Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?

[bigrebnc1775]

answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.

If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.

He spits on the graves of the REAL American soldiers who died for this country in our bloodiest war.

everytime you take a breath you dishonor the fallen dead.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, I think they should impeach him and I'll sit back and watch him be reelected in a landslide.

P.S. The republicans would lose the House in 2012

They say when you dream dream big.

I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?

Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.

again with the drama queen bullshit.

Can't dfend the traitor in the white house so let's derail the thread. ain't going to happen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.

We can assume he’s a ‘rebel’ from North Carolina, supposedly the first of the colonies to declare its independence, 5/20/1775.

We can also infer from this, and it’s consistent with, that the poster advocates complete separation from the Union, typical of extreme rightists on the fringe of American politics, hence the angry response about the ‘liberal courts,’ their rulings meaningless and ‘easily overturned.’

Apparently these individuals reject in its entirety the body of Constitutional case law as decided by the Supreme Court. They focus instead on their own errant interpretation of the Constitution – without any basis in case law – and primary documents from the Foundation Era.

Consequently they’ve created this fantasy and dogma of the Foundation Era where all the Framers’ original intent was for a weak central government, which is clearly not the case.

Since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall the Court has consistently ruled in a vast majority of its cases in favor of a strong central government, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) in particular.

Needless to say it’s pointless to engage in meaningful debate with such individuals, as their blind adherence to their dogma, complete rejection of the rule of law (ignoring over 200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence), and ignorance of the Foundation Era make such endeavors impossible.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

if it was bush would it be illegal ?

It's just different somehow.

And that ‘somehow’ is that GWB is a republican.

Telling.

As I already noted: talk of impeachment is partisan, it has nothing to do with the law or Constitution. that the right has cited no case law in support of their position is proof of that.

Everything good or bad bush did with the approval of congress.

 

[Dot Com]

answer the question reb-dude. What does "reb" stand for? Your answer may well determine the validity of your thread.

If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.

you're correct obama just adds more fuel to the fire.

So you believe the South did not lose the War of Southern Rebellion (AKA- the Civil War)? You have no standing then smarty

 

[bripat9643]

if it was bush would it be illegal ?

It's just different somehow.

And that ‘somehow’ is that GWB is a republican.

Telling.

As I already noted: talk of impeachment is partisan, it has nothing to do with the law or Constitution. that the right has cited no case law in support of their position is proof of that.

There have only been two impeachments in American history. How much "case law" do you imagine there is on this topic?

The bottom line is this: grounds for impeachment is a judgement call. Anyone but a congenital Obama ass sucker would agree that the Administration spending money that Congress hasn't authorized is grounds for impeachment.

 

[Dot Com]

If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.

We can assume he’s a ‘rebel’ from North Carolina, supposedly the first of the colonies to declare its independence, 5/20/1775.

We can also infer from this, and it’s consistent with, that the poster advocates complete separation from the Union, typical of extreme rightists on the fringe of American politics, hence the angry response about the ‘liberal courts,’ their rulings meaningless and ‘easily overturned.’

Apparently these individuals reject in its entirety the body of Constitutional case law as decided by the Supreme Court. They focus instead on their own errant interpretation of the Constitution – without any basis in case law – and primary documents from the Foundation Era.

Consequently they’ve created this fantasy and dogma of the Foundation Era where all the Framers’ original intent was for a weak central government, which is clearly not the case.

Since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall the Court has consistently ruled in a vast majority of its cases in favor of a strong central government, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) in particular.

Needless to say it’s pointless to engage in meaningful debate with such individuals, as their blind adherence to their dogma, complete rejection of the rule of law (ignoring over 200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence), and ignorance of the Foundation Era make such endeavors impossible.

Good points. I inferred as much from his Koch Bros.- inspired posts that I've read over the last couple of months. He must be one of those "the South shall rise again" reactionaries.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.

We can assume he’s a ‘rebel’ from North Carolina, supposedly the first of the colonies to declare its independence, 5/20/1775.

We can also infer from this, and it’s consistent with, that the poster advocates complete separation from the Union, typical of extreme rightists on the fringe of American politics, hence the angry response about the ‘liberal courts,’ their rulings meaningless and ‘easily overturned.’

Apparently these individuals reject in its entirety the body of Constitutional case law as decided by the Supreme Court. They focus instead on their own errant interpretation of the Constitution – without any basis in case law – and primary documents from the Foundation Era.

Consequently they’ve created this fantasy and dogma of the Foundation Era where all the Framers’ original intent was for a weak central government, which is clearly not the case.

Since the days of Chief Justice John Marshall the Court has consistently ruled in a vast majority of its cases in favor of a strong central government, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) in particular.

Needless to say it’s pointless to engage in meaningful debate with such individuals, as their blind adherence to their dogma, complete rejection of the rule of law (ignoring over 200 years of Constitutional jurisprudence), and ignorance of the Foundation Era make such endeavors impossible.

I'm for a Constitutional republic. obama isn't and as one Supreme Court Justice has been qouted saying
Judges legislate from the bench, which isn't Constitutional. So your talking Judical ruling means nothing if the ruling doesn't support the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If "reb" stands for Rebel, which it must since he's dodging the question, and he's one of those War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers who think the war isn't officially over, he couldn't recognize the Constitution. So, he's one of the last people on the board who should've started this thread. War of Southern Rebellion sympathizers don't recognize the Constitution as valid.

you're correct obama just adds more fuel to the fire.

So you believe the South did not lose the War of Southern Rebellion (AKA- the Civil War)? You have no standing then smarty

War of Northern agression. get it right then we can talk.

 

[bripat9643]

War of Northern agression. get it right then we can talk.

you really are a moron..

He has it right. Lincoln invaded the Southern states.

So who's the moron?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you believe the South did not lose the War of Southern Rebellion (AKA- the Civil War)? You have no standing then smarty

War of Northern agression. get it right then we can talk.

you really are a moron..

Where was the first battle fought in the war of Northern agression? Impress me moron.

 

[Salt Jones]

They say when you dream dream big.

I recall youy and other's like you making the claim that the GOP was dead and would not win in 2010. How did that work out for you?

Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.

again with the drama queen bullshit.

Can't dfend the traitor in the white house so let's derail the thread. ain't going to happen.

You dumb fuck. You make a lying statement, I post the obvious truth about when I joined the forum -pointing out your lie- and you say I'm trying to "derail the thread"? Pointing out your typical lies to bolster your point doesn't require "drama", it just requires logic and the ability to read, two things your dumb ass seems to be lacking.

 

[bripat9643]

He has it right. Lincoln invaded the Southern states.

So who's the moron?

lol invaded..oh man keep it up

Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?

 

[bripat9643]

Where was the first battle fought in the war of Northern agression? Impress me moron.

that would mean i agree its should be called war of Northern aggression.

No it wouldn't. You can call it whatever you like, no matter how wrong and idiotic your label is. The question is "where was the first battle fought?" You obviously don't want to answer the question because the answer proves you're a moron.

man somedays i wish the south won. less chance i have to listen to people like you.

I do wish the South had won.

So seeing how you view it as the war of Northern aggression, how many slaves do you wish you could own?

When you can't win on the facts, you engage in cheap ad hominems. That appears to be your modus operandi

What a jackass.

 

[Salt Jones]

He has it right. Lincoln invaded the Southern states.

So who's the moron?

lol invaded..oh man keep it up

Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?

Does the civil war affect today's south?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given the fact the Supreme Court ruled secession un-Constitutional in Texas v. White (1869), it can be argued there was no secession, no state left the Union, and it was indeed a Civil War: one Nation, two factions at war.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you claiming Lincoln didn't march a federal army into Virginia at the beginning of the war?

Does the civil war affect today's south?

Yes it does, but of what relevance is that to this discussion?

 

[bripat9643]

Given the fact the Supreme Court ruled secession un-Constitutional in Texas v. White (1869), it can be argued there was no secession, no state left the Union, and it was indeed a Civil War: one Nation, two factions at war.

Lincoln put 5 of the 9 justices on the court that made that decision. The fact that a bunch of Lincoln's stooges ruled he was justified in making war on members of the union only proves that the Supreme Court is utterly corrupt. Furthermore, that decision is so obviously flawed that only the most fanatical disciples of the Lincoln cult would call it legitimate.

If you want a detailed explanation of the problems with the decision, I'll be happy to provide you with one.

 

[Dot Com]

Since I joined this forum in 2011 you don't "recall" me saying shit prior to March 2011. Again with the lying to bolster your argument. If you think you are of the right convictions why lie to bolster you case? Let your opinions succeed on their own merits.

again with the drama queen bullshit.

Can't dfend the traitor in the white house so let's derail the thread. ain't going to happen.

You dumb fuck. You make a lying statement, I post the obvious truth about when I joined the forum -pointing out your lie- and you say I'm trying to "derail the thread"? Pointing out your typical lies to bolster your point doesn't require "drama", it just requires logic and the ability to read, two things your dumb ass seems to be lacking.

He's a typical throw-back, Red State, base voter. He thinks the War of Southern Aggression was "thrust upon" the south

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, whatever…

We’ve at least clearly addressed the OP’s questions with the fact that there are no legal grounds upon which impeachment might proceed – other than subjective partisan motives.