to cover insurance costs, which critics have argued is a clear violation of the law. If this component of Obamacare is struck down, it is very likely that the entire system will be successfully undermined. Other lawsuits pertaining to Obama’s Executive Orders and other illegal and unconstitutional actions related to Obamacare are making their way through the court systems now. With the Senate reverting to Republican control in 2015, it is also possible that a Republican-led Congress will finally repeal this abhorrent legislation. Regardless of how the court cares play out, or what actions Senate and House Republicans take in 2015, the Trojan-horse socialism of Obamacare remains one o0f the worst pieces of legislation ever passed in the United States. Along with the specific charges Obama should face over his illegal Executive Orders on Obamacare, his decision to force this undemocratic, socialist system down the throats of the American people is clearly an impeachable offense.

Government Spending

One of the greatest concerns Obama’s critics have had since he took office is the rate at which government spending has grown. Obama’s decision to implement Obamacare and other government programs has come at a staggering cost.  A detailed accounting of the spending by Obama and the Democrats in Congress would fill an entire book, but even a cursory glance at the numbers shows the level of fiscal irresponsibility of this president. When Obama took office in 2009 the nation was already faced with a $10 trillion national debt. This is, of course, a large figure, and much of this debt came as a result of the United States having to finance operations against the enemies who attacked us on 9/11 and the enemies who threatened the security of our nation and their neighbors in the Middle East. Despite these expenses, the War on Terror had been successful under President Bush, and the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were winding down when he handed the White House over to his successor.  Former President Bush was also responsible for stewarding the nation when the global financial meltdown threatened the economic security and stability of the entire world in 2007 and 2008.

When Obama took office, instead of adhering to a course of fiscal responsibility and reasonable budget measures, he and the Democrats in Congress immediately pushed for economic stimulus spending of hundreds of billions of dollar, and borrowing against the nation’s future which drove the national debt up to $17 trillion. Just as the more responsible members of Congress on the Republican side warned, this reckless spending did little to spur the economy, and may have even slowed the rate of recovery. The global recession which began in 2007 continued to drag on for years as Obama presided over the country, and the unemployment rate rose into double digits. Even now, six years after he first became President, the national debt remains at record-high levels, and the economy has yet to fully recover. On top of the poor economic decisions Obama has made, he and his administration have continued to place onerous and restrictive regulations and tax burdens on American businesses at a time when they most needed a hands-off approach by the federal government. To offset the most apparent effects of his policies, Obama has supported “quantitative easing,” which has flooded the market with dollars to give the appearance of economic growth. In the short term, these actions have done little to help the economy; in the long term, Obama’s irresponsible fiscal stewardship will leave future generations to pay off his debts. Such reckless disregard for the American people and the nation’s economic prosperity and security make it clear that he has abdicated his responsibilities as President.

The IRS and the Tea Party

One of the complaints that critics of former President Nixon used to make was that Nixon ordered the FBI to spy on his political enemies.  While there is some evidence that former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was involved in some unsavory activities in his role as director, many of the complaints about Nixon steering Hoover to act against Nixon’s political opponents seem to be, at best, somewhat overblown. In contrast to the situation with Nixon and Hoover, it is entirely clear that Obama and his administration used the power of their office to influence other government agencies to target Obama’s political enemies. In the wake of Obama becoming President, millions of concerned citizens who saw their taxes growing by the year decided it was finally time to take action. Coming together under the loosely-knit banner of the “Tea Party” (with the word “Tea” serving as an acronym for “taxed enough already”) these concerned Americans began to protest the policies of the Obama administration, specifically those that involved more taxes and more spending by the federal government.

As these individuals became more formally organized, they established political action groups and other organizations devoted to getting their message out to other Americans. In retaliation to this political opposition the White House ordered the Internal Revenue Service to flag the tax returns of these groups for auditing, while largely ignoring similar groups of citizens who supported the Democrat policies (and likely benefited from government spending). As it became clear that this unfair and illegal targeting by the IRS was taking place, some members of Congress began to investigate the situation. Just as they have with Benghazi and other scandals, the administration that promised to be the most transparent in history stonewalled investigators and covered up their actions. The mounting evidence of IRS misdeeds led to some resignations, but no criminal prosecutions. Once again (and with the aid of a complicit Justice Department and Attorney General) Obama managed to get away with something that was, in and of itself, clearly an impeachable offense.

Spying on the American People

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks it became clear that the federal government had to take steps to protect Americans against future terrorist attacks. With the passage of the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency were given expanded powers to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists. When Obama took office, the federal government began secretly spying not just on suspected terrorists, but on millions of innocent and unsuspecting Americans. This egregious abuse of government power is in direct opposition to both the laws and the principles of freedom on which our nation was founded. As is the case with Obama’s other violations, this alone should be reason enough to bring charges of impeachment against him.

Conclusion

In a time when millions of Americans have grown cynical about politics and government, it has become far too easy to simply ignore the problems and look the other way as the President runs roughshod over the U.S. Constitution. When taken together, however, these misdeeds by Barack Obama make it painfully clear that he has no respect for the Constitution, and with this in mind it is the responsibility of our elected officials to live up to their oaths of office and impeach the President. We have a responsibility to the future of this country to preserve the Constitution and to remove from office any President who fails to honor it. As the facts of this case make clear, Barack Obama must be impeached.