Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” — U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4 /tiles/non-collection/i/i_origins_impeach_stevens_lc.xml Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives About this object Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, a Radical Republican, gave the last speech during House debate on articles of impeachment against President Andrew Johnson on March 2, 1868. Johnson became the first president impeached by the House, but he was later acquitted by the Senate by one vote. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official, and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials. The power of impeachment is limited to removal from office but also provides for a removed officer to be disqualified from holding future office. Fines and potential jail time for crimes committed while in office are left to civil courts. Origins Impeachment comes from British constitutional history.

The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency. Constitutional Framing During the Federal Constitutional Convention, the framers addressed whether even to include impeachment trials in the Constitution, the venue and process for such trials, what crimes should warrant impeachment, and the likelihood of conviction. Rufus King of Massachusetts argued that having the legislative branch pass judgment on the executive would undermine the separation of powers; better to let elections punish a President.

“The Executive was to hold his place for a limited term like the members of the Legislature,” King said, so “he would periodically be tried for his behaviour by his electors.” Massachusetts’s Elbridge Gerry , however, said impeachment was a way to keep the executive in check: “A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Another issue arose regarding whether Congress might lack the resolve to try and convict a sitting President. Presidents, some delegates observed, controlled executive appointments which ambitious Members of Congress might find desirable. Delegates to the Convention also remained undecided on the venue for impeachment trials. The Virginia Plan, which set the agenda for the Convention, initially contemplated using the judicial branch. Again, though, the founders chose to follow the British example, where the House of Commons brought charges against officers and the House of Lords considered them at trial. Ultimately, the founders decided that during presidential impeachment trials, the House would manage the prosecution, while the Chief Justice would preside over the Senate during the trial. The founders also addressed what crimes constituted grounds for impeachment. Treason and bribery were obvious choices, but George Mason of Virginia thought those crimes did not include a large number of punishable offenses against the state.

James Madison of Virginia objected to using the term “maladministration” because it was too vague. Mason then substituted “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in addition to treason and bribery. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a technical term—again borrowed from British legal practice—that denoted crimes by public officials against the government. Mason’s revision was accepted without further debate. But subsequent experience demonstrated the revised phrase failed to clarify what constituted impeachable offenses. The House's Role The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee.

The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action. The Use of Impeachment The House has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times but less than a third have led to full impeachments. Just eight—all federal judges—have been convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Outside of the 15 federal judges impeached by the House, two Presidents ( Andrew Johnson in 1868 and William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton in 1998), a cabinet secretary (William Belknap in 1876), and a U.S. Senator (William Blount of North Carolina in 1797) have also been impeached. Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers.

Blount, who had been accused of instigating an insurrection of American Indians to further British interests in Florida, was not convicted, but the Senate did expel him. Other impeachments have featured judges taking the bench when drunk or profiting from their position. The trial of President Johnson, however, focused on whether the President could remove cabinet officers without obtaining Congress’s approval. Johnson’s acquittal firmly set the precedent—debated from the beginning of the nation—that the President may remove appointees even if they required Senate confirmation to hold office. For Further Reading Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Rev. ed. 4 vols. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1937. Kyvig, David E. The Age of Impeachment: American Constitutional Culture Since 1960. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2008. Les Benedict, Michael. The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999. Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay. The Federalist Papers.

New York: Penguin Books, 1987. Melton, Buckner F., Jr. The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998. Rehnquist, William H. Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999. “Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry on the Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” Committee Print, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., February 1974. Storing, Herbert J., ed. The Complete Anti-Federalist. 7 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Sullivan, John. “Chapter 27—Impeachment,” in House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2011. Thomas, David Y.

“The Law of Impeachment in the United States,” The American Political Science Review 2 (May 1908): 378–395. Office of the Historian: history@mail.house.gov Office of Art & Archives, Office of the Clerk: art@mail.house.gov , archives@mail.house.gov The Presidency and the Bureaucracy The President and the Bureaucracy The presidency is more than just a single person, it is a complex office.ï¿½ It is the only office at any level of government in this country that is elected nationally.ï¿½ If one were to look strictly at the Constitutional criteria specifying this office, it would appear to be much less powerful than most people believe.ï¿½ Still, today we look to this office as the central point of our government.ï¿½ The Founding Fathers, concerned with the concentration of a lot of power in a single office, intended to keep this office weak and place most of the authority of the new government in the legislature (Congress).ï¿½ To be effective the president must rely on his powers to persuade Congress to go along with his programs.

The Constitution says very little about the presidency.ï¿½ Article II establishes the office and states that the ï¿½executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America ï¿½, and establishes that the term of the president shall be four years.ï¿½ It does not set any term limits on how long a person may continue to serve as president.ï¿½ Our first president, George Washington, established a precedent when he stepped down as president after two terms in office.ï¿½ No president ever served more than two terms until Franklin Roosevelt was elected to four terms from the 1930s to the 1940s.ï¿½ As a result of President Roosevelt serving for more than two terms, a constitutional amendment (the 22nd Amendment) was adopted in 1951.ï¿½ The Constitution lays out the basic requirements that one must have in order to become president: 1) must be 35 years of age 2) a natural born 3) a resident of the United States for a least 14 years The Constitution then lays out specific powers that are granted to the president: 1) Commander in Chief of armed forces (remember,

 this does not give him the ability to declare war, only Congress can do that; it does allow him to commit troops to military actions) 2) Make treaties with other nations, subject to confirmation by a 2/3ï¿½s vote of the U.S.

Senate 3) Nominate foreign ambassadors, subject to confirmation by a simple majority of the Senate 4) Nominate federal judges, subject to confirmation by a simple majority of the Senate 5) Receive ambassadors of other nations (important because it confers diplomatic recognition of other governments) 6) May grant pardons for federal crimes (excepts impeachments) 7) Present to Congress ï¿½from time to timeï¿½ information on the State of the Union 8) Convene both Houses of Congress on extraordinary occasions 9) Adjourn Congress if both the House and the Senate cannot agree on adjournment 10)Nominate officials as provided for by Congress (when new posts are created because Congress creates a new department or agency, the president is allowed to name the head of that post) subject to confirmation by a simple majority of the Senate 11)Fill administrative vacancies during Congressional recesses 12)Recommend legislation to Congress 13)Veto legislation, which could be overridden by a 2/3ï¿½s vote of both Houses of Congress Compared to the powers given to Congress, the above are much less substantial.ï¿½ Please notice that a good number of the powers of the president are

 contingent upon approval by the Senate.ï¿½ This was indeed deliberate and part of the concept of separation of powers which we have discussed many times in class.ï¿½ Government power is to be, theoretically, limited.ï¿½ Foundations of the Modern Presidency What has happened over time, however, is that the office of the president has gained considerable power and authority.ï¿½ Over the course of American history, the presidentï¿½s constitutional powers have been extended in practice beyond the intentions of the Founding Fathers.ï¿½ Though only Congress can declare war, presidents have made war by sending troops into military action.ï¿½ Presidents have power over U.S.

diplomacy and have surpassed Congress in functioning as the principle architect of foreign policy, using executive agreements as a device to bypass the Senateï¿½s formal treaty making authority.ï¿½ Even the presidentï¿½s authority to appoint administrators and the execute laws has exceeded the vision of the Founding Fathers.ï¿½ The power to execute laws enables presidents to determine how laws will be interpreted and applied.ï¿½ Presidents possess legislative authority not only to use the veto but also to recommend proposals to Congress.ï¿½ For all these reasons, a more activist presidency has evolved during the modern era. Your textbook discusses reasons why presidential powers have evolved over time.ï¿½ There are three key theories of presidential power that account for this, as well as a historical progression of expansion of power at the federal level: 1) The Whig theory of presidential power holds that the presidency is a limited or constrained office whose occupant was confined to the exercise of expressly granted constitutional authority.ï¿½ Most of the early presidents of this country followed this theory in how they exercised the power of the presidency.

2) The stewardship theory of presidential power calls for a strong, assertive presidential role that, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, directs the president ï¿½to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws.ï¿½ï¿½ Most presidents since the turn of the 20th Century have been more of this model than previous presidents. 3) The prerogative theory of presidential power, which is not mentioned in the text, carries the role of the president into more assertive and aggressive areas, often going outside the Constitution and the nationï¿½s laws.ï¿½ This theory of ï¿½paramount necessityï¿½ as defined by Abraham Lincoln and used by Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon pushes the direction of the presidential exercise of power into imperial or dictatorial areas, raising legal and ethical questions regarding its use.ï¿½ Food for thought: Do you consider the presidency of George W. Bush to be of this type?

4) Originally the states were very strong in the new republic and the United States was not always an international power.ï¿½ Expansion of the federal governmentï¿½s policymaking role, the evolution of a large and active government, and the broader national and international responsibilities of the United States require strong leadership from presidents. 5) Because of the presidentï¿½s constitutional authority as chief diplomat and military commander plus the special demands of foreign policy leadership, the president, not Congress, has taken the lead in addressing the United States ï¿½ increased responsibilities in the world. 6) With increased regulatory and policy responsibilities, public pressure for leadership in the areas of the economy, education, environmental protection and other areas, presidential authority has grown in the domestic areas as well.

The Electoral College Perhaps no aspect of the presidency is as confusing as how it is that we go about choosing the president.ï¿½ The president is not chosen by direct popular election.ï¿½ Instead the Founding Fathers created a system of indirect election of the president known as the Electoral College.ï¿½ There were several reasons why the Founding Fathers chose to create this method of choosing the president, but two are more important than the others.ï¿½ First of all was the conflict between the states.ï¿½ Each of the states was very suspicious and jealous of the other states.ï¿½ With population differences there was concern that a direct election of the president would favor the states that had larger populations.ï¿½ Second, was a distrust of the will of the people.ï¿½ It was thought that the people might make an unwise decision depending on who ran for office.ï¿½ The Founding Fathers thus wanted a way to temper the will of the people.ï¿½ Originally the electors were to be chosen by the states, most probably each stateï¿½s legislatures, and would act as the most informed of the citizens of the nation, thus choosing the most qualified leader.

By design each state was provided with the same number of electors as they had members of Congress ( U.S. Representatives and Senators).ï¿½ After the popular election was held, the electors were to gather in the capital of each state to cast their ballots (this was to try to preclude bribery and/or corruption).ï¿½ The electors were not required to vote according to the outcome of the popular vote, though they could take it into consideration.ï¿½ Once the ballots of the electors were cast, they were sealed and sent to the U.S. capital where they were opened when the new Congress convened.ï¿½ A candidate for president had to receive a majority of the electoral votes cast.ï¿½ If no candidate received a majority, then the election was settled by the House of Representatives.ï¿½ This part of the electoral system survives to today.

After the presidency of George Washington, the results of the use of the Electoral College were mixed.ï¿½ The election of 1800 was the first to provide controversy.ï¿½ Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr both received equal numbers of electoral votes, and the House was required to settle the election.ï¿½ It took 36 ballots for the House to finally choose Jefferson as president, and there were charges of corruption and deals to finally break the deadlock.ï¿½ The election of 1828 finally brought about some changes in the way the Electoral College functioned.ï¿½ In 1824 Andrew Jackson overwhelmingly won the popular vote and received the most electoral votes, but not a majority.ï¿½ The House of Representatives decided that John Quincy Adams was a better choice for president than Jackson and chose him, which left supporters of Jackson quite unhappy.ï¿½ In 1828 Jackson was finally elected president.ï¿½ At his behest, the states decided to change how electors voted.ï¿½ Electoral votes were now tied to the popular vote.ï¿½ A new provision called unit rule was implemented, which required that whichever candidate won the most votes in the popular vote then they were to

 be given all of the electoral votes from that state.ï¿½ Over time even this provision has had problems in that it is now theoretically possible for one candidate to win the popular vote, yet another candidate to win the electoral vote (which most recently happened in theï¿½ 2000 election between George W.

Bush and Al Gore).ï¿½ Though there has been considerable criticism of this system of choosing the president there have been no fundamental changes to how it works since Jackson ï¿½s election in 1828. Removal of the President The Founding Fathers were aware that under certain extraordinary circumstances a president might be required to be removed from office.ï¿½ Thus they created a process to provide for this.ï¿½ It is also the process by which federal judges can be removed from the bench.ï¿½ In short, it is referred to impeachment, but it is actually a two step process involving both houses of Congress.ï¿½ The Constitution states that a president ï¿½shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.ï¿½ï¿½ Exactly what constitutes these transgressions has been subject of much debate among scholars over the years.ï¿½ Essentially, it comes down to what Congress believes about a president and his conduct in office.

The first step in the process of removal of a president from office is impeachment.ï¿½ This occurs in the House of Representatives.ï¿½ Again, the Constitution is vague on the exact process, but what has happened historically is that there have been hearings within the House followed by a vote.ï¿½ If a simple majority of the members of the House vote for impeachment, then the process moves to the Senate.ï¿½ At this point the Constitution states that this step constitutes a trial, and must be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.ï¿½ At the end of the trial the members of the Senate vote for or against conviction.ï¿½ If, by a 2/3ï¿½s vote of the members of the Senate, the president is found guilty, then he is removed from office and is not allowed to ever hold public office again.

No president has ever been removed from office.ï¿½ Two presidents, Andrew Johnson and William Clinton, both were impeached by the House, but failed conviction by the Senate (Johnson by a mere one vote), thus avoiding removal from office.ï¿½ President Richard Nixon, who was under investigation by the House and the Senate for crimes associated with the Watergate break-in, was forced to resign the presidency due to the fact that he knew he was going to be impeached and convicted.ï¿½ Rather than face the humiliating process he chose resignation instead. Organization of the Presidency The president is often called the ï¿½chief executiveï¿½ because he oversees the executive branch of government.ï¿½ In todayï¿½s government this is a huge task.

The modern presidency is a complex office and a very large organization.ï¿½ We cannot begin to understand the presidency without also having some type of understanding of the bureaucracy that serves underneath the president.ï¿½ When we speak of the growth of government, we mostly mean the growth of the executive branch.ï¿½ Before we start to consider what we mean by ï¿½bureaucracyï¿½, letï¿½s take a look at the organization of the presidency and the executive branch. White House staff:ï¿½ most direct and personal services.ï¿½ Includes presidentï¿½s Chief of Staff, personal assistants, close personal advisors, press agents, legislative and group liaison aides, and other special assistants.ï¿½ (totals around 600 people who work in the White House).ï¿½ Presidents organize the White House staff the way they want them.ï¿½ Most presidents employ a hierarchical structure with the chief of staff at the top overseeing the rest of the staff.

Executive Office of the President.ï¿½ Provides support services to the president in several policy areas.ï¿½ Three major policymaking bodies are here: National Security Council (NSC), Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), and Office of Management and Budget.ï¿½ (several other small units also exist to serve the president, but these are the main ones in EOP). National Security Council.ï¿½ A committee that links the presidentï¿½s key foreign and military policy advisors together.ï¿½ Formal members include the president, the vice-president, secretary of state, secretary of defense, and the presidentï¿½s national security advisor, who runs the councilï¿½s staff.ï¿½ The advisor and the staff provide the president with information and policy recommendations on national security. Council of Economic Advisors.ï¿½ Only three members, each appointed by the president, who advice him on economic policy.ï¿½ Prepare an annual report (Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisors) and help the president make policy on inflation, unemployment, and other economic matters.

Office of Management and Budget.ï¿½ Used to be called Bureau of the Budget.ï¿½ A few appointees, but mostly career officials (approx. 600).ï¿½ Most important job is to prepare the presidentï¿½s budget.ï¿½ Reviews proposals from various agencies and determines whether they want to let an agency take the proposal to Congress.ï¿½ Reviews budgets from agencies and puts them into a single overall budget proposal to go to Congress.ï¿½ Also plays an important role in reviewing regulations proposed by departments and agencies. Bureaucracy What is bureaucracy?ï¿½ Simply, it is a method of organizing people and work.ï¿½ It is based on the principles of hierarchical authority, job specialization, and formalized rules.ï¿½ As a form of organization, bureaucracy is often seen as the most efficient means of getting people to work together on tasks of great magnitude and complexity.ï¿½ Unfortunately, it is also prone to waste, complex and confusing rules, and rigidity.ï¿½ Textbook:ï¿½ a major theme you should be aware of is the current initiative to ï¿½re-inventï¿½ government. The U.S.

bureaucracy employs more than 2.5 million people who have responsibility for administering thousands of programs.ï¿½ There are 5 general types of organizations within the bureaucracy: 1) The Cabinet. ï¿½There are 14 (now 15) cabinet (executive) departments headed by a secretary who serves as a member of the presidentï¿½s cabinet and is responsible for establishing the departmentï¿½s general policy and overseeing its operations. ï¿½Originally only 4: State Homeland Securityï¿½ All of the heads are appointed by the president, subject to confirmation by the Senate.ï¿½ All have been created by Congress, but exist under the executive branch to oversee large policy areas.ï¿½ 2) Independent agencies.ï¿½ These have narrower areas of responsibility than cabinet departments.ï¿½ï¿½ Examples include NASA, the CIA, and NOAA. 3) Regulatory agencies.ï¿½ Created when Congress recognizes the importance of close and continuous regulation of an economic activity.ï¿½ They can issue regulations, implement them, and judge compliance with them.ï¿½ Examples include the SEC, EPA, and NRC.

4) Government corporations.ï¿½ These charge clients for their services and are governed by a board of directors.ï¿½ They receive federal funding to help defray operating expenses, and their directors are appointed by the president with Senate approval.ï¿½ Examples include the U.S. Postal Service, and the FDIC. 5) Presidential commissions.ï¿½ Commissions (some permanent, some temporary) that provide ongoing recommendations to the presidents in particular areas of responsibility. More than 90 percent of federal employees are hired through merit criteria.ï¿½ Merit hiring protects government workers from being fired for partisan reasons.ï¿½ Important to remember that federal employees have few rights of collective action.

The president has substantial appointment powers.ï¿½ All of the heads of these departments are appointed.ï¿½ The president also appoints directors and top deputies of federal agencies, members of federal commissions, and heads of regulatory agencies.ï¿½ In all the president appoints over 5000 positions.ï¿½ This allows him to have substantial influence over policy of all of these various departments and agencies.ï¿½ However, this can also be a weakness.ï¿½ Hard to know 5000 people, and hard to control them all.ï¿½ Also, as we discuss the bureaucracy, it is important to remember that the overwhelming majority of them are not appointed but hired within a merit system, thus they are permanent employees usually more loyal to the organization than to the president. The primary function of administrative agencies is policy implementation, which is to say that they carry out the authoritative decisions of Congress, the president, and the courts.ï¿½ The bureaucracy does not simply administer policy; it also makes it and judges it (quasi-powers ï¿½ mimic the powers of the three branches of government: quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, and quasi-judicial.).

1) the bureaucracy initiates ideas for legislative programs. 2) Administrative agencies develop public policy in the process of implementing it.ï¿½ Through rule making, administrative agencies decide how the law will operate in practice. 3) Agencies are charged with delivery of services. 4) Agencies determine whether others are complying with policy. The characteristics that we associate today with bureaucracy were first noted by a German sociologist named Max Weber.ï¿½ Was doing a study on authority, and found these common characteristics: 1) hierarchical authority structure.ï¿½ Hierarchy refers to an organizational arrangement that puts few people with maximum power at the top and many people with little power at the bottom.ï¿½ 2) Task specialization.ï¿½ Experts instead of amateurs perform technical jobs.ï¿½ People work on specific tasks rather than several things. 3) Development of extensive rules.ï¿½ These may seem nit-picking at times, but it allows the organization to handle similar cases in a similar manner instead of capriciously. 4) Operates on the merit principle.ï¿½ Entrance and promotion are awarded on the basis of demonstrated abilities rather than on ï¿½who you knowï¿½.

5) Behave impersonally.ï¿½ Allows all clients to be treated impartially.ï¿½ In theory, they are politically neutral. 6) Defined jurisdictions.ï¿½ These are created to accomplish definite and limited goals. In reality, modern bureaucracies differ greatly from this model.ï¿½ Modern characteristics include: 1) instead of a single administrator heading an agency they are often headed by boards and commissions which act to diffuse authority and accountability. 2) The are often characterized by overlapping jurisdictions.ï¿½ Limits on goals and authority are obscured, which leads to confusion and competition among agencies.ï¿½ Often there is also competition over funding, and agencies can at times be characterized as being overzealous.ï¿½ Furthermore, despite the overlap, there are often times when items will fall between the cracks of various agencies. 3) Bureaucracies are not politically neutral.ï¿½ It is very difficult to get personnel to divorce themselves of feelings towards subjects within the political process. 4) Rules designed to ensure consistency and fairness sometimes contradict one another.

5) The role of the ï¿½expertï¿½ is often unclear.ï¿½ In addition, experts often disagree with one another, causing confusion over which path to follow. 6) There is often a reliance on managers to oversee policy implementation and to act as brokers between citizens and elected officials.ï¿½ Layers of management often isolate the citizen-customer from key decision makers, causing great frustration to the citizens involved in the process. 7) Elected officials, primarily the executive branch, frequently reorganize agencies in an attempt to make them more accountable to the legislative process. Big government came about from a variety of factors.ï¿½ Among these are: 1) ï¿½The Industrial Revolution.ï¿½ The mechanization of farms and ranches and the technological revolution led to the urbanization of the nation. 2) The combination of a pseudo-laissez-faire business philosophy and Social Darwinism eventually produced the conditions that led to an unpredictable boom-and-bust economy and widespread poverty. 3) Political developments emanating from these economic problems led eventually to national government intervention in an attempt to curb the worst excesses of big business and to protect those who were unable to protect themselves.

The first bureaucratic agency created to protect groups was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) which was created in 1887 to regulate railroads, which had been pricing small farmers out of business by charging exorbitant freight rates. The scope of government continued to expand after World War II primarily as the increasing complexity of society also created a need for governmental expansion.ï¿½ With the demand for new services and rapid population growth the size and scope of state and local government also increased. The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 signaled major political and ideological changes.ï¿½ The role of states in the American federal system was increased dramatically.ï¿½ Cuts in federal funding forced reductions in state and local social programs previously financed by the national government.ï¿½ Citizens began to question the high cost of governmental services and to demand more accountability from the administrative state. Bureaucrats seek first survival and then growth for three basic reasons: 1) To protect their jobs. 2) To promote their organizationï¿½s programs. 3) To serve their clientele. Clientele groups are the groups that are supposed to be regulated by the bureaucratic agency.ï¿½ Regulation frequently becomes promotion as the relationship between the two matures.

A civil service system is one in which workers are hired on merit (performance on written tests or other forms of examinations) and are evaluated on the basis of their job performance. Bureaucrats often have considerable administrative discretion.ï¿½ They are relatively free to use their own judgment as to just how the laws will be carried out. Goal displacement is the shifting of bureaucratic orientation, the replacement of one goal for another.ï¿½ In this case the public interest is forgotten and the agenciesï¿½ interests and those of clientele groups become paramount. Obama Signs New Law - Incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial - Watchwoman on the Wall mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm by Chuck Baldwin While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc.

Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress. When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t.” See this report: Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves! At this juncture, I want to highly encourage my readers to review two columns written by my constitutional attorney son, Tim Baldwin. He has written two masterful columns explaining the draconian provisions of the NDAA and responding to those irresponsible journalists who fail to understand and warn the American people regarding the horrific implications of the NDAA.

This is Tim’s column explaining the NDAA: Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com has also written a great piece regarding the seriousness of the NDAA. He begins his report saying, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history–the Bill of Rights–has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights. “In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year’s Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol.

It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober. “This is the law that will cement Obama’s legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America’s pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany’s war crimes look like child’s play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming ‘impeachment!’” Adams is absolutely right! Liberals are as bad as conservatives when it comes to overlooking traitorous behavior when it is perpetrated by one of their own. Adams goes on to say, “Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, ‘Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…’ “Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the ‘the flexibility on which our safety depends’ means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks.

Astute readers will also notice that Obama’s signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama’s momentary intentions on how he ‘wishes’ to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.” See Adams report at: Signed into law by President George W. Bush, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act effectively eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Now, the NDAA of 2012, signed into law by President Barack Obama, has effectively eviscerated the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendments to the US Constitution. Note that it has not mattered one whit whether it was a Republican or Democrat President or Congress in power at the time. Both parties in Washington, D.C., have superintended over the deliberate and unabashed dismantlement of the Bill of Rights. And, of course, we must all realize that for all intents and purposes–and with very few exceptions–both parties in Washington, D.C., have ignored the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution for decades.

We should also add that the First Amendment was pretty much expunged in 1962 and 1963 when the US Supreme Court outlawed the public acknowledgment of God. And the Second Amendment suffered a major setback with the passage of the Nazi-like Gun Control Act of 1968. And, of course, the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision also effectively annihilated the right to life clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. Therefore, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, over the past several decades, the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the US Presidency have collaborated together to strip the American people of the protections and safeguards of their liberties contained in what must be recognized–along with the Declaration of Independence–as the Holy Grail of liberty: the Bill of Rights. So, how long will it be before the President of the United States will actually act upon the power that has been granted him under the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA of 2012? How long will it be before the US military is ordered to turn their guns on the American citizenry?

How long will it be before American citizens begin disappearing in much the same way that the people in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China disappeared? What will be the “national emergency” that triggers the implementation of these Hitlerian laws? Another 9-11-style attack maybe? Who knows? One thing is certain: these laws are not painstakingly written, debated, and passed into law for the fun of it! These laws are on the books for a reason: the federal government fully intends to implement these laws at some point! You can count on that! And once more I need to remind readers that the only Presidential candidate that is sounding the alarm regarding this persistent and deliberate erosion of our liberties is Congressman Ron Paul. I am reminded of the sagacious words of America’s most celebrated jurist Daniel Webster. He said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” So, I guess it’s time to start asking the question: Just who is left within these States United that truly love liberty and are willing to guard and defend it? Because one thing is certain: the vast majority of the miscreants in Washington, D.C., sure aren’t going to do it.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

Question: What's the common technical term for the removal of a president from office, due to wrong-doing?
Answer: Impeachment