President Obama’s luck got so bad during the debate over raising the debt ceiling that even his chief of staff said he could be impeached. On July 27, the Cato Institute‘s director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon heard Bill Daley admit, in not so many words, [...]

Read More and Comment: Obama’s Chief of Staff Says, Impeach My Boss (A Cato Institute Scholar Agrees)]]> Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

President Obama’s luck got so bad during the debate over raising the debt ceiling that even his chief of staff said he could be impeached. On July 27, the Cato Institute‘s director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon heard Bill Daley admit, in not so many words, that it’s okay to impeach Obama:

On NPR this morning, I heard White House chief of staff Bill Daley say, “The president cannot usurp the power that’s in the Congress.” What a relief! Also, this:

I don’t think the American people would find it appropriate for the president of the United States to defy the laws of the nation and its Constitution, without their belief that that president should be impeached. And this president isn’t going to do anything against the Constitution, against the laws of the United States of America.

So if the president were to defy, say, the War Powers Resolution by ridiculously redefining “hostilities,” or if he were to defy the Constitution by signing a law that claims for Congress a power the Constitution does not grant (say, ObamaCare), we should impeach him. Got it.

If Bill Daley — a scion of the Chicago Daleys — opaquely allows that the president is so corrupt he could be impeached, why are the Republicans so timid about following through? It would be a shame if his only good piece of advice went unheeded.

Click here to sign the petition to impeach Obama. Click here to learn more about the Impeach Obama Campaign.

The Obama administration has drafted a new, little-noticed executive order that would plainly stifle free speech. The “Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors” order is still a draft, but if the administration has its way, the order will be in full force soon.

Premised on the idea that sunlight disinfects, [...]

Read More and Comment: Obama’s Executive Order Would Stifle the First Amendment]]> Daniel Hanson, FloydReports.com

The Obama administration has drafted a new, little-noticed executive order that would plainly stifle free speech. The “Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors” order is still a draft, but if the administration has its way, the order will be in full force soon.

Premised on the idea that sunlight disinfects, President Obama’s executive order would require all bidders for federal contracts to disclose all financial contributions to candidates standing for election. The order includes all corporate contributions and all personal giving in excess of $5,000 by officers and directors of corporations concerned, and it also requires the disclosure of contributions made to third-party groups like the National Rifle Association or the Center for American Progress. The order takes direct aim at the $530 billion in federal contracts that will be issued in 2012, and it represents the latest move in a series of tactics designed to drag the Supreme Court’s defense of the First Amendment in the Citizens United decision through the mud.

The Court’s decision, announced in 2009, struck down parts of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited corporations and unions from broadcasting on behalf of candidates close to a primary. The move sparked a public feud between President Obama and the Court, as Obama (in an infamous moment) chose his State of the Union Address in 2010 to openly criticize the ruling. Reacting instinctively, Associate Justice Samuel Alito responded to Obama’s factually incorrect criticism by mouthing the words “not true” in a very public way.

The Court, of course, was acting to defend free speech from the muzzle of government regulation, even if that regulation was proscribed in the name of openness and transparency. Affirming the First Amendment, the Court sided with the Founding Fathers, who hotly rejected the idea of disclosure on all political communication. Indeed, the pseudonym “Publius” was employed by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay as a way to protect themselves as they defended the passage of the new Constitution in The Federalist Papers, and similar nom de plume moves came with such high-profile public debates as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, signed “Written by an Englishman,” and a cabinet debate between Hamilton and Madison under the names “Pacificus” and “Helvidius.”

Anonymity is an important cornerstone to American politics because it insulates the speaker from reprisal by the government or another disgruntled group in the face of political criticism. Additionally, providing the speaker with anonymity allows the argument to stand on its own merits, removing the caustic ad hominem barbs often attached to political discourse. The provision of anonymity has a rich heritage as, in the words of the Court, “a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”

This shield remains just as important in the digital era. In the wake of the Proposition 8 debates in California, major financial supporters of Prop 8 were routinely peppered with death threats, vandalism, and other intimidation tactics. Property was defaced, certain supporters were fired from their jobs, and some religious organizations even received envelopes containing white powder. The intimidation tactics were employed after the disclosure of the names….

Read more.

In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had, the process by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted. Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail, but those who voted for the [...]

Read More and Comment: The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order]]> Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson, FloydReports.com

In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had, the process by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted. Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail, but those who voted for the “Budget Control Act of 2011″ (“BCA 2011″) were wholly unconcerned about trampling upon required constitutional processes on the way to the nirvana of “bi-partisan consensus “to avert a supposed crisis. At least two titles of the bill now being rushed through Congress are unconstitutional.

First, the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process” in BCA 2011 Title III unconstitutionally upends the legislative process.

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 vests in Congress the power “to borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” As two of America’s leading constitutionalists, St. George Tucker and Joseph Story, observed, the power to borrow money is “inseparably connected” with that of “raising a revenue.” Thus, from the founding of the American republic through 1917, Congress — vested with the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts,” — kept a tight rein on borrowing, and authorized each individual debt issuance separately.

To provide more flexibility to finance the United States involvement in World War I, Congress established an aggregate limit, or ceiling, on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. This gave birth to the congressional practice of setting a limit on all federal debt. While Congress no longer approved each individual debt issuance, it determined the upper limit above which borrowing was not permitted. Thus, on February 12, 2010, Congress set a debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion, which President Obama signed into law.

However, a different approach was used when BCA 2011 was signed into law on August 2, 2011. Title III of the Act reads the “Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process.” Under this title Congress has transferred to the President the power to “determine” that the debt ceiling is too low, and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments,” subject only to congressional “disapproval.” For the first time in American history the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise revenue. What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers have now by statute been separated.

Under the new process established by this bill, if the President determines, no later than December 31, 2011, that the nation’s debt is within $100 billion of the existing debt limit and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments, the debt limit automatically increases. The President need only to certify to Congress that he has made the required determination. Once the President acts, the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow $900 billion “subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted” by Congress.

But this is not all. Title III also provides that if Congress fails to disapprove the debt ceiling increase in the amount of $900 billion, the President may again certify to Congress that he has determined that the debt subject to the new ceiling is within $100 billion and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments. So the Secretary of Treasury is authorized to borrow another $1.2 trillion. Indeed, the Secretary may borrow even more — up to $1.5 trillion if a proposed balanced budget amendment has been submitted to the states for ratification. As was true of the first round of ceiling raising and borrowing, the President and Secretary of the Treasury are constrained only by the possibility of a congressional resolution of disapproval which, itself, is subject to veto by the President.

By giving the President the authority to increase the debt ceiling and to determine that borrowing is necessary to meet the nation’s commitments, this bill….

Read more.

Here is a measure of both this movement’s effectiveness and Barack Obama’s stark, brazen criminality: Even the RINOs are talking impeachment.

In Rochester, New Hampshire, on Monday morning, former Utah governor and Obama’s one-time ambassador to China Jon Huntsman told a citizen that Obama’s war in Libya may [...]

Read More and Comment: Jon Huntsman Refuses to Rule Out Impeachment Over Libya]]> Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Here is a measure of both this movement’s effectiveness and Barack Obama’s stark, brazen criminality: Even the RINOs are talking impeachment.

In Rochester, New Hampshire, on Monday morning, former Utah governor and Obama’s one-time ambassador to China Jon Huntsman told a citizen that Obama’s war in Libya may be an impeachable offense. ABC News posted the following transcript of the exchange between Huntsman and the “voter”:

Voter: You mentioned Libya, and you mentioned the Constitution a couple of times. The president has decided to make Congress irrelevant, go around Congress, not — not go to Congress and ask for whether permission to go to war for — with, with Libya. He takes, what he thought, a UN resolution as his mandate to be able to go to war in Libya, do you think that’s unconstitutional in what he’s doing in Libya right now?

Huntsman: Well, last I looked the UN was not our Constitution. We ought to recognize who’s responsible for declaring war and giving the approval for these kinds of things, and get back to the basics of who should be driving these decisions.

Voter: What should Congress be doing in the fact that he went around Congress and he’s, he’s not abiding to the War Powers Act?

Huntsman: I think, I think Congress is, is in a mild uproar about it.

Voter: It’s very mild.

Huntsman: I have a fundamental problem, generally, I mean beyond this decision, just with the decision that has been made to get involved, in Libya, in a tribal country, when we have no definable interest at stake, we have no exit strategy. Look in Afghanistan, you want to get involved in tribal government? How hard it is to extricate yourself once you’ve gotten involved? Let history be your guide. Thank you.

Voter: Do you think it’s impeachable?

Huntsman: I’ll let Congress make that decision.

The mainstream media, flexing its sagging muscles, tried to turn Huntsman’s words into a bigger scandal than the president’s unconstitutional war itself. To his credit, when pushed for a clarification, Huntsman replied, “Congress should do whatever Congress chooses to do.”

As proof of Republican “extremism,” that is pretty weak stuff. Uber-Democrat Jerrold Nadler has compared Obama to a king, a dictator, and “an absolute monarch” precisely over launching an unauthorized war — not in a barbecue pit in someone’s backyard but from the floor of the House. But the media have a love affair with Huntsman, the liberal Republican who supports homosexual civil unions and the debt deal. In their skewed world, Huntsman is John McCain-lite, the “straight-talking” candidate who tells the GOP base what it does not want to hear. To media talking heads, this is a dog whistle that, if “even” Huntsman refuses to “rule out” impeachment, then far-Right Tea Party “insanity” must have infected the entire party.

Thus, the media quoted Democratic operative Ty Matsdorf, who fumed “it’s sad to see Jon Huntsman abandon his convictions for a chance to appease the rabid right-wing base by refusing to rule out impeachment.”

Of course, as a private citizen, Huntsman is not in any position to “rule out” anything. As he properly noted, that is Congress’ job. Yet this tempest-in-a-teapot is a triumph for Matsdorf’s employer, American Bridge 21st Century, which ABC News describes as a “Super PAC,” and which captured the “damning” video. This anonymously funded 501(c)(4) opposition group was founded by Media Matters head David Brock, a major recipient of George Soros’ money. The secretive group has….

Read more.

The mind boggles. In March 2006, the liar-in-chief was a do-nothing Senator from Illinois who said this:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government cannot pay its own bills. It is [...]

Read More and Comment: Frightener-in-Chief]]> Michael Oberndorf, FloydReports.com

The mind boggles. In March 2006, the liar-in-chief was a do-nothing Senator from Illinois who said this:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” (Congressional Record, p. S2237 [March 2006])

His tune now is that without raising the debt limit to heights hitherto inconceivable, old people will die, children will die, Thumper and Bambi will die, the entire planet will die. And this incompetent, knee-jerk Marxist fool thinks no one will notice his complete, unabashed reversal.

The country is literally on the brink of complete economic collapse, a collapse that likely will bring on a global crash, throwing the world into apocalyptic chaos, and what is the reaction of our “leaders” in Washington? Smoke-and-mirrors, dithering-and-caving.

In November 2010, a crystal clear, unequivocal message was sent from the American people to the political class. It told them a) Taxed Enough Already; b) reduce the size of government; c) drastically reduce spending; and d) honor your oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Obviously, the message is being ignored by all but about 100 of the 537 elected supposed servants of We, the People. Around 435 senators, congressmen, and the “President” and Vice President, have, with malice aforethought, betrayed us and chosen to continue headlong down a path that they are completely aware will lead to the destruction of America as a free, capitalist nation. This can only be viewed as willful sabotage.

Thus, with annihilation of our country impending and government in the hands of criminals, we are left with the question, “What can we, the citizens who will suffer the consequences of this dereliction, do about it?” It’s clear that we can’t wait until January 21, 2013, to constitutionally right these wrongs. By then, America will be a Third World dictatorship. So what do we do?

I suggest we turn to….

Read more.

The debt ceiling fight currently being waged in Washington will have a major impact on the 2012 elections, because it’s presenting a clear contrast between the Republican and Democratic parties — something that rarely happens.

Republicans have skillfully used this moment to push fundamental budget reform uphill. The forces of the [...]

Read More and Comment: 2012 Could Be Another GOP Blowout]]> Matt Mackowiak, FloydReports.com

The debt ceiling fight currently being waged in Washington will have a major impact on the 2012 elections, because it’s presenting a clear contrast between the Republican and Democratic parties — something that rarely happens.

Republicans have skillfully used this moment to push fundamental budget reform uphill. The forces of the status quo, who have gotten fat and happy from federal spending levels of 24 percent of gross domestic product, are violently resisting the overspending straitjacket that the Cut, Cap, Balance plan represents.

It would be very easy for Republicans to wash their hands of a president who is biologically incapable of leading. If a speech or a lecture were necessary, he would be the most qualified person in the world for the task. But alas, what is needed in the White House is a statesman, a negotiator, a legislator. What is needed is trustworthiness and commitment, not hope and change.

But conservatives and the more than 180 groups who make up the Cut, Cap, Balance Coalition (for whom, in full disclosure, I have consulted) have driven this political battle from the very beginning. Now, as it nears some kind of conclusion, it’s important to consider the ramifications it will have on policy and politics.

Several courageous leaders in Congress, like Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Joe Walsh (R-IL), have consistently put the next generation ahead of the next election. Republicans aren’t stupid — they know that if they simply increased the debt limit and maybe made Democrats vote against a reasonable plan to cut and restrict spending, it would redound to their political benefit next November. As a result, they’d likely maintain a majority in the House, take back the Senate and perhaps win the White House. But these conservative leaders have said winning an election is not enough. They’re worried about the country’s future.

The last three elections (2006, 2008 and 2010) were wave elections — which is unusual. Four consecutive wave elections would be even more unusual.

But, it’s possible.

In order for Republicans to create the circumstances for a fourth consecutive wave election, they should….

Read more.

There once was a time that elected leaders wanted to be seen as powerful to gain the confidence of their constituents. But many House Republicans, who now have in their hands total power to end runaway government once and for all, are feigning powerlessness.

These House Republicans claim to be [...]

Read More and Comment: Feigning Powerlessness to Retain Power]]> William J. Olson, FloydReports.com

There once was a time that elected leaders wanted to be seen as powerful to gain the confidence of their constituents. But many House Republicans, who now have in their hands total power to end runaway government once and for all, are feigning powerlessness.

These House Republicans claim to be just one-third of the legislative process, unable to achieve anything useful without compromise and a bipartisan consensus. They grouse that the Democrats in the Senate and President Obama are forcing them to settle for what they can get in exchange for an inevitable and necessary increase in the debt limit. They claim to need even greater electoral victories in 2012 before they can stop the spending.

The truth is that House Republicans already hold all the cards. The debt ceiling is already fixed in law, and will remain fixed unless they capitulate. Rather than just saying no to an increase in the debt limit which would end deficit spending, the GOP has developed “Cut, Cap, and Balance” which it sells as a principled proposal. Yet, with CC&B, the House Republicans propose to end the deficit spending by the curious method of increasing the national debt by $2.4 trillion (almost 17 percent) to $16.7 trillion.

In increasing the debt ceiling, the House Republicans leaders are doing what comes naturally. The House leadership historically has not wanted to stop spending — with entitlements like Medicare Part D they have used our own money to buy our votes just like the Democrats. The motivation behind CC&B is not about cutting current spending, capping future spending, or balancing the budget — it’s about what it’s always been about — the politics of reelection.

It could be that the House Republicans are acting out of fear that in holding fast to principle they would not be seen as being “responsible” in the eyes of the media and Wall Street….

Read more.

Serious discussion of impeachment has reached the most influential publication in the United States. The New York Times recently featured a Bloggingheads discussion under the headline, [...]

Read More and Comment: Video: Impeachment Debate — at the New York Times]]> Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Serious discussion of impeachment has reached the most influential publication in the United States. The New York Times recently featured a Bloggingheads discussion under the headline, “Libya and Impeachment.”
The 70-minute discussion pitted Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com against Ilya Somin of George Mason University Law School. (Somin also blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy.) Last month, Greenwald told Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now!” he believed Obama’s Libyan war is an impeachable offense. Somin has stated the Libyan war violates the Constitution. Although the conversation winds over such topics as the War Powers Resolution, the debt ceiling, and drug legalization, the first 40 percent of the video focuses on Libya. The impeachment talk begins at 25 minutes in.

Since this is a New York Times debate, it means the option is discarded out of hand. Both agree it is “the most extreme” remedy and argue it is not “practical, or even…desirable.” Besides, it “would cause more harm than good.”