Posted on 02/25/2011 1:36:45 PM PST by Red Badger
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.
Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.
Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich: Obama Sparks 'Constitutional Crisis,' Raises Impeachment Specter Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Because impeachment is more a test of political will, than it is of legal authority.
I think one could make a persuasive argument that failing to secure our borders in compliance with statutory law, is an impeachable offense. If you can get enough political will behind that sentiment, then it is an impeachable offense.
It’s long since due. Impeach him now and let the honest Democrats defend the indefensible things he’s done, and let the rest of the Democrats try and frame up a martyrology for his ever-shrinking constituency.
Impeach now ping list - privately mail to get on or off, please.
Haven’t we had a “constitutional crises” ever since 0 became POTUS while he is a total enigma and his eligibility is being questioned?
Yet nothing is being done about it. Don’t expect anything different this time around.
I can see that clearly. I agree. Neither side has had the desire to do this on immigration. So here we are....
I’m not a big fan of Newt Gingrich but at least he made a public statement about this issue, which is more than the other ‘contenders’ for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination have done, to date. I’m quite surprised that Sarah Palin hasn’t had a word to say about Obama refusing to order the Justice Department to defend DOMA, a duly-constituted U.S. law. I expect she will, soon. If not, she is going to lose a lot of support. However, in this political climate, I seriously doubt congress will attempt to impeach Obama. The attempt (justified) to remove Bill Clinton flopped due to Republican cowardice and with a Black president, I don’t see congress doing much of anything, despite what Gingrich says. That Newt basically stole the idea from Rush Limbaugh is a tad annoying but I don’t see Gingrich gaining much traction as a possible Republican presidential candidate. Old news, lots of ‘baggage’ and very much a RINO for too long to be taken seriously by conservatives, or at least, by this one.
Yes but what would the articles charge? Is there anything?
The Pelosi/Scozzafava things were Newt’s shark and he jumped.
I wish someone else had brought this up instead of him. I wish he would STFU and just be a quiet, behind-the-scenes adviser. He will never be elected president, so he might as well forget running.
I’ll never forget the way he treated the Supreme Court during one of his State of the Union addresses.
He’s not ignoring the law.
Yet. Call back when he does.
Of course not. You guys don't have much of a constitution left.
In other news maybe unrelated to the WH imam, the Nordic countries muslims are inviting to Tea Parties, to get to know and love islam.
http://www.antirasistisk-senter.no/tea-time-60-sekunder.4878070-152435.html
This is a global, well-coordinated war and every socialist government on the planet are enemy combattants.
I think Biden can at least be contained. He’d be so happy to be president, he would definitely work across the aisle. I’ll take anyone temporarily if it means obama is out. Well, anybody but Pelosi that is.
Yes, and as OldDeckHand said we have issues such as immigration that technically are setting up a situation where an impeachment is possible - even under GWB perhaps, not to mention BHO - but there is no political will to carry it out. So this condition goes back a while.
I think maybe it is indicative of the gradual drift away from the Constitution that we are realizing has become dramatic in our day.
We really need a dramatic shift back to Constitutionalism.
That's why I'm here on FR.
‘Newt is running for President and wants to be relevant.’
As opposed to those who are running for President and avoid relevancy like the plague. (think Romney).
Drudge and Blaze are not blocked. They are probably just busy. I just got into both of them with no problem. Not under attack.
You know I might agree if he truly believed that...he is too caught up in himself to really realize how awful we here in America and the world are seeing him. He is in a bubble...on heavy psychotic meds...a new cocktail of drugs...zoned out...dems should move him to a psycho ward..
I’d like to see a cartoon word bubble on that one: Obama says the following “He was a private businessman, old, straight, and white. A war profiteer.”
The original Uncle Sam was a private businessman named Sam Wilson selling foodstuff to the US Army during the War of 1812.
Yes it was! Posturing for the presidency himself? If so, RINO talk is cheap. Pandering with the anti-constitutionalists, pro-globalists is not acceptable in any event.
“Yes but what would the articles charge? Is there anything?”
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems from another long thread about this that precedent was set with Nixon, extending thus beyond Nixon, that it can be as simple as not liking his tie if the House of Representatives is willing to vote on that.
I would think it falls under the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’, meaning ‘felonies and misdemeanors’. It should, I think, also include phrases like ‘dereliction of duty’, words like ‘fraud’.
In an early call in his presidency for impeachment someone pointed out the felony of dealing in presidential appointments and alleged he was blatantly guilty. This was before the landslide victories last year in November so there was a political will lacking then that I would argue is present now and combined with more optimism and ability.
Link is working for me now. Guess it was busy.
Off subject, anyone watching Glenn Beck? Great show today!
They will need to make sure impeachment talk is stopped and labeled a silly thought from crazy people.
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.