If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

[P@triot]

true... we all know that the effects of a GOP presidency immediately dissipate never to be mentioned again...

but the whining about democrats, no matter how successful their presidencies... goes on and on and on and on and on...... and so on and so forth and shooby dooby dooby.

Except that, we've never seen a successful liberal president, so nobody knows what kind of whining would go on. Jimmy Carter created the second worst economy in US history while surrendering the US embassy in Iran and showing the world he was a coward. Bill Clinton collapsed our present economy with his "Community Re-investment Act" (once again, governemnt unconstitutionally meddling in the private sector) and allowed Al Qaeda to operate with impunity, culminating in 9/11. And finally, we have Barack Hussein, the biggest liberal failure of them all. Longest period of 8%+ unemployment sans the Great Depresssion in US history, and added more to the debt in 3.5 years than all US president in history combined during that same time frame.

The 70's bad economy began in 1973-4 with a recession and a stock market crash under President Ford, moron.

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 ignoramous.


I love how righty always blames Democratic Presidents for whichever recession was nearest to their term in office - even if it began BEFORE they took office .

You are so ignorant - Clinton rewrote the 1977 Community Re-investment Act and passed it. Just stay out of the conversation until you know what you're talking about (which will be never in your case)

 

[P@triot]

Except that, we've never seen a successful liberal president, so nobody knows what kind of whining would go on. Jimmy Carter created the second worst economy in US history while surrendering the US embassy in Iran and showing the world he was a coward. Bill Clinton collapsed our present economy with his "Community Re-investment Act" (once again, governemnt unconstitutionally meddling in the private sector) and allowed Al Qaeda to operate with impunity, culminating in 9/11. And finally, we have Barack Hussein, the biggest liberal failure of them all. Longest period of 8%+ unemployment sans the Great Depresssion in US history, and added more to the debt in 3.5 years than all US president in history combined during that same time frame.

The 70's bad economy began in 1973-4 with a recession and a stock market crash under President Ford, moron.

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 ignoramous.


I love how righty always blames Democratic Presidents for whichever recession was nearest to their term in office - even if it began BEFORE they took office .

not to mention that CRA had very little to do with the crash...

well, except to racists who have trouble with the fact that it outlawed redlining...

Yeah - giving loans to people who were previously rejected because they couldn't afford the loans had "nothing" to do with the housing market collapse (just an AMAZING coincidence, right?). You people would prefer everyone die of poverty than admit your ideology creates failure. You guys are truly pathetic. Just like the Nazi's - will follow the failed ideology to the death.

 

[P@triot]

true... we all know that the effects of a GOP presidency immediately dissipate never to be mentioned again...

but the whining about democrats, no matter how successful their presidencies... goes on and on and on and on and on...... and so on and so forth and shooby dooby dooby.

Except that, we've never seen a successful liberal president, so nobody knows what kind of whining would go on. Jimmy Carter created the second worst economy in US history while surrendering the US embassy in Iran and showing the world he was a coward. Bill Clinton collapsed our present economy with his "Community Re-investment Act" (once again, governemnt unconstitutionally meddling in the private sector) and allowed Al Qaeda to operate with impunity, culminating in 9/11. And finally, we have Barack Hussein, the biggest liberal failure of them all. Longest period of 8%+ unemployment sans the Great Depresssion in US history, and added more to the debt in 3.5 years than all US president in history combined during that same time frame.

The 70's bad economy began in 1973-4 with a recession and a stock market crash under President Ford, moron.

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 ignoramous.


I love how righty always blames Democratic Presidents for whichever recession was nearest to their term in office - even if it began BEFORE they took office .

The 70's "bad economy" started with Jimmy Carter and ignorant liberal policy. It ended with Ronald Reagan and the free market...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, Rott. The Oil Embargo of 1973 and American over reaching from 1964 to 1975 had much to do with it.

 

[jillian]

The 70's bad economy began in 1973-4 with a recession and a stock market crash under President Ford, moron.

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 ignoramous.


I love how righty always blames Democratic Presidents for whichever recession was nearest to their term in office - even if it began BEFORE they took office .

not to mention that CRA had very little to do with the crash...

well, except to racists who have trouble with the fact that it outlawed redlining...

Yeah - giving loans to people who were previously rejected because they couldn't afford the loans had "nothing" to do with the housing market collapse (just an AMAZING coincidence, right?). You people would prefer everyone die of poverty than admit your ideology creates failure. You guys are truly pathetic. Just like the Nazi's - will follow the failed ideology to the death.

that is not what CRA required. There was zero, zip, nada in the CRA that required banks to violate their own credit-worthiness standards. the requirement of CRA was that neighborhoods not be discriminated against in toto.

you should try actually looking at the statute instead of listening to rightwingnut trash.

 

[P@triot]

If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously Bush and his axis of evil would be imprisoned for life.

Well you just proved you've never read the US Constitution in your entire miserable life (typical liberal)....

How does that prove he hasn't read the U.S. Constitution in his entire life?

Because Bush didn't violate the Constitution, so what could he be "imprisoned" for? Despite the extreme ignorance of liberals claiming other wise, it is a fact that Bush went before Congress and got authorization for military action against Iraq. But he didn't stop there. He then went before the UN as well. It was the most legal "war" in world history.

But come on liberals, fill us all with your stories of fictional fantasy on how "Bush took us into an 'illegal' war"

 

[jillian]

Well you just proved you've never read the US Constitution in your entire miserable life (typical liberal)....

How does that prove he hasn't read the U.S. Constitution in his entire life?

Because Bush didn't violate the Constitution, so what could he be "imprisoned" for? Despite the extreme ignorance of liberals claiming other wise, it is a fact that Bush went before Congress and got authorization for military action against Iraq. But he didn't stop there. He then went before the UN as well. It was the most legal "war" in world history.

But come on liberals, fill us all with your stories of fictional fantasy on how "Bush took us into an 'illegal' war"

maybe he violated the constitution. maybe not.

but this president isn't violating the constitution either.

so you can rant and rave and stamp your widdle feet.

you sound ridiculous.

neither bush nor obama started wars illegally. obama was well within the war powers act.

bush did, however, violate the requirements of the resolution empowering him to act vis a vis iraq.

they also violated the geneva conventions.

so long as the warrant requirement has been done away with, imo, BOTH presidents are violating the 4th amendment

and the bush administration outed a CIA agent.

go figure.

 

[P@triot]

not to mention that CRA had very little to do with the crash...

well, except to racists who have trouble with the fact that it outlawed redlining...

Yeah - giving loans to people who were previously rejected because they couldn't afford the loans had "nothing" to do with the housing market collapse (just an AMAZING coincidence, right?). You people would prefer everyone die of poverty than admit your ideology creates failure. You guys are truly pathetic. Just like the Nazi's - will follow the failed ideology to the death.

that is not what CRA required. There was zero, zip, nada in the CRA that required banks to violate their own credit-worthiness standards. the requirement of CRA was that neighborhoods not be discriminated against in toto.

you should try actually looking at the statute instead of listening to rightwingnut trash.

OMG - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Why do you comment on something you have never read??? Here is just a tiny excerpt from Wikipedia:

"In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden."

Mmm - do you see anything there about "discrimination" in "neighborhoods"? Because, I sure don't. I see nothing but language discussing the loan process. I would add a lot more, but I realize that reading is difficult for most liberals (hence why none of you have ever read the US Constitution).

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jillian]

Yeah - giving loans to people who were previously rejected because they couldn't afford the loans had "nothing" to do with the housing market collapse (just an AMAZING coincidence, right?). You people would prefer everyone die of poverty than admit your ideology creates failure. You guys are truly pathetic. Just like the Nazi's - will follow the failed ideology to the death.

that is not what CRA required. There was zero, zip, nada in the CRA that required banks to violate their own credit-worthiness standards. the requirement of CRA was that neighborhoods not be discriminated against in toto.

you should try actually looking at the statute instead of listening to rightwingnut trash.

OMG - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Why do you comment on something you have never read??? Here is just a tiny excerpt from Wikipedia:

"In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden."

Mmm - do you see anything there about "discrimination" in "neighborhoods"? Because, I sure don't. I see nothing but language discussing the loan process. I would add a lot more, but I realize that reading is difficult for most liberals (hence why none of you have ever read the US Constitution).

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

actually reading isn't difficult for me at all. but why are you directing me to wikipedia when i told you to actually read the statute?

there is nothing stated in your little wiki link that contradicts the fact that banks were not required to forego their own creditworthiness checks.

why are you lying?

never mind... rhetorical question.

learn to read. it might be helpful at some point in your life.

 

[regent]

Constitutional question:
Could a president be impeached for spitting on the sidewalk?
I say absoultely.

 

[IndependntLogic]

links in article at site

SNIP:

Michael Filozof

If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.

Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that "Congress shall have the Power To... establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization." Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.

The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Obama's refusal to execute Congress's immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress's Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for... Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, "treason," and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered "bribery."

In theory, Obama could exercise his power in Article II, Sec 2. to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States" and offer a blanket pardon for all violators of immigration law. He's not doing that, because he'd certainly lose in November if he did. (However we should be concerned that if he does lose in November, he'll do it anyway on his last day in office).


Read more: Blog: If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

So then, would we have impeached Bush? I mean the reasons were a helluva lot stronger with him. So?

 

[P@triot]

How does that prove he hasn't read the U.S. Constitution in his entire life?

Because Bush didn't violate the Constitution, so what could he be "imprisoned" for? Despite the extreme ignorance of liberals claiming other wise, it is a fact that Bush went before Congress and got authorization for military action against Iraq. But he didn't stop there. He then went before the UN as well. It was the most legal "war" in world history.

But come on liberals, fill us all with your stories of fictional fantasy on how "Bush took us into an 'illegal' war"

maybe he violated the constitution. maybe not.

but this president isn't violating the constitution either.

so you can rant and rave and stamp your widdle feet.

you sound ridiculous.

neither bush nor obama started wars illegally. obama was well within the war powers act.

bush did, however, violate the requirements of the resolution empowering him to act vis a vis iraq.

they also violated the geneva conventions.

so long as the warrant requirement has been done away with, imo, BOTH presidents are violating the 4th amendment

and the bush administration outed a CIA agent.

go figure.

1.) The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116*Stat.*1498, enacted October*16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. (so much on your misinformation on resolutions)

2.) The Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers only, not terrorists who do not wear uniforms or represent a country.

Perhaps you should start reading before commenting...

 

[jillian]

Because Bush didn't violate the Constitution, so what could he be "imprisoned" for? Despite the extreme ignorance of liberals claiming other wise, it is a fact that Bush went before Congress and got authorization for military action against Iraq. But he didn't stop there. He then went before the UN as well. It was the most legal "war" in world history.

But come on liberals, fill us all with your stories of fictional fantasy on how "Bush took us into an 'illegal' war"

maybe he violated the constitution. maybe not.

but this president isn't violating the constitution either.

so you can rant and rave and stamp your widdle feet.

you sound ridiculous.

neither bush nor obama started wars illegally. obama was well within the war powers act.

bush did, however, violate the requirements of the resolution empowering him to act vis a vis iraq.

they also violated the geneva conventions.

so long as the warrant requirement has been done away with, imo, BOTH presidents are violating the 4th amendment

and the bush administration outed a CIA agent.

go figure.

1.) The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116*Stat.*1498, enacted October*16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. (so much on your misinformation on resolutions)

2.) The Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers only, not terrorists who do not wear uniforms or represent a country.

Perhaps you should start reading before commenting...

why do you think you're giving me any information? unlike you, i've read the actual resolution. it required baby bush to go back to congress after the final report of hans blix. blix came out and said that the inspections were going ok. the problems had been resolved... baby bush was supposed to exhaust all diplomacy before acting. and even then ONLY AFTER GOING BACK TO CONGRESS...which he never did.

so what were you saying about reading, shmegeggi?

 

[P@triot]

that is not what CRA required. There was zero, zip, nada in the CRA that required banks to violate their own credit-worthiness standards. the requirement of CRA was that neighborhoods not be discriminated against in toto.

you should try actually looking at the statute instead of listening to rightwingnut trash.

OMG - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Why do you comment on something you have never read??? Here is just a tiny excerpt from Wikipedia:

"In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden."

Mmm - do you see anything there about "discrimination" in "neighborhoods"? Because, I sure don't. I see nothing but language discussing the loan process. I would add a lot more, but I realize that reading is difficult for most liberals (hence why none of you have ever read the US Constitution).

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

actually reading isn't difficult for me at all. but why are you directing me to wikipedia when i told you to actually read the statute?

there is nothing stated in your little wiki link that contradicts the fact that banks were not required to forego their own creditworthiness checks.

why are you lying?

never mind... rhetorical question.

learn to read. it might be helpful at some point in your life.

I was trying to simplify it for you (you have to dumb it down exponentially when dealing with liberals). So how about this FACT for you:

"Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place."

Wow - once again we see nothing about "discrimination" or "neighborhoods" and everything about lowering lending standards. Funny how we didn't have a "housing market collapse" in the 200+ years before Slick Willy and the idiot liberal policy of Marxism.

So now I've provided verifiable quotes with links while you've yet to provide one fact. You're rapidly losing credibility here. I would say your clearly the liar here, but I think this is more a case of major ignorance about a subject than lying.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

 

[P@triot]

maybe he violated the constitution. maybe not.

but this president isn't violating the constitution either.

so you can rant and rave and stamp your widdle feet.

you sound ridiculous.

neither bush nor obama started wars illegally. obama was well within the war powers act.

bush did, however, violate the requirements of the resolution empowering him to act vis a vis iraq.

they also violated the geneva conventions.

so long as the warrant requirement has been done away with, imo, BOTH presidents are violating the 4th amendment

and the bush administration outed a CIA agent.

go figure.

1.) The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116*Stat.*1498, enacted October*16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. (so much on your misinformation on resolutions)

2.) The Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers only, not terrorists who do not wear uniforms or represent a country.

Perhaps you should start reading before commenting...

why do you think you're giving me any information? unlike you, i've read the actual resolution. it required baby bush to go back to congress after the final report of hans blix. blix came out and said that the inspections were going ok. the problems had been resolved... baby bush was supposed to exhaust all diplomacy before acting. and even then ONLY AFTER GOING BACK TO CONGRESS...which he never did.

so what were you saying about reading, shmegeggi?

"blix came out and said that the inspections were going ok"

Blix actually said he was stone-walled at every turn and then his entire inspection team was thrown out of Iraq. Saddam asked for 4 more days before he would let any inspection teams back in (which never happened).

Why do you keep lying? You live in the information age where debunking your lies (as I have done in several posts now) is very easy to do.

 

[jillian]

1.) The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116*Stat.*1498, enacted October*16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. (so much on your misinformation on resolutions)

2.) The Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers only, not terrorists who do not wear uniforms or represent a country.

Perhaps you should start reading before commenting...

why do you think you're giving me any information? unlike you, i've read the actual resolution. it required baby bush to go back to congress after the final report of hans blix. blix came out and said that the inspections were going ok. the problems had been resolved... baby bush was supposed to exhaust all diplomacy before acting. and even then ONLY AFTER GOING BACK TO CONGRESS...which he never did.

so what were you saying about reading, shmegeggi?

"blix came out and said that the inspections were going ok"

Blix actually said he was stone-walled at every turn and then his entire inspection team was thrown out of Iraq. Saddam asked for 4 more days before he would let any inspection teams back in (which never happened).

Why do you keep lying? You live in the information age where debunking your lies (as I have done in several posts now) is very easy to do.

if i were you, perhaps i wouldn't choose to do the thing...

here, read... learn...

hans blix final report...

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

the iraq resolution...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

online dictionary in case the words are too big for you

Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

don't be too hard on yourself though... you're not responsible for your limited intellect.

but you are responsible for not reading actual source material and relying on only other rightwingnut hacks like yourself.

enjoy!

and good night.

 

[buckeye45_73]

why do you think you're giving me any information? unlike you, i've read the actual resolution. it required baby bush to go back to congress after the final report of hans blix. blix came out and said that the inspections were going ok. the problems had been resolved... baby bush was supposed to exhaust all diplomacy before acting. and even then ONLY AFTER GOING BACK TO CONGRESS...which he never did.

so what were you saying about reading, shmegeggi?

"blix came out and said that the inspections were going ok"

Blix actually said he was stone-walled at every turn and then his entire inspection team was thrown out of Iraq. Saddam asked for 4 more days before he would let any inspection teams back in (which never happened).

Why do you keep lying? You live in the information age where debunking your lies (as I have done in several posts now) is very easy to do.

if i were you, perhaps i wouldn't choose to do the thing...

here, read... learn...

hans blix final report...

Transcript of Blix's remarks - CNN

the iraq resolution...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

online dictionary in case the words are too big for you

Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

don't be too hard on yourself though... you're not responsible for your limited intellect.

but you are responsible for not reading actual source material and relying on only other rightwingnut hacks like yourself.

enjoy!

and good night.

Jillian how many resolutions do you need? Let me guess if your man cheated on you 17 times, you'd be ok with that? IF so, can I be you man?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The USA was not authorized by the UN to act on violations of UN resolutions.

To do so without UN approval was to wage offensive war illegally.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Just so y'all know that the case for impeachment is based on bullshit, here's an actual legal opinion by people who know what they're talking about.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/executiveauthorityfordreamrelief28may2012withsignatures.pdf

 

[Stephanie]

The USA was not authorized by the UN to act on violations of UN resolutions.

To do so without UN approval was to wage offensive war illegally.

you have got to be kidding, right