I hope the Republicans IMPEACH Obama!

[Kondor3]

I would doubt if the Republicans have the votes to bring up impeachment charges. No doubt, TeaTards would vote for impeachment but regular Republicans realize they can't take the political backlash

Or, alternatively, that Pubs have the votes for Impeachment in the House - now or after the next Congress is sworn-in, in January - it's just that Conviction in the Senate might prove highly problematic?

 

[rightwinger]

Prior to the elections last week I thought that was a bad idea.

No more

AS SOON as he uses that damn pen to do congresses job IMPEACH HIS ASS

In the words of Obama: "Elections have consequences"

WHY? With ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS, if the congress doesn't agree with an Executive order or action...one takes it to court, if the court agrees with Congress or finds the actions of the President unconstitutional, then the executive order is reversed, or null and voided.

It's not a high crime or misdemeanor.. it's not an impeachable offense. We've had Presidents do some real doozies over the years that have been reversed....but the Presidents just continue on being President...not a one of them brought up for impeachment for these kind of actions.

SO, to your original conjecture....

IF Obama is brought up on impeachment charges, for actions that other white Presidents have done previously, without any impeachment proceedings against them....

You're darn right, there will be screams of racism shouted at Congress....and justly so, imo.

Good points

If a President breaks a law, he can be impeached. If he proclaims an Executive Order that oversteps his Constitutional powers, that order is repealed, but there is no crime

Power struggles between the executive and legislative branches have been going on for 200 years.

 

[rightwinger]

I would doubt if the Republicans have the votes to bring up impeachment charges. No doubt, TeaTards would vote for impeachment but regular Republicans realize they can't take the political backlash

Or, alternatively, that Pubs have the votes for Impeachment in the House - now or after the next Congress is sworn-in, in January - it's just that Conviction in the Senate might prove highly problematic?

Of course the House may have enough radicals to bring up impeachment charges. But I doubt if they can convince the political moderates. It is DOA in the Senate

 

[Nosmo King]

obama was beaten or the democrats were beaten last November 4 because of obama and his policies that they help to pass and push.. People do not support obama's immigration reform.
You can keep saying people elected obama twice, but if the election was held back in November 4 I doubt he would have won.

the GOP was given control to stop obama, not to get along with him. They should do what is necessary and let the politics be damned.

Where's your proof of that?

exit polls for one. the fact that obama-supporting dems were defeated for two.

So how do you explain the MAJORITY of American voters who did not even vote?

they never do. a majority always stays home. I know you dems think you can somehow blame voter turn-out for your massive loss, but it won't work. You lost because the american people are fed up with obama and his marxism, incompetence, and his hatred of what has made this country great.

A couple of things to consider, if I may...

Every two term president since World War II has lost control of both houses of congress to the opposition after the last mid term election of his presidency. What happened on November 4 did not make history, it repeated it.

The Republican Party nationalized this election. They ran against a man whose name was not even on the ballot. There were far too few seats elected on local constituency issues. And that's where government is most effective.

The political capital the rabid right wing would squander in any impeachment effort would prove that ideologically driven politics, from either Right or Left, is poisonous to their brand. Again, history will repeat.

In order to run an effective presidential as well as congressional race in 2016, the Republicans should first prove they can govern. We already know they can obstruct. We saw them shut down the government and cause our national credit rating to go down.

The rabid right wing is looking at the results of this election through political beer goggles. They see a win that is actually history's sloppy seconds and think it's really a 10 in the form of a landslide mandate. The fevor with which they obstruct and politically harass this president will cause an all American bar fight they just cannot win. They are poor students of history and have already forgotten their own popularity numbers after they pulled their last bit of hyjinx, the debt ceiling"crisis". They can't recall what being the Party of No and what Bobby Jindhal called "the Party of Stupid" can cost them.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I think thats what you have been claiming. Even if they did, does that make it OK for the current president to violate the law?

They did not break any laws! They followed proper channels.

Which of them do you think changed any law passed by congress, or violated the constitution? None of them? OK, great.

Now, what gives obama, or any president, the authority to change our immigration laws by EO? Changing a law is not implementing that law.

you do understand the difference between 'implementing' and 'changing' don't you?

Oh, this is an argument about semantics?

Right, lets impeach him.

NO, its about whether a president has the authority to change the provisions of a law (in this case immigration law) by an executive order.

Does he or not?

You're asking me? You already told me what the answer is.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I think thats what you have been claiming. Even if they did, does that make it OK for the current president to violate the law?

They did not break any laws! They followed proper channels.

Sure they did. Can you show me the guilty verdict from the jury of that young boy's peers that allowed Obama to "execute" a U.S. Citizen for eating at a cafe?

Can you be specific about what the hell you are talking about?

 

[Kondor3]

...Of course the House may have enough radicals to bring up impeachment charges. But I doubt if they can convince the political moderates. It is DOA in the Senate

DOA in the Senate as presently constituted?Almost certainly.

DOA in the Senate once the new Congress is sworn-in, in January 2015? The odds are still in favor of No Conviction, but closer to the 2/3 needed, when you add-in the Senatorial gains, a few independents, a couple of Dem Senators looking to distance themselves from Obama, and a couple who can probably be bought, one way or another.

Bottom line - when a Legislature - or, certainly, when a People - want a leader gone (by legal means) badly enough, a way will be found.

That's the nature of politics.

The question is: Will Obama piss off enough people with his EO on Immigration, to set the stage for such an extraordinary effort?

My own personal answer? I really and truly do not know, but I sense that the possibility is closer to Reality than Obama's remaining defenders would like to contemplate, given the present sorry state of affairs.

 

[rightwinger]

...Of course the House may have enough radicals to bring up impeachment charges. But I doubt if they can convince the political moderates. It is DOA in the Senate

DOA in the Senate as presently constituted?Almost certainly.

DOA in the Senate once the new Congress is sworn-in, in January 2015? The odds are still in favor of No Conviction, but closer to the 2/3 needed, when you add-in the Senatorial gains, a few independents, a couple of Dem Senators looking to distance themselves from Obama, and a couple who can probably be bought, one way or another.

Bottom line - when a Legislature - or, certainly, when a People - want a leader gone (by legal means) badly enough, a way will be found.

That's the nature of politics.

The question is: Will Obama piss off enough people with his EO on Immigration, to set the stage for such an extraordinary effort?

My own personal answer? I really and truly do not know, but I sense that the possibility is closer to Reality than Obama's remaining defenders would like to contemplate, given the present sorry state of affairs.

You are completely delusional

It will be Republicans who are going to vote for the other side because they understand the historical significance of what they are doing.
Exactly what charges do you think all these politicians are going to hang their careers on?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Care to discuss legal grounds for impeaching?

Sure, but you're not equipped to handle what you'll learn about it....First off, are there illegal grounds for impeachment? Nah, you'll keep repeating defeated phrases or run away claiming your dog is on fire. Simple really...."high crimes and misdemeanors"....archaic language from the late 1700's meaning the president has either broken or failed to enforce laws in force. There can be a multitude of levels.....each one easily exceeded by this president's treachery. The House impeaches....the Senate convicts.....step one is a forgone conclusion if he tries to back-door in the illegals.

Your turn.

That's a lot of typing just to say nothing, and only exhibit your ignorance.

Determining the Constitutionality of an executive order is the sole purview of the courts, not Congress; executive orders are Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. When an executive order is overturned as un-Constitutional, the president is neither impeached nor tried in the Senate (see, e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)).

Bullshit. I would suggest that before you go about spouting "law", you actually READ it.

Article 1 section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Read it fool.

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
The Point of Impeachment
Tolerating Obama’s lawlessness invites a destructive new era of dictatorial presidency.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

• Archive
• Latest
• RSS

(Pool Image/Getty)
Print
Text
Comments
339

​

Andrew C. McCarthy
In writing Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, I had a purpose: Explain that the capacity of Congress to oust a lawless president is central to the Framers’ design of our governing system. Because executive power is awesome, and intended to be that way, certain abuses of it can be discouraged only by the credible threat that Congress will remove the president from power — or, if discouragement fails, can be remediated only by the president’s actual removal. That is why Madison believed that the inclusion of impeachment in Congress’s arsenal was “indispensible” to preserving the Constitution’s framework of liberty vouchsafed by divided power.
Abuse of the executive’s power over immigration enforcement now belongs in this category of maladministration that impeachment alone can counter. One must use the qualifier “now” because this was not always the case. Immigration enforcement was originally a state responsibility. Washington has supplanted the states since the early 20th century, an erosion of federalism largely responsible for our current immigration crisis. That, however, is a subject for another day. Like it or not (I don’t), the federal courts’ ill-conceived application of preemption principles has left the states and the American people vulnerable to a lawless president who refuses to protect them from illegal immigration while preventing them from protecting themselves. (Obama’s theory that disarming the state somehow promotes security works about as well in Arizona as it does in Ukraine.)
Advertisement
I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.
As for the remaining third, Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do this in reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.

ALL of it here:
The Point of Impeachment National Review Online

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I think thats what you have been claiming. Even if they did, does that make it OK for the current president to violate the law?

They did not break any laws! They followed proper channels.

Sure they did. Can you show me the guilty verdict from the jury of that young boy's peers that allowed Obama to "execute" a U.S. Citizen for eating at a cafe?

You war against the United States, you die. No different than killing southern Americans during our civil war.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I would doubt if the Republicans have the votes to bring up impeachment charges. No doubt, TeaTards would vote for impeachment but regular Republicans realize they can't take the political backlash

Americans are demanding it.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I would doubt if the Republicans have the votes to bring up impeachment charges. No doubt, TeaTards would vote for impeachment but regular Republicans realize they can't take the political backlash

Or, alternatively, that Pubs have the votes for Impeachment in the House - now or after the next Congress is sworn-in, in January - it's just that Conviction in the Senate might prove highly problematic?

Of course the House may have enough radicals to bring up impeachment charges. But I doubt if they can convince the political moderates. It is DOA in the Senate

Doesn't matter if they don't convict in the Senate. The House's impeachment sticks and
Obama will go down in history as impeached in disgrace.

 

[BullKurtz]

Good point

Republicans get about 8% of the black vote and 27% of the Hispanic vote. What happens when the Hispanic vote increases like it has for the last 50 years? Florida, Texas and Arizona go with it.......as do any chances of a Republican White House

Well look who's back! The gutless twerp who was going to school me on impeachment and then hid under his piss-stained futon when it was him got schooled. At this point there is ZERO consideration as to the "political impact" of throwing this piece of garbage out of our WH.....this is necessary to keep our Constitutional form of government and we will not worry if "moderates" or "hispanics" or your nutcase queers rebel.....and you don't know shit about Texas or Arizona either...you think this is some kind of game because the real world never touches your miserable life.

 

[BullKurtz]

my wife says there are two kinds of vets. those that served their country, and your kind.

"your wife says"? Maybe the most gutless reply I've ever seen on a political board. If I reply I'm insulting a "family member" and get suspended when this carp reports me. Notice he doesn't mention if his wife is male or female and what his/her background is to know "what kind" of Vet I am. Typical hatred of the Military is in evidence here...along with the bravery to insult us these carp can only show behind a keyboard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You need a crime to justify impeachment.

 

[RKMBrown]

I would doubt if the Republicans have the votes to bring up impeachment charges. No doubt, TeaTards would vote for impeachment but regular Republicans realize they can't take the political backlash

What about the political backlash of the democrats supporting the summary execution of U.S. Citizens?

 

[Siete]

You need a crime to justify impeachment.

detail, details .. who needs details.

RW's could care less about facts. Being a total idiot is far more important to them.

 

[BullKurtz]

You need a crime to justify impeachment.

54 pages in and that's all you got, fool? Try reading the thread you're replying to some time....

 

[rightwinger]

I would doubt if the Republicans have the votes to bring up impeachment charges. No doubt, TeaTards would vote for impeachment but regular Republicans realize they can't take the political backlash

Americans are demanding it.

No.....only FoxNation