LAW THAT CAN SAVE AMERICA AND PUT OBAMA IN JAIL

[George Hayduke]

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; 

( 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)( 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 14^th 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 threatensto issue a blizzard of Executive Orders for "gun-control" in overt violation of the 2^nd 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.  

 

[reveldog]

thats  great   but you have to find some one that will enforce  that law 

[darwinatridge]

The first thing you have to have is someone who has the guts to follow through with this. As of right now I see no one in the House or Senate that does. They are all willing to violate the Constitution for their own personal gain. Obama is at the top of that list as for as violating the Constitution.

[mrref]

Thats totaly BS

[PartyTime]

The other issue no one seems to be raising attention to is, since the Supreme Court has granted itself legislative power and authority to create law from the bench by re-legislating Obamacare from having a Penalty into ruling it is a TAX, the entire bill is void on its face!

 

Any TAX bill must originate in the house. Obamacare originated in the Senate and since the Supreme Court ruled the penalty is not a penalty, but actually a TAX, the bill is unlawful and void!

What has already been litigated regarding ObamaCare is just the tax. There are other issues waiting to be raised, and one is already in the “pipeline,” which is the constitutional argument that the bill which became law, originating in the Senate, is unconstitutional because it really was a revenue bill that did not originate in the House. As such, the law is unconstitutional.

But, there is another argument involving equal protection. The 14th amendment has an equal protection clause in it which the Supremes have held is a component of due process. While there is no clause in the original Constitution that mandates equal protection against federal legislation, the Supremes have held that the 5th Amendment’s due process clause incorporates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. In other words, equal protection is a subset of and incorporated into due process principles. Principles of equal protection apply to federal legislation.

Equal protection deals with classifications in laws. For example, no legislative body can constitutionally enact some law and make it applicable only to a small group and omitting others who naturally fall within the same class. Similarly, no legislature may adopt a law and make it applicable to a broader class than those who are causing the problem to be addressed. If a legislative body adopted some drunk driving law but made it applicable to the entire driving public, that law would violate principles of equal protection because its classifications would be “overbroad.” Similarly, if that same body enacted a law to remedy some drunk driving problem, but made the law applicable only to “red-headed” drunk drivers, that law would be “underinclusive.”

ObamaCare violates constitutional equal protection in two different ways. We have been told by the “system” that the need for ObamaCare arises because we have lots of people who are uninsured for medical care. For argument purposes only, let’s assume that the medically uninsured constitute 20% of the American population.  If 20% is causing this problem, then why is the remaining 80% with medical coverage subject to it? Just this argument alone demonstrates that ObamaCare is “overbroad” or “overinclusive”, which violates equal protection.

But ObamaCare is also “underinclusive.” We hear that the Prez is exempting the politically connected (big employers, etc), people who work for Congress, and, Heaven forbid, even Congressmen themselves.  While there are obvious political reasons for granting these exemptions, these do not constitute valid constitutional reasons. Exempting certain folks otherwise within the class of those subject to this law creates an “underinclusive” class for equal protection purposes.

This is one constitutional objection to ObamaCare. But here is some food for thought. The admission of aliens into this country is a privilege. Couldn’t Congress condition their entry into this country and make them subject to ObamaCare? Of course, and that would be constitutional.

Here is a collection of equal protection cases:

        http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/EqualProt.htm

[PrettyKitty]

I agree----take him out!...If only these guy's/gal's would reread and apply and follow through on the constitution...Go RV

[Dinar Buddy]

The laws is clear! How do you bring it to action?

[SnowGlobe7]

call sheriff Joe...he will do it!!!!!

[gatoraces]

they'll work on it and get him out of office....   in about 3 years and 4 months

[Barbara020548]

Thats totaly BS

 

Thats totaly BS

 

 

Thats totaly BS

I totally agree with you. It is total BS. 

[Gamble101]

More BS.

[TPSprayduster]

Wishing upon a star.

[George Hayduke]

Thats totaly BS

 

 

I totally agree with you. It is total BS. 

 

 

More BS.

 

Right...

 

Posted 6 hours ago on CNBC

 

143-year-old law has Washington treading gingerly during shutdown

KEVIN LAMARQUE / Reuters

Lawmakers feel fenced in by an 1870 law.

Administration officials now live in fear of a 19th-century law that could get them fired, penalized or even imprisoned if they make the wrong choices while the government is shut down.

The law is the Antideficiency Act, passed by Congress in 1870 (and amended several times), which prohibits the government from incurring any monetary obligation for which Congress has not appropriated funds.

In shutting down the government, most memos cite the law as the reason. The Government Accountability Office says employees who violate the Antideficiency Act may be subject to disciplinary action, suspension and even "fines, imprisonment, or both."

CNBC has learned that in several executive branch departments, high-level staff members review individual decisions about what government activities to allow for fear of running afoul of the Antideficiency Act. One White House official said he has advised his employees not to check their email or cellphones. Under the act, even volunteering for government service is expressly prohibited.

In a memo to his department employees today, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew cited the law as the reason for reduced staffing.

"For the duration of this impasse, as required by the Antideficiency Act and directed by OMB, the Department will be required to operate with only the minimal staffing level necessary to execute only certain legally exempted activities," Lew wrote.

The only exemptions to the shutdown concern "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property," according to government documents. That has meant airports and the Postal Service are open, Social Security checks get paid and federal prisons and courts will operate as normal as do most national security functions including the military and the Central Intelligence Agency. But national parks and museums are closed along with big parts of the departments of Education and Commerce

Congress passed the law as part of a struggle—dating back to the nation's founding—for control over the power of the purse. Some presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, would incur obligations for which Congress had to appropriate funds after the fact.

What is ironic is that Congress in shutting down the government has to at least to some extent given up the power of the purse to the executive branch. Under the broad guidelines of what constitutes an emergency or threat to life or property, OMB now more or less decides what gets funded and what doesn't. But that latitude is limited by the fear of officials that, sometime after the event, a given decision is found to have been in violation of the Antideficiency Act.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/143-year-old-law-has-lawmakers-treading-gingerly-during-shutdown-8C11319714