Ted Cruz is right: Obamacare delays alone are enough grounds for impeachment

Friday, August 30, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: Ted Cruz, Obamacare, impeachment

(NaturalNews) Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was ridiculed by some ex-Bushie RINO chick I'd never heard of before recently, because, when asked why it wasn't possible to impeach President Obama, he answered, "Because we don't have the votes."

Nicolle Wallace, an establishment GOP cheerleader and former Bush and McCain campaign staffer, called that argument "intellectually dishonest."

"The true answer, the intellectually honest answer: 'Because he's not committed an impeachable offense.' Ted Cruz is doing a whole lot of fearmongering and lying to the voters. He's presenting an untruthful case," she said on the barely-watched network of MSNBC.

Wallace, a trained journalist, is calling Cruz, a former solicitor general for the state of Texas, an adjunct law professor at the University of Texas Law School, and a lawyer who has successfully argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, a liar who is being "intellectually dishonest" with constituents because, in her words, Obama hasn't committed an impeachable offense.

Let's examine that.

As president, Obama took an oath to ensure that the laws of the land were "faithfully executed." Failure to uphold his oath of office, as any legitimate constitutional lawyer and law professor will tell you, is an impeachable offense.

As president, Obama has ordered his government to stop enforcing provisions of DOMA - the Defense of Marriage Act, even before the nation's highest court had struck down parts of it.

He single-handedly eliminated the work requirement outlined in a 1996 welfare reform law.

And he has ordered a number of provisions contained in his signature legislation, Obamacare, to be delayed - though as president, he has no lawmaking power to do so.

In fact, regarding Obamcare, Forbes' Avik Roy reports:

In recent months, President Obama and his subordinates have waived or delayed a number of Obamacare's notable features, such as the law's employer mandate, and its procedures for protecting taxpayers from fraud and identity theft. Earlier this month, in that context, I obtained a heretofore-unpublished memorandum from the Congressional Research Service. The CRS, Congress' non-partisan in-house think tank, compiled 82 deadlines that the Affordable Care Act mandates upon the first three years of its own implementation. Remarkably, it turns out that the White House has missed half of the deadlines legally required by the ACA. And some of those deadlines remain unmet to this day.

Missed half the deadlines. And Obama has "waived or delayed" a number of Obamacare provisions.

In a recent column, Charles Krauthammer waxed on Obama's illegality:

Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what's left of the law?

The problem is not just uncertain enforcement but the undermining of the very creation of new law. What's the point of the whole legislative process - of crafting various provisions through give-and-take negotiation - if you cannot rely on the fixity of the final product, on the assurance that the provisions bargained for by both sides will be carried out?

Now that the imbecilic nature of Wallace's statement has been established by the well-documented malfeasance committed by this president, it's time to get to the crux of what Cruz was saying.

To him, a constitutional expert, the fact that Obama had committed impeachable offenses was a foregone conclusion. And, as such, he most definitely can (and probably should) be impeached.

Now, the House is full of so-called "opposition" members - Republicans - but they are so weak in the knees they won't even use their constitutionally granted power of the purse to defund Obamacare, let alone vote articles of impeachment over Obama's refusal to implement it.

Articles of Impeachment must be generated in the House.

The Senate majority consists of members of Obama's Democrat Party - some of them, like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, are even Obama sycophants. The Constitution mandates that impeachment trials are held in the Senate. Two-thirds of senators present must vote to convict. And that's not going to happen.

So in other words, as Cruz said, "We don't have the votes."

Game, set and match, Ms. Wallace. Get a clue.

Sources:

http://www.forbes.com

http://www.mediaite.com

http://www.humanevents.com