Skip to comments.Impeachment
Posted on 06/27/2014 5:09:42 PM PDT by kingattax
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Impeachment cannot apply.
Your King gave up his citizenship as an adolescent."
Ummm ... I saw how the votes went with Clinton and the Democrats in the Senate ... :-) ...
umm..did you call that clinton farce a “trial” ?
Being that the republs love having the someone they can blame things on when convenient, they will not impeach. If possibly perhaps after the elections and they win majority, then there may be a chance.
Until then, don’t even think about it.
It would be the exact same farce ... you make a good point.
only if trent lott was still in charge.
Impeach America’s first black Messiah? Fat chance.
Besides congress not having the balls, the Marxist media would go ballistic.
The weasels won't want to risk losing their ill-gotten gains so still no chance of impeachment of the historic Obama. Unfortunately they are totally worthless.
Crap.. Oballah will be yodeling from the Whitehouse...
GOPe isnt really interested in being the majority party in congress.
they do better fundraising when they are in the minority.
something to think about.
What needs to happen is for the military to classify Obama as an enemy combatant, detain him, and send him to Gitmo.
With Obama unable to discharge the duties of the office, we’d go down the line of succession until we came to somebody who was not ALSO an enemy combatant giving aid to Obama and the communist-Islamist alliance he colluded with to destroy America from within.
I’m not sure how far down the line of succession we’d have to go before we came to somebody who isn’t an enemy combatant who gave aid, comfort, and cover to Obama who everybody knew was ineligible and an enemy combatant.
The only way I could see Boehner rightfuly getting off a treason charge is if he can prove that he was threatened, with America herself taken hostage - as, for instance, if Obama’s handlers said the communist-Islamist alliance would make another run on the bank to collapse the US economy if Boehner didn’t do as he was told.
This will fire up Obama's only remaining loyal constituency- the black vote. By firing them up, the Dems are hoping to lessen some of the damage this November.
LOL ... are you talking about Egypt and Libya -or- the USA?
I keep reminding people that we are a Constitutional Republic, but the answer I get back sometimes is that ... “We must kill the Constitution in order to save it!” ... :-) ...
If they failed to remove him from office, they would be voted out of office the next election.
I believe the NDAA gives the US military the authority to detain even US citizens they classify as “belligerents” - so how much MORE the authority to detain a foreigner (unless Obama can prove he naturalized as a US citizen at some point) who actually qualifies as an enemy combatant through objective measures such as:
1. funding terrorists
2. arming terrorists
3. training terrorists
4. giving terrorists safe haven
5. propagandizing/recruiting for terrorists
6. belonging in a terrorist organization
7. securing the release of terrorists
8. falsifying government records to make terrorists appear to not be terrorists, to keep them from being arrested/detained/brought to justice
9. aiding in terrorists’ infiltration into the country by thwarting the nation’s due diligence
See #13. I believe it would be lawful under the NDAA.
The Democrats, President and Eric Holder know that Obama can do anything he wants and give everyone a middle finger as long as Dems control Senate. Boehner is going to file a lawsuit, so what, what court of law will take it? What Prosecutor will take it? How long will it all take? This will result in nothing.
News Media is still covering for this President and the Dems- they could rip the heart of a child on a stage on TV and I swear people would still vote and protect Obama and the Democrats.
Then we have the GOP-E who throws one of their own under the bus in favor of old coot who resorts to KKK and Democratic tactics to win at all costs.
Vote them out? Well we seen how that turned out with Cochran. Now that opens the door and gave a nod to other Repubs to play dirty and win at any cost.
Impeachment? No way as long as Dems control Senate.
President can’t even be arrested until he is impeached and convicted.
We have missing emails, crashed hard drives, and the supporters of Obama and Dems are able to spin this as false scandals.
Honestly- there really is not anything we can do to stop this maniac and his troops before the next Election- they are going to throw everything out there, by pass Congress, more executive orders all on their own.
What would people do if Obama wrote an executive order that said as of today, all guns will be seized, guns are banned, you will be thrown in prison or shot on the spot if you have a gun?
What would we do today if Obama declared no borders anymore and calls America North America like they are planning to do?
The Military heads he has ensured to follow his orders will do so, the Union Police will follow his orders, Sheriiffs too for the most part.
I am sorry- but what I saw that went down in Mississippi just shows that we will not recover from this; we can vote for the Democrat to teach the GOP a lesson and that will cost us the Senate perhaps...meaning Obama and Dems can continue to do even more damage until next Presidential election...and then if a Dem is running- we can expect more fraudulent votes and we can expect the GOP to run a Rhino who throws the election to the Dems..
The chances of us getting a decent Republican in the WH is slim to none.
Is it even worth anymore to vote?
Pardon, but my .02:
What needs to happen is everyone stop reacting to all the intentional BS being tossed about by both sides and focus on getting RATs OUT of the Senate and more (mostly) friendly a$$es in those chairs to facilitate “doing what needs to be done”.
Congress is the ONLY branch of government we have half a chance at controlling every few years.
Personally, I’m sick and tired of all the manipulation (mostly from Progs/RATs, but now we see from the GOP as well...Mississippi).
How high up does somebody have to be in the military, to classify someone as an enemy combatant and capture them, according to the NDAA?
Anybody know enough about that law to address what I’ve suggested?
That has “Banana Republic” written all over it. ... :-) ...
That’s what WE need to do, yes. Along with being prepared for the S to HTF, because Obama knows his time is limited.
But the military needs to classify him as an enemy combatant, capture him, and put him in Gitmo. I believe they are authorized to do that, and both the spirit and the letter of the law is satisfied if they use the same measures to classify Obama as they would use if they were evaluating anybody else.
I listed some measures for determining if somebody is a terrorist, and Obama meets EVERY qualification.
Maybe somebody knows what formula the military actually uses; I’m sure the issues I mentioned play into the classification. They have a duty to evaluate Obama just as they would evaluate anybody else. This is national defense, after all. The officers all made an oath to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. If Obama fits the bill, they have a duty to obey their oath, and the NDAA authorizes them to do just that.
If the determination was made on the basis of politics it would. But that’s not what I am suggesting.
Any objective measure of what constitutes an enemy combatant comes up saying Obama is one. This isn’t politics. This isn’t banana republic. This is the military doing what both the NDAA and their officer’s oath DEMANDS that they do.
Sort of like the Honduran Constitution REQUIRED the government to oust the guy who tried to serve 2 terms. It was not a military coup or a banana republic; it was the system obeying their Constitution.
Of course it’s worth it to vote, in order to give support to others to vote likewise. Think of it as a process which will outlive you. You’re doing it for future generations.
And other measures are having an effect. The US Supreme Court has slapped down Obama in an unprecedented 12 times. If the US House of Representatives succeeds with the US Supreme Court, it will severely constrain Obama.
Boehner to Seek Bill to Sue Obama Over Executive Actions
Don’t overlook the fact that Obama has already been constrained quite severely from what he “wanted” to do.
Plus, wouldn't they have to get the Speaker of the House sobered up first?
Well, I can’t help you to see it simply won’t work, because of the long traditions of the USA being a Constitutional Republic. There’s absolutely nothing in all our traditions for our entire history that would give any “backing” for this.
All you are offering is a “Johnny-come-lately” law, designed for terrorists that the public recognizes as terrorists - against - the entire history of the USA and its Constitution.
If you can’t see that ... there’s nothing much more I can do about that.
Executive power and military power under the Constitution is given to the president. It would be ludicrous to think the president could be arrested by subordinates under powers derived from him.
More to the point, the Constitution makes the President C in C. No law can override that.
BS. He can be tried for treason.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the President shall not be evaluated for treason and/or enemy combatant status in the same way that anybody else is?
Seems to me that equal protection and due process demand that he BE evaluated by the same standards in all matters of the law.
If Obama took a vacation to Hawaii and then nuked Washington DC, what would the Constitution say should be done about it? What role, if any, does the War Powers Act play in that, or Congress’ standing authorization for the military to detain terrorist enemy combatants in defense of this nation?
That’s what the Constitution says about the role of the military in defense of this nation. The Congress is to authorize the military, and they’ve already given standing authorization for the military to detain enemy combatants - even “belligerents” which is a much lower standard and isn’t even defined - recognizing that the warfare against us is not 2 armies lining up and shooting at each other in an open field. Our enemies today pose as our friends in order to get access to us and kill us. That’s why we have the NDAA, duly passed into law.
What you are saying writes out of the Constitution Congress’ vital role in authorizing war. Is that really what you want to do?
The Constitution does make provision for what you say ... it’s called “Impeachment” and then “Conviction”.
Of course we saw how that worked for Clinton in the Senate.
Not arrested. Detained. It’s authorized by the NDAA. Does the NDAA exclude the executive branch from among those who can be detained? Does it require the CINC to sign off if, for instance, they wanted to come knocking on my door and haul me away for being “belligerent”?
The logic you’re using would say that no police chief could be arrested if one of the guys under him caught him murdering somebody. I don’t buy it. In fact, I believe that the 14th Amendment speaks loudly against that. The law is NOT to be a respecter of persons but is to treat all equally, and having a political office does not make one exempt from the law - especially not when it regards what Congress (the body authorized by the Constitution) has decreed regarding the making of war and of national defense when asymmetric warfare is the warfare used against us.
Are you saying that Congress cannot authorize the military to detain enemy combatants for the sake of national defense?
Bear in mind - I am not saying the military should remove Obama from the Presidency. I am saying that they are authorized to DETAIN him as an enemy combatant. Congress can decide what to do from there - whether to impeach him or not, but while he is detained he could not dispense the duties of the office and so the Constitutionally-authorized line of succession would come into play as to who is to ACT AS PRESIDENT, just as it would if he was shot like Reagan and temproarily (or permanently; that would be up to Congress) couldn’t perform the duties.
I don’t see how releasing the Taliban 5 while we still have soldiers in the field fighting the Taliban, was not treason. Seems pretty black and white to me.
I’ve never seen a Republican candidate for President fight a dem like they did one of their own in MS. It was so disgusting.
Unless I’m quite confused, the military is prohibited by posse comitatus, and probably other laws, from performing law enforcement in the United States, except under very specific exceptions.
Do you really, seriously want to set a precedent for the military to remove presidents from office?
I don’t know . . I thought the Clinton trial was the proper application of Scottish law - more or less
Ironically, it would be the ONE thing the Republican party could do to salvage its image, which right now is on life support.
A while back there was a claim that Obama had moved a nuke from Nevada to the east coast, with plans to detonate it there and bring about martial law. I think it was shortly before the Navy Yard shooting. What was said in that claim was that there is somebody who has the responsibility of ARRESTING the President if he clearly wages war against the country.
Who remembers who that person is, and what is the legal/Constitutional justification for that?
That is for an ARREST.
The legal justification for DETAINMENT is already there in the NDAA, unless there is some clause that excludes the POTUS from among those who can be detained. And they can be detained just for being “belligerent”. Those who paid for, trained, provided logistics for, harbored, etc the 9-11 attackers are considered to have been attackers too. They committed an act of war against the US by doing those things.
Well.... so has Obama...
How many acts of war against us does he have to commit before he gets evaluated the same way that any of our other enemies get evaluated? Right now he is keeping the states from being able to protect our borders from invasion by groups that we KNOW include Hezbollah and Hamas operatives bent on killing us. What does he have to do before that is called an act of war? Personally walk them to a plane and hand them a bomb?
Instead of "blaming Obama", the right needs to indict him and his minions.
While the rule of letting the crimes of past Administrations go has been a constant in the USA, these sons of degenerate whores are outside of that box,and merit prosecution with extreme prejudice.
Maybe you didn’t get to the post where I explained that I am not talking about military removing a President from office. I am talking about military detaining enemy combatants, regardless of who they are.
Do you believe that Congress lawfully gives the military the authority to do that in the NDAA?
And do you believe that the NDAA is about NATIONAL DEFENSE, not law enforcement? Law enforcement is after the fact; national defense is PREVENTING an enemy combatant from being able to blow up the whole country.
After the mid-terms the house Republicans will say “His term is almost over. We’ll just let him stay because the senate would never convict anyway.”
435 “representatives” and not a single spine on anyone with an (R) after their name. My congressman won’t return calls or answer emails. He’s part of the problem.
Who has th eballs to start it? There has to be some men in the House not the gutless punks.
If Obama has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, then Congress is obligated to impeach him. The military can have no role in removing a sitting President.
Why do Democrats and liberals have to cheat? Even Republican liberals?
Liberals have to cheat because there aren't enough of them. They'd lose if they didn't cheat.
The image of Obama-loving throngs put forth in the MSM is just a fake projection. So are a lot of the votes that install these people in positions of authority and power.
Just sayin' :^) Americans are smarter than what the MSM projects.
Again, maybe you didn’t get to the post where I explained that I am not talking about the military removing a sitting President. I’m talking about the military detaining an enemy combatant to prevent them from being able to inflict serious harm on the country.
Does the NDAA authorize the military to do that - to detain enemy combatants to keep them from inflicting serious harm, as indicated by previous actions/connections/stated intentions/ associations, etc that fit objective, pre-determined criteria for an enemy combatant?
If Obama had blown up Washington, DC with a nuke, would somebody have had the authority to arrest him after the fact? If so, who? Would somebody have had the authority to DETAIN him if they knew in advance that he planned to blow up DC? If so, who?
If not, then how does Congress impeach somebody when they’ve already been blown to bits by the guy they authorized the military to detain in order to protect the country but the military refused because they might look “political” to the media - some portion of which also got blown up?
Unfortunately the officer corpse (that’s intentional) has been gutted by the Puppet and replaced with soldiers devoted to his mindset...
The bigger enemy, imho, are the liberals next door/across the street/at work that EVERYONE knows, those that can replace this idiot with another to continue the pain.
“That’s about all I got to say ‘bout that.”
According to the NDAA, does it have to be an officer who determines that somebody is an enemy combatant and detains them?
That’s an honest question; I don’t know the answer and would appreciate an answer if somebody knows, especially if it includes a citation so I know where to look.
Yet, a thorough impeachment in the House could end Obama’s reign of tyranny by forcing him to spend his resources to defend himself. Time spent defending himself is time he is not spending further ruining this country.
Given that impeachment is a highly personal attack, Obama the narcissist will be enraged. Enraged people do stupid things (see Bill C & what the definition of ‘is’ is) that often bring harm to their cause.
The MSM cannot avoid covering an impeachment as they have the many other Obama scandals. Impeachment proceedings will bring these crimes out in the open for discussion & debate. As most of Obama’s acts are indefensible, the Left can side with criminality, be silent, or reveal themselves as biased fools. Impeachment will be top news for months.
I do NOT recommend beginning the impeachment until AFTER the November election, as the Pubs have a chance to take the Senate majority. Impeachment could give clever talking Obama & Co. a campaigning boost. He will be all alone after November.
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.