Impeachment

Impeachment is the only procedural mechanism in the American system of government that can be used to remove from office a president who has willfully abused his executive power under the Constitution.

Technically there are other extraordinary measures that can be taken, but these measures cannot fully address in an expeditious manner the present crisis of executive abuse of power by this president.

In my view the problem we have today is not whether the case can be made for the impeachment of the president, but rather the frivolous arguments made by many commentators and political partisans that prevent us from moving forward. Here are some of these arguments.

The marching orders for a Christian is to live the truth - in every area of their life.

Satan doesn’t divide his lies into neat little categories and stay out of the political areas. He spreads his lies into the political areas where we’re told the Gospel truth can’t come. And there he ensnares people so that they can’t receive the truth about ANYTHING - including about the Word of God.

The truth has to penetrate every area of life, without boundaries saying “This is political so it’s OK to lie here, or to let lies go uncontested here.” Wherever we say God isn’t welcome, there the devil will set up a sanctuary in which he ensnares - steals, kills, and destroys.

One of those sanctuaries is abortion. How many women have been ensnared in that, so that they spend the rest of their lives either hidden behind a wall of defensiveness screaming about their “rights”, or else falling apart every time they hear a vacuum? How many women turn to coping mechanisms that lead them away from the Word and away from people who bear the Word? It’s a trap. And one of the reasons it’s so effective is because we’re told that God can’t go there; it’s a “political issue”.

Another sanctuary is a life of theft - chronic welfare with no intent to ever stop stealing from everybody else. Again, we’re told it’s political so God is supposed to stay out of it. But God said, “You shall not steal.” And people’s lives are being destroyed - their spirits becoming depraved - because of an underlying belief in “entitlement”. It keeps them from ever being thankful for the gifts they’ve been given, because they think it’s just what they deserve. The lack of accountability has destroyed whole cultures - and that DOES result in cultures that once would have leaned on the Lord now leaning on welfare instead.

When you’ve got a society where people believe that stealing is fine, murder is fine, broken families and the things that lead to broken families are fine, there’s no such thing as a lie because there’s no such thing as the truth and we all just make up our own truth as we go along, every lifestyle is fine... you’ve got people whose soil is the beaten path - so hard it can’t receive the seed that is sown.

Yes, we sow the Word everywhere we go. But when most of the people in our society are soil beaten down from crushing lies stomping on it all the time, the soil has to be worked before it can ever receive the seed. I was just pulling weeds in the garden - heavy clay soil so a LOT of weeds. I’ve been nurturing that heavy clay for 12 years, adding humus, manure, sand, coffee grounds, leaves - you name it - anything to make the soil soft, porous, and full of nutrients. People are the same way, and the more our society falls to the religious lies disguised as “politics”, the harder we have to work just to prepare the soil.

It all matters. Yes, the primary marching order is to spread the news of salvation. But we need truth in all the devil’s hidden sanctuaries too, or there will be no soil able to receive the Law and Gospel.

The strongest condemnation of Israel in the Old Testament was this: “And every man did what was right in his own sight.” When that was the condition of the society, He had no choice but to humble them, punish them, and force them to see the hard realities of life. That may be where America is at right now. But the whole idea that people are accountable to laws and not justified no matter what they do simply because they make up their own rules is an important thing. And our politicians prance around mocking that very concept.

How much of the Psalms is David lamenting how the wicked prosper? The longing for justice is in our souls, but do the people who have lived under the political lies and prancing crooks in high places really believe justice is real, or that it matters?

It all matters. We need to be people of truth in every area of our life, because the devil will go wherever we’re not willing to go, and he will ensnare people there.

Here are the marching orders ...

Luke 24:44-49

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,

47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And you are witnesses of these things.

49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”

— — —

Also what Jesus told Pontius Pilate about his Kingdom ...

John 18:33-36

33 Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

34 Jesus answered him, “Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?”

35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?”

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Jesus is the one who sets up his government over all the nations. We’re not setting it up for Jesus - we’re simply to follow his command to spread the Gospel of Salvation to all the world.

This has nothing to do with Obama, or Impeachment, or removal from office, or the US Constitution, or the USA or any government in the world.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.

This government (Caesar) gives us not only the responsibility of paying taxes like the Roman government did, but it also demands vigilance. That is the responsibility of Christians as well as any other group - to be vigilant so that absolute power does not corrupt people already challenged by a fallen human nature (as all of us are).

This form of government is a gift from God. As with all His gifts, He wants us to cherish and protect it - and not use it for toilet paper instead.

I agreed with you that the primary task of a Christian is to spread the Law and Gospel to bring salvation to people. Part of that is tending the soil that is being trampled by lies and corruption. We also have the tasks of serving in our vocations, in our families, in our communities, and in our nation - all of which are a gift and all of which are avenues for us to be people of truth. Sometimes the only way people know to trust what we might tell them about the Bible is because they have seen that we are faithful and truthful in our vocation, or in our family, or in our nation. He who is faithful in a little will be faithful in a lot.

When God provides opportunities, we speak the Word of salvation.

All other times we live the truth wherever God has planted us. And right now, He’s got me in an America that desperately needs truth and the rule of law. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s means diligence; that is my vocation as a Christian in America right now. It is not keeping me from speaking the Word of salvation when the opportunities arise.

I never want to be so Heavenly-minded that I’m no earthly good. Heaven is where I belong; it’s what I long for with all my heart and where I want everyone to be with me. But I’m deployed to America right now, and He has me here for a reason.

I don’t have any problem in being a good citizen and participating fully in our Constitutional Republic. I say to everyone, take part in your civic responsibility and do what one should do as a citizen. That part is perfectly fine with me. It’s actually more than just fine, I figure it’s really mandatory as a citizen.

What I am not going to do, though, is connect up the Gospel message of Salvation with any particular party, with any government, with any piece of legislation, with any President, with the US Constitution, with the Declaration of Independence or anything of a political nature.

In fact, when the one-world government of the Messiah of Israel is set up by him (in the near future) with him ruling and reigning over all the nations of the world — every one of the Bill of Rights will be CANCELED and the entire US Constitution will be null and void! And the Messiah of Israel’s one-world government will be 100 times better than our Constitutional Republic. Our Constitutional Republic, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are absolute trash, when compared to the righteous and perfect government of the Messiah of Israel.

But, that’s not really an issue for us now, because right now we have been given by the Founding Fathers the best secular and man-made government that we could possibly have. And that’s the reality that we live in right now.

So we do our duty as responsible citizens for what we have in a secular government. But we don’t mix up the Gospel message of Salvation offered to each person individually with anything with the present secular government that we have. If one does that, or attempts to do that, with the salvation message for mankind, it corrupts what is perfect and holy with the profane and secular of a man-made government.

And just so it’s clear from this other angle, too ... I’m all for including in a man-made government the long-standing principles and traditions of Western Judeo-Christian society, from which we’ve arrived at this present point in time after hundreds of years. But, in no way, shape or manner does God or the Bible mandate a particular kind or form of government or a kind of political party we should have or participate in.

This government is NOT mandated by God and God is not saying that you should have “this or that” in a political party or in a Constitution. You only have individuals who are Christian who may carry forth some of their principles of life (which they may have personally carried forth from their personal faith), into the public sphere by way of conscience and personal motivation.

In the end God will TOTALLY DESTROY this present form of government as EVIL and as OF THE DEVIL, and replace it and all the other governments in the world with his perfect, righteous and holy governmental THEOCRACY, ruled by the Messiah of Israel with a “rod of iron”!

Regarding contingency plans and whether the military addresses various scenarios, including if the POTUS is an enemy combatant..... this is taken from http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/bellringers_corner/hello_central/news.php?q=1256853577

(If there are retired or active duty military officers who are reading this and can either affirm or deny the likelihood of this scenario being addressed within military classes, as well as whether this prescribed response fits what they were taught..... please let me know, either here or in Freepmail. Thanks! =)

It is introduced this way:

>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Dear Patrick,

I did some inquiry with some fellow retired and active duty military officers that are in the know, concerning the question of “who has the authority to arrest the President?” Some serve in the Pentagon. This is the best response I received from an awesome fellow Patriot. I will withhold his name to protect him from retaliation. However, he is not afraid. This matches what I was taught in the Intelligence schools and military schools at Air University and other Universities that I have attended. I served my Country and the US Constitution for 32 years as an Air Force Officer. I still work as a consultant on matters of national security...”
>>>>>>>>>>

And this is the response that he got from a retired or active duty military officer:

>>>>>>>>>>
“Question: Does the Provost Marshal General of the Army or Marine Corp have the athority to arrest the President?

This would not ‘usually’ be the case. The Provost Marshal General of The Army is a Headquarters US Army flag officer position and serves directly under the Chief of Staff - US Army.

In one of our legal classes in Command & Staff School - Air University, the scenario was built classroom-style that greatly parallels the terrible situation we find ourselves in today. (Please remember that these classes were taught by Harvard Law School folks with a string of letters behind their names as long as your arm.)

“It has been determined that the president has committed treason in a manner unmistakable to all. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff convenes a covert meeting to get a vote of the JCS. (Here is where the Provost Marshall General of the Army and/or Marines may be in attendance.)

Please remember at this time that a military officer takes an oath of office to do one thing and one thing only - “....... to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign OR DOMESTIC.” They must determine above a reasonable doubt that the enemy domestic is the treasonous president.

A convoy of 10 to 12 HIGH ranking officers depart the Pentagon, accompanied by a large contingent of Military Police (Provost Marshal General??) and all necessary armament and provisions to enter the grounds of the White House, by FORCE if necessary, proceed to the location of the president and put him under arrest.

(This scenario is when we are not at DECLARED WAR)

Then, The Chairman of the JCS would advise the Speaker of The House, The President of the Senate, The Attorney General and the Secretary of State of their actions.

In times of DECLARED WAR, the president can be shot on the spot if he resists or is a threat to the nation or those around him. Please remember, that the last DECLARED WAR was the second world war, declared on 8 December 1941.

Why haven’t we seen this today. Simple - we are devoid of Constitutional military leadership - they have morphed into political, pussified, wishy-washy, pants-wetting yes-men. (Enough to make you puke)

Hope this helps.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Okay ... that’s fine in terms of the government and not mixing it up with salvation.

I’ll only say this one idea, in passing, about prophetic events (things to come, according to God’s Word).

Can you imagine this concept ... let’s say I write a series of letters to you but I write them thinking to myself that you’ll never understand what I mean in what I’m trying to get across to you until you are dead and in the afterlife. Wouldn’t that be an absolutely crazy way of thinking about me writing letters to you?

OR ... let’s say that you are the one, who in receiving these letters from me, are thinking to yourself that you’ll never be able to understand them, no matter what you do and that it’s something you’ll only know after you die. Wouldn’t that be an absolutely ludicrous way of thinking?

Can you even imagine what this kind of concept would do in terms of contracts and contract law? You would tell the judge that ... “You can’t expect me or anyone else to ever understand or know for sure what this contract means until after we’re dead, can you?”

Better yet, it would be sorta like the Democrats saying that you won’t know what the piece of legislation is about until you pass it! ... LOL ...

LIKEWISE ... can you imagine a person telling God, as the supreme and perfect and all-powerful being, the Almighty God of the Bible, that he does not have the ability to have his word given to us and have us understand it UNTIL we are dead and have passed on to the afterlife, after which time “it will have happened” - and only then will we understand what God was trying to tell us!

Isn’t that a GREAT INSULT to the Almighty God and Supreme being of the universe, that although he has the capability to speak worlds into existence out of mere words spoken by him and out of absolutely nothing before — that — he’s a bit DEFICIENT in the “language category” and unfortunately we won’t be able to really understand what he was trying so hard to let us know “until it has already happened!

I don’t believe we should be INSULTING our Creator God of the universe and tell him he can’t write good enough for us to understand him!

Is it God’s fault that there are many different interpretations of Revelation? It is a fact that there are many different interpretations. Is that an insult to God? Does it mean that God is too stupid to write clearly?

I don’t believe so. Ezekiel and Daniel weren’t necessarily understood well until what they predicted had already come to pass, and a lot of Revelation is practically straight out of those 2 apocalyptic writings, with a lot of symbolism that even now are not interpreted by orthodox Jews the same way that Christians interpret them.

But the mere existence of different interpretations would just about have to prove that God’s a lousy writer, based on what you’ve said.

Jesus’ mother “pondered these things in her heart” after the shepherds came to see the baby in the manger. She didn’t understand at the moment but she trusted that she would know what she was supposed to know when she was supposed to know it. That’s how I look at Revelation. I believe I understand the major themes, and I believe that my interpretation makes the most sense, given the totality of Scripture. But I could be mistaken. I will only know for sure when it’s all done, and when I can ask the LORD what He meant. In the meantime, I have a glimpse of the victory of the Lamb who was slain, and the promise that even though we will suffer here the Lord is with us and He and we will eventually be vindicated and I and all believers will receive the promised eternal life with God.

The moment in history when I would most have liked to be there is on the Emmaus road when Jesus explained from the Old Testament scriptures how they all pointed to Him. I don’t believe I’ve caught everything that’s there, and it’s not because God is a stupid writer. It’s because the Word is rich enough to last a lifetime without a person catching everything that is there. Things I thought I understood just fine all of a sudden take on new fulness as I learn more. That’s what growing in the Word is.

For instance, I’ve always loved where Jesus says to take His yoke and learn from Him, for His yoke is easy and His burden light. But when I understood that they yoke a weak ox with a strong one, with the weak one just keeping the yoke even while the strong one pulls the heavy weight, it made more sense to me. Jesus was saying He knows we are weak and He will be right beside us pulling the heavy weight. Wow, that is fantastic news! And when I learned from Paul Maier that 2nd-century writings said that Jesus’ carpentry was to make yokes and plows, and that His workmanship was so good that the yokes and plows He made were still being used in the 2nd century.... it added a layer of fun to what Jesus said too, like He was playing on an advertisement He might have made. I can almost hear the people laughing at the pun even while grasping the deeper meaning, and it makes a picture MUCH richer than I had at the beginning, even though I was sure I “understood” it from the very beginning. I can’t help but LIKE this Jesus, as well as love Him because He first loved me.

I don’t understand everything yet. I could be wrong on a lot of things. But I do believe I understand what is necessary and I’m open to learn about the rest as the Lord walks with me through the events of my life. My need to grow does not mean that God is stupid or an ineffective communicator. It just means I need to grow.

OMG! B, you have officially jumped the shark. Not only are you advocating a military coup, you are citing whackadoodle nutjob websites to support that crazy, illegal, unconstitutional notion!

I linked you to an official opinion paper by the Department of Justice which cites the Constitution, laws, and court cases to conclude that the President of the United States may not be arrested and detained. You obviously ignore anything which doesn’t support your desire for the military to arrest and detain a sitting President. Instead you search on the internet for anything which might back your idiotic idea. Well, lo and behold, you come across a whackadoodle nutjob website which does just that.

I like how you conveniently omit part of what that whackadoodle you quoted said. You left out: “The good guys outnumber the bad ones, but the bad ones have their allegiance tied to the New World Order, and the Illuminati Masters, so they utilize that power to override the authority of the good guys.”

Of course, if you bothered to do a little research, you might find out exactly who is behind that whackadoodle website. I just love their objectives, found on their Mission Statement page (http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_static/general/our_mission.php). Go there and read all the objectives, but they include things such as: “To reveal the evil world leaders’ cover-up of off-world humans (our ancestors), who are here in starships in Earth’s atmosphere at this time, and who have come with good intent to help us prevent the evil Plan 2000 from being accomplished, and to help us establish the New Age of Enlightenment.”

Yup, B, that’s the group you’re going to for legal advice. They’re about as unChristian a group as you will find.

I brought this information here so I could ask retired and active military Freepers to tell me if these claims are credible.

It’s something researchers do. I don’t expect you to understand.

The answer this guy says he got from the retired and active military officers he spoke to matches what was claimed in a report by a guy who claimed that Obama had shipped a nuke from Nevada to the east coast to detonate but a military commander instead had the nuke detonated in the Atlantic - which would explain an “earthquake” with a seemingly abnormal/unnatural seismic pattern. The claim at that time was that the Navy Yard shooting was to stop the Joint Chiefs of Staff from carrying out what this guy says is taught in the officers’ classes where they address such scenarios.

I watched at the time, to see if military people would refute/contest the claim that this Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting would happen or that this is the way that officers are supposed to keep their officers’ oath when the POTUS is clearly waging attacks against America. I was neutral on the story because I don’t know anything about any of this stuff, so I wanted to hear if this was credible. Though some said they don’t believe this is what happened, or who questioned whether the purge of military officers afterwards was related to this, I don’t remember seeing military people here saying that this procedure is non-credible. Maybe I just missed it; if so perhaps somebody can show me the posts by military Freepers who contested the plausibility this procedure for arresting a POTUS at war with the country he’s supposed to protect.

I addressed the DOJ opinion using some questions. I noticed that you never responded to this questions, which is par for your course. I’ll briefly restate them:

Is there a difference between somebody arresting a POTUS for a minor infraction, versus arresting him for attempting to nuke a US city? If the DOJ sees no difference between these 2 scenarios and their opinion is so inflexible that it cannot adapt to the difference, then their ability to grasp legal nuances is seriously in question.

There is back-up in case the POTUS is unable to carry out his Constitutional functions, temporarily or permanently. The Constitution assumes that cases will arise where this happens - due to illness, death, or Constitutional disqualification, for instance. Why, then, should the DOJ insist that Constitutional disqualification (for instance, treason or national security reasons which are to be handled by Congress) must NEVER EVER be able to happen with the POTUS only, even though others whose jobs are also critical MAY be arrested? What function would the nation be without if the POTUS was arrested/detained for trying to nuke a US city, for instance?

How would the DOJ allow the nation to be protected from a desperate enemy-combatant POTUS while impeachment was underway? If the POTUS was truly a traitor/enemy and was allowed to still control the nuclear football, for instance, what would stop him from using it on the US? Or if he was truly conspiring with America’s enemies what would stop him from deliberately clearing the way for 20,000 Manpads that he allowed Al Qaeda and other terrorists to get (or the weapons he directly provided to terrorist groups) to be used against an American city, airplane, etc so that he could declare martial law and effectively get rid of the impeachment process?

I’m asking serious questions and they deserve serious answers, not just more of the blah-blah Alinsky you regularly serve up.

It’s something researchers do. I don’t expect you to understand.

The issue of whether a sitting President of the United States can be arrested and detained is a legal question. What's your legal research background? For me, I have a Master's Degree in Business Taxation. My University professors knew how to teach legal research! You look to the Constitution. You look to laws, to regulations, to court case analysis and decisions. I may have specialized in tax law, but I certainly appreciate what goes into researching Constitutional law. Ultimately, the Constituion rules. All laws, regulations, and court decisions must be decided based on the Constitution. The Constitution controls.

Let me make an analogy you might appreciate. If you're researching a Biblical question, where do you start? I start with the Bible. I will look at what my church teaches and read the verses they use in support of their position. I will look at respected Commentaries and the writings of religious folks I respect. But I always go back to the Bible verses referenced by all those sources. The Bible is the source of Truth.

So now the question before us is: Can a sitting President of the United States be arrested and detained? I look to the Constitution. I look to respected sources. That's where I found the opinion of the Department of Justice. They don't say "That's what they taught me." No, they quote from the Constitution. They quote from court cases. They discuss why they are deciding what they are deciding. But ultimately everything is based on the Constitution.

Your approach to Constitutional research? Apparently you didn't like the Department of Justice's opinion. But do you read the carefully researched document and show where they are wrong based on the Constitution and relevant court cases? No. You do the equivalent of Christian-lite cherry picking of Bible verses. You find the Bible verses which, when taken out of context, clearly support your unChristian viewpoint. Except that, in this case, it's an unConstitional website you've decided is worthy of your respect. Did you even read the viewpoints on that website??? "The longer answer is that the Constitution was suspended by FDR in 1933 via his EMERGENCY BANKING PROCLAMATIONS and subsequent LEGISLATION. Since then we have been ruled by 'public policy' not the Constitution." Those are the folks you're looking to for answers about the Constitution??? And the opinion you like is one person just saying, "That's what I was taught." No legal rational. No cites or references. Just "trust me, we can arrest a sitting President." Shoot, that's even lower than cherry picking Bible verses, because they aren't even quoting Bible verses!

Again, no, the military is not allowed to detain a sitting President. That is a military coup. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional.

And paranoid ranting from the lunatic fringe - "He may nuke a U.S. city" - are given the weight they deserve - NONE.

You didn't like that I didn't respond to your questions, but they are all answered in the DoJ opinion. I'm not going to regurgitate the document if you are incapable of reading and understanding it.

If you are concerned about the actions of the President, bring your concerns up to your Representative. They are the ones who can initiate impeachment proceedings.

You bring up the idea of Obama committing treason and call for special rules in that instance. That's not necessary. Treason by the President is specifically covered in the section on impeachment. "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." Removed from office after convicted. Until then, they continue to hold their office. That's what the Constitution says!

If Obama does something clearly illegal, such as 2nd amendmenting John Boehner, than I suppose that he would be declared disabled (by reason of insanity) under Article Two, Clause Six of the Constitution. But the Constitution and all the procedures in place would be followed to declare him disabled. I also suppose that would be the fastest impeachment and trial possible.

But, again, there is no provision for the military to get involved. We are not a banana republic. We do not sanction coups. We follow the Constitution.

I’m asking serious questions and they deserve serious answers, not just more of the blah-blah Alinsky you regularly serve up.

No, like usual you are imagining outlandish scenarios and rejecting answers you don't care for. Instead of looking for the right answer, you are cherry picking sources to get the answer you want. That's intellectually dishonest.

What you are saying is that even if Obama activated a nuke that he believed was in DC and not deep in the Atlantic Ocean, nobody could do a darn thing to stop him from having the nuclear football for at least another 6 months or so that it takes to do an impeachment - all because that’s the DOJ’s opinion of what the Constitution says.

Unless they use the preferred communist method of unaccountability - declaring him insane. The only difference between that and a military coup is that it is a political coup. Anything to keep the power in the hands of the already-too-powerful. Who gets to decide that the POTUS is insane? Let me guess - the politically-motivated Congress which obstructs justice by voting on the basis of politics rather than evidence?

And the officers’ oath HAS to mean nothing. The country is forcing our military officers to perjure themselves by making them take an oath they are never allowed to keep.

I don’t buy it.

I was responding to a comment that anybody in the military who suggested that Obama be arrested for attacking the US would be removed right away. If what these people have said is correct, the instructors with advanced Harvard law degrees are outright TEACHING that this IS the contingency plan for when a POTUS blatantly attacks the US.

I wanted to find out if that is what the advanced law degree people ARE teaching the military - because if that is true, it makes the DOJ “opinion” suspect.

I read the opinion quite a while ago, and what I remember from it is that it is just that - opinion. The scenario pondered in one of the cited cases, IIRC, was whether somebody could arrest a Congress member or the POTUS for speeding in order to keep them from a vote - and the answer was that you can’t do that - and it was extrapolated that you therefore can never arrest a POTUS in that kind of scenario.

And again I say, if the law can’t tell the difference between arresting somebody for speeding and arresting somebody who has done an action he thought would blow up Washington DC.... then the whole rationale for martial law is blown to bits. The whole idea of martial law is that when there is great danger, sometimes the normal guarantees - even of the Constitution - MUST be suspended.

Does the DOJ say that martial law is unconstitutional?

Does the DOJ say that all the Constitutional guarantees that have been suspended by folks like the NSA, TSA, etc because of the “war on terror” are unconstitutional and so they must never, ever happen?

When they start applying the same logic to the POTUS as they apply to other terrorists with the potential to kill thousands if not millions of Americans, then and only then will I take them seriously.

But then maybe they are. The terrorists that Obama has trained and armed can hop on a plane to the US without having to go through the TSA, or they can waltz right through our open southern door that Eric Holder is making sure they can go through without anybody stopping them. It’s just the 90-year-old nuns who have to be photographed naked or groped. God knows those little old nuns are SO MUCH MORE dangerous than an enemy in the White House or his terrorist allies that he’s armed, trained, funded, released, and enabled in every way imagineable.

Spit. If this country buys this crap, it deserves everything it’s going to get. And it’s gonna be bad, bad, bad.

My questions still stand; you have not once addressed my questions - and it does no good to point to the DOJ opinion because it doesn’t address those questions either. AND that opinion was from 1973 and updated in 2000 - BEFORE 9-11-01. If so, the whole “Constitutional guarantees can be suspended because of the asymmetrical warfare we face” rationale wasn’t even brought up, so that opinion is WAY out-of-date - in effect, overruled by what’s transpired since 9-11-01.

The court rulings on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act would come to bear on issues such as whether a terrorist POTUS could be arrested. If nuns can be groped before being allowed on an airplane, without violating the Constitutional protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures”, then a LOT more is “reasonable” now than before 9-11-01...

My questions still stand, and you are refusing to address them.

I also still want to know if military officers are taught by the advanced-degree Harvard law people that this is the proper procedure for keeping their oaths to the Constitution and protecting the country from an enemy POTUS.

Also, the 20th Amendment mentions specific situations in which a POTUS has not yet been removed from the OFFICE but is still not allowed to ACT as POTUS. Arresting a POTUS does not remove them from office. It disables them from ACTING as POTUS, with the Congressionally-approved line of succession being followed as to who ACTS as President during the interim. Arresting the POTUS if/when he attacks the US... contradicts nothing in the Constitution.

One other note: the DOJ opinion that you cite was first written by Nixon’s DOJ in the year before he resigned (not sure whether that was right before, or right after, Nixon’s alleged crimes but either way it could have been the clearing the way for him to not be arrested for said crimes).

It was reaffirmed by Janet Reno’s DOJ right after Clinton was impeached but not convicted of the SMALLEST of criminal claims that were brewing (perjury and obstruction of justice regarding consentual sex with Monica Lewinsky) - shortly after 2 Congressional investigations had called for AG Janet Reno to appoint an independent investigation of even more consequential potential crimes committed by Clinton (selling White House visits for campaign cash, and giving away national security secrets to the Chinese). Just like Eric Holder today, AG Janet Reno was in her position to make sure that justice was never done for the POTUS who appointed her.

And Clinton went even farther; immediately he appointed the “Magnificent Seven” (later expanded to 8) DC Circuit judges to cover for him just in case his crimes actually made it to court. Those “Magnificent 8” met privately once a month to decide which of them was going to hear which of the criminal cases against Clinton and his cronies. Those “Magnificent 8” have been overturned at a very high rate.

The 8th of that “Magnificent 8” was the judge who decided that it was “frivolous” for military people to question the
Constitutional qualifications of Obama, because Obama had already been ruled to be eligible through Twitter. A precedent that somebody else should try to use so it can be smacked down as it deserves....

Even though Janet Reno effectively blocked investigation of Clinton’s more serious crimes, Clinton needed to claim he was above arrest by ANYBODY because the military, when it saw that Clinton’s giving away of national security secrets was not going to be investigated, began its own investigation into potential “front companies” through which the Chinese were getting critical classified information. They began an intelligence project called “Able Danger” to do datamining that would show fishy “Discover the Networks” type relationships. This group discovered a fishy Al Qaeda “cell” led by Mohammad Atta, but they were dumped by the DOJ because they also found fishy actions between a company owned by SecDef Perry and a Chinese “front company” owned by the wife of the Chinese military leader - which was used for Perry to sell encrypted satellite technology (”dual-use” technology forbidden for disclosure) to the Chinese military (as eventually forced to be revealed because when Judicial Watch won a FOIA lawsuit).

Because the DOJ was desperate to get rid of the suspicions surrounding SecDef Perry, they destroyed the intelligence on the Mohammad Atta AQ cell - resulting in the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9-11-01. That should have shown everybody within government just how badly Clinton and his regime sold out America for their own political/financial interests. Treason is deadly, and when arrests are not made, LOTS of Americans die.

So this DOJ opinion that you’re talking about was created right when Nixon was going to need protection from arrest, and it was reaffirmed by Janet Reno right when Bill Clinton needed protection from arrest - not only from the DOJ or other law enforcement but also potentially by the military. It takes a ruling regarding frivolous arrest of Congress members to keep them from voting on bills (something that nobody else can do for them while they are incapacitated), and claims that means that a POTUS can NEVER be arrested while in office even though the duties of his office will ALWAYS be covered even when he is incapacitated.

This was all done BEFORE 9-11-01, which shook the legal system into saying that national security trumps (or maybe “redefines” is a better word) a LOT of Constitutional protections.

And you’re calling me a flake for questioning the claims made by this DOJ opinion, which was used by their AG picks to protect two of the past crooks in the White House. And in fact, it was used to protect the 2nd crook in the White House while his regime was purging info that could have protected us from 9-11-01 in an effort to hide the national-security-breaching crimes of SecDef Perry.

It’s two different scenarios.

If any president goes nuts and starts shooting up the place, his security detail will stop him by whatever means necessary. There are others here (and elsewhere, you know who they are and who I mean) who can fill you in on that in a lot more detail, but it is a scenario they do train for. Unlikely, but it’s their job to cover any threat.

In terms of the military arresting the Worm for treason though - there simply isn’t a mechanism. The founders never figured on it. Assassination, sure, it’s covered. Death during an attack - that is covered about 12 levels deep. The idea that the President himself could be a traitor never really caught their eye, apart from the (slight and legally and morally very weak) justification of the Oath every one in uniform swears.

There is a lot of protections in the law, the constitution and indeed in officer training against the possibility of a military coup - which is what the overthrow of a sitting president would be. Foremost is the deeply entrenched tradition of civilian oversight of the military.

Obaama has an odd status. He is both considered military (as CinC) and not considered so - as he is technically in charge, he’s in the chain of command and can be over-ruled by the SecDef, who is both his subordinate and his superior at the same time.

On a more cautious front - treason is very hard to prove. Sedition has much looser standards for a conviction. Please be careful what you advocate? Pick your words wisely.

Blessings to you and you have my email if you wish to take this more private.

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.