Skip to comments.Five Myths About Impeachment
Posted on 08/04/2014 8:37:39 AM PDT by centurion316
Some 40 years after Richard Nixon resigned to avoid his likely impeachment by the House of Representatives, Washington is again talking impeachment. Members of Congress are denouncing the presidents contempt for constitutional law, while the president is raising money to fight the effort to remove him. But this time, the money pouring in would be just as well spent on defense against Bigfoot. Much of the debate has been more mythological than constitutional...
But Congresss exclusive power to impeach does not license it to abuse that power, any more than the Supreme Courts final say on laws gives it license to deliver arbitrary rulings. The framers carefully defined the grounds for impeachment as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors language with British legal precedent. They clearly did not want removal of the president subject to congressional whim. Indeed, they rejected the addition of maladministration after James Madison cautioned that so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Impeachment does not mean removal from office. It means being brought to "trial" for consideration of removal.
Bill Clinton was impeached. He was not removed from office.
The senate votes are not a limitation to impeachment, rather a limitation on the ability to remove from office, after impeachment.
impeachment = charged
it does not mean convicted
The primary value of any impeachment action by the House of Representatives would be to highlight this lawless President’s illegal actions in a public forum that would get a lot of media attention. Unfortunately, the media would make every effort to paint the current occupant of the Whitehouse as a victim hateful racial bias.
A Senate trial is a necessary and mandatory result of a vote for Impeachment by the House. The two are mentioned in the same sentence in the Constitution. The Senate must act. They do not, however, have to convict, or even to hold a vote for conviction. When Articles of Impeachment are delivered to the Senate by the House, the Senate must convene as a trial to consider the Articles.
Why in the world would any body of government be foolish enough to adopt a resolution removing the Chief Executive if they had no possibility of carrying it out? It would be an empty gesture, and in this case one that Obama and his supporters desperately want as it is one of the few means available to them to rally his supporters. Impeachment in current circumstances is foolish, hopeless, and ill advised.
"Is freedom anything else than the right to live as we wish?
Senate removal is independent and irrelevant. Obama’s actions warrant impeachment - multiple times! Obama deserves the distinction of being the first president impeached TWICE!
The primary value of impeachment would be for Obama. It’s the only way that he can rally his indifferent supporters. That’s why he, his people, and the media are trying to goad the House into doing it. That would be a big mistake.
Documentation File on the 2014 Impeachment of B. Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro a former Foreign Student from Indonesia, and still a legal Citizen of the Sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
No it's not. A Senate trial is required by Impeachment. You are confusing the cry for justice with the process of impeachment. They are not the same, impeachment has nothing to do with justice, it is a political act.
Where is such documentation? Do you know that during the Senate trial of William Jefferson Clinton, the evidence was never examined. The Senate adjourned as a trial without ever looking at the evidence, the just listened to the House managers and then voted to end the proceedings.
So our Constitutional process has left us with a facade of protection forcing us to follow the Declaration of Independence.
Jonathan Turley is a lawyer. He favors making it easier to sue the Executive Branch. He would benefit financially if the laws allowing such lawsuits were to be liberalized. Impeachment doesn't offer any financial benefits for him.
The Republican “leadership” in DC is running away from impeachment as quickly as they can; frightened to death that the DIMS/MSM will call them names and fund-raise off of it.
As we sit here, the DIMS/MSM are calling the Republicans names and fund-raising off of the impeachment narrative they created.
Impeachment is a process. It may or may not lead to removal; it won’t lead to removal today. However, it might some time in the future. Whether it does or not is dependent on how well a case is made pre-impeachment (discussion going on now), and the case made during impeachment. There may come a point where impeachment is the last option to save a Republic, or even worse, waiting even longer where even impeachment won’t save it.
Several arrows are still left in the quiver. Foremost are elections. All signs suggest a major defeat for Obama in November. Politicians’ minds are remarkably fungible when the people express their opinions at the polls. Not that Obama will change his mind, narcissist sociopaths rarely do. But, other politicians will and he will get no support from the Congress.
The courts can also draw the line and we have seen some early indications that they will do more. Turley is leading the charge on the legal side and he is a dedicated lefty.
If he openly defies Congress and the courts, then impeachment might be possible, provided that the people have clearly expressed a desire for such an action. To date, they have not which is why the Senate will not act even if the House does.
My documentation file comment is for my benefit to assist me in the book that Im writing for my Grandchildren, with a side benefit of irritating thin-skinned Lib Lurkers.
In return, I pay a little more during Jims Fund Raisings for this guest’s use of Jims FREE REPUBLIC Website.
There is no Free Lunch in a Free Society - - - - .
The wide range of topics on FR make it an excellent database for facts and opinions in our increasingly polarized Society.
Thanks for your interest in my expedited method of re-search documentation on FR.
I basically stopped reading Mr. Turley's article after reading his first myth refuting the idea that everything is impeachable. No, not everything is impeachable. The problem is that, as a consequence of Mr. Turley probably not understanding the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, particularly Section 8 of Article I, he is essentially clueless about Obama's constitutionally indefensible actions.
I believe that this article is a good presentation of the fundamental process of impeachment. I found its major shortcoming was the lack of discussion on the Senate’s role. Turley’s larger issue with the limitations of the Federal Government is a point well taken, but beyond the scope of this article.
Clearly Impeachable Offenses are not merely what Congress defines them as such.
Equally clearly, Obama has violated his oath of office in refusing to defend our borders, in refusing to enforce laws, in unconstitutionally changing laws, and in providing aid and comfort to the enemies of America.
If this bastard can’t be impeached, NOBODY can
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.