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

Comment

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.

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

Yikes !!! Ocasio-Cortez: We Need A ‘Multigendered, Multigeographic’ United States

The United States of America needs to be “multigendered” and “multigeographic,” according to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who endorsed fellow socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) at the “Bernie’s Back Rally” in New York on Saturday.

The freshman lawmaker and “Squad” member officially endorsed Sanders during a rally in Queensbridge Park in Long Island City, New York, on Saturday and called for more diversity in the U.S., arguing that it should not only be “multiracial” and “multigenerational” but “multigeographic” and “multigendered.”

“We need a United States that really, truly, and authentically is operated, owned, and decided by working – and all – people in the United States of America,” Ocasio-Cortez said to applause.

“That is what it – it is multiracial, multigendered, multigenerational, and multigeographic,” she said, failing to elaborate on what that specifically looks like.

“We have to come together, not ignoring our differences but listening to them, prioritizing them, understanding injustice,” she continued.

The socialist lawmaker also implied that rampant racism is still alive and well in the U.S., telling the crowd that it is essential to understand “that we operate in a context where slavery evolved into Jim Crow, evolved into mass incarceration, [and] evolved into the realities we have today.”

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service