Opus 2025-501: Good for the Goose

The meme headline said that NBC is going to be doing a lot of layoffs.  We’ve heard this a number of times from different media organizations.  I accept that it’s happening.  I accept that they are all RIF’s based on economic necessity.  I may not be listening or reading the right sources, but I am not hearing about any federal judges, blocking these companies from firing unneeded employees.

So why did judges listen to federal unions when the federal government lays off unnecessary and unproductive employees?  The motivation is pretty much the same.  They are too expensive.  They are not earning their way.  They are dragging down the whole organization.

It seems to me that we need to do something about these judges who wear their little donkey logos on their robes and allow them to influence their actions . I honestly think that I would have the same response if it were the right wing judges of using the law in order to push their agenda.

We need some impeachments.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-166: Republic of Verbs and Nouns

Checks and balances.  Check and balance.  One is a set of nouns, the other is a set of verbs.  Both are necessary to maintain the republic.

In times of integrity and minor differences it’s enough to have these concepts as nouns.  The Founding Fathers set up a government which was supposed to contain automatic checks to abuse of power and difference of opinion.  It gave great power to minorities so that they could resist the tyranny of the majority.  This is why we have an electoral college.  This is why we have three branches with separation of powers.  This is why we have super majorities.  This is why we have regular elections.  And this is why we have the verbs.

It’s always a possibility that individuals and groups will arise to manipulate and distorted the basics of the republic.  Not only is it a possibility, it is a certainty.  The time will come when individuals and groups think they know what is best for everyone.  They will use their position of power to distorted the process of civil government by the people.

We’ve been seeing this, as the so-called deep state has been dipping into the coffers and using taxpayers money to attack and enslave the taxpayers, not to mention lining their own pockets.  It is really very clever, and was covered up very well for years.  Who knows, maybe it is the default status of government and civilization.  The current force that is pushing it is using federal judges as trump cards, or anti-Trump cards.

I’m sure that just like any other group of people, there are many judges who are guided by integrity in the law.  The problem is, these are not the judges that are sought out by the forces of the deep state.  They carefully select the judges that they bring lawsuits in front of, knowing full well that those judges are more interested in their ideology, and their bribes, than in the law.  They use the rule of law against those who actually believe in it.

We all see it happening every day.  We also should be aware of the fact that when it happens in the direction we want we tend to ignore it.  Admit it.  We only see it when it goes against our desires.  But it’s always there.  The question is what do we do about it?

Again, the rule of law and the checks and balances of our republic give us a way out.  For federal officials one of the ways out is called impeachment.  Progressives* have use this brilliantly in trying to keep Donald Trump out of office.  They don’t give up when they lose.  They work overtime to cripple him once he is elected.  They don’t like it so they use the rules in order to cheat in the game.  What works for the goose should work for the gander.  Why we are reluctant to use this tool, I don’t know.

It is time.

We need to get serious about saving the republic.  I don’t want to see the violent outbreak of a French Revolution.  I don’t want the dissolving of the republic as happened to Rome.  We don’t have the structure for a Glorious Revolution like England.  If we want to preserve the Republic and the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and we need to start using the tools that are given to us.

It’s time to impeach.  Remove people who insist on implementing their personal agenda rather than following the rule of law.  Do it by the book.  Observe due process.  Demand that it be speedy and in front of their peers.

It is time.

*(Liberals, educators, cultural Marxists, the media, socialists, communists, crony capitalists, fascists (I repeat myself), elites, Rinos, Democrats, leftists, Never Trumpers, Antifa, BLM, MSM, Deep State, etc.  Synonym for swamp dwellers)

homo unius libri

Opus 2021-268: Cornerstone Considerations: CUSA, Impeachment Limits and Potential

I keep hearing Republicans shooting off their mouths calling for impeachment of Joe Biden.  Since we are approaching Constitution Day it might be a good time to review impeachment.  First let’s review what the Constitution says.  

Article I deals with the powers and responsibilities of the Senate and House of Representatives.  In there you find Section II which states,

“The House of Representatives shall choose the Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.”

Impeachment starts in the House.  Senators and state officials can talk all they want but unless you can get the House to start the ball rolling, you are wasting your breath.  Since the Democrats are in charge of that body we could stop right here, but we will keep going.

Section III moves to the other legislative body.

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.  When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation.  When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.”

If you know anything about the make-up of the Senate you know that this is strike two and three for impeaching Joe Biden.

Article II is concerned with the Executive.  Section 4 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.”

Although this sounds like it is limiting removal to a few causes, in reality this opens the door quite wide.  You can impeach for “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  We tend to think of misdemeanors as minor crimes.  In reality most presidents have probably done something they could be impeached for if there was the political will.  I think it goes without say that the Republicans don’t have that will.  I will say it anyway, the Republicans don’t have that kind of will.

There is another aspect here that is overlooked.  “All civil officers of the United States” can be impeached.  Here is where the lack of will really shows up.  This phrase only excludes the military.  Any other employee of the Federal Government can be removed by impeachment.  We could transform the country, assuming the Democrats lose the House and Senate in 2022, by going after judges who betray their oath to the Constitution.  We could also go after all the employees of the alphabet agencies who think they have the right to dismantle the country and make us a socialist state.

That would be a great way to celebrate Constitution Day in 2023.  If we can’t terminate because of Civil Service protection we can put them in jail for treason.

homo unius libri

Opus 2019-249: Should-a-Beens: New Records

I think that Donald Trump is going to go into the record books.  He will be the first president impeached twice because we know what will happen as soon as this one is in the books.  Maybe they can start on the next one before this is done.  That is what they did before.  They started to impeach before he was inaugurated.

That is something he has in common with Obama.  Obama was awarded his peace prize before he did anything.  Trump was impeached before he did anything.  The difference is that Trump eventually did something and it is driving the Democrats wild:  Made America Great Again.

Come to think of it, if the Democrats get to work Trump could be the first president to be impeached three times.  How about four?

homo unius libri

Opus 2018-079: Headlines: What Is Good for the Goose...

Impeachment made the headlines again, this time on Yahoo with a quote by Jimmy Carter.  When I saw the click-bait my first reaction was, “Who cares what Jimmy Carter thinks?”  I guess the answer to that is the MSM and the Never Trump sycophants.  I did not bother reading the article but considered the idea.

If the Democrats really want to impeach Trump then they need to be informed that the line forms on the left.  We can start with the earliest known cases of high crimes and misdemeanors.  I would suggest that we limit the pogroms to living presidents, secretaries and judges.  Trying to impeach Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln or FDR would be kind of pointless.  The list of the living is long enough and includes two Clintons, at least one Obama, numerious FBI power-brokers and a long list of judges who have applied their personal opinions rather than the Constitution.

I kind of like the idea.  Maybe we could have some legislation passed so that the general population could vote on the verdict.  Better yet, use the electoral college.  We have had two attempts at impeachment.  The first, by the Republicans, was a trumped up job and justice prevailed by one vote in the senate.  The second was an open and shut case by the Republicans but they didn’t have the testicles to apply the law as justice demanded.  Maybe the third time would be the charm.

Eventually they might get to Donald Trump but by that time he may have joined Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR.

homo unius libri

Opus 2015-135: Election 2016: Winning Planks, Impeach Some Judges

If you payed attention in school you are familiar with the three branches of government and the concept of checks and balances.  The role of the legislature is to make laws.  The executive is to carry out the direction of congress.  The courts are to decide who is right in a disagreement over the law.  With Marbury vs Madison the courts took on an entire new power called Judicial Review.  This meant that they had the right to decide if the law was constitutional, not just who had the right of the law.  Activist judges of both side of the aisle have often used this decision to make up laws instead of decide who was right in a lawsuit. 

Federal judges are appointed for life.  The idea was to protect them from the whim of congress and presidents and make them independent.  This was supposed to make it possible for them to give justice without fear of losing their jobs.

Many judges are abusing this protection and using their position to advance their political and personal agendas.  It is time to instil a bit of fear.  It is called impeachment.

Impeachment applies to more than the president.  It also applies to federal judges.  It is the only way they can be removed from office.  I would suggest that a strong platform would be to begin the discussion of why and when judges could be removed and possibly have their decisions vacated.  It is not a move that should be rushed into.  It is a procedure that needs to be addressed.

Elections matter.  Irreversible appointments matter.

homo unius libri

Opus 2014-161: It Is Called “Impeachment”, Mr. Speaker

It seems strange for supposed supporters of the Constitution to try an end run around the Constitution in order to enforce the Constitution.

That is what House Speaker John Boehner is trying with his proposal to sue the Obama administration for the use of Executive Actions.  The president has acted illegally.  I have no question about that.  He has violated the Constitution and should be dealt with but the Constitution has an established procedure for that.  It is called impeachment.  There is nothing in there about publicity stunts because you don’t have the testosterone to follow the rules yourself.

I hesitate to link to a rag like the New York Times but it is one source of information.  The article quotes Boehner,

“The Constitution makes it clear that a president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws; in my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws,”

I agree that this is a problem but the Constitution also gives the method for dealing with this.  It is called impeachment.  If he hasn’t done enough to be impeached then Boehner should sit down and shut up about lawsuits.  If you can’t see that he has done enough to be impeached then maybe you are not qualified to be in Congress.  Then again maybe that is the place to send people who cannot see the obvious.

I can tell I am reading an article in the Times.  It explained the problem this way,

“The president has used his executive authority to carry out key elements of his second-term agenda, like halting the deportation of young illegal immigrants brought to the country by their parents as children, raising the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors, and allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to curb carbon emissions from coal plants.”

Notice how positive that sounds.  There is no indication that he is breaking the law and going around due process or exceeding his authority.  That is the Times at work.

The Times did get it right in its last paragraph,

“Courts have also generally been reluctant to intervene in separation-of-powers disputes between the executive and legislative branches of government, preferring to let them work out such questions using constitutional tools, like lawmakers’ power of the purse.”

So don’t waste our time, Mr. Speaker.  The courts won’t listen, and rightly so.  If you don’t have the manhood to impeach then use the other “constitutional tool” that you have.  Take away his ability to pay his minions.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-35: More Flexibility?

Do you remember when President Obama didn’t realize that the microphone was on and confided to the Russian leader that he would have more flexibility after the election.  It is now after the election and if what we saw before the election was any measure, we are going to see some real bending of laws and traditions now.  Probably to the point of breaking the Constitution.

Being flexible usually has limitations.  Your arm is flexible, but only one way.  If you bend it the wrong way you shatter it and make it useless.  Bending also weaken material, even when it is designed to flex.  It sets up a tension.  Some things bend better and longer than others, but constant flexing will eventually break the bond and destroy the joint.  Even concrete will flex to a minute degree.  I have been in a concrete building during an earthquake and seen it happen.  Everything has its limit.

You have already heard all the talk about going around Congress on the Second Amendment.  The president has spoken.  The vice president has spoken.  A few in congress have actually done their job and raised the specter of impeachment.  At what point do we expect our representatives to stand up and say, “No farther”?  When do we reach the limit of liberty?  I think we are a long way past that point, but I concede that my voice is partisan. 

In this case the opposite of partisan is peasant.  I want to remind the president that I am a citizen, not a subject and he is elected, not divinely appointed.  He is to serve, not rule.

Might I suggest another milestone for Barak Obama?  Might I suggest that he also be the first president to be removed by impeachment.  That will guarantee him a place in the history books, even if they are written by socialists.  Sometimes four years is too long for liberty.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-32: Headlines: Sheriffs Pledge to Ignore the Law

Going over the headlines on Drudge, I noticed two that involved sheriffs saying that they would not enforce any laws about taking away people’s guns.  I didn’t go to the articles but I can almost guarantee that I don’t live in either jurisdiction. 

But this brings up a bigger problem:  The breakdown of law and order. 

What does it say when people who are pledged to uphold the law announce that they will selectively ignore the law?  I think the law, or Presidential Imperial Decree, is wrong.  But if we selectively ignore it are we not doing the same thing that the President is doing?  Are we not also working against the rule of law and equality before the law?  We are lowering ourselves to his level.  That means he wins because he has the courts, the coercive power and the time to pound us into sand.

We should be working to stop the tyranny.  Does the word “impeachment” ring a bell?  Sure, we would never get it through the Senate at this point.  Of course, there might come a miracle and the Democratic Senators might remember that they are Americans.  I can dream, can’t I?

There are probably many other things that could be done.  Hearings, law suits, PR campaigns and civil disobedience come to mind. 

I am not sure that just saying “No” will bring the kind of society that we really want.  Lets try to work in the law instead of breaking the law.  Of course, the key word here is “work.”  The Republicans we elected don’t seem to want to do that. 

I repeat, vote the suckers out.  If we can’t vote them out, put the fear of the Lord in them.  If they think Obama is the Lord, then put the fear of the Constitution in them.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-31: Cornerstone Considerations: D of I, Tyranny

There is a word that rang loud, clear and frequent from the Founding Fathers:  Tyranny.  I jump forward a bit to consider this statement in the Declaration of Independence:

“The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Keep in mind that compared to the peasant classes of the world the colonists in this part of the British Empire had incredible freedom to live their lives, even compared to the average commoner in Britain.  What is this talk of Tyranny?

First, lets look at the dictionary.  Since I am at my computer I will Google it.  According to Merriam-Webster, tyranny is

“1:  oppressive power
“2a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler;
    b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
“3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
“4: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act”

Notice this does not say you are deprived of the basics of life.  It does not say you are locked up or marched down the street at gun-point.  It uses modifiers such as “oppressive,” “absolute power,” “single ruler,” “imposed,” “force,” “harsh,” and “unjust.”  In 1776 this was directed at the King George III of England.

Today we could say the same things about King Barak I of Kenya.  Notice the words from the Declaration, “ repeated Injuries and Usurpations.”  Can you think of any area in your life that the president has stuck his nose recently?  Have you heard the threats he is making about going around congress and undermining the Second Amendment by Executive Order?

It is time for a D of I reprise.

Read and think.  Read and weep.  Read and take action.  At this point that means speaking out, writing, and voting.  The shooting can wait until we have Lexington and Concord revisited.  But by that time it will be too late.  We still have city, county, state and congressional elections coming up.  It may be early to repeat it, but vote the suckers out.  Also words like “impeachment” should become a part of our vocabulary both of elected officials and appointed tyrants. 

homo unius libri