U.S. Rep. Jones: Recommends Impeachment Of Obama, Says Obama Doesn’t Uphold The Constitution

U.S. Representative Walter Jones, R-NC, claims Republicans must fulfill their constitutional duties by impeaching Obama due to immigration.

Wikipedia states that Walter Jones, Jr. (born February 10, 1943) is the U.S. Representative for North Carolina’s 3rd congressional district, serving since 1995.


Right Wing Watch

Many Republicans Used Executive Action on Immigration, But Only Obama Should Be Impeached

House Republicans seem convinced that executive action on immigration (or anything else) must be illegal. According to the New Republic, both Presidents Reagan and Bush took executive action on immigration (as Obama wants to). The Atlantic’s David Frum wrote about Reagan’s executive actions on immigration. “Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose,” Frum writes. “Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife.

“Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies.”

In other words, it would be unfair if Reagan and Bush deported children and spouses of newly-legalized immigrants. In fact, Bush’s executive action was called the “family fairness” program.

It begs the question, “Why can’t President Obama do what Reagan and Bush did?”

David Pakman video.

Are Republicans Going To Build A Wall Of Obstruction On Immigration?

Sen-Elect Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), center, follows Sen.-elect Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.), through reporters Wednesday on Capitol Hill.According to the Wall Street Journal, a bloc of Republican lawmakers is seeking to use must-pass spending legislation in the final weeks of the year to place limits on President Barack Obama’s ability to loosen immigration rules.

This could threaten to split the party in Congress.

AZCentral reports that President Obama’s plans to reveal a 10-part immigration reform plan via executive order as early as next week may trump a move by Republicans shut down the government in order to stop him.

However, some Republicans are pushing for Congress to make a move before Mr. Obama does. More than 50 House lawmakers have signed a letter saying that language barring the president from acting alone should be attached to legislation needed to keep the government operating after Dec. 11, when its current funding expires.

Other Republicans, including GOP leaders, are wary of forcing a budget showdown with the president over the issue, saying voters are eager for politicians to work together.

So is a new shutdown looming?

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who is poised to become Senate majority leader in January, has said flatly that there will be no government shutdown like the one in 2013 that was politically harmful to his party.

The result is that barely a week after their broad election victories, party leaders will have to decide whether to override conservatives’ demands in favor of a more pragmatic approach.

At issue is whether some of the 11 million people who are in the U.S. illegally should be allowed to live and work openly, and whether Mr. Obama has the authority to allow that without legislation.

It is unclear why the President wouldn’t have the authority, as executive orders are part of the authority legally provided to every president.

Immigration advocates say there is legal precedent and a humanitarian imperative for Mr. Obama to act.

Republicans say he is in danger of exceeding his authority.

GOP leaders made clear in the days after the election that they wanted to set their own agenda when they control of both chambers next year without any lingering fights about spending for the current fiscal year.

The leaders also want to look for other ways to push back against the president’s moves on immigration, said a senior Senate GOP aide.  Over the past year, there has been open and defiant talk of impeachment by members of the Republican party.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R., Ky.) said it would be unrealistic to expect the president would sign a spending bill that included immigration language.

“I don’t want a shutdown,” he said. “You should not take a hostage that you can’t shoot.”

Some Republicans argue that if they cannot move a spending bill for the rest of the fiscal year with the immigration language attached, they should pass a short-term funding measure and revisit the matter early next year.

Mr. Obama’s legal rationale is likely to be that it would be impossible to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants, so those with deep ties to the U.S. should be allowed to live and work openly in the country.

Washington Post Claims GOP Needs Impeachment To Go Away

The “loose talk” on the right side of the aisle about impeachment long ago ceased to be just “loose talk.”   It happens with enormous frequency by both politicians and commentators. 

The Washington Post claims the GOP needs impeachment to go away, and the lawsuit, too.

Moderates

A McClatchy-Marist College poll shows political moderates oppose the impeachment of Obama 79 percent to 15 percent.  Also, if the House GOP did initiate impeachment proceedings, moderates say it would turn them off so much that they would be pulled toward the Democrats. By 49-27, moderates say impeachment would make them more likely to vote Democratic than Republican in 2014.

The poll shows similar figures in regards to the lawsuit.

According to the Post, “of course, the House GOP can make that lawsuit go away in a hurry, by simply dropping it.”

High-Ranking Democrat In The House Predicts Impeachment

JAMES CLYBURN

The third highest-ranking Democrat in the House predicted Monday that Republicans will impeach President Barack Obama if, as expected, they hold onto the House of Representatives after the November elections.

Rep. James Clyburn (D, SC), the assistant Democratic leader, made the claim on August 11th during a Twitter town hall. A questioner wrote in asking why Democrats aren’t doing more to support Obama amid Republican attacks, and wondered if they would try to put an end to talk of impeachment.

Clyburn responded: “No way to shut down the talk, nor should there be, it’s real and I predict if GOP maintain House, Obama will be impeached.”

If Obama Were Impeached, What Would He Be Impeached For?

Although many are (coyly) loathe to admit it, the talk of impeachment in some circles is getting louder.  Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) recently said “there’s no doubt” President Obama “has done plenty of things worthy of impeachment.”

But what could Obama be impeached for?

The Christian Science Monitor and others give some “suggestions.”

1. The Affordable Care Act – Employer Mandate Delay

A lawsuit in The House centers on one element of the ACA: the requirement that large employers (those with 50 or more workers) provide health coverage or pay a penalty.

That provision was originally due to go into effect in January 2014, but the Obama administration has delayed that deadline twice, and it is now January 2016.

The rationale for the delay was to allow companies more time to adjust to providing coverage. But Republicans accused the White House of trying to avoid another Obamacare controversy before the November midterms.

And they even argued that individuals should have been given a reprieve.

In some cases, a law is left vague, leaving rule-making up to the relevant government agencies. But in other cases, a law is explicit, and unilateral changes by the administration can spark controversy.

2. The Affordable Care Act – Federal Subsidies

Another controversial element of the ACA is the provision that says only people who enrolled in coverage via their state exchange are eligible for federal subsidies.

After the law passed, the Internal Revenue Service enacted a rule allowing the subsidies for people who enrolled via the federal exchange, Healthcare.gov. Opponents of the law sued and won in one federal circuit court of appeals and lost in another.

The case may go to a higher court.

3.  Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

This policy, announced by the Department of Homeland Security in 2012, came via a memorandum that directs authorities to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in dealing with some young undocumented immigrants.

Critics say that waiving deportation laws for more than a million people is not “prosecutorial discretion” – it’s policymaking by “executive fiat,” usurping the role of Congress. Defenders say DACA is an acceptable example of presidential discretion in policymaking.

Ten immigration agents challenged DACA in federal court, saying the policy undermined their duty to enforce the law. In 2013, the judge threw out the ecase on jurisdictional grounds, but suggested that DACA was inherently unlawful.

DACA has sometimes been mistakenly referred to as the Dream Act.  They are two separate entities.  The Dream Act was a bill that didn’t pass both houses and was never signed into law.

The Desert Sun newspaper backs up the idea that DACA and exempting 1 million illegal immigrants from deportation may give reason to impeach.

In an article about immigration reform, Forbes states, “it is hard to imagine that the House Republicans would not feel compelled to press forward with pursuing impeachment proceedings based on Obama overstepping his constitutional authority…”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Congress should weigh impeachment if Obama used executive actions to advance his immigration reform agenda.

4.  Gay Marriage

In 2011, the Justice Department took the unusual step of announcing that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Two years later, the Supreme Court struck down part of the law, but that does not lessen the unusual nature of the action by Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

5.  Recess appointments

In 2012, Obama made three “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was technically still in session.

In June 2014, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president had overstepped his bounds, and that only the Senate can determine when it is in session. In a second, landmark decision in the case, the justices ruled 5-4 that the president had broad power to make recess appointments. But it was not as broad as Obama had wanted.

If one were to make an educated judgement, it seems as though the most likely reason the House would vote for impeachment would be on immigration reform.