Based on the dozens of story lines featured on the subject on the site, DRUDGE REPORT clearly knows, for years now, citizens convinced Barack Obama is not a NBC crave his impeachment. (Actually, most have called for ‘something’ other than impeachment that will get him out of office, mistakenly believing, assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible to be President, he was unlawfully elected, anyway and, therefore, cannot be removed as the CiC through the only process prescribed in the Constitution.) So, one could naturally assume, Mr. Drudge printed for their benefit these banner headlines, in red, replete with dome light, announcing, “‘ Gingrich gives Obama ‘impeachment’ warning’.” Indeed, the link to the Newsmax article died through overuse. Even I, chuckling as I clicked, knowing, had Gingrich mentioned “impeachment” in the context of “ineligibility” Drudge would have said so on his site; nonetheless joined the presumably millions of others, like lemmings to the sea, to confirm I had been intentionally misdirected.
I had confirmed on other sites, Gingrich’s use of the word ‘impeachment’ was in no way related to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office – no surprise there – but to instructions to the DoJ to decline to actively defend against challenges to the DoMA. Then, I got through to Newsmax. Here was their headline:
Gingrich: If Palin
Took Obama Actions,
There Would Be Calls
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment
Disingenuously clarifying, he wasn’t suggesting Obama should be impeached, anyway, Gingrich complained that when it comes to the conduct of the left versus the right, there is a lot of hypocrisy. Okay; but then, he went ‘a bridge too far.’
Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand…. Gingrich adds: “I don’t think these guys set out to create a constitutional crisis. I think they set out to pay off their allies in the gay community and to do something that they thought was clever. (Emphasis added.) I think they didn’t understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional.”
See, here’s the problem with hyperbole. It is so easily verifiable as untrue. “Very dangerous precedent” (as in, happening for the first time)? And, heaping insult onto injury, characterizing the decision not to spend more money defending against a law some federal courts have already ruled is unconstitutional (Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al) as deciding to”personally suspend a law”?
Gingrich again exposes his ethical vacuity by aiming this garbage to gullible receivers. Of course, I only characterize him as the scoundrel he is in this instance, because I can prove it.
For example, I find absolutely no evidence in the public record that U.S. Representative Gingrich mentioned the word impeachment in relation to the decision of President George H. W. Bush, in 1992 to refrain from defending an FCC policy “to give minorities an edge when it came to the awarding of radio and television broadcast licenses.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702394.html (The FCC’s policy was adopted at the urging of Congress, and the solicitor general’s office usually defends agencies such as the FCC against legal challenges.” Id.)
Ha, when the case finally reached the SCOTUS – Metro Broadcasting v. FCC - the U.S., on the legal advice of (Acting) Solicitor General John Roberts, actually argued against the government policy, claiming it violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Id. The SCOTUS disagreed. (Mr. Roberts was later nominated to the SCOTUS by President George W. Bush.)
But neither refraining from prosecuting a challenge to an existing law nor arguing against an existing law is illegal.
“Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes,” drafted in 1994, isa memorandum to the Honorable Abner J. Mikva, Counsel to the President (George H. W. Bush), written by Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, discussing the President’s constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes. Here are just a few findings and conclusions:
The President should presume that enactments are constitutional. There will be some occasions, however, when a statute appears to conflict with the Constitution. In such cases, the President can and should exercise his independent judgment to determine whether the statute is constitutional. In reaching a conclusion, the President should give great deference to the fact that Congress passed the statute and that Congress believed it was upholding its obligation to enact constitutional legislation. Where possible, the President should construe provisions to avoid constitutional problems.The Supreme Court plays a special role in resolving disputes about the constitutionality of enactments. As a general matter, if the President believes that the Court would sustain a particular provision as constitutional, the President should execute the statute, notwithstanding his own beliefs about the constitutional issue. If, however, the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the President has the authority to decline to execute the statute.
“…we do not believe that a President is limited to choosing between vetoing, for example, the Defense Appropriations Act and executing an unconstitutional provision in it. In our view, the President has the authority to sign legislation containing desirable elements while refusing to execute a constitutionally defective provision.”
Summing up, Gingrich did not propose impeaching President George H. W. Bush either for refusing to defend against a race-based preference policy in awarding broadcast licenses or for opposing the existing policy in the U.S. arguments to the high court. And based on his assumption Obama’s conduct is wedded in support for equal rights for gays and lesbians; he suggests the left would call for impeachment if President Palin ‘unilaterally’ ordered the DoJ to refrain from enforcing a law to which she was philosophically opposed.
But as history shows, Presidents do this all the time. And Dr. Gingrich (Ph.D., History) knows this.
The DRUDGE REPORT proudly boasts its daily hits are in the millions – “VISITS TO DRUDGE 02/25/11, 031,840,693 IN PAST 24 HOURS" - presumably netting significant commercial revenues. Imagine how much smarter Mr. Drudge (and his colleagues) could leave the body politic if only he would spend some of that money educating his readers instead of just titillating us.
I haven't reached 1,000,000 hits since I started this blog in August 2008! Yet I spent hours putting together this post, all by myself, for free.