Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?

[Shiiro601229]

Congress should not have the authority to make decisions that affect the entire country. By virtue of being elected individually, to serve individual districts or states, with individual differing interests, members of Congress should forfeit the right to do anything other than petition the federal government for funding of projects within their respective jurisdictions. AKA, the ONLY thing Congress should be allowed to do is ask for money for pork projects. As the system is currently set up, the President is the only governmental position that requires the vote of of the entire country, and thus should be the ONLY one to govern with regards to issues that affect the entire country. If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country. That way the true will of the people of the United States will be fairly represented. I must say, that Obama represents the opinions of a much greater number of people than the Tea Party does, and that any politician that actually believes in what the Tea Party preaches, is sorely out of touch with reality.

So in other words what you are saying is that you want a dictatorship, with no checks and balances. Is this correct?

If littledebfascist and I are asking the same question, an issue needs to be addressed.

No, what I'm saying, is that at the moment, the system is currently flawed. In that the only one who can truly claim to have a mandate from the country as a whole is the president, and, getting on topic with the thread, Obama shouldn't be anywhere remotely near getting impeached because ultimately, he's the only one who can legitimately claim that he has the best interests of the country at heart, because he's the only one who represents the entire country. I think that my original post was a bit off topic, but more than anything, I think that the current structure undermines the authority of the legislative branch, and unintentionally gives the President scarcely limited powers with regards to issues not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. I think that there should be a third body of Congress that represents the entire country, so that the President doesn't have the only national mandate... Sorry if it's a bit confusing to understand, and I know it's kind of off topic, but Obama hasn't really done anything to warrant impeachment until he starts to outright claim that the executive is more powerful than any of the other branches (even though it may well be).

Most important sentence from first post:
"If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country."

 

[JakeStarkey]

If littledebfascist and I are asking the same question, an issue needs to be addressed.

What? are you drunk or still on those sex change drugs?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ok, I get it now. However, the President is the national tribune, the national representation of the electorate's republican will, of all American whether individuals want that person or not.

It is what it is, and it has worked for more than 200 years.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Congress should not have the authority to make decisions that affect the entire country. By virtue of being elected individually, to serve individual districts or states, with individual differing interests, members of Congress should forfeit the right to do anything other than petition the federal government for funding of projects within their respective jurisdictions. AKA, the ONLY thing Congress should be allowed to do is ask for money for pork projects. As the system is currently set up, the President is the only governmental position that requires the vote of of the entire country, and thus should be the ONLY one to govern with regards to issues that affect the entire country. If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country. That way the true will of the people of the United States will be fairly represented. I must say, that Obama represents the opinions of a much greater number of people than the Tea Party does, and that any politician that actually believes in what the Tea Party preaches, is sorely out of touch with reality.

So in other words what you are saying is that you want a dictatorship, with no checks and balances. Is this correct?

If littledebfascist and I are asking the same question, an issue needs to be addressed.

No, what I'm saying, is that at the moment, the system is currently flawed. In that the only one who can truly claim to have a mandate from the country as a whole is the president, and, getting on topic with the thread, Obama shouldn't be anywhere remotely near getting impeached because ultimately, he's the only one who can legitimately claim that he has the best interests of the country at heart, because he's the only one who represents the entire country. I think that my original post was a bit off topic, but more than anything, I think that the current structure undermines the authority of the legislative branch, and unintentionally gives the President scarcely limited powers with regards to issues not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. I think that there should be a third body of Congress that represents the entire country, so that the President doesn't have the only national mandate... Sorry if it's a bit confusing to understand, and I know it's kind of off topic, but Obama hasn't really done anything to warrant impeachment until he starts to outright claim that the executive is more powerful than any of the other branches (even though it may well be).

Most important sentence from first post:
"If you really want the President to be limited in power, and have a fair and balanced government, the Constitution needs to be amended so as restructure Congress so that there's a chamber of members whose jurisdiction covers the entire country."

No, what I'm saying, is that at the moment, the system is currently flawed.

It's called checks and balences. It's what the founders started with. When you start twiking the Constitution you get changes like the 17th amendment, 16th amendment.

If it wasn't for the 17th amendment we would never have had all the social programs nor would the government be so big.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 17th Amendment makes state parties responsible to the voters instead of to the majority party in the Senate.

 

[RagZ]

Congress isn't attempting to impeach him because there's no use nor reason. The chances of it actually succeeding, for one, is miniscule. Two, there are so many more important issues than a giant bit of political theater this would be. We just got done with the debt ceiling, we still have next years budget to debate, we have entitlements that need to be looked at, Afghanistan which may be drawing down, Libya which is going to be god knows what, and more. Congress chasing after an impeachment that almost surely will fail simply to try and tarnish Obama's reputation would be a disservice to their consitutents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Four mouths in Congress and littledebfascist here are chasing after an impeachment that will not even possibley happen.

 

[Full-Auto]

Four mouths in Congress and littledebfascist here are chasing after an impeachment that will not even possibley happen.

Probably not, Holder is doing a wonderful job at obstruction.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, boy.

Congress, the House in particular, votes articles of impeachment.

Holder has nothing to do with it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The 17th Amendment makes state parties responsible to the voters instead of to the majority party in the Senate.

And that was what the founders of this country did not want. The states were to be the other part of checks and balences. The people were to get their vote and say in the house of Representives. Not the senate. If the people had a beef with the senate they would go to their state elected officals.

Jokey chasing your tail again? Class is dismissed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Congress isn't attempting to impeach him because there's no use nor reason. The chances of it actually succeeding, for one, is miniscule. Two, there are so many more important issues than a giant bit of political theater this would be. We just got done with the debt ceiling, we still have next years budget to debate, we have entitlements that need to be looked at, Afghanistan which may be drawing down, Libya which is going to be god knows what, and more. Congress chasing after an impeachment that almost surely will fail simply to try and tarnish Obama's reputation would be a disservice to their consitutents.

Congress chasing after an impeachment that almost surely will fail simply to try and tarnish Obama's reputation would be a disservice to their consitutents

Nobama tarnish his reputation long ago. That dog has been put to sleep long ago.

Two, there are so many more important issues than a giant bit of political theater this would be.

How about the constitution? That shouldn't be in your political theater

Libya which is going to be god knows what

We are helping the people we are still fighting in Iraq.

 

[Full-Auto]

Oh, boy.

Congress, the House in particular, votes articles of impeachment.

Holder has nothing to do with it.

Nonsense he has everything to do with it. Besides how can a white house staffer know about the program but not the president?
How can NICS which is run by the FBI allow purchases by known felons to proceed. Obama admitted early on in a meeting with dems and supporters that he was going to use backdoor methods for gun control. What did he mean?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh, boy.

Congress, the House in particular, votes articles of impeachment.

Holder has nothing to do with it.

Nonsense he has everything to do with it. Besides how can a white house staffer know about the program but not the president?
How can NICS which is run by the FBI allow purchases by known felons to proceed. Obama admitted early on in a meeting with dems and supporters that he was going to use backdoor methods for gun control. What did he mean?

Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control

Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms … adoption of a UN gun control treaty -- all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours.

Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control - Gun Owners Of America

If it happens I will not comply.

 

[Full-Auto]

Oh, boy.

Congress, the House in particular, votes articles of impeachment.

Holder has nothing to do with it.

Nonsense he has everything to do with it. Besides how can a white house staffer know about the program but not the president?
How can NICS which is run by the FBI allow purchases by known felons to proceed. Obama admitted early on in a meeting with dems and supporters that he was going to use backdoor methods for gun control. What did he mean?

Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control

Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms … adoption of a UN gun control treaty -- all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours.

Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control - Gun Owners Of America

If it happens I will not comply.

That could easily be defeated in court. Congress tried to give away their authority with the line item veto. Same rules apply here. All someone has to do is file the suit.




WHAT GUNS?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nonsense he has everything to do with it. Besides how can a white house staffer know about the program but not the president?
How can NICS which is run by the FBI allow purchases by known felons to proceed. Obama admitted early on in a meeting with dems and supporters that he was going to use backdoor methods for gun control. What did he mean?

Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control

Gun owner registration … bans on semi-automatic firearms … adoption of a UN gun control treaty -- all of these issues could very well be decided over the next 24 hours.

Congress to decide whether Super Congress could impose gun control - Gun Owners Of America

If it happens I will not comply.

That could easily be defeated in court. Congress tried to give away their authority with the line item veto. Same rules apply here. All someone has to do is file the suit.




WHAT GUNS?

Depends on the judge.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Holder has nothing to do with it.

Congress votes an indictment of impeachment. It will not do so.

 

[Full-Auto]

Holder has nothing to do with it.

Congress votes an indictment of impeachment. It will not do so.

Well you have proven forward thinking is beyond your capability.

They probably wont as both parties cover for each other. You wont see any arrests until after the election and only if repubs take the white house.

Before the last election the left was all about the rule of law. Now not so much!

 

[HenryBHough]

Holder has nothing to do with it.

Congress votes an indictment of impeachment. It will not do so.

Patience, grasshopper.

1. Congress moves slowly as glaciers grind granite.

2. Our Kenyan President keeps providing additional rope so those writing the articles are having a hard time keeping up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

HenryBHough, our Kenyan poster, continues to act silly.

 

[HenryBHough]

I believe my avatar suggests less Kenyan genetics than that of another. Far less, too, than the current occupant of the (former) White House. But, alas, who can trust avatars or "Presidents"?