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

Skip to comments.

Obama Knows He Can Ignore Scandal with Impunity (Un-impeachable)
The New York Post ^ | Saturday, May 31, 2014 | Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted on 06/01/2014 8:28:56 AM PDT by kristinn

President Obama’s record of lawlessness is prodigious. There is the assumption of a power to rule by presidential decree — unilaterally amending ObamaCare provisions, immigration statutes, and other enactments in flagrant disregard of Congress’s constitutional power to write the laws.

There is rampant fraud on the American people — think: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan, period,” just for a start.

In the Benghazi massacre, we see the arc of administration malfeasance: In the absence of congressional authorization, the president instigated an unprovoked and ultimately disastrous war in Libya, empowering virulently anti-American Islamic supremacists. He then recklessly failed to provide adequate security for US officials who, for reasons that remain mysterious, were dispatched to Benghazi, one of the most dangerous places on the planet for Americans.

SNIP

Thus, while it takes a simple House majority to file articles of impeachment, it requires an overwhelming two-thirds Senate majority to unseat a president. Real impeachment — the removal of a president from power — requires a broad consensus. Without that, the Senate will not feel the political pressure to convict, regardless of the validity of the House’s impeachment articles.

The liberal media would call the whole thing racist, without considering the actual legal argument.

Is it any wonder that Obama refused to fire Shinseki for the Veteran’s Affairs scandal (Shinseki finally resigned on Friday)? Curious as to why he’s letting illegal immigrants be dropped unceremoniously off at Arizona bus stations? Why he’s changing laws without Congress and having his attorney general ignore rules he doesn’t like?

Because he knows there will be no repercussions. Legally, Obama should be impeached. Politically, he’s a president with impunity.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; amnesty; andymccarthy; bobbergdahl; bowebergdahl; cabal; criminalcharges; demagogicparty; destroyeconomy; eupuppet; gitmo; impeachment; impeachobama; landgrabs; lootingus; memebuilding; ndaa; nwo; obama; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; promoteislam; takeover; transalantictreaty; treason; unimpeachable
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 06/01/2014 8:28:56 AM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kristinn
The media could ensure justice is done in spite of Obama's protected status, if they had an ounce of integrity.

But thats one more thing they don't teach in journalism school anymore.

2 posted on 06/01/2014 8:31:08 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Amerika is scrood! It will not recover from an illiterate electorate.

Problem remains after this tumor is excised.


3 posted on 06/01/2014 8:32:58 AM PDT by bicyclerepair (The zombies here elected alcee hastings. TERM LIMITS ... TERM LIMITS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

McCarthy lays out the sad truth.
This administration has witnessed an imbalance in the three branches that will be next to impossible to reverse. And don’t get me started on the composition of the Supreme Court. It’s just about structural at this point.


4 posted on 06/01/2014 8:35:31 AM PDT by Ouchthatonehurt ("When you're going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

If we take the Senate this November,Obama can be Impeached by majority vote starting in January 2015.God bless America.


5 posted on 06/01/2014 8:40:57 AM PDT by ardara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ardara

You need 2/3 in the Senate. Majority vote is not enough for impeachment.


6 posted on 06/01/2014 8:41:55 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Tagline says all that is necessary.


7 posted on 06/01/2014 8:44:00 AM PDT by Invictus (Obama is in need....of IMPEACHMENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

McCarthy hits all the nails on their heads! He doesn’t say it, but I will say that the House needs to move ahead with Articles of Impeachment, regardless of what the Senate may or may not do. That is THEIR duty under the Constitution - to make the case.

They are the Grand Jury and they need to convene.


8 posted on 06/01/2014 8:44:05 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
The media could ensure justice is done in spite of Obama's protected status, if they had an ounce of integrity.

The media is a major SOURCE of his protected status.

9 posted on 06/01/2014 8:44:16 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
Sadly..., you're right.


Ramirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION
05/30/2014: LINK  LINK to regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.

In this political cartoon, Ramirez presents, "Obama: Foreign Policy"



FOLKS, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE AND PENCIL IN YOUR DONATION TO HELP END THIS FREEPATHONTHANK YOU!  We're over 94% now. Cool!
...this is a general all purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

10 posted on 06/01/2014 8:45:09 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

2/3? Who says? Other laws/rules have been changed in the past. The new Republican Senate majority leader would just have to invoke the “nuclear option.”


11 posted on 06/01/2014 8:46:55 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
Skin tone is the source of his protected status.

The media guarantee it.

12 posted on 06/01/2014 8:48:46 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt enjoyed similar immunity from impeachment and rebuke, and they behaved in similar fashion, ignoring their political opponents, the American people, and our laws. In Wilson’s case, it was his wife who was running the country for part of his term as he was incapacitated by a stroke.

The difference in Obama’s case is one of degree. He blatantly flaunts the law and is clearly used to operating within an organized criminal enterprise. Since very few people alive today have ever seen this sort of arrogant political behavior, it seems unique, but is not. Another major difference is that the Democrat Party once had a strong conservative wing that could temper the behavior of a Democrat President. The Party that currently controls the Senate is ideologically pure: hard left and willing to underwrite whatever wrongdoing suits their purpose.

If the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, expect a two year wave of reckless lawless overreach the likes of which this country has never seen.


13 posted on 06/01/2014 8:48:49 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

It would take a cons amendment to change the impeachment procedures.


14 posted on 06/01/2014 8:49:19 AM PDT by Doctor 2Brains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

FReepathon day 62, Month #3.
Don't let the Left win!


Less than $4.7k to go!!

15 posted on 06/01/2014 8:50:22 AM PDT by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
2/3? Who says?

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Note: this is "members present, not 2/3 of the full Senate, similar to a treaty ratification.
16 posted on 06/01/2014 8:54:13 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

He knows he can lie with impunity, and the media will spin or suppress whatever must be distorted or concealed to protect him.


17 posted on 06/01/2014 8:56:13 AM PDT by Spok ("What're you going to believe-me or your own eyes?" -Marx (Groucho))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The constitution says a lot of things that Obama ignores. As far as I'm concerned, it goes both ways.
18 posted on 06/01/2014 8:56:56 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

“If the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, expect a two year wave of reckless lawless overreach the likes of which this country has never seen.”

So how will that change with Mitch in charge?


19 posted on 06/01/2014 8:57:44 AM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

Wrong! Senate procedure rules are up to the Senate.

Impeachment rules are spelled out in the Constitution!


20 posted on 06/01/2014 8:57:46 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

You need only a simple majority of the House of Rep to Impeach.You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict.


21 posted on 06/01/2014 8:57:56 AM PDT by ardara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Doesn’t the Constitution say something about a “natural born citizen?”


22 posted on 06/01/2014 8:59:16 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bicyclerepair
Problem remains after this tumor is excised.

Yes, we must deal with the tyranny as well as the tyrant.

We can elect conservatives into infinity and that alone will not cure what ails our once republic. Obama has established executive precedents that will be available for the rest of America's Presidents.

Until the states are returned to the senate, the best we can hope for is a benevolent despot.

23 posted on 06/01/2014 9:01:46 AM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Luke21
Don't be ridiculous! Mitch might not be very good at offense, but a majority Republican Senate is a basic requirement to stop Obama’s offensive liberal expansions.
24 posted on 06/01/2014 9:02:13 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ardara
If we take the Senate this November,Obama can be Impeached by majority vote starting in January 2015.

There are not ten GOP senators who would vote to remove Obama. There may not be 5.

25 posted on 06/01/2014 9:02:34 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

The notion that someone cannot perceive the advantage of having 51 or more Republican votes vice 51 or more Democrat votes is something that I cannot comprehend. I have not signed a suicide pact.


26 posted on 06/01/2014 9:09:06 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

The House Impeaches by a simple majority vote.


27 posted on 06/01/2014 9:13:14 AM PDT by ardara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: don-o
I will say that the House needs to move ahead with Articles of Impeachment, regardless of what the Senate may or may not do. That is THEIR duty under the Constitution - to make the case.

Indeed. But with the evil, traitorous Boehner, it will NEVER happen.

We need protestors following Boehner everywhere -- with posters stating that he (Boehner) is complicit in ALL of Obama's Marxist actions!!

Boehner needs to be shamed and humiliated.

28 posted on 06/01/2014 9:19:07 AM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sand88

Allen West for Speaker.


29 posted on 06/01/2014 9:35:51 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
To: Luke21 The notion that someone cannot perceive the advantage of having 51 or more Republican votes vice 51 or more Democrat votes is something that I cannot comprehend.

There are not ten conservative republican senators. We need conservative senators regardless of party label. 51 Senators like McConnell and McCain is no different than what we have now.

30 posted on 06/01/2014 9:40:29 AM PDT by SpeakerToAnimals (I hope to earn a name in battle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

It’s not just skin tone that provides immunity from criticism, much less impeachment.

The country made a Faustian pact with the Devil when they elected a black man because it would be ‘cool’ and didn’t do any serious study of his qualifications other than his ethnicity.

The reality of that decision is becoming clear. The power elite in Congress and among the movers and shakers in the economy or state politics know that impeachment would result in a torching of our cities much worse than the Watts riots.


31 posted on 06/01/2014 9:41:56 AM PDT by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

I almost believe that Obama could murder someone on the White House lawn and get away with it. Or maybe I should put it this way: that’s about the only thing he COULDN’T get away with. Everything else is on the table.


32 posted on 06/01/2014 9:43:05 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
2/3? Who says? Other laws/rules have been changed in the past. The new Republican Senate majority leader would just have to invoke the “nuclear option.”

As others have noted, the Constitution says. But Obama has been ignoring the Constitution ever since he's been in office. Any law he doesn't like he simply ignores or modifies.

So I wouldn't mind seeing your suggestion discussed in a light-hearted way, if only to make a point.

33 posted on 06/01/2014 9:49:45 AM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
We can redefine what 2/3's means.

Let us borrow from the liberal communist scum.

34 posted on 06/01/2014 9:50:27 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

I guess that the principle of three branches of government, each one holding the other two in check, is an untenable arrangement.


35 posted on 06/01/2014 9:55:59 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpeakerToAnimals

nonsense!

We need Republican control of the Senate. It is insanity or treason to claim otherwise!


36 posted on 06/01/2014 9:58:57 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

They wouldn’t have the stones to pull the trigger.

Always remember that all these congresscritters ask themselves, before voting or taking any action, “What if it happened to our party in the future?”

All of them are trying to keep their jobs for life. It requires for them to ‘reach across the aisle’ in order to survive.


37 posted on 06/01/2014 10:02:24 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Congress wouldn't impeach and convict a president for anything. That provision of the constitution is window dressing, just like the commerce clause, the 2nd amendment, the 1st amendment, the 4th amendment, the 10th amendment, etc.

Judges can violate the constitution with impunity, as well. Although judges can be impeached and removed if they are obviously unfit or criminals. The disgraced judges can then obtain a Congressional seat, see Alcee Hastings for example. Anyway, my point was that judges can violate the constitution too, there is no way any ruling or set of rulings, no matter how wacky, poses any risk to the lifetime appointment.

The very last thing Congress wants to have is accountability, hence the ease with which they allow other branches to walk all over the constitution. Some members of congress will complain about it, and complain that there is no way to act on the issue (i.e., every action becomes nothing more than political fodder for reelection)., and then point to their feigned outrage as the reason they deserve to hold the office. Talk is everything - action is risky.

38 posted on 06/01/2014 10:04:23 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouchthatonehurt
-- This administration has witnessed an imbalance in the three branches that will be next to impossible to reverse. --

That imbalance has been there for decades, at least. The politicians and judges are running the country into the ground while they laugh all the way to the bank.

39 posted on 06/01/2014 10:06:03 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
There are many historical examples of republics that find themselves in this position.

It usually ends in one of three ways:

a)assassination of the leader involved;

b) a coup d'etat

c)the successful establishment of a dictatorship by the leader or his party

We're in deep dodo, mainly because the media have turned themselves into propaganda organs for the Democratic Party, which has led to the installtion of a Chicago-style gangster government.

40 posted on 06/01/2014 10:10:18 AM PDT by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
-- Doesn't the Constitution say something about a "natural born citizen?" --

That one is easy. The constitution says "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States." This is two groups of people, those who are a natural born citizen (of any country), and those who are citizens of the US.

If the founders wanted to make the clause unambiguous, they knew how to do so.

No court has read the constitution that way, yet, but doing so would not be "far out" against the standard of intellectual honesty used by federal judges when interpreting the constitution.

41 posted on 06/01/2014 10:12:12 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wildbill
-- The power elite in Congress and among the movers and shakers in the economy or state politics know that impeachment would result in a torching of our cities much worse than the Watts riots. --

I believe that is the same rationale that prevented them from publicly vetting his citizenship. Just deem him a natural born US citizen, then clam up on the subject.

42 posted on 06/01/2014 10:14:56 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
-- I guess that the principle of three branches of government, each one holding the other two in check, is an untenable arrangement. --

It could work. The problem in the US is that the system of government is driven by universal suffrage, and that is always a recipe for failure.

That fourth branch of government, "the people," well a majority of the people will always succumb to the base aspect of human nature.

43 posted on 06/01/2014 10:20:30 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The fundamental problem is that eighty years of the Depression, WWII, the Cold War and the "Great Society" have habituated Americans to despotism of a kind no one would have tolerated earlier.

I think our only hope at the moment is an Article V convention to restore (most) of the original meaning of the Constitution.

But even with that, returning to the 19th century version of the Federal system is almost impossible politically, as it would remove Social Security, the FDA, Federal student aid, etc.

The most we could hope for, I would think, would be a return to a pre-1964 situation, with the additional requirement that all of the Bill of Rights applicable to individuals are applied with the same standard of review against the states as well as the Federal government.

The full incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states is one major difference between current conservative views and 19th century interpretations of the Constitution. In order to regain control of the judiciary, the "right" of "substantial due process" would either have to be eliminated or specified exactly, because it is currently used by the judiciary to impose their preferred political solutions (see "gay" marriage) against the majority.

44 posted on 06/01/2014 10:29:12 AM PDT by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SpeakerToAnimals
51 Senators like McConnell and McCain is no different than what we have now.

I think that's a ridiculous statement. Anyone is better than Harry Reid. A Republican Congress will have Republican committee chairman which is where the real power has always been in the Senate. Adding conservative Senators sufficient to take the majority increases the voice and political power of conservatives. Since the Senate is elected in three classes, it cannot change quickly, so you can't wait until you have some magical tribe of conservatives who can ride into town and make you happy. It has to be done a few seats at time. I guess that what you are saying is that since McConnell won his primary, there's no point and that you are satisfied with Reid. You are not alone in expressing that sentiment, but I am not signing up for that suicide pact.

45 posted on 06/01/2014 10:52:48 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ardara

Even if we take the Senate, they won’t impeach Obama. Too afraid of losing votes in 2016. It’s a never-ending game with these people


46 posted on 06/01/2014 10:55:26 AM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

You can not be that naive. Republipussies or d bots: One is the local and the other is the express lane to the USSA.


47 posted on 06/01/2014 10:58:20 AM PDT by slapshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: slapshot

So what’s your plan to capture political power? When we have a thunderstorm, my dog goes outside and barks at the storm. Doesn’t do much good, but he feels better.


48 posted on 06/01/2014 11:03:25 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Not with McConnell or McCain or thirty other republipussies. The only way to beat bullies is to be meaner, nastier and more willing to take hits in order and hit back harder using all means at your disposal. I would rather go down fighting with a few principled people giving out maximum damage to the enemy instead of getting knifed in the back by your “ team” or hamstrung by your so called “team leaders”. Both ways you lose but one way you lose with your dignity intact...


49 posted on 06/01/2014 11:17:31 AM PDT by slapshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

The problem is more of a structural issue than anything. There are a goodly number of conservatives in the US, but they’re spread over too large of a territory to be effective. Add to that a uniparty that is downright hostile to conservatism and that’s where we find ourselves. The solution? I don’t think there is one magic bullet. But concentrating our numbers into small states would be a good start. See tag line.


50 posted on 06/01/2014 11:36:28 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Relocate and Dominate: freestateproject.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 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