Dem strategists pushing the lie that "Impeachment is the ONLY remedy available."

Most of us over the age of 40 or so were taught at least the basics of the Constitution in high school--that the federal government has three branches and that the Constitution created a system of "checks and balances" by which each branch can keep the others from exceeding or abusing their legal authority.

Guess what?  According to Democrats, that stuff about "checks and balances" was all a lie.  Because in the Age of Obama, we don't need congress to make laws.  Instead the president can make laws.  And ignore laws.  And according to Democrats there is no power short of impeachment to force the president to obey the law or the Constitution.

Now I suspect some of you older hands are thinking, "I recall a few cases where the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to obey a certain law--and the president then followed that decision."  Quite true.  But that was when we had a Republican president, and Democrats controlled both houses of congress.

And most importantly, it was before the Age of Obama.

Consider the arguments made by Democrats backing Obama's unilateral nullification of U.S. immigration law, and unilateral delay of the "mandate deadline" of Obamacare.  Here's the gist:

One of the barriers to standing is that in order to sue in court, an individual needs to suffer a concrete injury. The mandate delays have not caused a specific injury to any member of Congress. 

This lovely bit of rationalizing was at a website called "Newsweek"--a Democrat-fluffing "news" magazine that was sold for one dollar and ceased print.  The author is arguing that congress can't ask the Supreme Court to decide whether actions by the president violate the Constitution, nor whether the other two branches have the power to force the president to (gasp!) obey the Constitution and duly-passed laws.

For those of you under 30 or so, you may not know that impeachment is actually a two-step process:  Impeachment itself involves the House voting to send the president to trial in the senate.  The senate then votes on whether the president is to be removed from office.

Democrat strategists know full well that since they hold a majority in the senate, impeachment by the House is futile, since the Democrat-controlled senate would never vote to remove Obama from office.  Thus it's very much to their advantage to get the public to believe that the ONLY remedy for a rogue, Constitution-raping president is...impeachment.

Of course that's bullshit, but the Dems know they can count on their allies in the Lying Media to parrot their claims uncritically.  For example, here's Newsweek again:

Democrats repeatedly made the point that the suit is a political stunt. “The dividing line in this frivolous lawsuit is not the legislative versus the executive, it is Republican versus Democrat, and I hope that the courts will see that,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York.

Again, they're trying to get the public to believe that the only remedy for a president who is alleged to have violated the Constitution or the law is impeachment.

Dem strategists have a huge advantage here because they know that not one American out of a hundred has the faintest idea that the Supreme Court has always been used to settle disputes between congress the president as to what a law means and whether some specific action violates it.

In one of the most famous examples, the court ruled that a president did not have absolute immunity from judicial processes.  This of course was U.S. v. Nixon, in 1974, and it led to Nixon's resignation two weeks later.

The Dems don't want any court to turn up the heat on this lawless president, so they're pushing the line that "If the Repubs think our president has broken the law, the only remedy is impeachment.  Since they aren't doing that, he must be innocent."

Interesting argument.  But utter bullshit.

=====
United States v. Nixon (1974).   The Supreme Court voted 8-0 against President Richard Nixon, leading to his resignation. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any US president.

Background:

On June 17, 1972, about five months before the general election, five burglars broke into Democratic headquarters located in the Watergate complex in Washington, DC.  Later a grand jury indicted several men close to the White House for the break-in.

In April 1974, Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski obtained a subpoena ordering Nixon to release certain tapes and papers related to specific meetings between the President and those indicted by the grand jury. Prosecutors believed those tapes contained damaging evidence involving the indicted men and perhaps the President himself.

Hoping Jaworski and the public would be satisfied, Nixon turned over edited transcripts of the conversations demanded by the subpoena.  Nixon's attorney then requested Judge John Sirica of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quash the subpoena.

Sirica denied Nixon's motion and ordered the President to turn the tapes over by May 31. Both Nixon and Jaworski appealed directly to the Supreme Court which heard arguments five weeks later, on July 8. Nixon's attorney argued the matter should not be subject to "judicial resolution" since the matter was a dispute within the executive branch and the branch should resolve the dispute itself. Also, he claimed Special Prosecutor Jaworski had not proven the requested materials were absolutely necessary for the trial of the seven men. Besides, he claimed Nixon had an absolute executive privilege to protect communications between "high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in carrying out their duties."

Less than three weeks later the Court issued its decision.  After ruling that the Court had the authority to resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

Nixon resigned fifteen days later.