Posted on 02/18/2014 9:40:12 AM PST by Texas Fossil
While speaking with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, Judge Andrew Napolitano said impeachment is the only way to stop President Obama from ruling by executive fiat, Newsmax reported Thursday.
"The president is doing the opposite of what he was elected to do," he said. "At some point he is totally frustrating what Congress has written."
He also told Cavuto that when Obama takes unilateral action, picking and choosing what laws -- or portions of laws -- to enforce, he is actually telling people how to avoid the law.
The president has unilaterally delayed portions of Obamacare without going through Congress, and he has taken other executive actions on issues like the minimum wage, gun control and immigration.
Although some Republicans have threatened impeachment, Napolitano said that as a whole, neither Congress nor the American people have the guts to see it through. Another problem is the current makeup of the Senate. Even if Obama were impeached by the House, a Senate controlled by Democrats would never vote to convict or remove him from office.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
No doubt. But the electors are supposed to determine eligibility before the election. Not in a lawsuit after the election.
I think I heard about one case being dismissed during the time between the primaries and the general election [or was it the general election and the elector's votes]. In any case, the courts have been insistent that nobody has any standing to raise the question.
That is fine with me. We have already drifted far from the balance between branches of government envisioned by the Founders.
One of the last things we need is for the judicial branch to assume the power of deciding whether presidential elections are valid.
Sure, it looks like an easy way to overturn an election which we don’t like. But it would in all likelihood be used in future to overturn one we do like.
WAY too much power added to the judges.
It is bit of a pet peeve of mine, the notion of “three co-equal branches of government.” The Founders clearly and explicitly intended Congress to be supreme, since Congress has ultimate control over the other two branches, while they have little over Congress.
We’ve drifted to a position where Congress is in many ways the least powerful branch, largely because this allows Congresscritters to dodge responsibility and keep their careers afloat. The Founders would not have been amused.
I've not been talking about elections being valid, I've been talking about verifying Constitutionally mandated requirements — or do you wish to assert that one [or more] of the branches have no obligation to ensure that document is followed?
Sure, it looks like an easy way to overturn an election which we don’t like. But it would in all likelihood be used in future to overturn one we do like.
Again, who is advocating invalidating the election? — But I'll ask, even if invalidation were the goal, do you think something of this magnitude could have been pushed through without massive assistance from all branches and levels of [federal] government? IOW, if he isn't eligible, that proves the existence of literally a vast conspiracy among the government something that, given their lawless/unaccountable nature seems more and more plausible every day, with each new revelation of NSA-spying and abuse of government power for political means.
bkmk
The biggest problem is that Congress delegated its power to legislate to the Executive. It’s also the most easily reconciled, simply take the proper authority back. Let the agencies propose regs, but have Congress vote on them. Gridlock is your friend (if you love liberty).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.