Skip to comments.How do we prevent Obama from resigning?
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?
I assume that you are a victim of the government school system.
I just watched that movie last night.
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.
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.
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.
The same voodoo we used to keep Bill Clinton from resigning.
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.
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.
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‽
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.
Time to reboot.
Not an issue...he’s not going to resign...nor will articles of impeachment be brought against him. Sad but true IMHO.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The only dictators that resign do so at room temperature.
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.