As I have written, from a practical — meaning political — standpoint, any attempt by Republicans to impeach President Obama is idiotic. Even though impeaching a president requires only a simple majority in the House, impeachment is tantamount to indicting the president, whereas actually convicting the president of an impeachable offense requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which has no chance of happening to America’s first black president. Further, as Republicans found when their attempts to impeach President Clinton led to overwhelming public disapproval, before making the legal case for impeachment, you must make the political case, and convincing the American people that the president committed an impeachable offense is not easy.
So admitting that, for political reasons, President Obama won’t be impeached, is there a legal case for impeaching and convicting him of “high crimes and misdemeanors?
Actually, there is, starting with one crucial difference between him and President Clinton. Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice regarding a sexual dalliance with a White House intern. As even the public concluded, that is hardly a threat to our constitutional framework, and therefore failed the “high crimes and misdemeanors” test.
But President Obama’s situation is different, especially when you consider the Founders’ definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The phrase came from English common law, meaning “the political wrongs of public men,” which the Founders interpreted as the repeated abuses of the power and responsibilities entrusted to public officials. Among those abuses were dereliction of duty and violations of their oaths of office, and on both counts President Obama can justly be pronounced guilty.
Unquestionably, he has violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” which requires that he “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” He has repeatedly refused to enforce laws, or parts of laws, including his priority legislative achievement, Obamacare, which he has unconstitutionally changed some 30 times. That is both a dereliction of duty and an abuse of power because it encroaches upon the legislative branch’s sole power to make or amend laws.
He also went to war in Libya without congressional authorization. He issued an executive order giving blanket amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants, thereby violating the Constitution’s language that only Congress can “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” He also failed to notify Congress in advance, as a law he signed required him to do, of his decision to release five terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He even made “recess appointments” when Congress was not in recess, which the Supreme Court unanimously found to be a violation of his office.
Again, Obama will never be impeached or convicted, but the legal case can be made that he deserves to be.
Then by your description, could not nearly every president also be impeached?
If you can show me another president that has so blatantly refused to enforce the laws, used executive orders that, rather than clear up vague language in laws (the purpose of EOs), instead directly contravene the clear language in a duly passed law (ex: Obamacare’s language regarding employer mandate CLEARLY said it was to take effect on Jan. 1, 2014), makes recess appointments when Congress is not in recess, goes to war without congressional authorization (George W received such authorization in both Iraq and Afghanistan), and violates countless other laws that he signed, including violating the clear language in a law requiring the president to inform Congress in advance of his decision to release terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, then, yes, those presidents are committing impeachable offenses.