Lankford Is On Notice

Recently, I wrote an e-mail to my Congressman, Rep. James Lankford, suggesting that impeachment proceedings against President Obama be considered. I feel that impeachment is justifiable because of his flagrant violations of the US Constitution. I feel that violations against the US Constitution criminal acts because this document is the highest law of the land and all other laws are secondary to this document.

Here are some excerpts from the response that I received from his office:

“The progressive initiatives being forced on Americans have no doubt blurred the line of constitutional authority.”

“…there is as yet, no consistent legal basis for impeachment…any impeachment proceedings would be an exercise in futility and pure political theater…”

“…although many actions taken by the Obama Administration demonstrate an aversion to govern within the constitutional limits of the executive branch, only criminal activities constitute impeachment proceedings…”

Well, isn’t that special.

Mr. Lankford, might I remind you, because based on your voting record you might need a reminder, the United States Constitution IS THE LAW! Last time I checked, breaking the law IS a criminal activity.

If you and the rest of Congress would grow some balls and stand up against the overuse of congressional authority, maybe there be less misuse of it in the first place. But since you and most of the rest of Congress would rather get along to go along to further your political careers, you do not have the courage necessary to represent the people of the United States.

Lack of information and lack of interest on the part of the electorate is a big part of the equation with what is going wrong with this country but it is only part of the equation. It is up to you, our elected officials, to not only fully understand where the power of the executive branch begins and ends, but to hold them accountable when they overstep their bounds.

You are a member of the United States Congress for Christ’s sake!! You have just as much power as they do! Have some balls and stand up for something for once in your life.

You specifically, Mr. Lankford, campaigned that you would help change the status quo in Washington if you were elected and you have done exactly SQUAT to do that? Since you have been elected, it has been same crap, different name in the 5th District here in Oklahoma. What EXACTLY have you done to change the status quo? What EXACTLY have you done to limit the size of government? What EXACTLY have you done to uphold your oath of office to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?’

Anyone that willingly violates the Constitution IS a domestic enemy in my book. This is the document that our great country was founded upon and the way you people in Washington DC act so indifferent to it sickens me.

You are on notice and rest assured that I will be everything in my power (limited as it maybe) to ensure that you do NOT get re-elected to your office. You have proved inept at discharging your duties and it is time that we take back our government from the likes of you.

If you are as sick of Rep. Lankford and his lies as much as I am, call his office and let him know:

DC office: 202-225-2132
OKC office: 405-234-9900

8 comments

  1. I quit talking to all of my ‘representatives’ …..
    They clearly don’t represent their constituents.

  2. 202-225-2132
    It would do well for your articles in the future to have a hint of activism within it. Display his number within the article so we can call up his office to bitch and tell him he’s on notice of election eviction…

  3. He lied. That is exactly what impeachment is for. Hope this helps you to either educate him or remove him from office for not keeping the lawfully required contract, his oath of office.
    Below is a brief history of impeachment, the reasons for impeachment, etc. Hope this helps!

    The Constitution of the United States specifies that an officer is to be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”; experts agree that impeachment is permitted for noncriminal misconduct (e.g., violation of the Constitution), and can include criminal/civil actions.
    It has invited considerable debate, but it is generally read to mean both indictable offenses and other serious noncriminal misconduct. The latter has included corruption, DERELICTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, AND VIOLATIONS OF LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF AN OFFICE.
    Criminal and civl crimes he committed against our laws require prosecution.

    1) Actively and knowingly went against the US Constitution and the citizens of the United States
    2) Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office
    3) Misuse of powers assigned the executive branch by the constitution
    4) Using powers not assigned to the executive branch
    5) Maladministration
    6) Misapplication
    and many more impeachable offenses.

    From an impeachment committee, It based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” which the committee had ordered prepared before beginning its investigation. This report traced the history, precedents, and grounds for impeachment. The report concluded: “Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office”.

    Maladministration: “A political term which describes the actions of a government body which can be seen as causing an injustice”,” Situation where the individual or group in charge is unjust, dishonest, or ineffective in their leadership; frequently used to describe corrupt behavior by any public official.

    The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:
    Delay
    Incorrect action or failure to take any action
    Failure to follow procedures or the law
    Failure to provide information
    Inadequate record-keeping
    Failure to investigate
    Failure to reply
    Misleading or inaccurate statements
    Inadequate liaison
    Inadequate consultation
    Broken promises

    “Misapplication”: “To administer or manage inefficiently or dishonestly “, “A wrong application”. “Wrong, often corrupt use: abuse, misappropriation, mishandling, misuse, perversion”

    “Perjury” – “lying under oath about a material matter”, “violation of an oath”.

    The Constitution of the United States specifies that an officer is to be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”; experts agree that impeachment is permitted for noncriminal misconduct (e.g., violation of the Constitution), experts pointed out that federal judges had been removed from office for perjury. They further argued that a president had taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

    The Senate managers of an impeachment may attempt to prove that the President committed a statutory crime, though criminal guilt is not necessary in a case involving abuse of power. If they cannot do so, they may present evidence that the President engaged in a course of action or a pattern of behavior that demonstrates “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Those seeking a President’s impeachment may argue that grounds need not be limited to federal statutes. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, in assessing grounds for Nixon’s impeachment, argued that a President could be removed “for conduct amounting to a gross breach of trust or serious abuse of power” and that these are “not limited to criminal offenses” but refer to acts that undermine the integrity of the government, whether technically criminal or not.

    To impeach a public official is to accuse him of crimes or misdemeanors in the execution of his duties.

    President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868, but survived in the Senate by one vote. 1974 the House Judiciary Committee agreed three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon: charged with the abuse of his power as President, obstruction of justice, and contempt of Congress. (Before these articles could be voted on by the full House the President resigned, after being informed that his impeachment and conviction were otherwise inevitable). (1998 the House agreed articles of impeachment against President Clinton on charges of lying about an extramarital relationship). The Senate failed to summon the necessary two-thirds to eject Clinton.

    Although an impeachment proceeding bears a close similarity to a criminal trial, there are substantial differences. First, the President is not necessarily charged with a criminal offense but with improper conduct in performing the duties of his office. Impeachment is not meant to be a partisan proceeding, nor is it used simply to reflect a lack of confidence in the President’s policies or leadership by other branches of government. The Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected attempts to make impeachment overtly political. The delegates rejected proposals to make the President removable on the application of a majority of state governors. They rejected impeachment by a mere majority vote of Congress. They also rejected grounds for impeachment that involved the President’s political judgment or vague terms such as “maladministration.” They specified instead that the only grounds for impeachment were “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” These terms referred to the abuse of power, misapplication of public funds, corruption, criminal conduct, or violating the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution, not keeping the oath of office. Impeachable conduct entails some serious abuse of office or breach of public trust.

    A President may also be held responsible for the conduct of his subordinates. He may be charged with a cover-up if he knowingly conceals information regarding a violation of the law or if he fails to remove such officials from office when evidence of their offenses comes to his attention. He may also be charged with failing to see that the laws are faithfully executed, with failing to institute procedures so that officials will act lawfully, or with a conspiracy to see that the laws are violated. A President who testifies falsely in a judicial proceeding may be charged with perjury or obstruction of justice.

    An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It isn’t necessary to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge. It’s sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs.

    Conviction in a case of impeachment can result only in removal from office and disqualification from holding office in future, but does not prevent the guilty party from being held further accountable in regular courts of law. Finally, the presidential pardoning power does not extend to individuals convicted in cases of impeachment.

    Although an impeachment proceeding bears a close similarity to a criminal trial, there are substantial differences. First, the President is not necessarily charged with a criminal offense but with improper conduct in performing the duties of his office. Impeachment is not meant to be a partisan proceeding, nor is it used simply to reflect a lack of confidence in the President’s policies or leadership by other branches of government.

    A President may also be held responsible for the conduct of his subordinates. He may be charged with a cover-up if he knowingly conceals information regarding a violation of the law or if he fails to remove such officials from office when evidence of their offenses comes to his attention. He may also be charged with failing to see that the laws are faithfully executed, with failing to institute procedures so that officials will act lawfully, or with a conspiracy to see that the laws are violated. A President who testifies falsely in a judicial proceeding may be charged with perjury or obstruction of justice.

    In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

    In 1974, the House Judiciary committee voted three articles of impeachment. One accused Nixon of obstruction of justice. Another accused him of abuse of power. The third charged him with contempt of Congress for defying the committee’s requests to produce documents. Nixon resigned the presidency before the whole House voted on the articles.
    The committee had declined to vote an article of impeachment against Nixon for tax evasion. The committee did not believe this was an impeachable offense. It based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” which the committee had ordered prepared before beginning its investigation. This report traced the history, precedents, and grounds for impeachment. The report concluded:
    Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.
    The same year Yale Law School professor Charles L. Black published a highly influential book, Impeachment: A Handbook. Black agreed that impeachment is a grave step that should be taken most cautiously. Impeaching a president overturns an election. Black’s research led him to the conclusion that a president should be impeached only for “serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government,” or for “such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order.”

    Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 and reelected in 1996. During his first term, an independent counsel was appointed to investigate Whitewater, an Arkansas land deal involving Clinton that had taken place about 20 years previously. The counsel’s investigation later expanded to include scandals surrounding the firing of White House staff in its travel office, the misuse of FBI files, and an illicit affair that the president had with a White House intern. In 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr issued a report to the House Judiciary Committee. It found 11 possible impeachable offenses, all related to the intern scandal. Based on the independent counsel’s investigation, the House Judiciary Committee voted four articles of impeachment. The first article accused the president of committing perjury before a grand jury convened by the independent counsel. The second charged him with providing “perjurious, false and misleading testimony” in a civil case related to the scandal. The third accused him of obstructing justice to “delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence” of evidence related to the scandal. The fourth charged that he misused and abused his office by deceiving the American public, misleading his cabinet and other employees so that they would mislead the public, asserting executive privilege to hinder the investigation, and refusing to respond to the committee and misleading the committee about the scandal.
    Experts pointed out that federal judges had been removed from office for perjury. They further argued that the president had taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

  4. Good idea Justin! I hadn’t even thought of that. Must have had a brain fart when I was writing that article. I have updated the article with that information now. Thanks!!!

  5. Not only is violating the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, a crime, when it is willful and pertains to the natural rights of individuals, it is the highest crime, and should be considered no less than hight treason. Dave Champion is doing some great work in crafting a new Constitution to unequivocally put the power to both try and to sentence politicians directly into the hands of we the people. Check it out at http://www.davechampionshow.com.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s