Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: If Obama loses can he still be impeached?

Posted on 10/31/2012 11:30:10 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55

Say Obama loses the election and then these emails that Gingrich are talking about surface. And then eventually the videos come out.

Obama has LIED to the American people just like Clinton. Even though he wouldn't be around can elected officials still vote to impeach him? Even though it wouldn't be knocking him out of office per se? Just a mark on his record?

What are the ramifications of impeachment?


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: impeach; impeachment; impeachobama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 next last
To: txrangerette

You’re talking about compassionate conservatism, right? GOP...taking that cue from the GWB “philosophy”?


141 posted on 10/31/2012 2:11:47 PM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“by working hard to empanel a grand jury...(...from what I’ve been told it goes through politicians so it’s nearly hopeless unless you can apply so much pressure that even a politician would respond).”

Perhaps a Five Million Citizen March would be enough to get their attention.


142 posted on 10/31/2012 2:23:01 PM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

That, and “extend further”. The Constitution sets an outer limit on what the judgment can be in impeachment cases. The outer limit is removal from office and disqualification to “hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States.”

If the outer limit is the inclusion of all those things, then is there any prohibition on a judgment that is less than that? Alcee Hastings got only part of that judgment against him, so it seems like anything UP TO the inclusion of all those measures is Constitutional. Could they decide not to remove somebody from office but take away all their positions of trust? Well.... where is that forbidden in the Constitution? Could they impeach somebody who was not currently in office and strip them of their profits from the US government? Again, where is that forbidden?

I’m looking at the Constitution and see there’s another place where it talks about impeachment. Article II, Section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

So if the grounds for impeachment are treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removal from office is mandatory upon conviction in the Senate. I don’t know what impact that has on whether somebody receiving a pension from the United States can still be impeached.

Article II, Section 2 says the President “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

So an impeached President cannot pardon himself.


143 posted on 10/31/2012 2:33:47 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55; All

I made a quick perusal of the comments and everyone missed the important issue:

What was the High Crime and Misdemeanor?

He failed to do his job. He acted like a selfish SOB. That’s not a crime.


144 posted on 10/31/2012 2:44:53 PM PDT by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

“Could they impeach somebody who was not currently in office”

No, nobody can.


145 posted on 10/31/2012 2:56:54 PM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Stop insulting the Wookies, They have nothing to do with Obama. They are a cheerful group fighting against evil not supporting it like Obama.

I understand your (and my own) desire to find sufficiently impactful the call him but a Wookie isn't one of them.

The terms Liar. thief, murderer, treasonous also fall short in sufficiency to describe him.

I wouldn't even call him Satan despite the fact that he definitely is an Antichrist fully fighting against God and Israel, Satan is uniquely evil and in a class all of his own.

I firmly believe that the term Antichrist is very appropriate and he has fully earned that designation.

146 posted on 10/31/2012 3:38:37 PM PDT by dglang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Procyon

How does that apply to the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ producer being arrested without a trial?


147 posted on 10/31/2012 3:52:35 PM PDT by dglang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Much of what Obama is claiming to be ‘National Security’ truly is not and a new president can unseal everything that Obama has sealed.

Once everything comes unsealed it ALL can be used as evidence of something and that even includes his school records if he was claiming to be a foreign student.

Claiming to be a foreign student alone would be a felony and enough to impose heavy punishment but even greater are the penalties if he obtained the office of president while he was never a ‘Natural Born’ or even a ‘normal born’ citizen.

The roof and more MUST fall on this traitor who is actively trying to overthrow the U.S. government and constitution.

148 posted on 10/31/2012 4:00:24 PM PDT by dglang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

I wonder if removing any U.S.Marshall or Secret Service protection would also be included as ‘benefits’.

By the way, My wife and I did our patriotic duty today and voted for Romney.

Prayerfully we will also take over the Senate giving us control of House, Senate, and presidency.


149 posted on 10/31/2012 4:11:12 PM PDT by dglang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: dglang

make that REMOVABLE benefits.


150 posted on 10/31/2012 4:12:17 PM PDT by dglang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Ophiucus
What was the High Crime and Misdemeaner?

Your question stems from a very common, as well as basic, lack of understanding of the term: "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

151 posted on 10/31/2012 4:16:24 PM PDT by Michael.SF. (Obama Lied, Stevens died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
Depends on the exact terms of members of the House.There probably wouldn't be time for either the outgoing or incoming House members to pull it off even if they had the desire.And if he was impeached there's no way the Senate,old or new,would vote to remove.It's a non-starter.
152 posted on 10/31/2012 6:20:34 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55

“I think there needs to be hearings on this though?

How could Congressman and Senators begin treason proceedings?”

There will be extensive hearings I’m sure, and it may dominate much of the news between election day and inauguration day. Not sure how Congress and the Senate starts treason hearings. Need someone with more expertise than me to comment on that.


153 posted on 10/31/2012 8:31:47 PM PDT by lquist1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
The same body would not indict and convict.

Absolutely correct. And, if you read my comment, that's not what I said.

The impeachment is the proceeding. The House conducts the "trial" (if you will) to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict. If you recall, in the Clinton case, they found sufficient cause for him to be found guilty of the crime of lying.

It is the Senate's duty to assess the penalty, Again, if you recall from Clinton, the Senate voted along party lines NOT to assess any punishment.

So, we have, essentially, a split decision. The House found sufficient grounds to find the president guilty of lying, but the Senate refused to assess punishment. As a result, Clinton's legacy is still stained with the fact that he was impeached despite the fact that no penalty was assesed.

Should 2/3rds have found him guilty, he would have been removed from office immediately.

Again, not true. Removal from office is an option that the Senate can impose as a penalty, but it is NOT a mandatory sentence to be imposed. There are lesser penalties they can impose if they choose, including censure (which os meaningless).

154 posted on 11/01/2012 10:46:09 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
Could that then bar him from holding future elective office?

No. But NOT because he was impeached. Federal law requires that once someone has served as POTUS, they cannot run for any other elective office.

However, that does not preclude them from being APPOINTED to serve in a variety of unelected capacities. Again, Clinton and his liberal predecessor Carter provide us with examples.

In Clinton's case, he wanted to run for another elected office after his second term ended in 2000, but was prevented by federal law. In Carter's case, look how many times he has been appointed as a "special ambassador" to represent the U.S.' interests to a variety of oppressive dictators whom he loves and gets along with - to the disadvantage of America.

155 posted on 11/01/2012 10:55:45 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dglang
Much of what Obama is claiming to be ‘National Security’ truly is not and a new president can unseal everything that Obama has sealed.

I agree with the first part, but I'm not so sure about the last.

The records that Obama sealed are personal and private and, to the best of my knowledge, only a judge can order them unsealed if those records are believed to contain material evidence pertinent for a trial.

If we assume a Romney victory next week, I don't believe that Romney, or ANY POTUS, has the power to unseal zero's personal and private records. The only thing he can do is rescind the E.O.s that Obama has used to circumvent the Congress.

156 posted on 11/01/2012 11:03:55 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

“The House conducts the “trial” (if you will) to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict.”

I disagree. The House does not conduct a trial, it is essentially a grand jury which determines if there is sufficient evidence to indict, not convict. If sufficient evidence is found (i.e. impeachment charges are voted in the affirmative), the House then prosecutes the indicted or accused in the senate. The senate conducts the trial and determines if the evidence presented by the House is sufficient to convict by finding the indicted guilty or not guilty of the charge. And if found guilty, the seneate would then assess the penalty.

You may be right on whether the senate could keep a impeached and guilty official in office but I don’t know why they would.


157 posted on 11/01/2012 11:05:20 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

I think Obama could try and run for President again as he has only served one term. If he loses this time he’d still have one term he could run for???


158 posted on 11/01/2012 11:19:37 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
I think Obama could try and run for President again as he has only served one term. If he loses this time he’d still have one term he could run for???

Yes he could. And I have nightmares about 2016 for that very reason.(I know, I worry too much).

159 posted on 11/01/2012 11:30:40 AM PDT by Marathoner (If the bastard were to win reelection, let America burn. IDGAF anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Obviously if it was the EO’s that sealed them, the new President should be able to simply issue a new EO which simply states that the old EO is now dissolved and not in effect thereby releasing all records sealed by any particular EO.

Those ‘seals’ requested by Obama in a court of law as a private person will require another lawsuit to unseal. Obama did that in Illinois in order to get elected as a state senator.

EO’s however are NOT court ordered seals but simple actions taken by a president for ‘National’ reasons even though the president had ‘Personal’ reasons for ordering them. A new EO by a new president based on ‘National’ reasons will be able to override older EO’s.

160 posted on 11/01/2012 12:19:57 PM PDT by dglang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson