Impeached v. Summarily Removed

[Flanders]

Well it seems you are basing your opinion on emotion rather than logic when you make a claim that you fail to back up with facts. FDR was the most notorious example of an "imperial presidency" with his alphabet schemes, 4 terms, and incarceration of innocent citizens based on the slant of their eyes but the emotional left chooses to forget it. Truman sent Troops to Korea on an executive order and 38,000 to 55,000 were killed in three years. What did Bush do that would place him in the same class of FDR and Truman?

To whitehall: Truman was correct in stopping communism in Korea. He was wrong in doing it through the UN. How he did it is much more complex than a simple executive order:

American Journal of International Law
January, 1995
*21 THE KOREAN WAR: ON WHAT LEGAL BASIS DID TRUMAN ACT?
Louis Fisher [FNa1]

89 AMJIL 21

Should you read the above keep this in mind:

International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy. Robert Bork in his book Coercing Virtue

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. The president has now put his plan out. I am curious as to which parts of the plan anyone sees as an impeachable offense and why.

 

[George Costanza]

Just an aside - when did all of this "impeach the bastard" become so popular? As I remember, people would disagree with things a president might do, but they didn't run around screaming for his impeachment because of it.

 

[Flanders]

Just an aside - when did all of this "impeach the bastard" become so popular?

To George Costanza: When media liberals got even with Nixon for his part in nailing Alger Hiss. They couldn’t get him for Hiss; so they got him for nothing more than political dirty tricks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The obabblers from the ultra radical right continue to bury themselves: fools.

 

[George Costanza]

Just an aside - when did all of this "impeach the bastard" become so popular?

To George Costanza: When media liberals got even with Nixon for his part in nailing Alger Hiss. They couldn’t get him for Hiss; so they got him for nothing more than political dirty tricks.

There was (and is) a huge difference between what Richard Nixon did, and screaming for impeachment of a sitting president every time he turns around for some relatively minor thing that some partisan hack for the opposing party may disagree with.

 

[Ernie S.]

Hamlet famously asked “To be or not to be: that is the question.” Americans are now faced with a tricky question of their own: To impeach or to be summarily removed by Congress? Hamlet couldn’t answer his own question but he answers ours. I’ll get to Hamlet’s answer by starting with this:

Former Attorney General, Edwin Meese, recently went on record to say that the proposed executive orders would be an “impeachable offense.” There is a growing chorus of resistance to Obama’s “imperial presidency”, but whether it is the executive orders or a judgment rendered by a forthcoming Supreme Court conference, it would appear that Obama has over-reached.

Reining in presidential power to some degree would benefit the country tremendously. Aside from Biden becoming president not much else happens if Hussein is impeached and removed for writing executive orders.

More importantly, the forthcoming Supreme Court conference refers to eligibility:

The Supreme Court has scheduled a conference—not a hearing—regarding a case that challenges President Obama’s eligibility to be President. Court observers believe this will lead nowhere. If the justices were to favor elevating the case to a hearing that found Obama guilty, he could face impeachment hearings or possibly be summarily removed from office by Congress.

XXXXX​

A hearing could generate a Constitutional crisis that could lead to Obama’s impeachment and removal. It would mean that Obama was ineligible to run for office for both terms and would render his previous executive orders and the laws that he signed null and void.

Hamlet tells us Hussein ain’t going to be summarily removed from office by Congress:

To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

The choice is living with the ills Hussein inflicted on the country, or fly to unknown ills by overturning everything he signed. Frankly, I would take the chance for no other reason than to get rid of Biden, too. If Hussein is removed for ineligibility Biden goes, too. If Hussein is impeached and removed for executive orders Biden becomes president. How’s that one for a Devil’s choice!

Here’s the link explaining some big doings bubbling beneath the media’s veneer:

Obama is Begging for Impeachment
Alan Caruba
Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Obama is Begging for Impeachment

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet but finding obama inelligible would void his executive orders, but bills he signed would still be law, though any he vetoed would be considered passed.

A bill becomes law after a certain period of time with or without the President's signature unless vetoed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Since EVERY President since Washington has issued "Executive Orders", I'm not exactly sure how that would be grounds for "impeachment".

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are no grounds for impeachment.

 

[Sallow]

Hamlet famously asked “To be or not to be: that is the question.” Americans are now faced with a tricky question of their own: To impeach or to be summarily removed by Congress? Hamlet couldn’t answer his own question but he answers ours. I’ll get to Hamlet’s answer by starting with this:

Former Attorney General, Edwin Meese, recently went on record to say that the proposed executive orders would be an “impeachable offense.” There is a growing chorus of resistance to Obama’s “imperial presidency”, but whether it is the executive orders or a judgment rendered by a forthcoming Supreme Court conference, it would appear that Obama has over-reached.

Reining in presidential power to some degree would benefit the country tremendously. Aside from Biden becoming president not much else happens if Hussein is impeached and removed for writing executive orders.

More importantly, the forthcoming Supreme Court conference refers to eligibility:

The Supreme Court has scheduled a conference—not a hearing—regarding a case that challenges President Obama’s eligibility to be President. Court observers believe this will lead nowhere. If the justices were to favor elevating the case to a hearing that found Obama guilty, he could face impeachment hearings or possibly be summarily removed from office by Congress.

XXXXX​

A hearing could generate a Constitutional crisis that could lead to Obama’s impeachment and removal. It would mean that Obama was ineligible to run for office for both terms and would render his previous executive orders and the laws that he signed null and void.

Hamlet tells us Hussein ain’t going to be summarily removed from office by Congress:

To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

The choice is living with the ills Hussein inflicted on the country, or fly to unknown ills by overturning everything he signed. Frankly, I would take the chance for no other reason than to get rid of Biden, too. If Hussein is removed for ineligibility Biden goes, too. If Hussein is impeached and removed for executive orders Biden becomes president. How’s that one for a Devil’s choice!

Here’s the link explaining some big doings bubbling beneath the media’s veneer:

Obama is Begging for Impeachment
Alan Caruba
Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Obama is Begging for Impeachment

Congress may be crazy..but they aren't going to impeach a second Democratic President in a row.

Or remove one.

 

[Sallow]

obama sees himself as absolute ruler.

There's absolutely nothing to indicate that..at all.

Bush never did that, neither did Dick Cheney and out of context clips won't help. The difference between obama and Bush is that Bush was a decent man, sometimes wrong, but basically decent. obama is pond scum.

Cheney forwarded the idea of the "Unitary Executive". Those folks did some pretty scary things as well in terms of grabbing power for the President. The President now has the power, without oversight, to order electronic surveillance on any American or person in the world. They carved out a new distinction as well, enemy combatant. Which essentially means that during a time of war, the US can ignore it's own laws and Geneva. It can also indefinitely hold anywhere, anywhere on this new legal classification. Additionally, the Bush administration "normalized" torture and made it a part of the "toolkit" they use to fight terror. And if all that weren't enough, they dotted the world with "secret prisons".

I will agree that I think Bush is a decent man who probably got in the "wrong crowd". I personally don't think he ran the country during the first term, and it looks as if his father got worried about his legacy and sent his son his best guys to help out in the second term. Getting rid of Rumsfeld and putting a muzzle on Cheney was probably the best thing that happened..

 

[JakeStarkey]

obama sees himself as absolute ruler.

There's absolutely nothing to indicate that..at all.

Bush never did that, neither did Dick Cheney and out of context clips won't help. The difference between obama and Bush is that Bush was a decent man, sometimes wrong, but basically decent. obama is pond scum.

Cheney forwarded the idea of the "Unitary Executive". Those folks did some pretty scary things as well in terms of grabbing power for the President. The President now has the power, without oversight, to order electronic surveillance on any American or person in the world. They carved out a new distinction as well, enemy combatant. Which essentially means that during a time of war, the US can ignore it's own laws and Geneva. It can also indefinitely hold anywhere, anywhere on this new legal classification. Additionally, the Bush administration "normalized" torture and made it a part of the "toolkit" they use to fight terror. And if all that weren't enough, they dotted the world with "secret prisons".

I will agree that I think Bush is a decent man who probably got in the "wrong crowd". I personally don't think he ran the country during the first term, and it looks as if his father got worried about his legacy and sent his son his best guys to help out in the second term. Getting rid of Rumsfeld and putting a muzzle on Cheney was probably the best thing that happened..

Just so.

 

[jillian]

I understand this might be a radical idea, but wouldn't it be a good idea to wait and see exactly what is being proposed before we get out the rope and hot tar?

why would the psychotic obama-deranged loons do that?