Skip to comments.The case for Obama’s impeachment: The Constitution’s remedy for a lawless, imperial president
Posted on 07/11/2014 2:49:11 PM PDT by Resettozero
he next time you hear politicians denounce Barack Obama as a lawless, imperial president with a scandal-riddled administration, ask them what theyre going to do about it. Their gnashing of teeth over Obamas self-granted omnipotence is repetitive.
Lets agree with our ninth president, William Henry Harrison, who said there is nothing more corrupting, nothing more destructive than the exercise of unlimited power. We understand the problem. The only way for politicians to fix it is with a little less talk and a lot more action.
The Constitution provides the remedy for a president who commits high crimes and misdemeanors. Its impeachment.
The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing! To be clear, high crimes and misdemeanors are not necessarily ordinary criminal offenses. Our Framers used the term to signify a dereliction of duty, and the first duty of the president is to enforce our laws and preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton described impeachable offenses as those which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. He explained that they are political offenses as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
No serious person who is paying attention can deny that Obama and his administration have abused and violated the public trust and disregarded the Constitution. Let me count the ways.
Without notifying Congress as required by law, he set free terrorist prisoners at a time of war when they can return to the battlefield to kill our troops.
In violation of our Constitution, he regularly ignores court orders, changes laws by executive fiat, and refuses to enforce laws he doesnt like, including our immigration laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ping...for another Palin Fox News article.
Sarah Palin bump.
Yep, that would be the Constitution’s remedy for a lawless president,
if the nation hadn’t been neutered by the race issue.
So, one of you tell me or have SP tell me, a mere mortal and certified peon, what happens when the charges of impeachment are brought by the house and then referred to the spinate for trial and dingy harry ignores them. Won’t even give them a second look, ignores them and does not allow them to be brought to the spinate floor?
Even if he does, what happens when the spinate is locked because neither side will cross the aisle to find obungo guilty?
She is 100% correct. Anyone who calls him a lawless president and is not calling for his immediate impeachment is a hypocrite if the first order.
There seem to be a lot of those people out there.
Either call for his impeachment or stop bitching about his disregard of the laws and the Constitution.
Either put up or shut up.
Yep. And BO and his handlers knows it. He will do much worse than he has already.
Her second Fox News opinion article in two days.
And my References still stand, you move enough people around, like in the Old Soviet Union, years later you have situations like the Donetsk Peoples Republic.
Just because you know you will get an OJ jury is no reason to not charge him with murder.
The Senate has a constitutional obligation to weigh the evidence and pronounce a verdict. Each congressman has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If a congressman claims that Obama is lawless then he has a duty to call for his impeachment.
Exactly what I thought.
Thanks for the reminder about Aztlan.
Liberals on other sites are always saying he’s broke no laws.
I just pull out that quote of Alexander Hamilton from Federalist #75 that basically says no law has to be broken. Just the abuse of the public trust.
...”If a congressman claims that Obama is lawless then he has a duty to call for his impeachment”.....
I don’t think Congressional Leaders believe in any oaths they take....that is not on their game board, nor in play. They are so completely self-centered they refuse to see they have any obligations but to themselves.
When a new president is elected to office, he or she takes an oath that lists many heavy responsibilities. Abuse of power or failure to uphold these responsibilities cannot be tolerated. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the right to impeach the president. Impeachment means that a charge of misconduct is filed against the president. A majority of the members of the House must vote for these charges in order to impeach the president.
After the charges of misconduct are filed, the Senate has the power to try impeachment cases like a court. Two-thirds of the senators must vote for conviction. The president may be removed from office and never allowed to hold a government position again if he is found guilty.
This is a little more in depth:
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been “impeached”. Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate’s usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.
To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote “guilty”, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
Yes. That is my understanding.
...what happens when the charges of impeachment are brought by the house and then referred to the senate for trial and dingy harry ignores them. Wont even give them a second look, ignores them and does not allow them to be brought to the senate floor?
Oh yeah, that’ll work just fine.
Same as impeachment and the lawsuit. Which base is rallied the most before the mid-term elections? That’ll be who wins.
The best thing this congress can do is legal and financial subterfuge. Cut off the money or outsmart obungo and his cabal at their own game.
They might manage one of those if they wanted to and the other one I am really doubtful of if only strategically led by the current party leadership of the pubbies. There is also a profound lack of loyal and able soldiers to execute a strategic plan even if they could come up with one.
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.