Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment

New item....

The book makes many good points about the Obama administration's flouting of both the Constitution and the statutes on the books for political purposes, making a mockery of the oath the President (and each of the members of his administration) took upon taking office, but falls short on the big point that it claims to be focusing on. The author opens the book with an anecdote that illustrates that impeachment of a President is not just a legal act but a political one: there has to be a political consensus around the nation to remove the President before it can succeed, given that removal requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. He then claims he will build the case for such a political groundswell. But he really doesn't do that very well. He just lists all the things that have happened since January 2009 that constitute possible grounds for impeachment. That isn't a political focus, it's a legal one. I am inclined to agree that many of them -- the blatant refusals to enforce laws pertaining to nuclear waste disposal, immigration, and health insurance; immense spying on Americans, including journalists, without warrants or probable cause; widespread use of military force in theaters as to which there has been no Congressional authorization; the likely use of the IRS to frustrate political opposition; -- are un-Constitutional and even impeachment-worthy. especially in light of the Nixonian parallels of several of them. But the author never really transforms his list of Constitutional offenses into a political strategy.How, for instance, is he going to convince an increasingly Hispanic electorate about the virtue of enforcing laws that frustrate personal and familial aspirations of Hispanics? That is the political issue, regardless of the legal analysis that a President lacks the prerogative to abandon the enforcement of those laws. Or, for another instance, which non-Republican Senators could somehow be induced to vote to remove Obama in the final two years of his term and by what means of persuasion? Not addressed at all.Also, a good chunk of the events he complains about occurred and were well-known prior to the 2012 election. He doesn't try to explain how large numbers of people who voted to re-elect this President in 2012 knowing about them can be induced to become outraged about them two or more years later.The cold-blooded political fact, even after reading this book, is that when a party wins the White House and has enough Senators, only smoking gun evidence of dereliction of duty so extreme that it is indefensible by anyone up for re-election is going to put a President at risk of removal. The way our judicial system works, although a private party can complain about individualized harm suffered from being the target of un-Constitutional governmental action, there is no legal path to force the executive branch to live up to its Constitutional function to carry out laws faithfully. So the elite political operatives within each party have figured out they can get away with violating the Constitution as long as they keep a large enough bloc of voters happy and manage to elude high-level judicial review (which gets a lot easier if you have a Senate majority to control the judicial appointment process!).The best I could say about the book's aspirations in regard to the political process is that it may serve to enrage enough voters to turn out and vote for the opposition in 2014, in which case, even though they are not likely to remove anyone from office, they will at least serve as a check of some measure on the disregard of the Constitution we have seen the past several years and in particular should be able to limit the appointment of judges inclined to indulge it.

I read the book, in fact devoured it in record time for me; two days. I noticed there has been reports on this book from people that have made an assumption about the contents. And they proudly state “without reading the book (then go on to blurt out) making statements about the book. Amazon regulators should take a look at those postings, in my most humble opinion.I would recommend this book for several reasons.1.) The book gives a written timeline of what has been happening in D.C.2.) Lays out the law and clearly states why this President should be Impeached.3.) As I have stated clearly to others in the past, the reason he has not been impeached yet has to do with race relations in this country. Fear of being labeled a racist. How far backward we have moved, truly sad to me..First I’d like to draw my fellow readers to page 34 which reads a quote from Mason. From the book “ Mason fixed on betrayal of the president’s fiduciary duty and oath of allegiance to our system of government, say that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would be chief among the “many great and dangerous offences” beyond treason and bribery for which removal of the president would be warranted. It is noteworthy for our purposes that the Framers regarded the mere attempt to subvert the Constitution, whether successful or not, as a sufficiently heinous breach of trust to warrant removal by impeachment.” End of quote from the book.I was very impressed with the layout and factual information in this book. In fact so much so, I’m making a note on the inside for future generations of my family to read. They will have a look back and see in my own words what I thought about the current events.Further attention too pages 46 middle paragraph, pages 70 & 71 with special attention to page 70 the last paragraph.Part II Preface “MAKING THE CASE” chilling clear evidence for impeachment.Without reservation I would recommend this book to anyone interested in our Nation’s future and our laws. We must remain a nation of laws. For if we forget that and become lawless we are truly lost.I say this in closing; having served this (our) great Nation for thirty years my oath has no expiration date. And I took it very serious.Semper FidelisHap Smith Jr. 2112U.S.Marine Corps (retired)

Andrew McCarthy demonstrates why Obama should be ejected from the US Presidency in this lucidly written and annotated book. I remember the Nixon-era impeachments, as well as the Clinton one; McCarthy, rightly, considers Obama's "high crimes and misdemeanours" (he spells the last word Yankly, of course) to be far worse than those of Nixon, or of Clinton. He lists, in measured terms, the ways in which Obama has exceeded his constitutional powers. He never tries to absolve either of those earlier Presidents, but uses those examples to demonstrate what it takes to make an impeachment stick: public opinion. In Clinton's case, the charge was proved, but the American public showed no interest. Noticeably, McCarthy never resorts to strident language, or hyperbole.Earlier instances of Presidential impeachment didn't affect the rest of the world all that obviously, but Andrew McCarthy lists Obama's appalling foreign "policy" among the charges.McCarthy writes extremely well. As a lawyer, he ought to, but we've all met lawyers who, somehow, can't string two sentences together. Andrew McCarthy decidedly is not one of that kind. McCarthy explains his argument, then goes into more detail. The first half of the book lists the reasons for impeaching Obama (and/or quite a few of his appointees), covering the charge-sheet in some detail, but McCarthy also explains the vital differences between an impeachment and a criminal trial. As he shows, far too few people, even on Capitol Hill, understand those differences, with the result that many are shy of even pronouncing the word "impeachment".The second half suggests the way in which the articles of impeachment might (or may) be framed. I wonder if McCarthy may have slightly overloaded this part, introducing the nitty-gritty of the arguments in excessive detail. As far as the book is concerned, he has already covered these arguments, in the first half.Obamaniacs won't go anywhere near this book, but people who know Obama only from sycophantic BBC (or similar) puffs really should take the trouble to read it, especially the first part.

Book makes well-written, well-reasoned, case for impeachment but quickly becomes moot and repetitive because, as the author admits, impeachment requires political will. Argument will be instantly relevant (and prescient) if GOP takes U.S. Senate in Nov., 2014