Or, alternatively, that Pubs have the votes for Impeachment in the House - now or after the next Congress is sworn-in, in January - it's just that Conviction in the Senate might prove highly problematic?
I hope the Republicans IMPEACH Obama!
- Thread starter Remodeling Maidiac
- Start date
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,294
- 263,119
- 3,615
Good points
If a President breaks a law, he can be impeached. If he proclaims an Executive Order that oversteps his Constitutional powers, that order is repealed, but there is no crime
Power struggles between the executive and legislative branches have been going on for 200 years.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,294
- 263,119
- 3,615
Of course the House may have enough radicals to bring up impeachment charges. But I doubt if they can convince the political moderates. It is DOA in the Senate
Nosmo King
Gold Member
A couple of things to consider, if I may...
Every two term president since World War II has lost control of both houses of congress to the opposition after the last mid term election of his presidency. What happened on November 4 did not make history, it repeated it.
The Republican Party nationalized this election. They ran against a man whose name was not even on the ballot. There were far too few seats elected on local constituency issues. And that's where government is most effective.
The political capital the rabid right wing would squander in any impeachment effort would prove that ideologically driven politics, from either Right or Left, is poisonous to their brand. Again, history will repeat.
In order to run an effective presidential as well as congressional race in 2016, the Republicans should first prove they can govern. We already know they can obstruct. We saw them shut down the government and cause our national credit rating to go down.
The rabid right wing is looking at the results of this election through political beer goggles. They see a win that is actually history's sloppy seconds and think it's really a 10 in the form of a landslide mandate. The fevor with which they obstruct and politically harass this president will cause an all American bar fight they just cannot win. They are poor students of history and have already forgotten their own popularity numbers after they pulled their last bit of hyjinx, the debt ceiling"crisis". They can't recall what being the Party of No and what Bobby Jindhal called "the Party of Stupid" can cost them.
Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #525
You're asking me? You already told me what the answer is.
Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #526
Can you be specific about what the hell you are talking about?
DOA in the Senate as presently constituted?Almost certainly.
DOA in the Senate once the new Congress is sworn-in, in January 2015? The odds are still in favor of No Conviction, but closer to the 2/3 needed, when you add-in the Senatorial gains, a few independents, a couple of Dem Senators looking to distance themselves from Obama, and a couple who can probably be bought, one way or another.
Bottom line - when a Legislature - or, certainly, when a People - want a leader gone (by legal means) badly enough, a way will be found.
That's the nature of politics.
The question is: Will Obama piss off enough people with his EO on Immigration, to set the stage for such an extraordinary effort?
My own personal answer? I really and truly do not know, but I sense that the possibility is closer to Reality than Obama's remaining defenders would like to contemplate, given the present sorry state of affairs.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,294
- 263,119
- 3,615
You are completely delusional
It will be Republicans who are going to vote for the other side because they understand the historical significance of what they are doing.
Exactly what charges do you think all these politicians are going to hang their careers on?
RandallFlagg
PROUD Tea Party Member
- Dec 5, 2012
- 8,578
- 2,335
- 280
That's a lot of typing just to say nothing, and only exhibit your ignorance.
Sure, but you're not equipped to handle what you'll learn about it....First off, are there illegal grounds for impeachment?Nah, you'll keep repeating defeated phrases or run away claiming your dog is on fire. Simple really...."high crimes and misdemeanors"....archaic language from the late 1700's meaning the president has either broken or failed to enforce laws in force. There can be a multitude of levels.....each one easily exceeded by this president's treachery. The House impeaches....the Senate convicts.....step one is a forgone conclusion if he tries to back-door in the illegals.
Your turn.
Determining the Constitutionality of an executive order is the sole purview of the courts, not Congress; executive orders are Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. When an executive order is overturned as un-Constitutional, the president is neither impeached nor tried in the Senate (see, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)).
Bullshit. I would suggest that before you go about spouting "law", you actually READ it.
Article 1 section 8 of the United States Constitution.
Read it fool.
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,872
- 2,040
SNIP:
The Point of Impeachment
Tolerating Obama’s lawlessness invites a destructive new era of dictatorial presidency.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
(Pool Image/Getty)
Print
Text
Comments
339
Andrew C. McCarthy 
In writing Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, I had a purpose: Explain that the capacity of Congress to oust a lawless president is central to the Framers’ design of our governing system. Because executive power is awesome, and intended to be that way, certain abuses of it can be discouraged only by the credible threat that Congress will remove the president from power — or, if discouragement fails, can be remediated only by the president’s actual removal. That is why Madison believed that the inclusion of impeachment in Congress’s arsenal was “indispensible” to preserving the Constitution’s framework of liberty vouchsafed by divided power.
Abuse of the executive’s power over immigration enforcement now belongs in this category of maladministration that impeachment alone can counter. One must use the qualifier “now” because this was not always the case. Immigration enforcement was originally a state responsibility. Washington has supplanted the states since the early 20th century, an erosion of federalism largely responsible for our current immigration crisis. That, however, is a subject for another day. Like it or not (I don’t), the federal courts’ ill-conceived application of preemption principles has left the states and the American people vulnerable to a lawless president who refuses to protect them from illegal immigration while preventing them from protecting themselves. (Obama’s theory that disarming the state somehow promotes security works about as well in Arizona as it does in Ukraine.)
Advertisement
I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.
As for the remaining third, Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do this in reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.
ALL of it here:
The Point of Impeachment National Review Online
The Point of Impeachment
Tolerating Obama’s lawlessness invites a destructive new era of dictatorial presidency.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
(Pool Image/Getty)
Text
Comments
339
In writing Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, I had a purpose: Explain that the capacity of Congress to oust a lawless president is central to the Framers’ design of our governing system. Because executive power is awesome, and intended to be that way, certain abuses of it can be discouraged only by the credible threat that Congress will remove the president from power — or, if discouragement fails, can be remediated only by the president’s actual removal. That is why Madison believed that the inclusion of impeachment in Congress’s arsenal was “indispensible” to preserving the Constitution’s framework of liberty vouchsafed by divided power.
Abuse of the executive’s power over immigration enforcement now belongs in this category of maladministration that impeachment alone can counter. One must use the qualifier “now” because this was not always the case. Immigration enforcement was originally a state responsibility. Washington has supplanted the states since the early 20th century, an erosion of federalism largely responsible for our current immigration crisis. That, however, is a subject for another day. Like it or not (I don’t), the federal courts’ ill-conceived application of preemption principles has left the states and the American people vulnerable to a lawless president who refuses to protect them from illegal immigration while preventing them from protecting themselves. (Obama’s theory that disarming the state somehow promotes security works about as well in Arizona as it does in Ukraine.)
Advertisement
I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.
As for the remaining third, Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do this in reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.
ALL of it here:
The Point of Impeachment National Review Online
AvgGuyIA
Gold Member
You war against the United States, you die. No different than killing southern Americans during our civil war.
AvgGuyIA
Gold Member
Americans are demanding it.
AvgGuyIA
Gold Member
Doesn't matter if they don't convict in the Senate. The House's impeachment sticks and
Obama will go down in history as impeached in disgrace.
BullKurtz
Gold Member
- Banned
- #534
Well look who's back! The gutless twerp who was going to school me on impeachment and then hid under his piss-stained futon when it was him got schooled. At this point there is ZERO consideration as to the "political impact" of throwing this piece of garbage out of our WH.....this is necessary to keep our Constitutional form of government and we will not worry if "moderates" or "hispanics" or your nutcase queers rebel.....and you don't know shit about Texas or Arizona either...you think this is some kind of game because the real world never touches your miserable life.
BullKurtz
Gold Member
- Banned
- #535
"your wife says"? Maybe the most gutless reply I've ever seen on a political board. If I reply I'm insulting a "family member" and get suspended when this carp reports me. Notice he doesn't mention if his wife is male or female and what his/her background is to know "what kind" of Vet I am. Typical hatred of the Military is in evidence here...along with the bravery to insult us these carp can only show behind a keyboard.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
You need a crime to justify impeachment.
What about the political backlash of the democrats supporting the summary execution of U.S. Citizens?
Siete
Platinum Member
- May 19, 2014
- 34,325
- 3,993
- 1,130
detail, details .. who needs details.
RW's could care less about facts. Being a total idiot is far more important to them.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,294
- 263,119
- 3,615
No.....only FoxNation
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
BREAKING: Protesters in Cuba attack Communist Party office in rare riot over blackouts
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 1
