*A well argued case for impeaching Obama

[Doubletap]

"President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority. Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”-George Will

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

 

[jon_berzerk]

you would maybe get some lip service from the right on the hill

but a closed room meeting with some bennies would kill that notion

 

[Katzndogz]

He has engaged in a course of conduct that taken in totality exhibits an enormous malfeasance rising to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[jon_berzerk]

He has engaged in a course of conduct that taken in totality exhibits an enormous malfeasance rising to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

of course he has

but you are not going to find much support from this crop

of repubs and dems on the hill

so it is let to the people to start over from the bottom up

 

[auditor0007]

"President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority. Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”-George Will

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

You guys are really getting desperate, aren't you?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You don't mind if we hang the entire Congress, regardless of political alignment, do you?

 

[francoHFW]

OP- please! Lol

 

[ScienceRocks]

Would Biden be a better president?

 

[Saigon]

He has engaged in a course of conduct that taken in totality exhibits an enormous malfeasance rising to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

If it only rises to misdemeanor, then why even mention it?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The nsa spying could possibly be grounds? Spying on all of America.

 

[NightFox]

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

Doesn't look that way to me, looks like it might be a case for the courts or for nullification by the states but until the President is challenged he can issue whatever executive orders he wants, you can't impeach him just for being a douche bag.

 

[Geaux4it]

Would Biden be a better president?

When you are at rock bottom, the only way is up.

Besides, Biden would be hammered all the time an we wouldn't have to worry about him

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

He has engaged in a course of conduct that taken in totality exhibits an enormous malfeasance rising to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

If it only rises to misdemeanor, then why even mention it?

It's the chain of events in his conga line of misdeeds

-Geaux

 

[J.E.D]

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

No it isn't. It's a good representation of the desperation, hand-wringing, and sore-loser-mentality of the Republican party.

 

[editec]

"President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority. Obama’s explanation began with an irrelevancy. He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington’s “political environment” is not “normal.”-George Will

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

Double...one does not actually need "a case" to impeach.

One merely needs the votes in the House to impeach, and the votes in the Senate to remove from office..

Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.

 

[Geaux4it]

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

No it isn't. It's a good representation of the desperation, hand-wringing, and sore-loser-mentality of the Republican party.

For there to be a 'loser', does there not have to be a winner?

I see no winners in the disaster called Obama's America

-Geaux

 

[Old Rocks]

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

No it isn't. It's a good representation of the desperation, hand-wringing, and sore-loser-mentality of the Republican party.

For there to be a 'loser', does there not have to be a winner?

I see no winners in the disaster called Obama's America

-Geaux

The disaster is what the GOP left our President to deal with. When President Obama took office, we were losing over a half million jobs every month, the market was headed straight down, and it looked like we were going to experiance the Second Great Republican Depression for sure. Today, the market is over 15,000, we are slowly gaining jobs back, in spite of all the efforts of the GOP to crash the economy, and destroy any job growth.

 

[Geaux4it]

No it isn't. It's a good representation of the desperation, hand-wringing, and sore-loser-mentality of the Republican party.

For there to be a 'loser', does there not have to be a winner?

I see no winners in the disaster called Obama's America

-Geaux

The disaster is what the GOP left our President to deal with. When President Obama took office, we were losing over a half million jobs every month, the market was headed straight down, and it looked like we were going to experiance the Second Great Republican Depression for sure. Today, the market is over 15,000, we are slowly gaining jobs back, in spite of all the efforts of the GOP to crash the economy, and destroy any job growth.

How many years ago? Hey, gas prices went up under Carter. it's all his fault.

Obama said he would fix it or he was a one term president. He underestimated the will of the weak, lazy and entitled.

BTW- market is going up becasue of 85 billion printed paper. Market is tanking right now because they are talking of tapering the presses. Meaning? Business are not buying the improved economy story

-Geaux

 

[J.E.D]

This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.

No it isn't. It's a good representation of the desperation, hand-wringing, and sore-loser-mentality of the Republican party.

For there to be a 'loser', does there not have to be a winner?

I see no winners in the disaster called Obama's America

-Geaux

 

[Wildman]

“Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?”

does anyone really think a liarberal news media person would even consider asking a question like this ??