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 ...
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.
The Democrats have the same problem. Only 30% of the country are liberals, but they have managed to win power in spite of that. Of course it helps when your plan is to had out free stuff paid for by your political opponents.
I know. Impeachment without conviction doesn't help much, and it excites backlash. Clinton may have been distracted for a while and lost some prestige, but he wasn't convicted. And, the Dems complained about the impeachment as unwarranted for years.
The Constitution. Impeachment is by simple majority in the House, but conviction is by 2/3 majority in the Senate.
This isn't a Congressional rule that can be changed by vote of congress, like the rules which used to govern filibuster before the nuclear option was used. The only reason it wasn't used before was a form of MAD (mutually assured destruction) because the party that changed the rules would face serious payback when it lost power.
To change impeachment to only require a majority in the Senate would take a Constitutional Amendment.
Well, if he can’t be impeached, perhaps he can be arrested.
Perhaps one of our FReepers FRiends could construct and maintain a list of Representatives and Senators (and House and Senate wannabes) who are calling for impeachment?
So... if he concludes he’s unimpeachable, and immune to law... say in 2016 he decides he likes being President.
bkmk
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.
