Can we impeach Obama NOW...?

There are only two conclusions, at this point, which can be drawn from Obama's actions as president; either that he supports and endorses vast portions of the Bush agenda, or else that he believes the presidency should be powerless to do anything about bad laws or injustice, and that undoing the evils of the Bush regime is solely a matter for Congress.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice pretty much gives this exact argument, in defense of a legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (the federal ban on recognition of same-sex marriage):

As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.

Which is all well and good, except as gay-rights blogger John Aravosis posts, it's a position not held by any of the four prior serving Presidents, all of whom filed briefs to challenge laws they felt were unconstitutional.

Nor does it explain why said brief in defense of DOMA reads like a radical right's laundry list, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, that DOMA violates no person's civil rights or equal treatment under the law, that DOMA is fully constitutional, that homosexuals do not deserve protection as a persecuted minority under the law, that DOMA is a neutral law and not explicitly anti-gay... etc. etc. etc.

Add to this the following:

* Obama has defended the right of the President to wiretap American citizens without warrant.

* Obama has acted repeatedly to block attempts to investigate and prosecute torture and other war crimes committed under the Bush administration, most recently by denying access to CIA memorandums about the videotaping (and later destruction of said video) of torture sessions and by proposing that photographic evidence documenting Abu Gharaib levels of prisoner abuse throughout the military prisons system (including Bagram and Guantanamo) be declared classified documents and thus permanently sealed.

* Obama has defended use of the Secrets Act as a means of thwarting civil rights and habeas corpus suits.

* Obama has proposed to hold certain "unlawful enemy combatants" indefinitely/forever without benefit of trial or writ of habeas corpus.

And, most of all:

* Obama has not said one word, or lifted one finger, to encourage Congress to pass any law to undo all these things, not DOMA, not DADT, not the Military Commissions Act that more or less legalized torture in the United States, not the acts retroactively legalizing warrantless wiretaps and granting immunity to the telecomms who made them possible, etc. etc. etc.

And without that last item, his argument that, "I don't agree with the law, but as President I must enforce it fully," doesn't hold water.

Those of you who shook their heads when I first said that Obama should be impeached: tell me, exactly, what other remedy is there for a President who obstructs justice and violates the Constitution? And, considering the large number of campaign promises he's broken, the change that has NOT come since his inauguration, is there any meaningful hope left that he will change his positions on any of these things?

Fellow Obama voters... we were HAD.

EDIT: Andre Sullivan reports the brief was written by a Bush holdover, and indeed one of the most radical possible choices for the job at DoJ. My questions: (1) why was this particular person picked for this particular task, and (2) will Obama do anything immediately to walk back what amounts to a statement from his administration that gays have no right to marry? (1) is moot, but I'm not holding my breath on (2)...

Can we impeach Obama NOW...?

There are only two conclusions, at this point, which can be drawn from Obama's actions as president; either that he supports and endorses vast portions of the Bush agenda, or else that he believes the presidency should be powerless to do anything about bad laws or injustice, and that undoing the evils of the Bush regime is solely a matter for Congress.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice pretty much gives this exact argument, in defense of a legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (the federal ban on recognition of same-sex marriage):

As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.

Which is all well and good, except as gay-rights blogger John Aravosis posts, it's a position not held by any of the four prior serving Presidents, all of whom filed briefs to challenge laws they felt were unconstitutional.

Nor does it explain why said brief in defense of DOMA reads like a radical right's laundry list, comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, that DOMA violates no person's civil rights or equal treatment under the law, that DOMA is fully constitutional, that homosexuals do not deserve protection as a persecuted minority under the law, that DOMA is a neutral law and not explicitly anti-gay... etc. etc. etc.

Add to this the following:

* Obama has defended the right of the President to wiretap American citizens without warrant.

* Obama has acted repeatedly to block attempts to investigate and prosecute torture and other war crimes committed under the Bush administration, most recently by denying access to CIA memorandums about the videotaping (and later destruction of said video) of torture sessions and by proposing that photographic evidence documenting Abu Gharaib levels of prisoner abuse throughout the military prisons system (including Bagram and Guantanamo) be declared classified documents and thus permanently sealed.

* Obama has defended use of the Secrets Act as a means of thwarting civil rights and habeas corpus suits.

* Obama has proposed to hold certain "unlawful enemy combatants" indefinitely/forever without benefit of trial or writ of habeas corpus.

And, most of all:

* Obama has not said one word, or lifted one finger, to encourage Congress to pass any law to undo all these things, not DOMA, not DADT, not the Military Commissions Act that more or less legalized torture in the United States, not the acts retroactively legalizing warrantless wiretaps and granting immunity to the telecomms who made them possible, etc. etc. etc.

And without that last item, his argument that, "I don't agree with the law, but as President I must enforce it fully," doesn't hold water.

Those of you who shook their heads when I first said that Obama should be impeached: tell me, exactly, what other remedy is there for a President who obstructs justice and violates the Constitution? And, considering the large number of campaign promises he's broken, the change that has NOT come since his inauguration, is there any meaningful hope left that he will change his positions on any of these things?

Fellow Obama voters... we were HAD.

EDIT: Andre Sullivan reports the brief was written by a Bush holdover, and indeed one of the most radical possible choices for the job at DoJ. My questions: (1) why was this particular person picked for this particular task, and (2) will Obama do anything immediately to walk back what amounts to a statement from his administration that gays have no right to marry? (1) is moot, but I'm not holding my breath on (2)...

And, on the lighter side...

( A short, rather naughty little filk... )

And, on the lighter side...

( A short, rather naughty little filk... )