What Is Obama's Unimpeachable Policy
Barack Obama’s Unimpeachable Policies Over the course of the history of the United States of America, two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have officially been impeached. The U.S. Constitution protects the right to impeach public officials, with the process being outlined in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, while in Article II, Section 4, indicates the grounds for impeachment by stating that, "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” (Halstead) Since 2010, Republican congress members have made it clear that they believe Barack Obama should be impeached and removed from office. Efforts to do so have been little until December 2013 when there was a hearing on Obama called by the House Judiciary committee, formally called "The President 's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute
…show more content…
the Laws” and has been seen as a pursuit to start the justification of the impeachment process. The impeachment process is to be reserved for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”, none of which Obama has committed (Halstead). There have been arguments made that Obama has unconstitutionally violated both foreign and domestic policies of the U.S. Many argue that if the Republicans win control of the Senate, then impeachment for Obama could be much more of a possibility. The following paper seeks to show how Barack Obama should not be impeached for his domestic policies of NSA surveillance, remarks of DOMA in relation to the constitution and his use of ObamaCare, which can all be justified as constitutional and unimpeachable offenses. One of the most controversial debates under Obama’s presidency is the use of domestic NSA surveillance. This originally started in 2001 during the presidency of Bush shortly after the September 11th attacks. Bush signed this eavesdropping operation into affect and made sure it was top secret until The New York Times exposed it in 2005. Bush claimed that he was apart of a small part called the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” which keeps tabs on communication on all suspected members of Al Queda living within the nation’s borders (Gilsen, Parks, Vixen). It is suspected there were about 500-1000 people’s communications being monitored without a warrant. In 2006, it was reported that NSA had supposedly been tracking billions of phone calls from service providers such as At&T and Verizon of innocent Americans without a warrant (Gellman). All of this was done under the presidency of Bush. Obama was not in control when the illegal part of NSA was taking place and therefore it cannot be used against him as an impeachable offense. According to Gellman, “Obama placed restrictions on access to domestic phone records collected by the National Security Agency, but the changes he announced will allow it to continue — or expand — the collection of personal data from billions of people around the world, Americans and foreign citizens alike” (Gellman). It is the president’s job to secure that the people of the United States are being protected. If this means that he has to tap into certain phone conversations with reasonable cause, then he most definitely has the right to do so in order to protect the people. Protecting the safety of the citizens of this country is not an impeachable offense. According to Obama, who insists that no one is listening in on the citizen’s phone conversations, "‘You can 't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience”’ (Gilsen, Parks, Vixen). There is no way for the government to keep the country safe while also making sure everyone’s privacy is protected. Even a judge ruled that the NSA was not doing anything unconstitutional. In the December 2013 court case American Civil Liberties Union v. James Clapper, the ACUL was suing for Verizon to hand over metadata on phone calls in document equipped by Edward Snowden, former contractor of the NSA (Gilsen, Parks, Vixen). Their argument was that it violated the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Judge William Pauley stated that “…there was no evidence that the NSA was engaging in the data-mining ‘parade of horribles’ the ACLU warned of in its testimony and that the minimization procedures put in place by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) were sufficient to protect the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs” (Peterson). There was even a court case for the issue of domestic use of NSA and it was found to still be constitutional, therefore it should not be used as a reason to impeach Obama. Similarly, Obama has been under fire for supposedly not defending the constitution, which many consider to be an impeachable offense. Since 1996, the country has had the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in place signed in by President Bill Clinton. In February of 2011, Obama and his team made the decision to stop justifying the constitutionality of DOMA (Nallapa). Although this pleased many that Obama was for same sex marriage, many were outraged that he was opposing the constitution and saw it as an increase of executive power. Many would use this as an impeachable offense for Obama since he is not defending the constitution, which goes against his oath to always defend the constitution. But, the president also takes another oath saying that he will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States (Nallapa). As argued by Nallapa, “…the president’s obligation to uphold the Constitution takes priority over his duty to defend laws. As Duke University Constitutional Law Professor Dawn Johnsen points out, ‘Congress and the president … are obliged to uphold, and thus by necessity to interpret, the Constitution.’ In questioning the constitutionality of DOMA and subsequently refusing to defend the law, President Obama is simply carrying out his duties as the leader of a co-equal branch of government”(Nallapa). Obama is simply disagreeing with a law that was already put into place and this is not the first time this happens in U.S. history. History repeats itself several times when, “Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Truman all refused to defend separate-but-equal laws in schools and hospitals. The Clinton administration did not defend a federal law requiring HIV-positive military personnel to be dismissed from duty. And interestingly enough, President George H.W. Bush did not defend a case regarding affirmative action at broadcast news stations…” (Nallapa). If these presidents all refused to defends certain parts of the constitution and it was not considered an impeachable offense, then there should be no reason why Obama should be tried for a precedent that has been set over sixty years ago. Just as people found Obama’s refusal to defend part of the constitution unconstitutional, they also found his use of ObamaCare to also being a violation of his powers. Over the course of Obama’s presidency, all Americans who are not covered by a health care provider are required to get some sort of coverage. The overall goal of the act is to help people make healthier decisions and ensure that they can see doctors when needed (Liptak). Even though the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, it is by no means a justifiable reason to impeach Obama. Many argue that it is unconstitutional to require all citizens to have a sort of healthcare. However, under Congress’s taxation powers, the congress is given the power to tax the people and this is a form of taxing since it is all citizens having to spend money to benefit themselves (Liptak). The Supreme Court decision concluded that ObamaCare is a tax not a mandate. According to Chief Justice Roberts, “‘The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax…Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness”’(Liptak). Massachusetts has its own version of the Affordable Care Act put into place in 2006 by Governor Mitt Romney. Romney and the democrats worked together and put all of their focus on making “…sure people have access to healthcare through affordable health insurance. The reason people don’t have access to healthcare is because they can’t afford health insurance. If you can’t afford health insurance, you don’t go to the doctors. In Massachusetts, everyone can afford health insurance. And with the mandate, there are more people on board”(Rapoza). This act, known as the Massachusetts Healthcare Reform Act, has been affective since 2006 and has been more helpful for the people of Massachusetts than it has hurt them (Rapoza). When Romney put this act into place, there was no question of whether or not this was constitutional. ObamaCare also protected people from the overhauling the way insurance is sold as well as avoiding sick people from being refused or charged more for insurance (Liptak). It is protecting people far beyond just insurance. ObamaCare helps a lot and harms a little. But it’s also not a free for all in spending money. According to Liptak, “…the new limits it placed on federal regulation of commerce and on the conditions the federal government may impose on money it gives the states”(Liptak). Chief Justice Roberts justifies that doing something is a lot better than doing nothing (Liptak). Obama can’t be impeached for something that is helping people. Federal power holds a lot of restrictions on the act so it isn’t an abuse of power from Obama. All of these reasons for not impeaching Obama stem from initial debates of why Obama should be impeached. In regards to NSA domestic surveillance, many present the argument that Obama violates “…rights to privacy and First Amendment freedom of expression rights due to a chilling effect on the behaviors of the public”(Peterson). Even though it seems that Obama did directly violate the Bill of Rights, he is doing it out of the protection of the citizens, which out weighs the suspicion that he infringed upon the people’s rights (Peterson). This also ties in with people’s speculation that Obama violated his oath by stating that DOMA was unconstitutional. It is clear that Obama directly stated that he found DOMA to be unconstitutional and never defended it as a constitutional act (Nallapa). By doing this he joined a long line of presents that have also done the same and is doing his duty to protect the constitution. In his opinion as president, DOMA was hurting the constitution. It would have been much more unconstitutional for him to support an act that he did not believe in. The last argument, and arguably the most controversial is ObamaCare. A lot of people propose the argument that ObamaCare is completely unconstitutional and an expansion of Obama’s powers. But with a federal limit on Obama’s power, this puts a stop to the executive branch gaining more power (Rapoza). There has also been a Supreme Court precedent set from this that has declared ObamaCare as being constitutional. RomneyCare, a similar act to ObamaCare, has also been in affect in Massachusetts since 2006 without ever its constitutionality being questioned but rather with praises from citizens who were able to afford healthcare after the act was put in place (Rapoza). All of these counterarguments to impeach Obama don’t measure up to the facts about why Obama should not be impeached. Barack Obama should not be the third president to be impeached in the history of the United States.
The official definition of an impeachable offense is, “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”(Halstead) Obama has never committed a crime of this degree. All of his actions that many would consider as an impeachable could be justified and a lot of them can be seen throughout history by other presidents who have done similar actions and were not impeached. If he were to be impeached, the lack of evidence would ensure that he would not be convicted, similarly to those in Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial. A president cannot be impeached just because some people don’t like their constitutional policies. Although, what the future holds is still unclear. If the Republican Party were to gain control of the senate, then the future of Obama may be in jeopardy. But as seen in the facts, Obama has not done any actions that should result in him getting
impeached.
Bibliography:
Gellman, Barton. "Obama’s Restrictions on NSA Surveillance Rely on Narrow
Definition of ‘spying’." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 18 Jan. 2014.
Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Halstead, T.J. "The Constitution and Impeachment." The Constitution and
Impeachment. Report for Congress, 20 Apr. 2005. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 28 June 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Nallapa, Swathi. "President Obama 's Refusal to Defend DOMA Is Entirely Justified."
PolicyMic. Mic Network Inc., 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Peterson, Andrea. "NSA Phone Records Spying Is Constitutional, Judge Says."
Washington Post. The Washington Post, 27 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
Rapoza, Kenneth. "ObamaCare Is Constitutional; Get Over It." Forbes. Forbes Magazine,
29 June 2012. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
Vicens, AJ, Dave Gilson, and Alex Park. "Timeline: Here 's How We Got from 9/11 to
Massive NSA Spying on Americans Today." Mother Jones. Mother Jones and the
Foundation for National Progress, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
the Laws” and has been seen as a pursuit to start the justification of the impeachment process. The impeachment process is to be reserved for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”, none of which Obama has committed (Halstead). There have been arguments made that Obama has unconstitutionally violated both foreign and domestic policies of the U.S. Many argue that if the Republicans win control of the Senate, then impeachment for Obama could be much more of a possibility. The following paper seeks to show how Barack Obama should not be impeached for his domestic policies of NSA surveillance, remarks of DOMA in relation to the constitution and his use of ObamaCare, which can all be justified as constitutional and unimpeachable offenses. One of the most controversial debates under Obama’s presidency is the use of domestic NSA surveillance. This originally started in 2001 during the presidency of Bush shortly after the September 11th attacks. Bush signed this eavesdropping operation into affect and made sure it was top secret until The New York Times exposed it in 2005. Bush claimed that he was apart of a small part called the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” which keeps tabs on communication on all suspected members of Al Queda living within the nation’s borders (Gilsen, Parks, Vixen). It is suspected there were about 500-1000 people’s communications being monitored without a warrant. In 2006, it was reported that NSA had supposedly been tracking billions of phone calls from service providers such as At&T and Verizon of innocent Americans without a warrant (Gellman). All of this was done under the presidency of Bush. Obama was not in control when the illegal part of NSA was taking place and therefore it cannot be used against him as an impeachable offense. According to Gellman, “Obama placed restrictions on access to domestic phone records collected by the National Security Agency, but the changes he announced will allow it to continue — or expand — the collection of personal data from billions of people around the world, Americans and foreign citizens alike” (Gellman). It is the president’s job to secure that the people of the United States are being protected. If this means that he has to tap into certain phone conversations with reasonable cause, then he most definitely has the right to do so in order to protect the people. Protecting the safety of the citizens of this country is not an impeachable offense. According to Obama, who insists that no one is listening in on the citizen’s phone conversations, "‘You can 't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience”’ (Gilsen, Parks, Vixen). There is no way for the government to keep the country safe while also making sure everyone’s privacy is protected. Even a judge ruled that the NSA was not doing anything unconstitutional. In the December 2013 court case American Civil Liberties Union v. James Clapper, the ACUL was suing for Verizon to hand over metadata on phone calls in document equipped by Edward Snowden, former contractor of the NSA (Gilsen, Parks, Vixen). Their argument was that it violated the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Judge William Pauley stated that “…there was no evidence that the NSA was engaging in the data-mining ‘parade of horribles’ the ACLU warned of in its testimony and that the minimization procedures put in place by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) were sufficient to protect the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs” (Peterson). There was even a court case for the issue of domestic use of NSA and it was found to still be constitutional, therefore it should not be used as a reason to impeach Obama. Similarly, Obama has been under fire for supposedly not defending the constitution, which many consider to be an impeachable offense. Since 1996, the country has had the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in place signed in by President Bill Clinton. In February of 2011, Obama and his team made the decision to stop justifying the constitutionality of DOMA (Nallapa). Although this pleased many that Obama was for same sex marriage, many were outraged that he was opposing the constitution and saw it as an increase of executive power. Many would use this as an impeachable offense for Obama since he is not defending the constitution, which goes against his oath to always defend the constitution. But, the president also takes another oath saying that he will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States (Nallapa). As argued by Nallapa, “…the president’s obligation to uphold the Constitution takes priority over his duty to defend laws. As Duke University Constitutional Law Professor Dawn Johnsen points out, ‘Congress and the president … are obliged to uphold, and thus by necessity to interpret, the Constitution.’ In questioning the constitutionality of DOMA and subsequently refusing to defend the law, President Obama is simply carrying out his duties as the leader of a co-equal branch of government”(Nallapa). Obama is simply disagreeing with a law that was already put into place and this is not the first time this happens in U.S. history. History repeats itself several times when, “Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Truman all refused to defend separate-but-equal laws in schools and hospitals. The Clinton administration did not defend a federal law requiring HIV-positive military personnel to be dismissed from duty. And interestingly enough, President George H.W. Bush did not defend a case regarding affirmative action at broadcast news stations…” (Nallapa). If these presidents all refused to defends certain parts of the constitution and it was not considered an impeachable offense, then there should be no reason why Obama should be tried for a precedent that has been set over sixty years ago. Just as people found Obama’s refusal to defend part of the constitution unconstitutional, they also found his use of ObamaCare to also being a violation of his powers. Over the course of Obama’s presidency, all Americans who are not covered by a health care provider are required to get some sort of coverage. The overall goal of the act is to help people make healthier decisions and ensure that they can see doctors when needed (Liptak). Even though the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, it is by no means a justifiable reason to impeach Obama. Many argue that it is unconstitutional to require all citizens to have a sort of healthcare. However, under Congress’s taxation powers, the congress is given the power to tax the people and this is a form of taxing since it is all citizens having to spend money to benefit themselves (Liptak). The Supreme Court decision concluded that ObamaCare is a tax not a mandate. According to Chief Justice Roberts, “‘The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax…Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness”’(Liptak). Massachusetts has its own version of the Affordable Care Act put into place in 2006 by Governor Mitt Romney. Romney and the democrats worked together and put all of their focus on making “…sure people have access to healthcare through affordable health insurance. The reason people don’t have access to healthcare is because they can’t afford health insurance. If you can’t afford health insurance, you don’t go to the doctors. In Massachusetts, everyone can afford health insurance. And with the mandate, there are more people on board”(Rapoza). This act, known as the Massachusetts Healthcare Reform Act, has been affective since 2006 and has been more helpful for the people of Massachusetts than it has hurt them (Rapoza). When Romney put this act into place, there was no question of whether or not this was constitutional. ObamaCare also protected people from the overhauling the way insurance is sold as well as avoiding sick people from being refused or charged more for insurance (Liptak). It is protecting people far beyond just insurance. ObamaCare helps a lot and harms a little. But it’s also not a free for all in spending money. According to Liptak, “…the new limits it placed on federal regulation of commerce and on the conditions the federal government may impose on money it gives the states”(Liptak). Chief Justice Roberts justifies that doing something is a lot better than doing nothing (Liptak). Obama can’t be impeached for something that is helping people. Federal power holds a lot of restrictions on the act so it isn’t an abuse of power from Obama. All of these reasons for not impeaching Obama stem from initial debates of why Obama should be impeached. In regards to NSA domestic surveillance, many present the argument that Obama violates “…rights to privacy and First Amendment freedom of expression rights due to a chilling effect on the behaviors of the public”(Peterson). Even though it seems that Obama did directly violate the Bill of Rights, he is doing it out of the protection of the citizens, which out weighs the suspicion that he infringed upon the people’s rights (Peterson). This also ties in with people’s speculation that Obama violated his oath by stating that DOMA was unconstitutional. It is clear that Obama directly stated that he found DOMA to be unconstitutional and never defended it as a constitutional act (Nallapa). By doing this he joined a long line of presents that have also done the same and is doing his duty to protect the constitution. In his opinion as president, DOMA was hurting the constitution. It would have been much more unconstitutional for him to support an act that he did not believe in. The last argument, and arguably the most controversial is ObamaCare. A lot of people propose the argument that ObamaCare is completely unconstitutional and an expansion of Obama’s powers. But with a federal limit on Obama’s power, this puts a stop to the executive branch gaining more power (Rapoza). There has also been a Supreme Court precedent set from this that has declared ObamaCare as being constitutional. RomneyCare, a similar act to ObamaCare, has also been in affect in Massachusetts since 2006 without ever its constitutionality being questioned but rather with praises from citizens who were able to afford healthcare after the act was put in place (Rapoza). All of these counterarguments to impeach Obama don’t measure up to the facts about why Obama should not be impeached. Barack Obama should not be the third president to be impeached in the history of the United States.
The official definition of an impeachable offense is, “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”(Halstead) Obama has never committed a crime of this degree. All of his actions that many would consider as an impeachable could be justified and a lot of them can be seen throughout history by other presidents who have done similar actions and were not impeached. If he were to be impeached, the lack of evidence would ensure that he would not be convicted, similarly to those in Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial. A president cannot be impeached just because some people don’t like their constitutional policies. Although, what the future holds is still unclear. If the Republican Party were to gain control of the senate, then the future of Obama may be in jeopardy. But as seen in the facts, Obama has not done any actions that should result in him getting
impeached.
Bibliography:
Gellman, Barton. "Obama’s Restrictions on NSA Surveillance Rely on Narrow
Definition of ‘spying’." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 18 Jan. 2014.
Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Halstead, T.J. "The Constitution and Impeachment." The Constitution and
Impeachment. Report for Congress, 20 Apr. 2005. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 28 June 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Nallapa, Swathi. "President Obama 's Refusal to Defend DOMA Is Entirely Justified."
PolicyMic. Mic Network Inc., 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Peterson, Andrea. "NSA Phone Records Spying Is Constitutional, Judge Says."
Washington Post. The Washington Post, 27 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
Rapoza, Kenneth. "ObamaCare Is Constitutional; Get Over It." Forbes. Forbes Magazine,
29 June 2012. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
Vicens, AJ, Dave Gilson, and Alex Park. "Timeline: Here 's How We Got from 9/11 to
Massive NSA Spying on Americans Today." Mother Jones. Mother Jones and the
Foundation for National Progress, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.