The (Un)Impeachment of Barack Obama

The impeachment of President Barack Hussein Obama has become a hot button topic since the beginning of his second term, but sadly, it is but a fantasy. Conservatives will rail that they have the "proof" of high crimes and misdemeanors, starting with Benghazi, they would claim, and running through just about every alleged scandal reported on since then.

I could list each one, the IRS, Fast and Furious, the VA Scandal, to name some, and each would prompt a nodding head from many who feel the President is certainly failing in his responsibilities and allegedly guilty of incompetence. And they might be right.

But, impeachable? Not based on what we know.

The Constitution does not address the issue of incompetence as a reason for removal. Only "treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors" are reasons for removal, as specified in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Understand, as well, Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, i.e., formally indicted, by the House of Representatives, as required under the Constitution, but in each case, the Senate voted not to convict, because ultimately, reasonable people recognized that the impeachment of each man was politically motivated. And since Articles of Impeachment were drawn, but never voted on against Richard Nixon because he resigned, we can never really know the outcome of that exercise.

The process is fairly straight-forward. A simple majority of the House of Representatives is sufficient to impeach a President or other executive branch officer, but two thirds of the Senate is required to convict. Under the current political make-up of both Houses of the Congress, the House could impeach, but the Senate would not convict.

Even if the House maintains a Republican majority, and if the Republicans gained control of the Senate, there would be 67 votes needed to convict President Obama of something, anything. It will never happen.

The Founders were brilliant in this regard. They made certain that it would almost be impossible to remove a sitting President because the chances to have one party dominate so strongly would truly be impossible. They also looked at the (dis)functionality of Parliament, which was an entity they knew so well, and decided to go in a whole other direction.

The only thing that is certain during an impeachment process is that the President will be hampered in his ability to govern, since all his efforts will be focused on preparing himself for trial. In this era of current events, is this what we really want to do to our country? Put it essentially on hold while the politicians, not statesmen, fight over the minutiae of dotted i's and crossed t's, watching our economy falter and having our adversaries run rampant over other nations, much like Russia is presently doing to Ukraine? Or, heaven forbid, drop the ball on terrorism throughout the world? Did we learn nothing from the Nixon and Clinton impeachment nightmares?

I don't think so, and other reasonable people will see it as I do.

The fault here, truly, is the Media for not reporting on this man's failings during his first term, and bending over backwards to help him win re-election. Had he been a more centrist or Conservative man, the Media would have glaringly reported every hiccup which was contrary to the Media's left-wing ideology, much as they did to Nixon. They worshipped him, instead, and failed in its responsibility to be a free and independent press.

And finally, if the impeachment process did succeed in removing Barack Obama from office, look who would replace him. Would we be any better off?
Remember the disaster we would cause to our nation if the Congress went through with the Impeachment of Barack Obama. God help us if it does.