C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
"President Obamas 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 weeks news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.
Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: I didnt 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 doesnt go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, lets make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But were 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. Obamas 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 Washingtons political environment is not normal.-George Will
This is a well argued case for articles of impeachment.
Nonsense.
This is a subjective, partisan argument absent any facts or evidence of a crime.
We saw the same 'reasoning' by liberals when GWB was president.
Impeachment is an indictment, it requires evidence predicated on objective, documented evidence of wrongdoing, not that the president is a democrat or advocates policies the opposition disagrees with.
If that were the case every president could be subject of impeachment.