Hobbs’ Hump Day Hot Topics: Sarah Palin’s Call for Impeachment vs. Speaker John Boehner’s Lawsuit When Sarah Palin issued her recent manifesto calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama, most Obama supporters immediately dismissed such notion as the typical partisan drivel that Palin has become known for since she and Sen. John McCain were whipped by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden back in 2008. Just this past Sunday, Attorney General Eric Holder, when queried about Palin’s position, reminded all that in his opinion, Palin “was not a very good vice presidential nominee.” Amen, Brother Holder, you will get no argument from me on Palin’s lack of qualifications back in ’08. But as my momma is fond of saying, “even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn,” while Palin’s typically blind call for impeachment is factually weak, the truth is that her call for action is more constitutionally sound than Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s (Ohio) desire to “sue” the president for failing to enforce penalties on employers who are not in compliance with the Affordable Care Act that Boehner et al once derisively and repeatedly referred to as Obamacare. When considering impeachment, Article II Sec. 4 of the Constitution holds in pertinent part that impeachment must be based on “Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Realizing that there is no prima facie evidence of treason or bribery by President Obama (at least not from any credible, non-Birther types), the question becomes whether House Republicans could credibly charge the POTUS with any “high crimes or misdemeanors.” When considering this phrase, it is important to note that the body of jurisprudence under this rubric is not limited strictly to felonies or misdemeanors in the sense in which we are typically accustomed like murder or petit theft, rather, the POTUS, having taken an Oath to “faithfully execute the office of the President…and… to the best of [my] ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” could be subjected to impeachment for a form of perjury or failure to uphold his solemn oath. When President Andrew Johnson was impeached in the House of Representatives back in 1868, the legal underpinning stemmed from an alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which was passed over Johnson’s veto in 1867 and one that forbade the president from removing appointed officials without the consent of Congress. Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln, advocated a less stringent form of Reconstruction and reconciliation with the former Confederates, and Radical Republican leaders who desired for the same to pay for its rebellion wanted no part of Johnson’s pacifist ways. Johnson---in sheer defiance---subsequently removed Edwin Stanton from his position as Secretary of War, one that he had held under Lincoln, too. Stanton, you may recall, was in league with the very Radical Republicans who opposed Johnson and once he was removed, Johnson’s fate was sealed in the House although the Senate did not convict him and force his removal from office. (Nota Bene---The Tenure of Office Act was later ruled unconstitutional, thus, its very enactment and Johnson’s possible impeachment under it would have been a legal miscarriage of justice). Nevertheless, ever since Johnson’s tenure, the die has been cast as far as Congress holding a constitutional trump card in seeking impeachment when a President either acts or fails to act in accordance with existing law. To that end, with modern Republicans apoplectic with any number of acts of office by President Obama from Benghazi to myriad IRS issues and more recently, the illegal border crossing issue that is seemingly fecund for pundit dissection on a daily basis, the one area where a Republican controlled House would be on sound legal grounds---even if shaky as far as the prospects of success---would be impeachment. Understanding this, why, then, would Boehner shun the legal route advocated by Palin in favor of one---a lawsuit---with little or no chance of making it past the first few motions to dismiss? I suspect that the reason is that while a lawsuit would allow him to sound off on the issues that he believes rises to a presidential dereliction of duty in the court of public opinion, if unsuccessful, Boehner could cast blame upon an “activist” court that refused to comprehend the wisdom of his grand plan. Whereas should Boehner call for the drafting of Articles of Impeachment, there is a level of rank hypocrisy in that the alleged legal beef----that the President has held off on enforcing penalties against employers who fail to comply with the ACA---cuts against what Republicans, including Boehner, have fought so hard for the past few years which is, you guessed it, to stop employers from having to pay the penalties for non-compliance with the ACA. Not that hypocrisy, mind you, has ever stopped politicians from acting out before, but with a critical mid-term election fewer than 90 days away, indeed, it is far easier to file a lawsuit and let the lawyers haggle than to man up and seek to impeach a President for doing by inaction what you have hoped that he would actively do in the first place. Chuck Hobbs, lead writer for Generation NeXt: Life & Politics with Chuck Hobbs is a trial lawyer and award winning freelance writer based in Tallahassee, Florida. He is a contributor for both The Hill and the Tallahassee Democrat. His Twitter handle is @RealChuckHobbs
Posted on: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:27:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015