|
Books > Social sciences > Politics & government > Political structure & processes > Constitution, government & the state
|
Buy Now
Faithless Execution - Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment (Hardcover)
Loot Price: R569
Discovery Miles 5 690
|
|
|
Faithless Execution - Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment (Hardcover)
 (sign in to rate)
Loot Price R569
Discovery Miles 5 690
Expected to ship within 12 - 17 working days
|
We still imagine ourselves a nation of laws, not of men. This is
not merely an article of faith but a bedrock principle of the
United States Constitution. Our founding compact provides a remedy
against rulers supplanting the rule of law, and Andrew C. McCarthy
makes a compelling case for using it. The authors of the
Constitution saw practical reasons to place awesome powers in a
single chief executive, who could act quickly and decisively in
times of peril. Yet they well understood that unchecked power in
one person's hands posed a serious threat to liberty, the defining
American imperative. Much of the debate at the Philadelphia
convention therefore centered on how to stop a rogue executive who
became a law unto himself. The Framers vested Congress with two
checks on presidential excess: the power of the purse and the power
of impeachment. They are potent remedies, and there are no others.
It is a straightforward matter to establish that President Obama
has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term signifying
maladministration and abuses of power by holders of high public
trust. But making the legal case is insufficient for successful
impeachment, leading to removal from office. Impeachment is a
political matter and hinges on public opinion. In Faithless
Execution, McCarthy weighs the political dynamics as he builds a
case, assembling a litany of abuses that add up to one overarching
offense: the president's willful violation of his solemn oath to
execute the laws faithfully. The "fundamental transformation" he
promised involves concentrating power into his own hands by
flouting law--statutes, judicial rulings, the Constitution
itself--and essentially daring the other branches of government to
stop him. McCarthy contends that our elected representative are
duty-bound to take up the dare. What are "High Crimes and
Misdemeanors"? Impeachment is rare in American history--and for
good reason. As the ultimate remedy against abuse of executive
power, it is politically convulsive. And yet, as the Framers
understood, it is a necessary protection if the rule of law is to
be maintained. But what are impeachable offenses? There is
widespread confusion among the American people about the answer to
this question. Article II of the Constitution lists treason and
bribery, along with "other high crimes and misdemeanors as the
standard for impeachment. Despite what "crimes" and "misdemeanors"
connote, the concept has precious little to do with violations of a
penal code. Rather, it is about betrayal of the political trust
reposed in the president to execute the laws faithfully and
"preserve, protect and defend" our constitutional system, as his
oath of office requires. At the constitutional convention in 1787,
the delegates concurred that the "high crimes and misdemeanors"
standard captured the many "great and dangerous offenses" involving
malfeasance, incompetence, and severe derelictions of duty that
could undermine the constitutional order. The Framers were clear
that "high crimes and misdemeanors" involved misconduct that did
not necessarily break penal laws; it might not even be considered
criminal if committed by a civilian. It would apply strictly to
"the misconduct of public men ...or the abuse or violation of
public trust," as Alexander Hamilton put it. "High crimes and
misdemeanors" are of a purely political nature as they "relate to
injuries done immediately to the society itself." To be clear,
"high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a standard conceived for
normal law enforcement. It applies instead to oath, honor, and
trust--notions that are more demanding of public officials than the
black and white prohibitions of criminal law. While the standard is
high-minded it is not an abstraction. The Framers were very clear:
betrayals of the constitutional order, dishonesty in the
executive's dealing with Congress, and concealment of dealings with
foreign powers that could be injurious to the American people were
among the most grievous, and impeachable, high crimes and
misdemeanors. Above all, the Framers had in view the president's
oath of allegiance to our system of government, a system in which
the president's highest duty is faithful execution of the laws. The
mere attempt to subvert the constitution would be a breach of trust
that warranted impeachment and removal. A free country requires the
rule of law. But the rule of law is a sham if lawlessness is
rampant among those who govern. This was the deep political truth
that the Framers of this country recognized in the providing for
the impeachment of an errant executive. It is a truth that we
ignore at our peril. Faithless Execution Author Q&A You are a
well-known conservative commentator -- how would you answer the
accusation that Faithless Execution is just a partisan stunt?
McCarthy: Well, 'conservative' does not mean 'Republican'--in fact,
the book is not very flattering when it comes to GOP fecklessness
in the face of the president's lawlessness. But the main point is:
Faithless Execution argues against partisan hackery. I analyze the
legal case for impeachment as a former prosecutor who would not go
to court without a sufficient case. And as far as the politics
goes, I argue that, despite the sizable majority Republicans hold
in the House, articles of impeachment should not be filed unless
and until there is a strong public will to remove the president
from power--one that transcends party lines. Many Republicans say
an effort to impeach Barack Obama is political suicide for the
Republican Party. How do you respond to this? McCarthy: The failure
to pursue impeachment is likely to be suicide for the country,
which is much more important than the political fate of the
Republican Party. But, again, making the case for
impeachment--which would probably help not only Republicans but any
elected official who defends our constitutional framework--is not
the same as moving forward with articles of impeachment, which
should not happen absent public support. How does the case for
Barack Obama's impeachment compare to the campaigns to impeach
Nixon and Clinton? McCarthy: Obama's presidency is a willful,
systematic attack on the constitutional system of separation of
powers, an enterprise that aims to bring about a new regime of
government by executive decree. This is exactly the kind of
subversion the Framers designed the impeachment power to address.
The Nixon and Clinton episodes involved misconduct that did not aim
to undermine our constitutional framework. You describe impeachment
as a political and not a legal remedy. What's the distinction?
McCarthy: Legally speaking, a president may be impeached for a
single offense that qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors"--a
breach of the profound public trust vested in the president, a
violation of his constitutional duty to execute the laws
faithfully. But real impeachment requires the public will to remove
the president from office. You can have a thousand impeachable
offenses, but without that political consensus, impeachment is not
an appropriate remedy.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
|
You might also like..
|
Welcome to Loot.co.za!
Sign in / Register |Wishlists & Gift Vouchers |Help | Advanced search
(74)
