Skip to comments.Obama Knows He Can Ignore Scandal with Impunity (Un-impeachable)
Posted on 06/01/2014 8:28:56 AM PDT by kristinn
President Obamas 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 Congresss 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.
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 Houses 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 Veterans Affairs scandal (Shinseki finally resigned on Friday)? Curious as to why hes letting illegal immigrants be dropped unceremoniously off at Arizona bus stations? Why hes changing laws without Congress and having his attorney general ignore rules he doesnt like?
Because he knows there will be no repercussions. Legally, Obama should be impeached. Politically, hes a president with impunity.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
But thats one more thing they don't teach in journalism school anymore.
Amerika is scrood! It will not recover from an illiterate electorate.
Problem remains after this tumor is excised.
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.
If we take the Senate this November,Obama can be Impeached by majority vote starting in January 2015.God bless America.
You need 2/3 in the Senate. Majority vote is not enough for impeachment.
Tagline says all that is necessary.
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.
The media is a major SOURCE of his protected status.
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.”
The media guarantee it.
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.
It would take a cons amendment to change the impeachment procedures.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
He knows he can lie with impunity, and the media will spin or suppress whatever must be distorted or concealed to protect him.
“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?
Wrong! Senate procedure rules are up to the Senate.
Impeachment rules are spelled out in the Constitution!
You need only a simple majority of the House of Rep to Impeach.You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict.
Doesn’t the Constitution say something about a “natural born citizen?”
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.
There are not ten GOP senators who would vote to remove Obama. There may not be 5.
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.
The House Impeaches by a simple majority vote.
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.
Allen West for Speaker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let us borrow from the liberal communist scum.
I guess that the principle of three branches of government, each one holding the other two in check, is an untenable arrangement.
We need Republican control of the Senate. It is insanity or treason to claim otherwise!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
You can not be that naive. Republipussies or d bots: One is the local and the other is the express lane to the USSA.
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.
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...
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.