Some Republicans have now openly advanced the argument or the Impeachment of President Barak Obama. Others, notably the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, have decided to sue President Obama for violating the constitution by making his own laws.

Which is the best path for the incensed Republicans to follow? Well, if you believe that the president has violated the constitution sufficiently to merit impeachment then that is the path that the constitution provides.

But Speaker Boehner proposes suing the president and his specific charge is that President Obama moved to delay imposing penalties on employers who failed to provide health insurance as required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The president is clearly guilty of taking this action, so is that all we need to know to support Boehner’s action? Probably not.

First, the House may not have “standing” before any court long before the issue could come to trial. The President delayed the penalties for one year, meaning that those penalties will go into effect in January 2015, only six months from now. Once the penalties are established there is no longer any legal issue in the complaint filed by Boehner; no fix that can be relevant.

Second, the courts are reluctant to engage in fights between the two other branches of government, especially when remedies exist within the framework of the constitution. In this example Congress has two means to override executive decisions.

Congress can pass a law that explicitly requires implementation of the rule as of a named date. Alternatively, Congress can refuse to fund the program in question to force compliance.

But the issue gets even cloudier when the postponement was on the ACA, an act the Republican House voted 50 times, more or less, to repeal. Yes, the Republicans are suing the president for not enforcing an aspect of a law they wanted repealed entirely.

One might think the Republicans would be thrilled that such a law was deferred, but that would assume politics to be a rational sport. It is not.

Essentially the Republicans have failed to stop the ACA, failed to derail it, failed to un-fund it, and failed to prevent its acceptance by the nearly 10 million newly insured who have accept the new law and gained insurance coverage. And that makes them angry enough to sue the President.

On the other hand, some Republicans, including Sarah Palin, Tea Party spokesperson, have called for Impeachment of the president. Palin’s argument is that the President has refused to secure the southern borders of the U.S., thus placing the nation at risk.

But no U.S. president has successfully sealed our southern borders. President Obama has increased the number of removals of illegal immigrants over that of the Bush administration and has more border guards in place than ever before. Under President Obama the border fence, authorized to 652 miles in length, has completed 649 miles with the other three miles under construction.

The current border crisis is not about illegal crossing, as most of the children are arriving at the border and surrendering themselves seeking asylum. Under U.S. law they are entitled to a legal resolution of their status to determine if they are refugees or illegals to be returned.

If those who seek Impeachment are basing their claim on border security what then would be the basis of their charge that would be different than impeachment for any and every previous president?

These folks are not angry so much about the border as they are angry that Nixon was forced to resign, that the impeachment of Clinton harmed their party, and that Barack Obama imposed the hated ACA on them without a single Republican vote.

But they ignore one crucial element in their angst; in America you must win elections to have your way in politics.

 

Jim Crawford is a retired educator and political enthusiast living here in the Tri-State.