Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?

[Dot Com]

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.

That we have. Too bad 'reason & logic" play no part in their agenda.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Simply put...he's a liar who supports traitors.

Simply put you're a liar. Which has already been pointed out in other threads.

Pointing out and PROVING are two different things. You've been PROVEN a liar in this thread and we already know, thru your Nic, that you spit on the memory of REAL American soldiers.


So...tell us some more lies about things Salt Jones said on this forum BEFORE he was a member.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Well, if you are going to talk to yourself like that...

 

[bodecea]

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.

Here...

FBI — Homepage

Do your duty and report that traitor in the White House. Because if you don't you are aiding and abetting treason.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Do your duty:

FBI — Homepage

 

[bodecea]

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.

Who fired first? That's right, the Traitors did.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Who shot first....That's right....the Traitors did.

 

[bodecea]

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?

After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked? Is that what you support?

 

[bodecea]

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?

Well, they have more than their share of reactionary loonies because of it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Time Line of The Civil War - 1861


waaaa its all the north's fault...Well no, You need the south to want to leave in order for that to happen.

Again where was the first battle fought?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Time Line of The Civil War - 1861


waaaa its all the north's fault...Well no, You need the south to want to leave in order for that to happen.

Again where was the first battle fought?

Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops. Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked? Is that what you support?

The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Time Line of The Civil War - 1861


waaaa its all the north's fault...Well no, You need the south to want to leave in order for that to happen.

Again where was the first battle fought?

Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops. Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning

An attack is not a battle try again.

So 9/11 was a battle?

 

[EriktheRed]

They should simply impeach obama because his father was a British subject of Kenya, which gave him dual citizenship at birth, which disqualifies him as a "natural born citizen." Both parents must be US citizens and you must be born on US soil in order for someone to be a "natural born citizen."

You could even throw in the fact that he is using a SS number that was issued in Connecticut, a state he nor any of his family has ever been in, and one that was issued to someone already that would have been born in 1890.

The man is a walking, talking fraud, everything about him is a lie.

Just can't handle his birther views getting de-bunked. So funny, it's sad...yet so sad, it's funny.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Incorrect.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and the rule of law. Both the government and the people are subject to the rule of law; when the people via referendum or similar process or through their elected representatives act in an un-Constitutional manner, the courts strike down such laws or measures accordingly.

That you disagree with or don’t like the rulings is immaterial, they are indeed the law of the land, per the rule of law – and you are compelled to obey the law, or don’t at your own risk.

 

[rightwinger]

Again where was the first battle fought?

Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops. Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning

An attack is not a battle try again.

So 9/11 was a battle?

Did they capture US territory when it was over? Is that what the south calls negotiations?

 

[rightwinger]

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

After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked? Is that what you support?

The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter

Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason

 

[bodecea]

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

After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked? Is that what you support?

The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter

So...if we were to send a supply ship to re supply one of our OWN bases on our OWN federal land....that's an aggressive act of war?

 

[bodecea]

Again where was the first battle fought?

Ft Sumter SC as the traitors from the south attacked loyal union troops. Lesson to you....don't start a fight you have no hope of winning

An attack is not a battle try again.

So 9/11 was a battle?

 

[bodecea]

After the Traitors fired on a Federal installation...are you claiming that our federal government should not react when attacked? Is that what you support?

The federal government was the aggressor, when they sent the USS Star of the west to re-inforce sumter

Ft Sumter was US territory, they had every right to supply it. It was the traitors from the south who illegally took US property and paid a price for their treason

They actually got off light. The leadership could have (and maybe should have) been hung for treason.