Is the House complicit in Obama’s immigration tyranny?

[johnwk]

.

While the borders of the various United States are being invaded by the poverty stricken, poorly educated, unskilled and infectious disease carrying populations of Central America countries, our President is not only assisting in this invasion by bussing these aliens into a number of the united States, but he is also celebrating this ongoing invasion with impunity! See White House To Welcome In, Honor Illegal Immigrants

”President Obama’s White House will honor illegal immigrant activists at a ceremony Tuesday.

Two activists with the group Mi Familia Vota Education Fund will be honored as “Champions of Change” Mi Familia Vota Education Fund at a special White House ceremony.”

And what is our President’s assigned duty under our Constitution which he took an oath to support and defend?

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion___ Article 4, Section 4. US Constitution

Not only is our President allowing an ongoing invasion of our borders to continue, but he celebrates and honors “activists” who are engaged in and are perpetrating this invasion of the borders of the United States!

And so, to answer whether or not the House of Representatives is complicit in Obama’s immigration tyranny, it is essential to first understand why our Founding Fathers saw fit to place the power to impeach in the House of Representatives.

General Pinckney, speaking during the South Carolina ratification debates of our Constitution informs us that:

“A proper body, immediately taken from the people, and returnable to the people every second year, are to impeach those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust; another body, taken from the state legislatures, are to try them. No man, however great, is exempt from impeachment and trial. If the representatives of the people think he ought to be impeached and tried, the President cannot pardon him; and this great man himself . . . as well as the Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, are to be removed from office on impeachment and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” ___ 4, Elliots, 281

As we can see, the power to impeach was intentionally placed in the House of Representatives whose members were to be chosen directly by the people and could be removed from office every two years should they fail to represent their constituents will and/or the general welfare of the United States. Since our President refuses to carry out his constitutionally assigned duty to protect our borders against invasion, and the ongoing invasion is a clear and present danger to the general welfare of the United States in that its allowance is causing infectious diseases to be spread into the populations of the various United States as well as dangerous known criminals, and that such a massive influx of poverty stricken immigrants is an untenable financial and social burden thrust upon the various States without their consent, is it not the assigned duty of the House to then exercise its authority and impeach a President who refuses to enforce existing immigration laws and likewise refuses to carry out his sworn duty to protect the United States against this ongoing invasion?


Is it not an act of complicity and a submission to tyranny for the House to not impeach a president who is subjecting the American People to a lawless and arbitrarily condoned invasion of our borders?


”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” __ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787

JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

 

[longknife]

Well, after all the ignorant diatribe, why don't you discuss the huge number of drug gang teenagers included in the influx?

 

[The T]

The GOP is better off steering CLEAR of this shit lest they be no different than Obama and the Statist Democrats.

 

[johnwk]

The GOP is better off steering CLEAR of this shit lest they be no different than Obama and the Statist Democrats.

To not move toward impeachment of President Obama, the GOP would be complicit in Obama's countless acts which violate various provisions of our Constitution!

JWK

 

[johnwk]

See: SD Republican Party calls for Obama impeachment


”RAPID CITY, S.D. (AP) - The South Dakota Republican Party has passed a resolution at its state convention that calls for the impeachment of President Barack Obama.”

JWK


“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is the House complicit in Obama’s immigration tyranny?

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

 

[Peach]

250 million was proposed to stop the flow of children entering illegally:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/politics/us-central-american-immigration/index.htmlfor

 

[Kosh]

Imagine what would have happened if the far left let the Bush administration build the fence..

 

[Stephanie]

the CITIZENS of this country needs to wake up and start CONTACTING your CONGRESSCRITTERS

wake up

 

[johnwk]

Is the House complicit in Obama’s immigration tyranny?

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

It is apparent from your post that you do not even know why the Founders put the power of impeachment into our Constitution, nor why the House was charged with such power.



Let us review what some of our Founders had to say with regard to impeachment of the president on July 20th when framing our Constitution:


Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.

Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of impeachments. A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them. He hoped the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief magistrate could do no wrong.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him. Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS'S opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for any [FN12] time in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in forign pay, without being able to guard agst. it by displacing him.

It was moved & 2ded. to postpone the question of impeachments which was negatived. Mas. & S. Carolina only being ay. On ye. Question, Shall the Executive be removeable on impeachments &c.? Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay.
__________



JWK

 

[johnwk]

SEE: South Dakota GOP Calls for Obama's Impeachment


”Zach Crago, Executive Director of the South Dakota Democratic Party, expressed astonishment that the South Dakota Republican Party had passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Obama, and called on U.S. Senate Candidate Mike Rounds to state whether he was in support of the resolution or not:


"It says in the United States Constitution that impeachment would be used only for 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.' I believe that Mike Rounds should come clean with South Dakotans on whether he supports his party's resolution and, if so, specifically which 'high crime or misdemeanor' that the President has committed," said Crago.”


Well Mr. Crago, how about Obama’s refusal to enforce existing immigration law which in turn has put the general welfare of the United States in peril and violates his sworn duty to … guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion?___ Article 4, Section 4. US Constitution


How about Obama’s bribery in the passage of Obamacare? Have you forgotten the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the infamous $300 million "Louisiana Purchase"?

And are we to forget his lying with impunity to the American People, that under Obamacare they could keep their existing health insurance and doctors if the like them?


How about Obama’s money laundering operation under the guise of “green energy” in which he has plundered billions of dollars from our federal treasury and transferred them to his political donors? See: 80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.


And what about Obama’s unconstitutional usurping legislative power when he arbitrarily gutted the work requirement for welfare recipients passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton?


Are the above actions of President Obama not the very acts which our Founders were thinking of when discussing impeachment of the President?


Tell us Mr. Crago, do you even know our Founder’s expressed intentions regarding impeachment of the President? If not, I suggest you read our Founder’s expressed intentions which were made on July 20th when framing our Constitution:



Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.


Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of impeachments. A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them. He hoped the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief magistrate could do no wrong.


Mr. RANDOLPH. The propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him. Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands.


Mr. Govr. MORRIS'S opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for any [FN12] time in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in forign pay, without being able to guard agst. it by displacing him.


It was moved & 2ded. to postpone the question of impeachments which was negatived. Mas. & S. Carolina only being ay. On ye. Question, Shall the Executive be removeable on impeachments &c.? Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay.
__________


Tell us Mr. Zach Crago, is the above sufficient to answer your question?


JWK



"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).