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
He can certainly be impeached, he just can't be convicted so it makes no sense to use this remedy at this point. The founders made impeachment a very difficult thing to do, it has never succeeded. That's a good thing.
You need to learn how to read. I said senate REMOVAL is irrelevant.
So you did, which makes even less sense. Some political carnival act without hope of its intended purpose does nothing but give the Democrats a stage to fire up their base and strengthen a very weakened President.
I’ll work on learning how to read, perhaps you should focus on thinking.
“Senate removal is independent and irrelevant. Obamas actions warrant impeachment - multiple times! Obama deserves the distinction of being the first president impeached TWICE!”
So do it after the election. This way you have two years and by 2016 the media willbp be focusing on Hillary’s courageous actions in Benghazi. No need to make impeachment a campaign issue for 2014.
As the democrats control the Senate, impeachment would only be a symbolic gesture by the House.
However, the House has the power to defund everything Obama. Boehner refuses to use the only real power he has. This silly lawsuit that the House is trying is an embarssment that emphasizes how spineless Boehner is.
False. While no president has been removed from office after an impeachment, both presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton was successfully impeached. Others have been both impeached and removed, just not presidents.
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only examples of a Presidential Impeachment. They were both quite unsucessful since they were not removed from office, the only possible outcome of Impeachment that can be deemed success.
Your comment is like saying we had a very successful Super Bowl, we lost.
By your definition. Future actions have been changed by impeachment.
Turley notes that impeachable offenses include behavior such as continuing unconstitutional abuses even after the courts have ruled against them. Somehow he misses that Boehner’s lawsuit is aimed at exactly that. They need to hurry it along, and add more cases.
You do realize obama has proven there is no limit on Executive Power if you control over 1/3 of the Senate and the DOJ?
He could theoretically refuse to step down in 2016, and there isn’t a damned thing that could be done about it
Do it now and then repeat and do it regularly.
Apparently you are in the weeny camp of “oh NO we can’t impeach Obama or we will make them mad and when they get mad I get scared!!”. We need to get of offense and stay on offense
The founders did not envision that a Chief Executive would be the head of an organized criminal conspiracy. That leaves the voters, but many of them, including members of this very forum, are prepared to continue supporting Democrats.
New tagline ...
When you change self apparent definitions, anything can be deemed a success. To wit, the Democrats with Obamacare.
When you claim the results of a separate process, anything can be deemed a failure.
“Apparently you are in the weeny camp of oh NO we cant impeach Obama or we will make them mad and when they get mad I get scared!!. We need to get of offense and stay on offense.”
Nope. Not in weenie camp. This is an election year and with the congress critters campaigning and such, why give the MSM ammunition to go after Republicans and risk losing the House? We have our two strongest issues (Obamacare and Illegal Immigratiion) which should give Republicans more seats.
Why give that up when the threat of impeachment will still be there in January? Especially with a new congress and the potential of majorities in both houses?
I know this would never happen, but wouldn’t it be sweet if new Senate Majority leader Cruz goes nuclear and calls for 51 votes to remove Obama from office. He invokes the “Reid Rule.”
Unfortunately, impeachment without removal is almost a political "win" for the President. Certainly for a Democrat President, anyway. It is true that Bill Clinton was disbarred, and probably paid some civil fines, but I don't think he's hurting or caring too much about his legacy. The same would hold true for Obama.
Surely, our Founding Fathers had a President like Obama in mind when they gave instructions on how to legally impeach and remove. How do we both impeach and remove in today's partisan environment?
Demonstrating the willingness to stand up to a tyrant is not a win for the tyrant.
If that tyrant, along with his complicit media paint a picture that it's just "extremist Republican and Tea Party sour grapes..." it's not much of a win for those that impeached him.
The eGOP has for too long, allowed themselves to be trampled on by Obama. Simply put, they don't know how to effectively communicate or describe how the President's agenda is bad for the United States. They don't know how to challenge his anti-Constitutional actions, and they don't know how to stay on-message.. The GOP is disjointed; its message is never crisp, never repeatable, never fully orchestrated to achieve a goal.
While I'm in agreement that impeachment is long overdue, I worry that a symbolic action by the House will be painted as overly partisan, and that failure to obtain 67 votes in the Senate play to Obama's advantage.
Yes - you are definitely in the weenie camp. You are scared to impeach because you say that will “give them ammunition”. That is defense. We need to be on offense. We should not worry about what the other side says. They speak lies and propaganda. Ignore them.
Did the president commit impeachable acts? Yes or no? If you believe the answer is yes then our congressional reps have a duty to impeach.
Impeach now and again and again as needed.
“Yes - you are definitely in the weenie camp.”
Nobody in congress is going to touch this with a 10 foot pole till after the election is over. I’m not in the weenie camp. I’m just telling you how it is.
But go ahead and live your impeachment fantasy. Clinton was in office for two tears after he was impeached.
Removal from office is separate from impeachment. What the Senate does is irrevelant to the house’s duty to impeach a president for high crimes.
Do you believe Obama has committed impeachable crimes? Yes or no? You didn’t answer the question.
In practice, impeaching and convicting a president means shame and humiliation for the impeached president. Politicians don’t like to do that to other politicians. For one thing, it sets a precedent that can be used to unseat a president of their own party. The impeachment process is also likely to be considered partisan and a waste of time by much of the public. So in practice, an impeachable offense does have to be something very like an actual crime, even if the Founders didn’t intend it to be.
Exactly what my husband keeps saying.
Very insightful observations. I am impressed.
“Do you believe Obama has committed impeachable crimes? Yes or no? You didnt answer the question.”
Tell me what his high crime is and I will tell you if he should be impeached.
>> “Tell me what his high crime is and I will tell you if he should be impeached” <<
The highest possible crime: Total disregard of the separation of powers, and his oath of office to uphold the constitution.
“The highest possible crime: Total disregard of the separation of powers, and his oath of office to uphold the constitution.”
Impeach. No question about it.
So it seems the only difference is you want him impeached now and I want to wait until the new congress is seated?