Should Republicans Impeach Biden and Harris?
Now that impeachment is just one more card in the political deck, to be played by whichever party controls the House of Representatives, the question naturally arises: what should Republicans do when they retake control of the House, very likely in 2022?
Lindsay Graham warns that if the Democrats could impeach Donald Trump with the false assertion that he incited violence, a far stronger claim along the same lines can be made against Kamala Harris:
Now that impeachment is just one more card in the political deck, to be played by whichever party controls the House of Representatives, the question naturally arises: what should Republicans do when they retake control of the House, very likely in 2022?
Lindsay Graham warns that if the Democrats could impeach Donald Trump with the false assertion that he incited violence, a far stronger claim along the same lines can be made against Kamala Harris:
Breaking911
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "I don't know how Kamala Harris doesn't get impeached if the Republicans take over the House, because she actually bailed out rioters"
Tom Cotton, among many others, has also pointed out Harris’s explicit support for rioting, looting and arson (not demonstrating or protesting, as no one was arrested for that), although not specifically in the context of impeachment:
Tweet
Tom Cotton
Aug 30, 2020
Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage.
Don't believe her when she says she "condemns the violence"—look at her record, not her words.
Quote Tweet
Kamala Harris
Jun 1, 2020
If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund
to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.
Donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund
Your support will help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.
Jeff Dunetz argues against retaliatory impeachment, and also says that Harris shouldn’t be impeached for something she did before she was vice-president. That is certainly a plausible position, although interestingly, the Constitution doesn’t say that the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are the basis for removal from office must have been committed while the subject of the impeachment held his or her current office.
If we agree with the Democrats that it is proper to impeach a former president, House Republicans could consider impeaching Barack Obama. He plainly violated his oath of office and his duties under Article II of the Constitution (specifically, the “Take Care Clause”) when he essentially suspended enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. In my opinion he should have been impeached at the time, and, if the Democrats’ theory is accepted, it will not be too late to impeach him in 2023.
More to the point, though, is the fact that Joe Biden has committed the same impeachable offense as Barack Obama. In his first week’s blizzard of executive orders, he, perhaps to an even greater extent than Obama, purported to repeal the immigration laws. I think this was an impeachable offense, not just on the absurd theories argued for by Democrats, but on a sober reading of the impeachment clauses in the Constitution. And of course, by 2023 Biden in all likelihood will have committed many more illegal and unconstitutional acts that could be the basis for impeachment.
Some respected commentators argue that Republicans should take the high road. Rather than emulating the Democrats, they should, when they retake the House, attend to the country’s business and not waste time on politicized and futile impeachments. Those conservatives may well be right; theirs certainly is a reasonable and high-minded position. It also is consistent with the pattern we have seen for many years, where Republicans try to do the right and gentlemanly thing, while Democrats fight viciously for political advantage. This asymmetry has been an unfortunate aspect of our political scene for too long.
So, should Republicans wield impeachment as a weapon when they next control the House? I am undecided. The answer will be determined by the landscape as it exists two years hence, which at present, we cannot foresee. What we can say for certain is that the Democrats, with their two absurd impeachments of President Trump, have decisively changed how we all must view impeachment, if not forever, certainly for the foreseeable future. In 2023, or whenever Republicans re-take the House, it will very much be on the table.
Should Republicans Impeach Biden and Harris?
Posted on February 14, 2021
by John Hinderaker
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/should-republicans-impeach-biden-and-harris.php
Here are my thoughts and opinions on impeachment.
First, I doubt very much if Colonial Americans would have ratified a constitution that included the:
Divine right of kings
Divine right of kings, in European history, a political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament. Originating in Europe, the divine-right theory can be traced to the medieval conception of God’s award of temporal power to the political ruler, paralleling the award of spiritual power to the church. By the 16th and 17th centuries, however, the new national monarchs were asserting their authority in matters of both church and state. King James I of England (reigned 1603–25) was the foremost exponent of the divine right of kings, but the doctrine virtually disappeared from English politics after the Glorious Revolution (1688–89). In the late 17th and 18th centuries, kings such as Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France continued to profit from the divine-right theory, even though many of them no longer had any truly religious belief in it. The American Revolution (1775–83), the French Revolution (1789), and the Napoleonic Wars deprived the doctrine of most of its remaining credibility.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/divine-right-of-kings
Yet The Divine Right Of Federal Officials is exactly what Trump’s defense team, supported by Mitch McConnell and many REPUBLICANS, advocated. In fact, Trump’s acquittal handed more credibility to traitors, crooks, & liars than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson ever put in their blueprint for governing a free people.
NOTE: Trump would have been acquitted without a false defense:
They all walked because David Schoen’s defense strategy defended Trump with a questionable interpretation of the Constitution. Yesterday, McConnell jumped in to set Schoen’s flawed strategy in cement. In plain English, no one can ever be impeached for any crime they commit in office after they leave office:
On the fifth and final day of the impeachment trial, the Republican Senate leader argued in a speech following the 57-43 vote that Congress does not hold the jurisdiction to criminally or civilly prosecute the former president.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ourt-Tries-Captain-Kirk&p=4234366#post4234366
Whenever most Americans hear ‘imperial president’ they think of a king or queen rather than an emperor or empress. In that sense an imperial president is a king; so it follows that members of Congress are his dukes and barons. The rest of us are his subjects fit for nothing more than paying taxes to support the ruling class. Any noble opposing the king used to be stripped of his title and wealth, and often separated from his head. An American king cannot go around lopping off heads; hence, a cowardly Congress.
Assuming the president is a real king his nobility in Congress would be his loyal henchmen carrying out the monarch’s wishes.
Simply put, federal officials surely enjoy The Divine Right Of Kings if they can never be punished.
If we agree with the Democrats that it is proper to impeach a former president, House Republicans could consider impeaching Barack Obama. He plainly violated his oath of office and his duties under Article II of the Constitution (specifically, the “Take Care Clause”) when he essentially suspended enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. In my opinion he should have been impeached at the time, and, if the Democrats’ theory is accepted, it will not be too late to impeach him in 2023.
Next: A word or two about Obama:
Overriding laws with EOs and mandates showed that Obama’s behavior grew more bizarre in his second term.
Obama’s desire to be seen as a spiritual leader indicated his love for The Divine Right of Kings; i.e., not subject to earthly authority since he rules by the will of God. Islam’s God or the Christian God, it matters not which one because the king can do no wrong. In addition, all attempts to curtail the king’s power is an affront to God. Does anyone besides me see the shadow of a monarchial theocracy creeping over the Constitution?
Lest I be accused of spouting a conspiracy theory, let me say that Obama was basically a street-hustling preacher not bright enough to plot and plan a return to The Divine Right of Kings, yet that is where the country went.
How did Americans go so far down the road to monarchy in spite of the Constitution’s prohibitions?
For one thing, members of Congress saw that the best way to stay in power was to let the courts, federal bureaucrats, and executive orders do the heavy lifting. The determination to remain in Congress made cowards of them all.
Today, letting the courts, federal bureaucrats, and executive orders govern morphed into not being able to stop them. Example: All of the constitutional authority in the world cannot stop activist judges from legislating, or from putting the High Court’s stamp of approval on unconstitutional executive orders and dictates issued by federal bureaucrats.
NOTE: I said “cannot” with one caveat. It is will not rather than cannot.
Incidentally, executive orders should be called royal edicts.
"I don't know how Kamala Harris doesn't get impeached if the Republicans take over the House, because she actually bailed out rioters"
Next: If Kamala Harris cannot be impeached as vice president, she can certainly be impeached for the crimes then-Senator Harris committed. If nothing else, impeaching former Senator Harris, rather than impeaching Vice President Harris will bring the issue to a head. If she is found guilty she cannot hold “. . . any office or public trust under the United States . . . ”.
Next: A whole lot of trusted conservative Americans have to win elections in 2022.
“My goal is, in every way possible, to have nominees representing the Republican Party who can win in November,” McConnell told Politico. “Some of them may be people the former president likes. Some of them may not be. The only thing I care about is electability.”
McConnell threatens to oppose Trump-backed Senate candidates if they are not electable
Benjamin leo
17 hours ago
https://timesnewsexpress.com/news/p...-senate-candidates-if-they-are-not-electable/
Should McConnell’s choices win it means business as usual in the swamp —— including not impeaching federal officials establishment Republicans/Democrats need in office to beef up The Divine Right Of Kings.
Let me close with an observation about state officials going further than their federal government masters:
Remember, these governors are just getting warmed up. We're only two weeks into this phase. At this pace, if we don't rise up and demand answers, there is no limit to what these politicians might do with their divine right of kings. It's appalling that Congress and state legislatures are in recess indefinitely, as random executives – from governors and mayors to county supervisors and sheriffs – rule the nation by fiat. It's time for some real debate and accountability with public input and hearings (remotely, if needed).
All of us are willing to sacrifice for public safety – a lot. But there are limits, and there are serious questions about whether those sacrifices are even helping, or in some instances, downright hurting. Either way, we will never recover from this devastating blow to liberty.
As Patrick Henry warned in 1788, "Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."
Op-ed March 31, 2020
Horowitz: Is this quarantine or tyranny
Daniel Horowitz
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-is-this-quarantine-or-tyranny
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ected-Species-In-Africa&p=3565679#post3565679