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

Skip to comments.

How do we prevent Obama from resigning?
July 6, 2014 | Me

Posted on 07/06/2014 12:56:19 PM PDT by Sen Jack S. Fogbound

If Obama should resign, all his activities and "accomplishments" will remain in effect!

If he is impeached and convicted, all his Executive Orders, signatures on passed laws, become NULL and VOID thus setting the stage back to January 20, 2009 before he took that oath (that's debatable)

If we impeach him now, Harry Reid will trash it in the Senate thus preventing the trial and conviction.

So the question is this: How do we keep him from resigning before the Republicans can take over the Senate?


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 last
To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

I assume that you are a victim of the government school system.


81 posted on 07/06/2014 3:06:46 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
If the House has hard evidence of law breaking, of which there is probably more than enough. I don't see how democrats would be able not to convict in the face of hard evidence without looking like fools. Even democrat voters can understand hard evidence. Clinton's situation was easily manipulated by the press because they just claimed it was about a prudish bunch of Republicans. Hussein's crimes are real crimes and probably a lot of them are provable-abuse of power alone should get him.
82 posted on 07/06/2014 3:09:30 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

I just watched that movie last night.

:^)


83 posted on 07/06/2014 3:23:16 PM PDT by Disambiguator (#cornedbeef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl
Even democrat voters can understand hard evidence.

Not so.

Have you noticed how liberals get agitated when you tell them the truth? When evidence that disproves their worldview is placed in front of them, they will deny its existence.

84 posted on 07/06/2014 3:28:59 PM PDT by Disambiguator (#cornedbeef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound
There is no real answers. Impeached, NO. Resign, NO. But there are two thing we could work for. One is impeach Holder. Second win the Senate in 2014 and kick Reid in the ass. Even then we will have accomplished not much.

The only hope is 2016 and that will be almost impossible. The Republican Party is pure crap and is no longer any kind of a respectable force. Look what they did for Romney. By the way did any of you Romney haters ever stop and think how much your non vote hurt America? Bet many of these idiots still don't get it. These types will hurt our chances for 2016 since the insane just can't get it.

85 posted on 07/06/2014 3:39:03 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

E - there is a slim likelihood that the Republicans will become the majority in the Senate and if they do that they will take any definitive action against Obama.


86 posted on 07/06/2014 3:41:07 PM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

The same voodoo we used to keep Bill Clinton from resigning.


87 posted on 07/06/2014 3:43:48 PM PDT by ThomasThomas (Them there voices may not be real but they sure have some fun Ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grams A

They probably will have a majority, but it takes a super majority to convict which we won’t be anywhere near. And they’ve learned the lesson of the Clinton impeachment, it’s a big giant waste of time and just irritates voters. Especially if they wait until after the mid-terms, the process would take at least 18 months, buy the time they got around to kicking him out he’d already be packing because of term limits.


88 posted on 07/06/2014 3:43:57 PM PDT by discostu (Ladies and gentlemen watch Ruth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
The laws will only be overturned if challenged in court AND overturned by the SCOTUS.

Unconstitutional laws could also be specifically targeted by a constitutional amendment brought by an Article V Convention of States. Why would an unconstitutional law need a constitutional amendment to be overturned? Because a lot of issues derive from the gradual breadth of power the feds have assumed over time.

Depending on the law, the Constitutional amendment would need to address and specifically limit the scope of the federal government's power in things like the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Also flat out eliminating unconstitutional governmental departments by amendment and dramatically cutting the feds by at least 80% could do a lot to neutralize their harm.

Short of that, states can begin nullifying clearly unconstitutional laws.

89 posted on 07/06/2014 5:50:17 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound
They are attacking their base more vigorously then the enemy so taking over the Senate is not a given. I`m not voting Crat and many on numerous blogs have said the same, so they MAY win but without “their base”.
90 posted on 07/06/2014 6:25:35 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Your scenario is highly unlikely.

Agreed. Ousting either the president or the vice president requires 67 votes.

Hmm. If the votes were available, the crafty approach would be to remove Biden first, then impeach and remove Obama while stalling the confirmation of Biden's replacement. That would require organization and stealth. E.g., fewer than 67 GOP, so Obama thinks his Regime is safe, but some Democrat cross-overs up the sleeve. Once Biden's ousted, Obama's trapped. Well maybe not. Maybe he can pardon himself‽

91 posted on 07/06/2014 6:27:52 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I think at that point, Obama’s lawyers would be willing to admit that Soetoro is the child of Frank Marshall Davis, making him an American citizen, possibly an NBC.


92 posted on 07/06/2014 8:15:51 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

Time to reboot.


93 posted on 07/06/2014 8:26:33 PM PDT by right way right (America has embraced the suck of Freedumb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

Not an issue...he’s not going to resign...nor will articles of impeachment be brought against him. Sad but true IMHO.


94 posted on 07/06/2014 9:38:01 PM PDT by Conservative4Ever (waiting for my Magic 8 ball to give me an answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

There are no grounds to impeach Biden. He has committed no high crime or misdemeanor because he has no ability to institute policy.
Obama could resign at any moment and therefore he would beat removal by impeachment and that would immediately elevate Biden to the presidency, requiring no action by Congress,


95 posted on 07/06/2014 11:26:17 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Those are extremely interesting legal references, thanks. The one from 1936 is especially clear. People might argue that the older ones referencing “health laws” aren’t quite relevant, because the whole concept of government provided health care was unknown, and the reference might have been to things like rat control or quarantines. But, the 1936 quote is very specific.

I’ll listen to the Judge.


96 posted on 07/07/2014 5:46:14 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine; All
"... people might argue that the older ones referencing “health laws” aren’t quite relevant, because the whole concept of government provided health care was unknown [emphasis added], and the reference might have been to things like rat control or quarantines."

Thanks for commenting Pearls Before Swine. But with all due respect, you are in error concerning the history of federally mandated health insurance as per the following explanation.

Pro-Obamacare Democratcare advocates had pointed out the following to defend the constitutionality (ahem) of Democratcare. President John Adams had signed a bill in 1798 whcih required hospital insurance to be deducted from the pay of seamen.

An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen

So based on this hospital insurance bill signed by Presidet John Adams, the feds “obviously” have the constitutional authority to mandate that all citizens pay for healthcare insurance, right?

WRONG!

What all articles that I've seen for this mandated hospital insurance deduction for seamen fail to mention is the following straight from the Constitution (RTFM). Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I gives examples of federal entities which are under the exclusive legislative control of Congress. The reason that Congress was able to mandate that seamen pay for medical insurance is because one example of a federal entity given in Clause 17 is dockyards. From Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I:

"... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards [emphasis added], and other needful Buildings; ..."

So Congress has a bona fide constitutional interest in dockyard operations which reasonably includes the welfare of seamen.

As a side note concerning Congress's interest in dockyards, please consider the following. Thomas Jefferson had noted that in the early days of the country, only the rich paid federal taxes.

“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied [emphasis added]. … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.” —Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.

Did Jefferson say imported articles!? You mean the cargo from ships from across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans which sailors moved from the ships to the dockyards? Again, tax-hungry Congress certainly does have a constitutionally justifiable interest in dockyards and the manpower needed to operate them.

97 posted on 07/07/2014 10:56:34 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound

The only dictators that resign do so at room temperature.


98 posted on 07/07/2014 2:31:48 PM PDT by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 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