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.
PS, my congress critter is nothing but a tool of the chamber of commerce. He wakes up long enough to run for office again and between times you have to put a mirror to his face to see if he is breathing. There is however the trail of spittle that hangs from the corner of his mouth.
Irrelevent. Impeachment is a singular act. A trial by the Senate on the charges of impeachment is quite another.
Y’know. I remember you from another useless thread.
Forget it. Nothing to work with.
You and Sarah are right! All of these people around here and elsewhere are always talking about how Obama is trashing the Constitution and abusing powers but when someone says that its time for something to be done about it, they strink away
Well, the House could still impeach him regardless of what the Senate does - in theory anyway, but there aren't the votes for it even in the House. Not only not the votes for it, not even close to the votes for it. So the House wouldn't even be able to refer a successful impeachment to the Senate for trial.
Even if he does, what happens when the spinate is locked because neither side will cross the aisle to find obungo guilty?
It wouldn't be locked. It's far more likely that if it were brought up the majority of Republicans would vote against it. Harry Reid would probably be thrilled to bring such a thing up if he could because he knows it would rally Obama's dependent base who are currently not paying much attention to politics. The cries of racism alone would be a big boost for the Democrats in 2014.
Sarah Palin can say this because she isn't an elected representative of anyone or anything. It's easy to argue for things that don't have public support as a political commentator or from her perch on some realityTV show. Doesn't mean her points are wrong, only that elected office holders have to weigh public opinion and she doesn't.
What is it that people don't understand about this being a pointless exercise of gumflapping when the public is not even remotely close to supporting such a thing? Impeachment is a political endeavor, if the public doesn't support the effort it is counter productive waste of time. There is no way the public is ever going to support impeaching the first black......err half black...President. The man could eat a live baby on TV and the public would probably would find a reason to just let him pass his remaining years in office. Heck, they might not even support censure for even that.
Since the old media are complicit in the cover-up, articles of impeachment rather than a news record will serve as a permanent historical feature of His presidency.
And, if we should not recover our freedoms, if we should continue our head first dive into despotism, history will record that the people of the United States made one last effort to save their republic.
You don't know that. Listing his crimes would expose him and the "go along to get along" crowd wouldn't have any cover.
We the People need to get LOUD.
Their gnashing of teeth over Obamas self-granted omnipotence is repetitive.
YOU SPEAK FOR ME, SARAH.
You, dear, are talking out your patoot, in polite parlance.
You have zero clue as to what "the public" is close to supporting, especially if you eliminate illegals and fraudulent "public" votes that decide elections. If not for frauds, malevolent forces like Reid, Franken, and Obama wouldn't even be in office.
You know, to the Democrat's Pepsi, Republicans aren't even Coke. They're decaf diet Coke, no guts at all, not even a buzz.
It is unfortunate we have the mid-term elections coming up because of the effect it will have on the zero infobots if impeachment gets on the front burner. For those who remember the Clinton impeachment, we saw the Republicans lose five House seats in the 1998 election and no change in the Senate. This marked first time since 1822 that the party not in control of the White House failed to gain seats in the mid-term election of a lame duck President’s second term. It is as if the Dems are baiting the Republicans with Zer0’s bizarre actions. They would love to start talk of impeachment. That way they can gin up their lazy base and mount a stronger challenge to the Republicans. We may be seeing the Democrats laying a trap for the elections. It is how they work.
As 2ndDivisionVet wrote:
He could massacre a troop of girl scouts on the White House lawn during the Easter Egg roll, butcher them, barbecue them and serve them to all the participants and he still wouldnt be impeached.
All the while, the press would ask Mooselle what kind of spice rub he used and praise her for her potato salad while drinking the White House Kool-Aid.
I would love to see an impeachment. I have cried for impeachment on the Free Republic. However, it is part of the living room conversation reserved for the adults. It is fantastic we have Sarah Palin in the room to start the conversation rolling. As for the zer0 infobots, they can stay in their bedrooms and play with their Facebook and Twitter friends and talk about who has the sexy booty. I want them to be oblivious to the mounting storm awaiting the Dems next November. I want them to forget about voting in November as they forgot about our nation, when they voted the second term for that Yahoo called Zer0.
“Even if he does, what happens when the spinate is locked because neither side will cross the aisle to find obungo guilty?”
You’re missing the point. By going through the process we separate the bulls from the steers. And while the impeachment is going on, you pin dear leader down somewhat.
But I’m even more pessimistic than you...I doubt that the House will bring up the issue for a vote. Which is also fine, because I think the subtler goal is to establish the case for a divorce.
Conservatives from the gop wing of the uniparty. Either you’re with us in holding dear leader accountable, or you’re against us. Its that basic of a question.
The gop wing will most likely do nothing. And I foresee that SP will use that irreconcilable difference as the pretext for starting a second party.
Remember the good old days on FR when threads were filled with people working toward the same goals?
Remember when rewriting history was frowned on?
Remember when spouting the liberal talking points was a ticket out?
Remember when conservatism meant something?
Every thread now we see people repeating the defeatist liberal/GOP mantra that Obama ‘can’t be impeached’ because it would ‘hurt’ our chances in 16. Because Reid would never convict. It is truly sad to see so many people caring more about a party that screws them than their own country. But they do.
May the Lord keep and bless Sarah for her courage and bravery.
This article will be sent to each of my Reps. They need to know that the status quo must go. Enough is enough.
“This is the litmus test for GOPe and Conservatives.
Impeach? Yes or No?”
We have really 2 national conservative leaders at this point that are more or less recognized as such by conservatives: Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz. It’ll be very interesting to see if Ted joins in. I suspect that once they discuss it, he’ll be on board. Perhaps not vocally, but certainly in the yes column.
Oh, and if you would please put me down as a yes. Thanks.
You are wandering in the dark, FRiend. You look down on the majority of your fellow Americans as selfish, ignorant children. You are wrong about them, and you forget that most children grow up and ultimately become wiser and better, given the opportunity.
The MSM may be dominated by leftists, and many political offices such as Reid's, Obama's, and Al Franken's, are held by leftists who "won" on false votes. But the true America -- at least its legal, productive, average ranks -- is dominated by decent people who are extremely angry. Read the comments on mainstream news sites like CBS Los Angeles when they report on how "hundreds" marched on L.A. City Hall to support "immigrant rights." They make FReepers look like old ladies in their anger at liberalism, the biased MSM, and Obama.
Leftists look big and vote freehandedly; liberals and leftists are the minority in America. It's why they have to cheat.
You are holding the majority of your compatriots in contempt because a false portrait of America that you have embraced. You're not alone.
I am just worried that the Dems see the impeachment talk as a method to wreck the Republican’s chances for taking the Senate in the mid-terms this November. They can play the Race Card and the Victim Card to rally their base to the polls. They can use the Alinsky Playbook to demonize their opponents. The Dems will use the impeachment process as their focus. It would be a trap we can’t fall on. Wait until after the elections, when we have the Senate. Right now, let it be a quiet conversation by the adults—away from the ears of the Democrat base and their zero infobots.