CDZ Obama Impeachment

[Toro]

I'm starting this thread in the CDZ because I'd like at least a semi-serious explanation without all the partisan BS about the constitutionality of impeachment of Obama. I'd really like to know.

What is the constitutional argument for impeaching Obama? What has he done that is an impeachable offense?

 

[konradv]

There really aren't any that I've seen. Policy differences aren't impeachable offenses.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm starting this thread in the CDZ because I'd like at least a semi-serious explanation without all the partisan BS about the constitutionality of impeachment of Obama. I'd really like to know.

What is the constitutional argument for impeaching Obama? What has he done that is an impeachable offense?

Annotation 18 - Article II - FindLaw

I certainly believe his complete refusal to uphold existing immigration laws would qualify as neglect of duty.

Now, whether Congress should attempt an impeachment is another matter entirely.

 

[konradv]

I certainly believe his complete refusal to uphold existing immigration laws would qualify as neglect of duty.

According to the definition of those who oppose him, perhaps, but every executive has to decide where to focus enforcement of laws. That fact would open all future executives to impeachment. Also, since Obama has not been guilty of "complete refusal" to uphold immigration laws, your analysis fails on that point. The eternal bugaboo of relying on the absolute torpedoes that notion.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I certainly believe his complete refusal to uphold existing immigration laws would qualify as neglect of duty.

According to the definition of those who oppose him, perhaps, but every executive has to decide where to focus enforcement of laws. That fact would open all future executives to impeachment. Also, since Obama has not been guilty of "complete refusal" to uphold immigration laws, your analysis fails on that point. The eternal bugaboo of relying on the absolute torpedoes that notion.

What a load of crock. The man HAS most certainly ordered ICE to stand down, and is talking about unilaterally making these people legal in direct defiance of current law.

If you can't be honest, stay out of the CDZ. I can get lies in the other forums.

 

[konradv]

I certainly believe his complete refusal to uphold existing immigration laws would qualify as neglect of duty.

According to the definition of those who oppose him, perhaps, but every executive has to decide where to focus enforcement of laws. That fact would open all future executives to impeachment. Also, since Obama has not been guilty of "complete refusal" to uphold immigration laws, your analysis fails on that point. The eternal bugaboo of relying on the absolute torpedoes that notion.

What a load of crock. The man HAS most certainly ordered ICE to stand down, and is talking about unilaterally making these people legal in direct defiance of current law.

If you can't be honest, stay out of the CDZ. I can get lies in the other forums.

How do you explain the fact that deportations are higher than under Bush? Remember, since you said "complete", I need only give one instance to prove my point.

BTW, I'll let this post slide without a report, but you're treading very close to violating the TOS of the board. Word to the wise.

 

[Stephanie]

I wouldn't mind seeing him impeached. but we don't have to go that route. all we need is to DEMAND Republican's cut off his FUNDING for anything he proposes and wants monies for.
The less messy way to go about it because I think Obama would love nothing else than to goad them into impeaching him. then he's become some hero/martyr. which he isn't and will never be one with almost 60% of the people Disapproving of him.
. all he's been is thug community country agitator that hasn't let we the people have a minutes PEACE since he took office. it's one thing after another with him. He loves to stir up shit in our lives and our country. It's the sickest I've ever seen from a so called, President of all of us in this country

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I certainly believe his complete refusal to uphold existing immigration laws would qualify as neglect of duty.

According to the definition of those who oppose him, perhaps, but every executive has to decide where to focus enforcement of laws. That fact would open all future executives to impeachment. Also, since Obama has not been guilty of "complete refusal" to uphold immigration laws, your analysis fails on that point. The eternal bugaboo of relying on the absolute torpedoes that notion.

What a load of crock. The man HAS most certainly ordered ICE to stand down, and is talking about unilaterally making these people legal in direct defiance of current law.

If you can't be honest, stay out of the CDZ. I can get lies in the other forums.

How do you explain the fact that deportations are higher than under Bush? Remember, since you said "complete", I need only give one instance to prove my point.

BTW, I'll let this post slide without a report, but you're treading very close to violating the TOS of the board. Word to the wise.

What? How did I come even close to violating the TOS?

 

[konradv]

What? How did I come even close to violating the TOS?

Highlighting isn't good enough? Load of crock, questioning my honesty, they ring a bell?

No comment on the gist of my post, that by using an absolute I only needed a single example to prove you wrong? Sorry, but the wounded angel act didn't make me forget.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm starting this thread in the CDZ because I'd like at least a semi-serious explanation without all the partisan BS about the constitutionality of impeachment of Obama. I'd really like to know.

What is the constitutional argument for impeaching Obama? What has he done that is an impeachable offense?

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat. This is exactly why Congress was given the power of impeachment, to prevent this kind of person from trying to rule over the populous.

Will he be impeached? No.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm starting this thread in the CDZ because I'd like at least a semi-serious explanation without all the partisan BS about the constitutionality of impeachment of Obama. I'd really like to know.

What is the constitutional argument for impeaching Obama? What has he done that is an impeachable offense?

Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. So unless there is a specific law which can be demonstrated he violated, then no. There is no impeachable offense. I see nothing like that. If the congress wants to stop what he is doing, all they have to do is pass a law and, if necessary, override his veto.

 

[regent]

Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. True the process must follow the Constitution but the charges are what you will. One of the impeachment charges brought against Johnson was that he yelled at the Congress.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm starting this thread in the CDZ because I'd like at least a semi-serious explanation without all the partisan BS about the constitutionality of impeachment of Obama. I'd really like to know.

What is the constitutional argument for impeaching Obama? What has he done that is an impeachable offense?

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat. This is exactly why Congress was given the power of impeachment, to prevent this kind of person from trying to rule over the populous.

Will he be impeached? No.

Hope you're right, don't impeach him, neuter him,

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wouldn't mind seeing him impeached. but we don't have to go that route. all we need is to DEMAND Republican's cut off his FUNDING for anything he proposes and wants monies for.
The less messy way to go about it because I think Obama would love nothing else than to goad them into impeaching him. then he's become some hero/martyr. which he isn't and will never be one with almost 60% of the people Disapproving of him.
. all he's been is thug community country agitator that hasn't let we the people have a minutes PEACE since he took office. it's one thing after another with him. He loves to stir up shit in our lives and our country. It's the sickest I've ever seen from a so called, President of all of us in this country

Correct, it would harm him personally much more to sit in the Oval for 2 years completely useless than it would to impeach him. Best case scenario is you embarrass him , then the Dems go on a rant about how it was all political and idiot voters eat it up and elect Hillary on sympathy alone in 2016.

Better to let him sit out his 2 years as an inept, defunded, and utterly castrated figure head.

 

[Toro]

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat.

But what does that mean, though? Presidents have issued executive orders creating laws for at least 100 years. At what level can he or can he not create laws?

And why does he need to be impeached? Why can't those who disagree with his executive orders take those orders to the courts? The courts have overturned executive orders in the past.

FTR, it seems to me that just waving his hand in the air and giving illegals status is an over-reach of power. But is that really impeachable? What crime has he committed?

 

[Toro]

I'm starting this thread in the CDZ because I'd like at least a semi-serious explanation without all the partisan BS about the constitutionality of impeachment of Obama. I'd really like to know.

What is the constitutional argument for impeaching Obama? What has he done that is an impeachable offense?

Annotation 18 - Article II - FindLaw

I certainly believe his complete refusal to uphold existing immigration laws would qualify as neglect of duty.

Now, whether Congress should attempt an impeachment is another matter entirely.

That seems to be at least a valid reason for impeachment. The President can be impeached for not enforcing the laws. However, there has been discretion in the past about what laws are enforced. Also, the argument is blunted by the high rate of deportations.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm starting this thread in the CDZ because I'd like at least a semi-serious explanation without all the partisan BS about the constitutionality of impeachment of Obama. I'd really like to know.

What is the constitutional argument for impeaching Obama? What has he done that is an impeachable offense?

Annotation 18 - Article II - FindLaw

I certainly believe his complete refusal to uphold existing immigration laws would qualify as neglect of duty.

Now, whether Congress should attempt an impeachment is another matter entirely.

That seems to be at least a valid reason for impeachment. The President can be impeached for not enforcing the laws. However, there has been discretion in the past about what laws are enforced. Also, the argument is blunted by the high rate of deportations.

Well, there is of course discretion in all such things. That's human nature.

and certainly the claims that more people are being deported under Obama than previous are lies

Lies damned lies and Obama s deportation statistics - The Washington Post

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If he goes through with this rumored legal status for several million people then yes, he should be impeached. He's not a king and he doesn't have the authority to rule by executive fiat.

But what does that mean, though? Presidents have issued executive orders creating laws for at least 100 years. At what level can he or can he not create laws?

And why does he need to be impeached? Why can't those who disagree with his executive orders take those orders to the courts? The courts have overturned executive orders in the past.

FTR, it seems to me that just waving his hand in the air and giving illegals status is an over-reach of power. But is that really impeachable? What crime has he committed?

Impeachment doesn't require a crime be committed Toro. Impeachment is NOT a criminal matter. If you read the link I provided earlier it is quite clear that high crimes does not literally mean "broke the criminal code"

 

[Boatswain2PA]

1. An executive order is an order from the President telling the executive branch how to operate internally, for example Truman's EO desegregating the armed forces. They are not supposed to be a method to ignore duely passed laws.

2. Yes, the exec branch has some discretion in how they enforce/prosecute the laws, just like congress has discretion in what they think is "high crimes and misdemeanor"

 

[oldfart]

I'm just wondering why the folks interested in impeaching Obama are so enthusiastic about a Biden presidency. Are they so anti-Hillary they want Biden to have inside track in running for re-election?