What Has Obama Done to Warrant Impeachment?

[Jackson]

If the Right would focus on a next presidential nominee instead of impeachment they would be able sift out a good nominee. But they are for some reason only focused on hate today.

I posted this the day Obama got re-elected. No one cared who would be the next Right Wing candidate. They just hated Obama.

Hatred for Obama won't win the next election kids.

They just don't get it. Obama is using their hatred of him to help set the table for all Democrats in 2016. If nothing else, Obama is extremely intelligent tactically when it comes to politics and campaigning, and he is playing Republicans like a fiddle.

Obama is politically intelligent when it comes to campaigning. He would make a good Karl Rove for the Democrats. But as leader of our country he has failed miserably.

 

[Jackson]

Firing and impeachment ARE the same thing.

And, the fact that he's not going to run again excuses his refusal to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' -Article II, Section 3, Clause 5?

No, they are not.

Impeachment is an indictment, for a president to be forced out of office ('fired') he must be convicted in the Senate.

And the president has not 'refused' to faithfully execute any laws.

Impeachment is a charge that an office holder should be removed. An indictment leads to a criminal charge. But, now that I see you guys are playing word games, I know you know you're wrong. Obama shouldn't be impeached, nor removed.

As for your claim that Obama has not refused to faithfully execute laws of the United States, one need only look to Obama's decision to stop enforcing laws prohibiting the use of marijuana. Whether you support legalizing marijuana or not, right now marijuana is a banned substance in the United States and Obama has decided NOT to enforce the law.

He has refused to faithfully execute laws when he fails to protect states like Arizona from illegal aliens; he refuses to execute laws when he issues EO's to override existing laws as he has in Obamacare mandates.

 

[bendog]

So far as I can tell, no one in the leadership of the Party has called for impeachment. Palin and a few who are out of office have, but there is NO serious effort to impeach Obama. So, you may untwist your knickers.

However, part of his position is to ensure the laws of the United States are enforced, whether he agrees with them or not. In fact, he can personally feel that the law shouldn't exist, but he is supposed to enforce such laws until they are no longer laws.

In your opinion, has he done that? And, would your employer fire you if you refused to perform the duties of your job?

Firing and impeachment are not equal, and he's not running again.

Firing and impeachment ARE the same thing.

And, the fact that he's not going to run again excuses his refusal to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' -Article II, Section 3, Clause 5?

No you fire someone for not doing a good job. I'd agree Obama has not. Impeachment is reserved for a high crime or misdeameanor (and prior to Clinton there had to be connection between the crime and the execution of official duties of the office).

 

[bendog]

well, BushII called off suing Msft over the anti-trust act. That may or may not have been a good decision. But, once you go down the road of trying for impeachment over an exec decision of whether to enforce a law ... you go in a new and unpredictable direction. FDR chose to skirt the neutrality laws to arm Britain. Reagan skirted close on the law prohibiting arming the contras. The list goes on and on.

Obama and the current House are probably more polarized than any other of the last 100 years at least. Perhaps you could find 1861 as being the closest similarity. And Lincoln actually suspended habeus to jail newspapermen.

 

[R.C. Christian]

It's too bad that just being born isn't an impeachable offense for him.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No, they are not.

Impeachment is an indictment, for a president to be forced out of office ('fired') he must be convicted in the Senate.

And the president has not 'refused' to faithfully execute any laws.

Impeachment is a charge that an office holder should be removed. An indictment leads to a criminal charge. But, now that I see you guys are playing word games, I know you know you're wrong. Obama shouldn't be impeached, nor removed.

As for your claim that Obama has not refused to faithfully execute laws of the United States, one need only look to Obama's decision to stop enforcing laws prohibiting the use of marijuana. Whether you support legalizing marijuana or not, right now marijuana is a banned substance in the United States and Obama has decided NOT to enforce the law.

He has refused to faithfully execute laws when he fails to protect states like Arizona from illegal aliens; he refuses to execute laws when he issues EO's to override existing laws as he has in Obamacare mandates.

Well, get Boner's Do-Nothing-Congress-Of-All-Time to get some immigration legislation out of the House, then on to the Senate then to the President for signing. Or, Hell, the House could just act on the Senate bill. If the President created law out of thin air you'd have reason to say he was creating law out of thin air. To blame the President for the failings of the House is laughable. Vacuous statements without evidence to support your assertions memorized from "the minders" lists carry the weight of vacuum in space!

Your statement about the President using EO's to override existing law is comical repletion from the lead! Can you provide the numbers of the EO's from the Executive Orders Disposition Tables indicating the EO's which overrode statutes currently codified? President Obama's EO's begin at 13489 and his last one, 13672, bring the total to 183. Here, I'll make it really easy for you with the addy at the Nat. Archives so you can look through each to dig up the dirt on the President that Breitbart, Faux, WND, American Thinker, Heritage, Drudge, et al, have been shoveling for so long.



Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the Right would focus on a next presidential nominee instead of impeachment they would be able sift out a good nominee. But they are for some reason only focused on hate today.

I posted this the day Obama got re-elected. No one cared who would be the next Right Wing candidate. They just hated Obama.

Hatred for Obama won't win the next election kids.

They just don't get it. Obama is using their hatred of him to help set the table for all Democrats in 2016. If nothing else, Obama is extremely intelligent tactically when it comes to politics and campaigning, and he is playing Republicans like a fiddle.

Obama is politically intelligent when it comes to campaigning. He would make a good Karl Rove for the Democrats. But as leader of our country he has failed miserably.

According to your subjective, partisan, and irrelevant opinion.

The only authoritative judge of the success or failure of a given president's administration is time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, they are not.

Impeachment is an indictment, for a president to be forced out of office ('fired') he must be convicted in the Senate.

And the president has not 'refused' to faithfully execute any laws.

Impeachment is a charge that an office holder should be removed. An indictment leads to a criminal charge. But, now that I see you guys are playing word games, I know you know you're wrong. Obama shouldn't be impeached, nor removed.

As for your claim that Obama has not refused to faithfully execute laws of the United States, one need only look to Obama's decision to stop enforcing laws prohibiting the use of marijuana. Whether you support legalizing marijuana or not, right now marijuana is a banned substance in the United States and Obama has decided NOT to enforce the law.

He has refused to faithfully execute laws when he fails to protect states like Arizona from illegal aliens; he refuses to execute laws when he issues EO's to override existing laws as he has in Obamacare mandates.

Incorrect.

Immigration laws are being fully and faithfully observed and enforced. That you don't agree with certain immigration laws, the implementation of their provisions, or the fact that all persons in the United States are entitled to due process of the law, including undocumented immigrants, does not mean the laws are not being enforced.

Moreover, with regard to the timing adjustments implementing provisions of the ACA, the president's actions have been appropriate, legal, and well within the authority afforded him by the Constitution:

The Administration has not postponed the employer mandate out of policy opposition to the ACA, nor to the specific provision itself. Thus, it's misleading to characterize the action as a "refusal to enforce." Rather, the President has authorized a minor temporary course correction regarding individual ACA provisions, necessary in his Administration's judgment to faithfully execute the overall statute, other related laws, and the purposes of the ACA's framers. As a legal as well as a practical matter, that's well within his job description.

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment? - The Atlantic

Your post is consequently ignorant, partisan, and wrong.

 

[regent]

Impeachment is not a legal process except that it must be followed as the Constitution requires. Impeachment is a political process and the House, if it ever worked, could draw up charges when it comes back to work. If a crime has been committed the president can be charged in a regular court and tried for the crime. I wonder what a "high crime" is?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Firing and impeachment ARE the same thing.

And, the fact that he's not going to run again excuses his refusal to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' -Article II, Section 3, Clause 5?

No, they are not.

Impeachment is an indictment, for a president to be forced out of office ('fired') he must be convicted in the Senate.

And the president has not 'refused' to faithfully execute any laws.

Impeachment is a charge that an office holder should be removed. An indictment leads to a criminal charge. But, now that I see you guys are playing word games, I know you know you're wrong. Obama shouldn't be impeached, nor removed.

As for your claim that Obama has not refused to faithfully execute laws of the United States, one need only look to Obama's decision to stop enforcing laws prohibiting the use of marijuana. Whether you support legalizing marijuana or not, right now marijuana is a banned substance in the United States and Obama has decided NOT to enforce the law.

No one's 'playing word games.'

When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted.

impeachment - definition of impeachment by The Free Dictionary

Consequently, you are in fact wrong.

And the president has indeed faithfully executed laws of the United States, it is not a 'claim,' where your inane accusation that the president is 'not enforcing' Federal drug laws was proven false in post #80.

 

[regent]

No, they are not.

Impeachment is an indictment, for a president to be forced out of office ('fired') he must be convicted in the Senate.

And the president has not 'refused' to faithfully execute any laws.

Impeachment is a charge that an office holder should be removed. An indictment leads to a criminal charge. But, now that I see you guys are playing word games, I know you know you're wrong. Obama shouldn't be impeached, nor removed.

As for your claim that Obama has not refused to faithfully execute laws of the United States, one need only look to Obama's decision to stop enforcing laws prohibiting the use of marijuana. Whether you support legalizing marijuana or not, right now marijuana is a banned substance in the United States and Obama has decided NOT to enforce the law.

No one's 'playing word games.'

When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted.

impeachment - definition of impeachment by The Free Dictionary

Consequently, you are in fact wrong.

And the president has indeed faithfully executed laws of the United States, it is not a 'claim,' where your inane accusation that the president is 'not enforcing' Federal drug laws was proven false in post #80.

Presidents do not always enforce the laws equally. Jackson not only didn't enforce a law, but when the Supreme Court ruled the law be obeyed he told the Court to put their law in their ear. Well he didn't exactly say the ear thing but the intent was there.

 

[hunarcy]

No, they are not.

Impeachment is an indictment, for a president to be forced out of office ('fired') he must be convicted in the Senate.

And the president has not 'refused' to faithfully execute any laws.

Impeachment is a charge that an office holder should be removed. An indictment leads to a criminal charge. But, now that I see you guys are playing word games, I know you know you're wrong. Obama shouldn't be impeached, nor removed.

As for your claim that Obama has not refused to faithfully execute laws of the United States, one need only look to Obama's decision to stop enforcing laws prohibiting the use of marijuana. Whether you support legalizing marijuana or not, right now marijuana is a banned substance in the United States and Obama has decided NOT to enforce the law.

No one's 'playing word games.'

When an irate citizen demands that a disfavored public official be impeached, the citizen clearly intends for the official to be removed from office. This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office. In strict usage, an official is impeached (accused), tried, and then convicted or acquitted.

impeachment - definition of impeachment by The Free Dictionary

Consequently, you are in fact wrong.

And the president has indeed faithfully executed laws of the United States, it is not a 'claim,' where your inane accusation that the president is 'not enforcing' Federal drug laws was proven false in post #80.

LMAO! And let us presume that the office holder is then impeached and "convicted"? Does he face criminal penalties? No, he's removed from office (fired).

And, as for post 80, that would be very persuasive to the unaware. But, the fact is that those raids do not prove the law is being enforced. They actually show the law is only being selectively applied in a way that the law did not intend.

"Although the feds did lift restrictions, they still said they will aggressively enforce the law in the following situations:
Preventing distribution to minors;
Preventing revenue from marijuana sales from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels;
Preventing diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal to other states;
Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
Preventing marijuana possession on federal property."

Feds Raid Colorado Pot Industry After Promising Not To Intervene | Ben Swann Truth In Media

You're a pedantic fool and seem to have a very poor relationship with the truth!