Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Will President Obama be impeachable for allowing Bush's impeachable high crimes to continue past January 20?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

George Bush is impeachable under articles six and seven of Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment.  These are not charges, which are subject to being determined as fact, they are articles that the evidence in existence proves are facts.  Those articles are:

Six:  The President has exceeded his Constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq without meeting the requirement of Congress's Authorization to Use Military Force.

Seven:  The President invaded Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

Bush is impeachable under article six because the Authorization to Use Military Force clearly states that that force is to be used to "defend the United States."  Iraq did not attack the US, therefore no military defense was necessary and an attack on Iraq was not authorized.

Bush is impeachable under article seven because he did in fact invade Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

We hear talk of President Obama inheriting Bush's wars and what he's going to do about it.  That's begging the question in the extreme.  Obama can't inherit a war that he didn't start.  What he will inherit is the corruption that Bush left behind by the high crimes that Bush used in corrupting the Constitution, the corrupting of the US military, the corrupting of the office of Vice President with Dick Cheney, the corrupting of the State Department, the corrupting of the Pentagon, the corrupting of the CIA, and the corrupting of the entire executive branch.  President Obama will inherit corruption, not wars.

President Obama will be responsible for bringing the executive branch back under the Constitutional rule of law.  That, in itself, will automatically put an end to Bush's ongoing high crimes of starting and continuing his illegal wars.  All that President Obama has to do and must do is to enforce on the entire executive branch, which includes the Pentagon, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: Congress shall have power...to declare war, which hasn't happened.  That's all.  It will be his job to do that, as required by the oath he takes to protect and defend the Constitution.

Let's be clear on this.  Bush's wars are not Obama's wars.  Bush will always be responsible for them.  President Obama will never be responsible for them.  He's only responsible for eliminating the corruption that brought them about, and should he be so unwise as to allow that corruption to continue, only then will he inherit Bush's wars.

If President Obama doesn't immediately set about eliminating that corruption by bringing the executive branch back under the rule of law on January 20, he will be subject to articles six and seven of Kucinich's articles of impeachment by re-phrasing them to read:

Six:  The President(Obama) has allowed to continue the fact that the President (Bush) has exceeded his Constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq without meeting the requirements of Congress's Authorization to Use Military Force.

Seven:  The President (Obama) has allowed to continue the fact that the President (Bush) invaded Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

It's one thing to be responsible for doing it, quite another thing to be responsible for allowing it to continue.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Bush is impeachable for doing it.  Obama will be just as impeachable for allowing it to continue.

President Obama will have no choice if he is to remain a legitimate, constitutional president.  He must reverse, put an end to and stop everything that George Bush started with his ongoing criminal enterprise.  Not to do so is an impeachable offense.

 

Ed Martin is an ordinary person who is recovering from being badly over-educated. Born in the middle of the Great Depression, he is not affiliated with nor a member of any political, social or religious organization. He is especially interested in (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Conyers' year of tolerating contempt

You need to read this! Rob Kall's declaration of war

Removal of the President from Office

The worst is yet to come; foreclosure fraud is the banksters' least problem

Textbook descriptions of George Bush reveal psychopathy, and much worse.

Will we allow the Republicans to make the poor and the unemployed into the Jews of 1930s Germany?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

not up to the Executive branch to decide to bring ... by John Sanchez Jr. on Monday, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:48:51 AM
 But is it legal? Can this be for real?You ha... by Levin Sheridan on Monday, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:05:34 AM
The point clearly made in the article is not that ... by Ed Martin on Monday, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM
There's no reference in the article to th... by Ed Martin on Monday, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:21:21 AM
Mr. Martin, you have brought up a very thought-pro... by Sandy Shanks on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:37:20 PM