We will Impeach Obama if he follows the Constitution: Republican Congressman

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Cool. Conservative radical right wing republicans are showing more and more their disdain for government and willingness to use severe government procedures in very friviolous ways.

This would be the second American Democratic President in a row that is undergoing an impeachment due to a Conservative snit fit.

you have to read the links man.

The republican guy said that IF Obama tries to raise the debt ceiling without congress he will go for impeachment based on obama's violating the first article of the constitution.

Watch out for the hype and false spin the title of this thread provided.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

it's not an impeachable offense....raising the debt ceiling is not spending money either??/where do you all come up with this crapola?

our country will fall to its knees and will never ever ever, recover from such a stupid stupid and stupid move. our interest rates on the existing national debt, will skyrocket, ALL, every penny of our taxes collected will go towards paying the high interest rate on the 14 trillion borrowed already.......there will not be a DIME for national defense spending etc....

The argument is solid, on it being in our nation's best interest and in our national defense's best interest for obama to raise the debt ceiling and not allowing us to default on anything!!!!!

YES, congress MUST cut future spending, but paying the bills WE ALREADY OWE should not be tied in to that......!!!!

Article 1 gives this power, along with all government finance, soley to the legislative branch.

Obama can not legally raise the debt ceiling on his own, he needs congress to do it or he is violating article 1 of the constitution.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Cool. Conservative radical right wing republicans are showing more and more their disdain for government and willingness to use severe government procedures in very friviolous ways.

This would be the second American Democratic President in a row that is undergoing an impeachment due to a Conservative snit fit.

you have to read the links man.

The republican guy said that IF Obama tries to raise the debt ceiling without congress he will go for impeachment based on obama's violating the first article of the constitution.

Watch out for the hype and false spin the title of this thread provided.

Precedent has already been set Plymco.

In the US Supreme Court´s case, Perry v. the U.S., the majority decision stated: "We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."

What would be the charge if they did try to impeach Obama? Following the precedent set by the SCOTUS isn't an impeachable offense, nor is pissing off the GOP even though they seem to think it is.

 

[Nic_Driver]

it's not an impeachable offense....raising the debt ceiling is not spending money either??/where do you all come up with this crapola?

our country will fall to its knees and will never ever ever, recover from such a stupid stupid and stupid move. our interest rates on the existing national debt, will skyrocket, ALL, every penny of our taxes collected will go towards paying the high interest rate on the 14 trillion borrowed already.......there will not be a DIME for national defense spending etc....

The argument is solid, on it being in our nation's best interest and in our national defense's best interest for obama to raise the debt ceiling and not allowing us to default on anything!!!!!

YES, congress MUST cut future spending, but paying the bills WE ALREADY OWE should not be tied in to that......!!!!

Article 1 gives this power, along with all government finance, soley to the legislative branch.

Obama can not legally raise the debt ceiling on his own, he needs congress to do it or he is violating article 1 of the constitution.

No, he's not.

American Chronicle | WITH A SINGLE EXECUTIVE ORDER, PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD AVOID A DEBT CEILING CRISIS

The US Supreme Court ruled that the law at issue, "went beyond the congressional power", setting a precedent that as of today, has still not been overturned.

 

[Stephanie]

American Chronicle | WITH A SINGLE EXECUTIVE ORDER, PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD AVOID A DEBT CEILING CRISIS











Precedent has been set.

Screw the GOP and their obstructionism.

go little dictator Obama, GO GO GO..

Not much else he can do in the face of the GOP obstructionist who have publicly declared their willingness to see the economy tank so they can regain power...AT THE EXPENSE OF MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA!!!


At least we have Obama looking out for us.

I do like how you have no rebuttal to the facts though, typical of the neo-cons.

LOL, yeah he got your back man, he is up there arguing to raise your taxes. and you swallow it like a good little sheep.

 

[Mustang]

American Chronicle | WITH A SINGLE EXECUTIVE ORDER, PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD AVOID A DEBT CEILING CRISIS

WITH A SINGLE EXECUTIVE ORDER, PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD AVOID A DEBT CEILING CRISIS

Section 4, of the 14th US Constitutional Amendment states as follows:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

In the US Supreme Court´s case, Perry v. the U.S., the majority decision stated: "We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."

The US Supreme Court ruled that the law at issue, "went beyond the congressional power", setting a precedent that as of today, has still not been overturned. The ruling declared that because the government borrows funds based on its, "full faith and credit", Congress doesn't have the authority to undermine that confidence by reneging on its obligation to its lenders.

"To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pleaor," reads the opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. "This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government."

Precedent has been set.

Screw the GOP and their obstructionism.

Maybe if a few Republicans were sent to Gitmo (under the provisions of the Patriot Act, ironically), they would come back (I'm assuming they'll come back) with a new appreciation for due process, habeous corpus, and other constitutional rights they've willingly circumvented in the last few years. Hey, I hear it's warm there. Maybe they could just call it a fact finding tour.

 

[Charles_Main]

Offtopic.com

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act'

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act' - West Ashley, SC Patch

I can think of a Couple of things he has done that IMO are in Direct Violation of the Constitution. Not sure they rise to Impeachable offenses. Though I do Agree the sooner he is stopped from Destroying the Economy with his Misguided Keynesian Policies the better.

I would vote for a rock this NOV if I thought they had a better grip on Economics than Obama.

 

[Liability]

Offtopic.com

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act'

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act' - West Ashley, SC Patch

It is a false premise to suggest that the impeachable offense is following the Constitution when the President's "threat" is to do exactly the opposite.

what threat, dumbass?

The threat, ya ******* dumbshit, is to spend money that Congress hasn't authorized, yashitforbraincrapmuncher.

Now, kindly go **** yourself, doucherag.

 

[Nic_Driver]

go little dictator Obama, GO GO GO..

Not much else he can do in the face of the GOP obstructionist who have publicly declared their willingness to see the economy tank so they can regain power...AT THE EXPENSE OF MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA!!!


At least we have Obama looking out for us.

I do like how you have no rebuttal to the facts though, typical of the neo-cons.

LOL, yeah he got your back man, he is up there arguing to raise your taxes. and you swallow it like a good little sheep.

I see you still have nothing to add except partisan crap.


Did you have a rebuttal to the information from the link I posted? Or are you just talk with no substance?

 

[daveman]

Maybe if a few Republicans were sent to Gitmo (under the provisions of the Patriot Act, ironically), they would come back (I'm assuming they'll come back) with a new appreciation for due process, habeous corpus, and other constitutional rights they've willing circumvented in the last few years. Hey, I hear it's warm there. Maybe they could just call it a fact finding tour.

Well, if you aren't just a little ******* fascist wannabe. Nice jackboots, asshole.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If Congress does not act to raise the debt ceiling, thereby jeopardizing America's credit and credit worthiness, it would be in violation of Sec 4 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

No it will not. A defualt, if it actually happens, does not violate the constitution. That was actually settled in 1933 when Roosevelt, with the cooperation of Congress, decided to devalue the dollar, and to reject all claims to redeem US treasuries in gold.

The American Spectator : Was There Ever a Default on U.S. Treasury Debt?

That ain't gonna fly.

It already did, which makes it settled law.

Stare decisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Liability]

LOL! You never fail to prove me right. I think you have just proven "the latter." The "former" just takes a little longer. Go put your self actualized tin foil hat on! You know, the one with the propeller? And enjoy your likely usual snack of eating Froot Loops right out of the box while you immitate Tucan Sam's voice while spinning that propeller.

You always fail to be right.

Need a tampon, sissy?

I've always been wittier than you, L. I recall with great fondness all those times I ripped you up to the chuckles of so many people on that other forum. But let me just express my gratitude to you for your total lack of any kind of worthwhile response because it makes it so glaringly apparent that you are exponentially overmatched.

Don't forget to remind your mom to give you a bath tonight after you watch your Banana Splits DVDs. By the way, which character do you most identify with? Is it Snorky, Bingo, Fleegle, or Drooper?

You have always been witless, ass-sucker.

You "recall" no such thing except in your delusions, moron.

You were useless then and you remain useless now.

Ya ******* douche.

 

[Nic_Driver]

It is a false premise to suggest that the impeachable offense is following the Constitution when the President's "threat" is to do exactly the opposite.

what threat, dumbass?

The threat, ya ******* dumbshit, is to spend money that Congress hasn't authorized, yashitforbraincrapmuncher.

Now, kindly go **** yourself, doucherag.

Really? Then who authorized it if not Congress?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

American Chronicle | WITH A SINGLE EXECUTIVE ORDER, PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD AVOID A DEBT CEILING CRISIS

WITH A SINGLE EXECUTIVE ORDER, PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD AVOID A DEBT CEILING CRISIS

Section 4, of the 14th US Constitutional Amendment states as follows:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

In the US Supreme Court´s case, Perry v. the U.S., the majority decision stated: "We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."

The US Supreme Court ruled that the law at issue, "went beyond the congressional power", setting a precedent that as of today, has still not been overturned. The ruling declared that because the government borrows funds based on its, "full faith and credit", Congress doesn't have the authority to undermine that confidence by reneging on its obligation to its lenders.

"To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pleaor," reads the opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. "This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government."

Precedent has been set.

Screw the GOP and their obstructionism.

You are correct that the precedent has been set. Fortunately, it has been set against your fantasies.

 

[Liability]

what threat, dumbass?

The threat, ya ******* dumbshit, is to spend money that Congress hasn't authorized, yashitforbraincrapmuncher.

Now, kindly go **** yourself, doucherag.

Really? Then who authorized it if not Congress?

Man are you slow.

NOBODY authorized it, stupid.

What the President is pondering is whether or not he can get away with spending money which Congress has refused to authorize.

Try to keep up, dumb-ass.

 

[Nic_Driver]

American Chronicle | WITH A SINGLE EXECUTIVE ORDER, PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD AVOID A DEBT CEILING CRISIS

WITH A SINGLE EXECUTIVE ORDER, PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD AVOID A DEBT CEILING CRISIS

In the US Supreme Court´s case, Perry v. the U.S., the majority decision stated: "We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."

The US Supreme Court ruled that the law at issue, "went beyond the congressional power", setting a precedent that as of today, has still not been overturned. The ruling declared that because the government borrows funds based on its, "full faith and credit", Congress doesn't have the authority to undermine that confidence by reneging on its obligation to its lenders.

"To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pleaor," reads the opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. "This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government."

Precedent has been set.

Screw the GOP and their obstructionism.

You are correct that the precedent has been set. Fortunately, it has been set against your fantasies.

Ok, so make your point.

The SCOTUS already ruled on this so how are you going to rewrite their decision?

 

[Stephanie]

Not much else he can do in the face of the GOP obstructionist who have publicly declared their willingness to see the economy tank so they can regain power...AT THE EXPENSE OF MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA!!!


At least we have Obama looking out for us.

I do like how you have no rebuttal to the facts though, typical of the neo-cons.

LOL, yeah he got your back man, he is up there arguing to raise your taxes. and you swallow it like a good little sheep.

I see you still have nothing to add except partisan crap.


Did you have a rebuttal to the information from the link I posted? Or are you just talk with no substance?

I did RESPOND. I want the little dictator to go ABOVE CONGRESS and issue an executive order. I'm cheering him on, aren't you happy.

 

[Mustang]

You always fail to be right.

Need a tampon, sissy?

I've always been wittier than you, L. I recall with great fondness all those times I ripped you up to the chuckles of so many people on that other forum. But let me just express my gratitude to you for your total lack of any kind of worthwhile response because it makes it so glaringly apparent that you are exponentially overmatched.

Don't forget to remind your mom to give you a bath tonight after you watch your Banana Splits DVDs. By the way, which character do you most identify with? Is it Snorky, Bingo, Fleegle, or Drooper?

You have always been witless, ass-sucker.

You "recall" no such thing except in your delusions, moron.

You were useless then and you remain useless now.

Ya ******* douche.

OOOhhhh! OUCH, you got me with that one.

Your last few posts to a variety of posters have included the words stupid, moron, and dumb-ass. Originality just ain't yer thing, is it?

You're like an slow-witted, unfunny Don Rickles. You would look better if you just let it go.

 

[freedombecki]

in all your eagerness to impeach the president and call him an evil, constitution hating person did any of you conservative (Second stage Freudian insult omitted) bother to come up with a source (Second stage Freudian insult omitted) that said such a move was being considered?

(Second stage Freudian insult omitted) people, you've invented a hypothetical situation, attributed the origin of that situation to the president, and now you want to demonize him for your hypothetical.

grow. (second stage Freudian insult omitted) up.

You have 4 second stage Freudian commentaries above. What are you doing here foisting such inappropriate self-pointing theatrics in matters of the constitutional charge made of the legislative branch that the executive branch insists on usurping?

 

[Liability]

I've always been wittier than you, L. I recall with great fondness all those times I ripped you up to the chuckles of so many people on that other forum. But let me just express my gratitude to you for your total lack of any kind of worthwhile response because it makes it so glaringly apparent that you are exponentially overmatched.

Don't forget to remind your mom to give you a bath tonight after you watch your Banana Splits DVDs. By the way, which character do you most identify with? Is it Snorky, Bingo, Fleegle, or Drooper?

You have always been witless, ass-sucker.

You "recall" no such thing except in your delusions, moron.

You were useless then and you remain useless now.

Ya ******* douche.

OOOhhhh! OUCH, you got me with that one.

Your last few posts to a variety of posters have included the words stupid, moron, and dumb-ass. Originality just ain't yer thing, is it?

You're like an slow-witted, unfunny Don Rickles. You would look better if you just let it go.

The only laughable thing about your rejoinder effort is that you think you really had one there.

Seriously, you should have quit while you were only a few light years behind.