Impeach Obama? Sorry, That is Not a Constitutionally Compatible Option

WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE FOR REMOVING A USURPER?

by Jesse T. Mims, ©2014, from Facebook

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen”

(Feb. 27, 2014) — There is no doubt Obama has committed numerous crimes which meet the criteria of “impeachable offenses;” however, the Constitution provides the remedy of impeachment only for certain legally elected or appointed government officials. While presidents are included, Obama has never been legally elected president. Therefore, he cannot BE president and that makes him Constitutionally exempt from being impeached.

He is a usurper, nothing more; and the Constitution provides no means for impeaching an illegally ‘elected’ usurper. He’s an illegally ‘elected’ usurper because he was never at any time in his life a natural born citizen; and, according to the Constitution, one must have attained that status in order to be eligible for the office of president. Since the only time one can attain that status is at birth and Obama was not born with it, he can never attain it.

Even if impeachment were an option to remove Obama, that would not be the best way to do it. That, in and of itself, would do nothing to negate anything Obama has done. On the other hand, having him removed for the reason that he was never eligible to become president to begin with would accomplish something that even a successful impeachment could never do. The courts would be forced to rule that Obama was never legally capable of carrying out the duties of president nor signing any legislation into law; therefore, everything he has done would immediately and automatically be subject to nullification.

Additionally, even if impeachment were legally possible, it would be unwise to start the proceedings until it is a certainty that the GOP will be in control of both the House and the Senate. That is because the impeachment and conviction process is a joint effort between both houses of Congress. The House can vote to impeach a president; but… the Senate has to then try and convict him of the charges brought by the House in the “Articles of Impeachment.” At this time, no Democrat-controlled Senate will convict Obama.

However, the Democrats would love for the House to vote to impeach while they control the Senate so they could go through the motions of a trial and end up voting to not convict Obama, thereby leaving his usurpation intact. Not only would Obama’s ‘presidency’ be legitimized by the very fact that impeachment proceedings that were meant only for a legally elected president were initiated by Congress, but a failed effort to impeach and convict would greatly hinder any future attempts to remove him by any legal means!

For more details from a Constitutional attorney as to why Obama is not president and why impeachment is not legal, please read Dr. Edwin Vieira’s detailed article here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

That’s a pretty long article; but, if you have time, I believe you will find it both interesting and informative. However, if you want to just read what strictly applies to the impeachment process, just scroll down to where it asks the following question: “What are some of those consequences?” That refers to consequences and dangers of having a usurper acting as president and what can and cannot be done about it.

Also note that the article was written prior to the 2008 election. However, the fact that Obama was subsequently allowed to illegally occupy the office of president makes most of the author’s comments and conclusions much more valid and relevant today.

Despite all of the above, references to “impeaching” Obama continue to be heard frequently. However, the process of impeachment is governed by the Constitution; and, that document offers no provision for impeaching a usurper such as Obama. The broadest description of officials who can be impeached is found in Article II, Section 4 where it says,

“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.”
“The President” refers solely to a legally elected sitting president, not a usurper.  As has been established by Dr. Edwin Vieira and others, Obama is not president; and, therefore, according to the Constitution and scholars thereof, cannot be impeached. So, if not by impeachment, what remedy does the Constitution offer to remove a usurper?
I have found only one place in the Constitution which discusses removing someone found to “have failed to qualify” after having been ‘elected,’ i.e., a usurper; and, that part of the Constitution speaks specifically of a President Elect and/or a Vice President elect. That is Amendment XX, Section 3, as follows:
“If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
The first sentence dealing with the death of a president does not apply to Obama, of course. The remedy for removing usurpers is found within the second sentence. That whole sentence is not applicable, either; so, I’m going to quote just the relevant parts below for better clarity,
“…if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Obama was/is in a state of failure to qualify before and during the time he was President elect up until and including the present; therefore, the above applies to him. Some may say he has been sworn in; and, therefore, he is president. However, no election nor any other action can replace the only legal means of changing the Constitution; which, is by legally adding an amendment. And, the Constitution would have to be changed in order for Obama to be eligible/qualified to ever become president, serve as, or legally act as president.
So, as I said, Obama was in fact unqualified before he was ever sworn in, during the time he was still president elect, and is still unqualified today. That can never change.
While it is likely the presumption of the Constitution’s authors was that the lack of qualification would be discovered and acted upon before the swearing in ceremony, Amendment XX, Section 3, specifies no time limit within which such action must be dealt with. The only qualifying element required in order for Congress to take action is “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify.”
Any way you look at it, the authority and the duty is assigned to Congress by the Constitution; and, according to Amendment XX, Section 3, the steps taken should be as follows:
1. Since Obama has always been, and still is, in a state of being unqualified, he should be promptly removed and VP Biden should take his place as acting president until a President shall have qualified.
1. (a) Subject to Congress finding that both Obama AND Biden are unqualified (possibility as a result of Biden becoming the VP elect as a part of the same fraud through which Obama became the President elect), Congress COULD dispatch with them BOTH.
2. “Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
It is worthy of note that nowhere in the above can any requirement be found that Congress must abide by the normal Order of Presidential Succession. They only have to declare “who shall then act as President.” Congress also has the authority to provide for “the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected;” which, again, rules out any requirement that they rely on the normal Order of Presidential Succession.
Additionally, the provision that “such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified” leaves it solely up to Congress as to when and how “a President or Vice President shall have qualified.” That means Congress could simply allow its chosen acting president (and acting VP, as the case might be) to remain in office until the next scheduled election, or a special election could be called; as well as, any other means by which Congress decided to see to the business of having those officials “qualified.”The above is what Congress SHOULD have done before Obama was ever sworn in; but, they did not, and there is little hope now that they will ever do so willingly. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. County sheriffs have more power within their counties (jurisdiction) than any federal government official, even a president. If anyone is interested in learning how to get local sheriffs involved, see http://cspoa.org/join/.

For the latest on Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation, see https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4m1835gn4hftkjc/4WIGvgHkHe and http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/02/team-arpaio-drop-bombs-on-white-house.html.

5 Responses to "Impeach Obama? Sorry, That is Not a Constitutionally Compatible Option"

  1. Code4Pres   Friday, February 28, 2014 at 1:16 PM

    The “assumption” that ‘all’ Democrats in the Senate would not vote to remove Obama as a ‘disability’ according to Amendment 14,Sec 3, or Amend 25, IF the House of Representatives actually held hearings and supplied all of the evidence I think is presumptuous.

    In fact, IF Republicans were election wary it would be perfect fodder for the 2014 elections to put that to a test. With the hard evidence supplied it would show gross incompetence in plain sight, and it does not involve a government shutdown, so where’s the down side?

    Waiting until after the 2014 elections hoping to recover the U.S. Senate with a majority of R’s is rolling the dice every bit as precariously and smacks of partisan politics all over again. When does ‘justice’ roll-up, and just doing the right thing happen?

    Covering up crimes has never really been a way to gain political support, and Obama would see his own political support erode in light of hard facts, reliable witnesses, and an obvious conclusion, even from his own party.

    I’ve always offered to R’s my testimony as a non-partisan and non-racial witness for standing as I sued McCain and Obama in 2008, 2012 Judy v. Obama 12-5276.

    Mrs. Rondeau may be exactly right if the information released shows such explicit cover up, you better believe if the ships going down you may see Sen. Harry Reid be the first to point his finger at Obama and blame R’s for not having any courage to fight for the truth.

    That’s been the consistency of the R’s thus far and they certainly haven’t been able to get ahead of the D’s in a political advantage when the very Constitution they are supposed to uphold spooks them out of their action.

    Cody Robert Judy
    http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com

  2. Jesse Mims   Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 6:35 PM

    SLCraig, you are misreading the words of the 25th Amendment.

    Quoted below is the pertinent portion of that amendment wherein the words “by law” are written:

    “Whenever the Vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such body as Congress may by law provide…”

    ALL that means is this: Congress can, by law, provide some other “body” to act in lieu of “a majority of (…) the principal officers of the executive departments.” In both instances where the words “by law” are written into the 25th Amendment, that is ALL that is meant.

    To clarify… the purpose of Amendment 25 is not to provide a METHOD of removing a president under ANY circumstances; but, rather, as is stated in its Section 1, its purpose is to provide directions to Congress as to what to do “In CASE OF THE REMOVAL of the president from office or his death or resignation.”

  3. cfkerchner   Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 3:32 PM

    I disagree with this argument. Impeachment is the name for the investigation and indictment process in the House of Reps. It not the conviction and removal part of the process. That comes later in the Senate, if it would even get that far. Given he is the defacto president we can defacto impeach him. Once the process proves to the House of Reps and American electorate and the Media in mass and the general uproar results that he was not legally eligible in the first place, removal can be done under the 25th Amendment or if push comes to shove … like they did it in Honduras. I would love to see the Obama Justice Dept come to the House of Reps preparing Articles of Impeachment and say you can’t impeach Obama because he is not legally the President. What a laughable defense that would be. He’s the defacto president and we thus can defacto impeach him. We Must De Facto Impeach the De Facto President to Start the Process to Reveal to All the Enemy to the Constitution Within and Ultimately Remove Him One Way or the Other, i.e., Honduras Style if Necessary http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/we-must-defacto-impeach-the-defacto-president-to-start-the-process-to-reveal-to-all-the-enemy-within/

    CDR Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org

  4. slcraig   Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 10:26 AM

    I have written on a proposition of Constitutional Law that was graciously published here on The Post & Email entitled “Incurable Incapacity”.

    It suggests that the 25th Amendment provides the Constitutional mechanism to “REMOVE” a sitting POTUS by the Congress under the Rules of the OPERATION OF LAW.

    “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation,…”

    As Leo Donofrio points out the provision does NOT limit the means of REMOVAL to impeachment only.

    Sections 3 & 4 of the Amendment does NOT limit the “exerted influence” of the Congress to secure a transmittal of a declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,(Incurable Incapacity) from a sitting POTUS or the administrations Cabinet members.

    Articles of REMOVAL written by the House citing the Operation of Law implicit at A2S1C5; ” no person except …. SHALL be … POTUS”, and delivered to the Senate for its concurrence UNDER the Rule of Law, with demurrals taken as being complicit in the usurpation being remedied.

    The Constitution and ITS laws are NOT a suicide pact, but it does require pointing its weapons in the right direction.

  5. Robert Quinn   Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 9:40 AM

    Sounds good to me but why not utilize the impeachment powers of investigation to first verify, or debunk if they can, the law enforcement verification of the Usurpers forged identity papers and stolen SS number. Bingo. He is a criminal.

    Name for me an act of treason more damaging to our Republic than the US House of Representatives allowing an agent of highly questionable and unknown allegiance with forged identity papers to retain the powers of president.

    Boehner must be replaced with a true patriot willing to fight to destroy this Criminal Regime, not sit on his backside and watch while allowing others only to try to pass their responsibility off to the courts. All the Republicans need to do is to complete the law enforcement verified investigation already in existence and inform the public of the truth because the truth will not only destroy the Usurper, it will wipe out about half of the Democrat Party leadership along with the Mainstream Media leadership as well.

    The goal is to bring the truth to the public as quickly as possible but if you still don’t think the Senate would approve it simply don’t send it and hold it until after the 2014 elections.
    ————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: It looks more and more as if the information about to be released will destroy both political parties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.