|
THE LAW THAT CAN SAVE AMERICA AND PUT OBAMA IN JAIL |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
|
|
Thursday, 10 January 2013 |
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States
Constitution states:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account
of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
time to time."
This is the "Power of the Purse" clause, which Article I,
Section 7, Clause 1 makes clear is exclusively held by the House of
Representatives:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House
of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on
other Bills."
Actually, there are two
"powers of the purse" - to spend money or to deny its being spent. For the US Federal Government to spend any money, one single dime on
anything, three things need to happen
in this order: 1) an Appropriation must
be authorized and passed by the House, 2) such Appropriation must then be
passed by the Senate (any differences in the House and Senate versions must be
reconciled via joint agreement and passage), and finally 3) be signed into Law
by the President.
To deny the
federal government the authority to spend any money, one single dime on any
program or activity, only one thing
needs to happen: the House does not pass
an Appropriation for it. Period. Neither the Senate, nor the President, nor
the Supreme Court, nor any federal agency secretary or bureaucrat, has the
constitutional authority to spend one single dime by themselves, without a
majority of the House giving it to them.
That is the power of the purse.
There is, however, a problem - a legal problem, not just a
psychological one, such as Congressistas being spendaholics or too cowardly to
refuse the begging of various constituencies for handouts.
This problem is epitomized by the Senate Republicans'
inability to force Harry Reid to pass an annual budget, even though there is a
law requiring the Senate to do so.
Thanks to Reid's blocking all attempts, the Senate hasn't passed a
budget since April, 2009, which clearly violates federal law - the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
So how come Reid can't be prosecuted? Why can't the Senate Pubs take legal action
against him? As Byron
York explains, "the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 doesn't have an
enforcement mechanism. Lawmakers are required by law to pass a budget
each year by April 15, but there's no provision to punish them, or even
slightly inconvenience them, if they don't."
So we arrive at what may well be the single most important
question to ask in America today.
Given that the current
President of the United States seems determined to bypass the House's
appropriation authority and spend gigantic sums on whatever programs he wants
or enforcing whatever Executive Orders he issues, is there an enforcement
mechanism for his violating the power of the purse clauses in the Constitution?
The answer is yes.
There is a federal law that specifically codifies the power of the purse
clauses, and provides specific punishment for their violation by any "officer
or employee of the United States government."
This punishment is "suspension from duty without pay or
removal from office," and up to two years in federal prison.
This Federal law is: The Antideficiency Act. The original
version was enacted into law in 1884.
Although revised occasionally since to make its meaning clear in terms
of "modern" language, its purpose remains: to be the enforcement mechanism
implementing Article I, Sections 7 & 9.
It was last revised during the Reagan presidency, and is codified as
Title 31 of the United States Code (31 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342, 1349, and 1350).
§1341
states:
1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or
of the District of Columbia government may not-
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or
obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure
or obligation;
(B) involve either government in a
contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made
unless authorized by law;
§1342
specifies that the "unless authorized by law" exception in 1341 (1)(B) applies
only to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of
property," which does "not include ongoing, regular functions of government the
suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or
the protection of property."
§1349
states:
"An officer or employee of the United States Government or
of the District of Columbia government violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of
this title shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including,
when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from
office."
§1350
states:
"An officer or employee of the United States Government or
of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating
section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000,
imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."
There is a lot of brave talk coming from Capitol Hill
Republicans on forcing
a government shutdown by not raising the debt ceiling until Zero agrees to
major spending cuts. Zero is riposting
with threats to raise the ceiling unilaterally, invoking
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment - "The validity of the public debt
of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned."
On Sunday (1/06), Senator
Ted Cruz (R-TX) demolished this argument in a handful of words.
In addition, Zero's bureaucratic goons have issued a
blizzard of new rules and regs, while he himself threatens
to issue a blizzard of Executive Orders for "gun-control" in overt violation of
the 2nd Amendment.
In other words, Zero plainly intends to spend whatever money
he wants, debt ceiling or no, Congressional appropriation or no. If and when he does so, he needs to be
prosecuted in violation of the Antideficiency Act.
And criminally
prosecuted, for he will have, per §1350, knowingly
and willfully violated it. Note,
however, that §1349 only requires violation of the act (without the knowing/willful
qualifier) for the perpetrator to be suspended and removed from office.
Eric Holder, as the most corrupt and dishonest Attorney
General in US history, will of course not prosecute Zero - he will act as his
defense attorney. But the House as a
whole, individual senators and congressfolk, conservative legal foundations et
al, may initiate law suits against the president.
There are 30 Republican Governors now. If a number of them banded together, with
their States suing Zero for violation of the Antideficiency Act, then, under
the Original Jurisdiction clause of the Constitution - Article III, Section 2,
Clause 2: "In all Cases... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall
have original Jurisdiction" - the case must go directly to the Supremes,
bypassing all lower courts.
So we don't even need lily-livered Congress Pubs, just Pub
Governors, a number of whom do have the moxy.
Granted, since Chief Justice Roberts has become Obama's
poodle, the SCOTUS may not find the president guilty. Nonetheless, prosecution of the president
under the Antideficiency Act is a far easier way to remove him from office than
impeachment.
Impeachment of Obama would be a high bar for the House, and
verdict of guilty in a subsequent trial by the Dem-controlled Senate an
impossibility. So the only possible way
to remove him from office is via Antideficiency Act violations. Further, such violations can put him in jail.
In sum:
*The Constitution explicitly states that the President and
the Executive Branch can only spend money first appropriated by the House.
*The enforcement mechanism for violation of this Constitutional
provision is the Antideficiency Act, under which the president may be
personally prosecuted as an officer of the United States government, and if
found guilty, may be removed from office and imprisoned for up to two years.
*Our current president has indicated his intention to
blatantly, knowingly and willfully violate the Antideficiency Act.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon Republican leaders in the
House and Senate to publicly announce and repeatedly state their intention to
seek the criminal prosecution of President Barack Hussein Obama should he
violate the Antideficiency Act, in response to the House's refusal to 1) raise
the debt ceiling, 2) pass a Continuing Resolution in lieu of a Federal Budget, or
3) provide funding for the implementation of Presidential Executive Orders,
particularly those regarding gun-control.
Republican Governors and conservative legal foundations
should then join in support.
We have the Constitution and the specific federal law to put
an end to the Tyranny of Zero. It's time
to go on offense. Mr. Obama must be
given a choice: obey the Antideficiency
Act or be thrown out of office and go to jail.
|
Discuss this item on the forums. (33 posts)
|
|
