Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question. Can "We" as citizens call for impeachment of the President and can we do it by ballot?

Posted on 09/02/2010 2:16:50 PM PDT by jongaltsr

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 09/02/2010 2:16:51 PM PDT by jongaltsr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

Nope and nope.

Longer answer forthcoming.


2 posted on 09/02/2010 2:18:13 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

There is no constitutional means for doing so.


3 posted on 09/02/2010 2:18:52 PM PDT by Danae (Anal nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do che'l de'nmha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

It is possible if there is a full moon.


4 posted on 09/02/2010 2:19:47 PM PDT by Mark was here (It's either Obama or America. There cannot be both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

No.


5 posted on 09/02/2010 2:20:02 PM PDT by Grunthor (My coffee creamer is fat free because I am not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Every 4 years.


6 posted on 09/02/2010 2:20:29 PM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Nope? and why not.
He was elected by the citizens on a ballot - why can’t he be impeached on a ballot?


7 posted on 09/02/2010 2:21:12 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

What you suggest sounds like a recall? With a recall, first the state voters essentially hold a no-confidence vote in the executive (aka usually the governor/mayor) and if the people do not want said magistrate returning, they choose from a list of alternatives. Recalls were a product of the first Progressive Era.


8 posted on 09/02/2010 2:21:18 PM PDT by Andrea19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

What charge would the impeachment be based upon?


9 posted on 09/02/2010 2:21:53 PM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Many wonder why we don't have flying cars in 2010. I ask, "Where's my frikken Unicorn, FUBO?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

Of course there’s no “impeachment by popular demand”.


10 posted on 09/02/2010 2:23:53 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (Truman: The buck stops here. Obama: Buck? What buck? Did I tell you how it's all Bush's fault?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

All impeachment power under the constitution is invested in Congress. The House votes for “articles of impeachment”, which if passed the person is “impeached”. A subsequent trial takes place in the senate. If the person is found guilty there by 2/3 majority, he is removed from office.


11 posted on 09/02/2010 2:25:10 PM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr
Nope? and why not. He was elected by the citizens on a ballot - why can’t he be impeached on a ballot?


Let me google that for you.
 
 


12 posted on 09/02/2010 2:26:10 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr
No, but this would work:


13 posted on 09/02/2010 2:26:21 PM PDT by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality: Islamo-Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

If we can prove he stole my green sweater.


14 posted on 09/02/2010 2:26:24 PM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

It seems to me that that would be entirely in keeping with the basic principles of the Constitution.

The framers wrote it just that way because they understood how tyrannical governments can become and when that happens, they provided the tools for the people to retake control.

That was the basis for the American Revolution.


15 posted on 09/02/2010 2:26:38 PM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

” He was elected by the citizens on a ballot - why can’t he be impeached on a ballot? “

Not exactly —

He was elected by the States, through ‘Electors’ in the Electoral College - which traditionally (but not always) reflect the consensus of the voters in their state...

Cumbersome, yes, but it kept us from President Al Gore.....


16 posted on 09/02/2010 2:26:44 PM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr
Short legal opinion; no and no. Simply not constitutional.

There is hope however that one or more of the plaintiffs suing on the Natural Born Citizen issue may get standing and proceed on those grounds.

If he was found to not be an NBC, that in itself is cause for removal, and running for Prez knowing you were not qualified would be a High Crime and/or Misdemeanor,

17 posted on 09/02/2010 2:27:02 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Fighting the "con" in Conservatism on FR, since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
What charge would the impeachment be based upon?
Superseding his authority, his constitutional powers and I bet we could get a long list of other charges if given time to think about the things he has and is doing to our freedoms.
18 posted on 09/02/2010 2:27:10 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

19 posted on 09/02/2010 2:27:23 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

He was elected by the Electoral College, not by you or I. Impeachment is not a popularity contest. It is a process that is initiated as a result of illegal activity on the part of the offending party. If you want to get rid of Obama, vote in November and in 2012.

Why am I answering these questions on FR?


20 posted on 09/02/2010 2:27:31 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (Truman: The buck stops here. Obama: Buck? What buck? Did I tell you how it's all Bush's fault?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
What charge would the impeachment be based upon?

Acting as an un-registered agent of a foreign government. (Mexican invasion enablement and attacks on states and officers, offshore drilling ban for benefit of Saudis)

Criminal negligence (causing Afghan war causalities to skyrocket under his RoE, placing provable incompetents and traitors in positions of authority) .

Dereliction of duty (All vacation, all the time).

And the kicker: Fraud due to ineligibility to hold office.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

21 posted on 09/02/2010 2:30:23 PM PDT by The Comedian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

Actually, as much as I would like to see Obama thrown out on his kiester, imagine what it would be like with elections all the time to remove a president. Bush would have had at least ten such elections during his terms alone.

How do you conduct business with allies under that cloud?

While Congress and the Senate have the task, and abdicated it with regard to Clinton and Obama, I do see impeachment as a last resort, deferring to four year elections.

In Obama’s case, I do believe a careful study of his actions would result in grounds being found to remove him.

This is why it is vitally important to remove people like McCain when we get the chance.

We can’t go around trashing everyone in sight because of what they do, then rubber stamp them when they come up for re-election.

Arizona voters screwed the whole nation over when they picked McCain this month. With guys like this, you’ll never get rid of an Obama. You can take that to the bank.


22 posted on 09/02/2010 2:30:57 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (UniTea! It's not Rs vs Ds you dimwits. It's Cs vs Ls. Cut the crap & lets build for success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

If you wanted to impeach the president for supersceding his authority, you would have to impeach every president from Washington on.


23 posted on 09/02/2010 2:31:29 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (Truman: The buck stops here. Obama: Buck? What buck? Did I tell you how it's all Bush's fault?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HapaxLegamenon
All impeachment power under the constitution is invested in Congress. The House votes for “articles of impeachment”, which if passed the person is “impeached”. A subsequent trial takes place in the senate. If the person is found guilty there by 2/3 majority, he is removed from office.
Ya, ya, ya.
We already know all that.
I'm looking for alternatives
Congress finds it hard to get rid of one of their own for the very reason that "We The People" might once again regain power over them.
Give me alternatives, not the obvious methods that we and "Congress" are already aware of.
24 posted on 09/02/2010 2:32:09 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

It’s called voting.


25 posted on 09/02/2010 2:33:40 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (Truman: The buck stops here. Obama: Buck? What buck? Did I tell you how it's all Bush's fault?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

You can call for the impeachment of the president, but it has to be done through Congress. It’s a wise protection against the tyranny of the majority.

Now, we do have a tyranny of Congress, so November is when we have to go “All-In.”


26 posted on 09/02/2010 2:34:24 PM PDT by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WinOne4TheGipper; jongaltsr

Because there are still people here who know nothing about the Constitution of the United States.


27 posted on 09/02/2010 2:35:37 PM PDT by tx_eggman (Liberalism is only possible in that moment when a man chooses Barabas over Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ev Reeman

It actually would be against the spirit of the Constitution, which provides for a representative Republic, not a direct democracy. You do not want to go down that road.


28 posted on 09/02/2010 2:36:35 PM PDT by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

I love your response to Cletus.
Ha
In your face BO


29 posted on 09/02/2010 2:36:45 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

No.. that has to happen in the House. Then a trial in the Senate. For some reason, the Senate is loathe to toss a President out. The Repub-controlled Senate couldn’t muster even a simple majority on either count against WJC. I believe 2/3 is required.

I know I know, the sight of him in our White House... it just feels wrong. But we’ll have to wait until 2012 to get our country back.


30 posted on 09/02/2010 2:36:45 PM PDT by blade_tenner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr
-- He was elected by the citizens on a ballot - why can't he be impeached on a ballot? --

Election involvement of the general public is indirect. If you look at a ballot for a presidential election, you will see that you are actually voting for an elector whop has a political party affiliation. The candidates' names are provided (on the ballot) as a crutch for the voter.

Come late December, the electors send their votes to Congress; and come January, the votes of the electors are counted before a joint session of Congress. Members of Congress have the right and duty to challenge any votes that may be inform, for whatever reason. The Democrats challenged Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004 election. Other challenges can be raised that the candidate is not qualified.

The mechanism for removal is set forth in the constitution: impeachment by a simple majority of the House, and conviction by 2/3rds of the Senate. Congress being fundamentally a political organ, if a sufficient majority of the voting public demanded impeachment, impeachment would happen. Congressmen who believe they will be unseated for failure to follow the will of the people, will respond.

31 posted on 09/02/2010 2:36:45 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

” Give me alternatives, not the obvious methods that we and “Congress” are already aware of. “

Of course, we could just ignore the Constitution completely, when it inconveniently doesn’t fit our agenda- then we’d be just like the Liberals...


32 posted on 09/02/2010 2:36:55 PM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr
Give me alternatives, not the obvious methods that we and "Congress" are already aware of.

There are NO alternatives to the Constitutional processes ... unless you'd prefer another form of government.

What part of this don't you understand.

33 posted on 09/02/2010 2:37:49 PM PDT by tx_eggman (Liberalism is only possible in that moment when a man chooses Barabas over Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr
"He was elected by the citizens on a ballot - why can’t he be impeached on a ballot?"

Because our form of Government is a "Constitutional Republic" not a Democracy.

Your first error is thinking that the citizens elected the President. They did not. Read up on the "Electoral College"...

34 posted on 09/02/2010 2:37:55 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Lol!
35 posted on 09/02/2010 2:38:27 PM PDT by Boxsford ("Arrogance exalts human superiority while true strength exalts the superiority of God. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, for which the case must be tried before the House and if impeached, then the penalty phase (removal) is enforced by the Senate.

That is a much better way of doing things than having a banana republic, at the whims of the people who can’t even be consistent with American Idol.

If he was elected by the citizens on a ballot, he can be removed by the citizens on a ballot - the next election. Let’s not turn us into a kangaroo court.


36 posted on 09/02/2010 2:40:26 PM PDT by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Andrea19
Recalls were a product of the first Progressive Era.

Great point, along with the income tax and the direct election of senators (if the original Constitution were followed on that point, we wouldn't have this mess today).

37 posted on 09/02/2010 2:42:21 PM PDT by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HapaxLegamenon

All impeachment power under the constitution is invested in Congress. The House votes for “articles of impeachment”, which if passed the person is “impeached”. A subsequent trial takes place in the senate. If the person is found guilty there by 2/3 majority, he is removed from office.

We will soon retake the House and the Senate. Just sayin’.


38 posted on 09/02/2010 2:43:38 PM PDT by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
"Give me alternatives, not the obvious methods that we and "Congress" are already aware of."

The closest Method that fits your idea of "the people" removing Obama from office is by way of a Constitutional Convention (and even then it has to be done through your States Representative) which would literally take years if not decades to get the Amendment through the process and Obama would be long gone from office by then.

39 posted on 09/02/2010 2:44:15 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WinOne4TheGipper
Why am I answering these questions on FR?

LOL. I think.

40 posted on 09/02/2010 2:44:53 PM PDT by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

There are only two ways for a citizen to remove a POTUS from office: 1)every 4th year at the ballot box and 2)a method that is legally and morally wrong and will result in death or imprisonment of the citizen.

So if you are looking for an early exit for 0bama, it will take the House of Representatives’ impeaching him for a crime or high misdemeanor and the Senate’s convicting him and removing him from office. Other than that we are looking at the 2012 election.


41 posted on 09/02/2010 2:45:19 PM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (If I weren't afraid of the feds, I would refer to Obama as our "undocumented POTUS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Actually, as much as I would like to see Obama thrown out on his kiester, imagine what it would be like with elections all the time to remove a president. Bush would have had at least ten such elections during his terms alone.
A president could continue doing business even if there were a impeachment ballot. They would have to meet a 2/3 margin to impeach if I were to use logic?
How do you conduct business with allies under that cloud?
See the above answer.
In Obama’s case, I do believe a careful study of his actions would result in grounds being found to remove him. - and with ease, just not with this congress.
We can’t go around trashing everyone in sight because of what they do, then rubber stamp them when they come up for re-election. It would have to be harder than just a simple majority - a super majority for example.
Arizona voters screwed the whole nation over when they picked McCain this month. With guys like this, you’ll never get rid of an Obama. You can take that to the bank.You said a mouthful in that statement. I voted for JD but MCain outspent him 10 to 1. Money speaks.

42 posted on 09/02/2010 2:47:22 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Actually, as much as I would like to see Obama thrown out on his kiester, imagine what it would be like with elections all the time to remove a president. Bush would have had at least ten such elections during his terms alone. How do you conduct business with allies under that cloud?

Excellent point! We would quickly lose our standing in the world, because we would start looking like everyone else. Our stability in government is a tremendous asset.

43 posted on 09/02/2010 2:47:29 PM PDT by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman
There are NO alternatives to the Constitutional processes.
Are you a Constitutional Scholar or are you speaking only about the parts of the Constitution that are most commonly know to us all?
44 posted on 09/02/2010 2:50:33 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike

That’s what I don’t understand about some supposed conservatives. I suspect they’re actually more anti-liberal than anything else, which permits them to desire cutting the same corners the liberals do.

Anti-liberal and conservative are NOT the same thing. One can be conservative and anti-liberal, but being anti-liberal alone does not rise to being a conservative.


45 posted on 09/02/2010 2:52:56 PM PDT by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Your first error is thinking that the citizens elected the President. They did not. Read up on the "Electoral College
Of course I have heard of the Electoral College. I asked specifically for alternatives that were constitutional.
The electoral College would also referee any elections that were constitutional.

46 posted on 09/02/2010 2:54:12 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Truth is a Weapon
"So if you are looking for an early exit for 0bama, it will take the House of Representatives’ impeaching him for a crime or high misdemeanor and the Senate’s convicting him and removing him from office. Other than that we are looking at the 2012 election."

And another thing to consider is the wording of the impeachment clause. If impeachment proceedings were brought on the basis Obama can't be President because he is not Eligible is a whole can of worms most have not considered.

First if he is not Eligible to be President then is he actually President? If Not the by wording of the Constitution how can he be impeached?

BUT, he has administered the Office of the President and signed Bills into Law and appointed Judges to the Bench. If he was NOT President when he did so then all of these issues would be null and void!

And that means EVERYTHING including budgets which means any an all money paid out by the government in that time is in effect Null and Void.

Imagine the mess of trying to sort out the financial Mess. The GM issue would be Null and Void. Does everyone have to give back their money including the GM workers?

This is why I think that if the eligibility issue gets Obama tossed out they will still say in essence he WAS President even though he was not eligible! If not then we would be decades undoing that mess!

47 posted on 09/02/2010 2:55:48 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr
Are you a Constitutional Scholar or are you speaking only about the parts of the Constitution that are most commonly know to us all?

What more do you want? If you admit that there are commonly-known parts of the Constitution dealing with the removal of the president, what else are you looking for? There is nothing written in invisible ink.

48 posted on 09/02/2010 2:57:24 PM PDT by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: scott7278
That’s what I don’t understand about some supposed conservatives. I suspect they’re actually more anti-liberal than anything else, which permits them to desire cutting the same corners the liberals do.
Anti-liberal and conservative are NOT the same thing. One can be conservative and anti-liberal, but being anti-liberal alone does not rise to being a conservative.

Throwing bombs is not the exercise here. I asked for Constitutional alternatives and not Liberal (Socialist) alternatives. GET BACK ON SUBJECT.
49 posted on 09/02/2010 3:00:09 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: scott7278
There is nothing written in invisible ink
Lets all now state the obvious and not deal with the question! Do you know all of the alternatives provided in the Constitutional and consequential laws regarding such issues?
50 posted on 09/02/2010 3:03:51 PM PDT by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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