Stopping Executive Lawlessness: A "No-Confidence" Vote or Censure?

Gen. Paul Vallely of Stand Up America US, who is also helping to spearhead "Operation American Spring" beginning May 16th in DC, has suggested that to counter Obama's imperious overreaching that Congress should tender a vote of "no-confidence" against him.

Alternatively, a person on another conservative site recommended that the House censure Obama. For me at least, "censure" seems more impactful, more significant than merely a vote of no-confidence. So, perhaps censure is the better route to take.

In any event, I researched the matter of censure and found that while the process is, per intra- congressional rules, limited to members of Congress, in 1834 Pres. Andrew Jackson was censured by the Whig-dominated Senate. When the Democrats reclaimed the Senate in 1837, the censure was officially expunged from the records, suggesting to me that censure is of no small consequence to the parties affected. The net legal effect of the Jackson censure was nil; however, from a public relations standpoint, the evidence suggests it was, indeed, impactful.

It is interesting to note that to avoid the disgrace of impeachment, Pres. Clinton actually agreed with his Democratic supporters to accept being censured in lieu of the historical embarrassment of impeachment. Net effect: he was impeached anyway, only the second president, Andrew Johnson being the other in 1868, to have endured this shame. Neither, of course, was convicted and removed from office.

Censure is a formal public reprimand/rebuke for an infraction or violation. It appears nowhere in the Constitution and is, as said, an internal creation of Congress intended to deal with its own members--not sitting presidents, et. al. government officials.

That said, for those who opt to censure Obama, the precedent is there. The question is which poison would have the greater impact on public opinion and support for the president. A no-confidence vote or censure? I would say censure. It certainly can't hurt, and might actually further diminish Obama's credibility as Chief Executive and substantively impair his ability to govern or to otherwise perpetrate more unbridled mischief against the Republic, the Constitution and the American people.

My view is that to stem what appears to be a veritable flood of federal usurpations, we should commit to a multitude of remedies. As said, we can, after all, walk and chew gum at the same time. While censure is certainly a compelling action to take, we must also think in terms of what will actually stop this Progressive tyranny cold.  The obvious answer is, of course, State Nullification of all federal actions (legislation/court rulings/bureaucratic regulations/executives orders) which do not comport with the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Realistically, all peaceful remedies should be on the table and vigorously acted upon until such time that constitutional order is restored, the doctrine of separation of powers is fully practiced, and co-equality of the States with the Federal Government is achieved.

Going forward, the most compelling remedial grassroots action we should all get solidly behind is, of course, "Operation American Spring" which will be launched in earnest on May 16th. I urge readers to check it out on the Patriots for America site. You have the option of participating in the protracted occupation or volunteering your services and talents in support of the operation.

Finally and very importantly, if all of these peaceful remedies fail to achieve our constitutional goals, then ALL other remedies sanctioned by our Founders and "natural law" must necessarily be relied upon by the American people. Let the Founders ALWAYS be our guide.

Postscript: Earlier this week, Mark Levin called on Congress to boycott Obama's State of the Union address this month. Boycott, censure, State Nullification. An unbeatable combination! 

Views: 834


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by JC Lincoln on February 6, 2014 at 8:30pm

I have "NO CONFIDENCE" in the Obama Regime.

Comment by John H. Briggs, Sr. on February 6, 2014 at 3:41pm

James Murphy, et al: What you write is true.  I know others say, "But the Senate  is Dem...."  That is true.  But I say, "The House is where impeachment takes its seat solely.  The Senate is where the trial is held.  Therefore, impeach him anyway and see what happens in the Senate.  By the time we get to the trial, the Senate may already be Republican.  Meanwhile, let's continue with both the Convention of States and OAS.  Convention  of the States is moving forward incase the Senate will not take BO to trial, the House having already impeached him (Bill Clinton).  The OAS would be, at the very least, a shot across BO's bow."  Let's roll!

Comment by James P. Murphy on February 6, 2014 at 3:20pm

There is only one way to stop Executive lawlessness, and that is Impeachment.   This is just one more example of the kind of Never Never Land thinking that a public imbued over the years with liberalism fall prey to.   If you want to stop a felon from committing crimes, does the community get together and "censure" him or maybe subject him to a "vote of no-confidence"?    Well, that's essentially what they're proposing here.   And I can't blame Obama for laughing at them.   If you mean business, you impeach.   Otherwise, put up or shut up.

Comment by Dwight Carmichael on February 6, 2014 at 2:05pm

I guess if you spend 2 million to hide your past and Soros can get the courts in your favor then we the people are the only ones that can be tried for treason is us since we're broke.

Comment by Virgil Earl Koon on February 6, 2014 at 1:59pm

We should all ask ourselves what constitutes treason in our time? It use to be if anyone gave comfort or support to an enemy of the United States that was treason! The Mexican Cartel have always been our enemies, especially in our inner cities! If giving them arms is not treason, then what the heck is anymore? Maybe we should ask the idiot commentators of our Marxist supporting Liberal media? But wait, we have other counts of treason and the Liberal media support anything the Muslim/Marxist President does! Let us be real! An honorable Naval Officer charged Obama with 5 counts of treason with proofs and the liberal anti-American media said what? It was whitewashed away!

Comment by Virgil Earl Koon on January 31, 2014 at 11:16am

Ah, too bad we cannot bring back the golden years of freedom, meaning tar and feathers and a wild trip via train! The train would be packed with Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and many others that refuse to support American Citizens rights!

Comment by Virgil Earl Koon on January 22, 2014 at 12:05pm

The Liberal/Communist media would support this Muslim Communist and claim that he is being attacked because of his great accomplishments as President! Sad but true! Look at how the New York Times reports on Obama and on Conservatives! MSN is one of the worst anti-American reporting news media ever in existence!

I would suggest that the MOB controls the New York Times as example. I would also suggest that New York State and city elections were all corrupt and we see this by who came into office!

Comment by Jim Delaney on January 20, 2014 at 8:33am

For me, a "no-confidence" vote would be appropriate if ours was a parliamentary system of government. If that were the case, the "prime minister" would have to step down and new elections called. That's why I opt for CENSURE. It is intended to punish, to bring shame on the offending official and would be suitable for a republican system of government. It was, after all, invoked against Pres. Jackson, so there is a precedent.

Comment by Dorothy Duda on January 20, 2014 at 3:31am
WHY CAN'T CONGRESS DO BOTH.! We have no confidence and therefore censure him!
Comment by Reidun E. Elliott on January 19, 2014 at 10:21pm
Yes! Boycott, censure and nullifyaaaand be ready for some race riots because the left will go there full tilt.



Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service