If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

[SniperFire]

While you're at it, Cecilie1200, could you also tell me what makes it unconstitutional when President Obama does it but not when the Rs do it?

LOL

I'm still waiting for a REAL example of a Republican President unilaterally making laws or picking and choosing the ones he will enforce. So when you can provide that, THEN I will answer your question. Until then, I have no intention of answering questions predicated on the ridiculous assumption that YOU have any fucking clue what you're talking about.

"LOL" at that while you're at it.

How do signing statements, as used by Bush, not fit the bill? He's substituting his own reading of what the statute means for the language passed by Congress.

You obviously don't know what a signing statement is. These are a POTUS' interpretation of how a law works, not a proclamation that he does not intend to follow the law.

Obama should be impeached.

 

[Sallow]

constitutional treason......did it bother you when reagan did it?

if we took the constitution seriously there would be no professional politicians

When did Reagan ever unilaterally decide that he wasn't going to enforce the written laws?

Iran/Contra.

Done.

 

[Sarah G]

Republicans - The politics of impeachment.

 

[Stephanie]

Republicans - The politics of impeachment.

well of course you Democrats weren't all on board for impeaching George Bush, even on board for having him tried as a war criminal..

so give us a break

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm still waiting for a REAL example of a Republican President unilaterally making laws or picking and choosing the ones he will enforce. So when you can provide that, THEN I will answer your question. Until then, I have no intention of answering questions predicated on the ridiculous assumption that YOU have any fucking clue what you're talking about.

"LOL" at that while you're at it.

How do signing statements, as used by Bush, not fit the bill? He's substituting his own reading of what the statute means for the language passed by Congress.

You obviously don't know what a signing statement is. These are a POTUS' interpretation of how a law works, not a proclamation that he does not intend to follow the law. Obama should be impeached.

Statements, signing or verbal, are within any president's prerogative to tell Congress and the nation how he interprets and intends to fulfill his obligation to the law.

 

[Polk]

I'm still waiting for a REAL example of a Republican President unilaterally making laws or picking and choosing the ones he will enforce. So when you can provide that, THEN I will answer your question. Until then, I have no intention of answering questions predicated on the ridiculous assumption that YOU have any fucking clue what you're talking about.

"LOL" at that while you're at it.

How do signing statements, as used by Bush, not fit the bill? He's substituting his own reading of what the statute means for the language passed by Congress.

You obviously don't know what a signing statement is. These are a POTUS' interpretation of how a law works, not a proclamation that he does not intend to follow the law.

Obama should be impeached.

That's what they're supposed to be. In practice, Bush used them to make "interpretations" that contracted the plain language of the statute.

 

[SniperFire]

How do signing statements, as used by Bush, not fit the bill? He's substituting his own reading of what the statute means for the language passed by Congress.

You obviously don't know what a signing statement is. These are a POTUS' interpretation of how a law works, not a proclamation that he does not intend to follow the law.

Obama should be impeached.

That's what they're supposed to be. In practice, Bush used them to make "interpretations" that contracted the plain language of the statute.

That is your (pathetic dishonest) opinion.

Even so, Obama is not taking issue with the interpretation of the laws, he is KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY refusing to enforce them, which is a violation of his oath of office.


This asshole should be impeached.

 

[Polk]

It's not my opinion. His own legal advisers admit as much.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You obviously don't know what a signing statement is. These are a POTUS' interpretation of how a law works, not a proclamation that he does not intend to follow the law.

Obama should be impeached.

That's what they're supposed to be. In practice, Bush used them to make "interpretations" that contracted the plain language of the statute.

That is your (pathetic dishonest) opinion. Even so, Obama is not taking issue with the interpretation of the laws, he is KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY refusing to enforce them, which is a violation of his oath of office. This asshole should be impeached.

No, fire, it is your opinion and unfounded.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If We Took the Constitution Seriously…

We wouldn’t have conservatives attempting to violate the due process rights of persons in the United States.

We wouldn’t have conservatives attempting to violate privacy rights with regard to ‘personhood’ legislation and similar nonsense.

We wouldn’t have conservatives attempting to deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law.

There would be much idiocy we wouldn’t be forced to deal with if conservatives only took the Constitution seriously.

 

[Avatar4321]

The President can be impeached only for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Exceeding his authority is neither. In fact, the Founders expected politicians to attempt to exceed their authority, that's why there are checks in place to limit their power. Congress can overturn this if they had the moral rectitude and courage to do so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually "high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever the House says they are. Trying to get the Senate to agree with a 2/3 majority is another matter altogether.

 

[rightwinger]

If we took the Constitution seriously, Republicans would not be filibustering every bill

 

[Polk]

The President can be impeached only for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Exceeding his authority is neither. In fact, the Founders expected politicians to attempt to exceed their authority, that's why there are checks in place to limit their power. Congress can overturn this if they had the moral rectitude and courage to do so.

No, they couldn't, because this is entirely inside his authority. You can dislike the decision, just as I dislike how the Civil Rights Division at DOJ basically shuts down every time a Republican is in the White House, but that doesn't mean it's illegal.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If we took the Constitution (of the United States) seriously, we would not now be watching the Kochs and Adelson buying the election.

We would not have the R's passing illegal voter suppression laws with utter and complete immunity when they should be thrown in jail.

Bottom line is the right has no business talking about taking the constitution "seriously" because the only way they can win this election is if they CHEAT and that is exactly what they are doing.

And, the ignorant and hypocritial rw voter just loves it.

We would not have the damnable notPatriotic Act that no president will ever be able to get rid of.

 

[Amelia]

Pobrecito luddly

 

[bodecea]

The President can be impeached only for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Exceeding his authority is neither. In fact, the Founders expected politicians to attempt to exceed their authority, that's why there are checks in place to limit their power. Congress can overturn this if they had the moral rectitude and courage to do so.

But it's so much easier to whine.

 

[EriktheRed]

The President can be impeached only for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Exceeding his authority is neither. In fact, the Founders expected politicians to attempt to exceed their authority, that's why there are checks in place to limit their power. Congress can overturn this if they had the moral rectitude and courage to do so.

No, they couldn't, because this is entirely inside his authority. You can dislike the decision, just as I dislike how the Civil Rights Division at DOJ basically shuts down every time a Republican is in the White House, but that doesn't mean it's illegal.

Don't forget how regulatory agencies seem to somehow stop doing their jobs under Republican admins, too. The guy in the Oval Office never said outright he wouldn't let them do their jobs, but it's pretty obvious he and the people he's appointed to run them haven't been interested in letting them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

links in article at site

SNIP:

Michael Filozof

If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.

Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that "Congress shall have the Power To... establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization." Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.

The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Obama's refusal to execute Congress's immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress's Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for... Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, "treason," and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered "bribery."

In theory, Obama could exercise his power in Article II, Sec 2. to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States" and offer a blanket pardon for all violators of immigration law. He's not doing that, because he'd certainly lose in November if he did. (However we should be concerned that if he does lose in November, he'll do it anyway on his last day in office).


Read more: Blog: If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

I have maintained that Obama views himself as an elected King.
With this latest XO, he has essentially established dictatorial powers for himself.
Of course, this latest XO will be short lived. Should Obama lose in November, I would imagine by the end of Jan 2013, this Order will be rescinded.
Perhaps legislation from Congress can alleviate some of the issues these kids have. However, the law MUST be clear that in order for these kids to establish Registered Alien Status, they MUST go through the same process as ALL other immigrants.

 

[EriktheRed]

links in article at site

SNIP:

Michael Filozof

If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.

Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that "Congress shall have the Power To... establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization." Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.

The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Obama's refusal to execute Congress's immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress's Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for... Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, "treason," and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered "bribery."

In theory, Obama could exercise his power in Article II, Sec 2. to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States" and offer a blanket pardon for all violators of immigration law. He's not doing that, because he'd certainly lose in November if he did. (However we should be concerned that if he does lose in November, he'll do it anyway on his last day in office).


Read more: Blog: If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

I have maintained that Obama views himself as an elected King.
With this latest XO, he has essentially established dictatorial powers for himself.
Of course, this latest XO will be short lived. Should Obama lose in November, I would imagine by the end of Jan 2013, this Order will be rescinded.
Perhaps legislation from Congress can alleviate some of the issues these kids have. However, the law MUST be clear that in order for these kids to establish Registered Alien Status, they MUST go through the same process as ALL other immigrants.

Why don't you tell us again about his shirt sleeves, too.