Impeachment

[g8orbill]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-uses-executive-action-for-gun-control/

From the article:

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” (RELATED: Levin: If Obama sidesteps Congress on debt ceiling, ‘no choice’ but impeachment)

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.

[dangolegators]

That all depends on what the executive orders actually are. There's nothing seemingly unconstitutional about the actions listed in this story:

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House aides believe Mr. Obama can also ratchet up enforcement of existing laws, including tougher prosecution of people who lie on their background checks.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/politics/biden-meets-with-house-democrats-on-gun-violence-proposals.html

[g8orbill]

danglo-I highly doubt the 47%ers prez will just do those few things-he wants to be in total control-would not surprise me in the least to see the ....... overstep his Constitutional boundaries

[RealGatorFan]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-uses-executive-action-for-gun-control/

From the article:

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” (RELATED: Levin: If Obama sidesteps Congress on debt ceiling, ‘no choice’ but impeachment)

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.

Obama said if he was given the chance to take the One Ring, he would gladly. I am glad this isn't Middle Earth:-)

“If the House and the Senate wants to give me the authority [the One Ring] so they don’t have to take these tough votes… I’m happy to take it,” he said. But, Obama added: “There are no magic tricks here, no loopholes. There’s no easy way out.”

Scary thought here...very scary thought. Imagine if both Houses were a democrat majority and they gave him the authority to do everything himself.....

[philnotfil]

danglo-I highly doubt the 47%ers prez will just do those few things-he wants to be in total control-would not surprise me in the least to see the ....... overstep his Constitutional boundaries

What did he do in his first four years that makes you think he wants to be in total control? If he had control of both the House and the Senate, why didn't he do more during his first two years?

[neisgator]

What did he do in his first four years that makes you think he wants to be in total control? If he had control of both the House and the Senate, why didn't he do more during his first two years?

Because he was inept? Had no executive or ANY experience of ANY kind. Thank God that it was his first two years in office and not these two years where he has both.

[philnotfil]

So now he has become a mastermind and will be able to overcome a lack of a majority in the House and a lack of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? That was an impressive four years of progress on his part.

You guys are as bad with Obama as the other side was with Bush. Make up your mind, is Obama a brilliant politician capable of overcoming some huge political obstacles in order to be able to install himself as dictator for life, or is he an idiot with no experience doing anything meaningful who lucked his way into the highest office in the land?

[LeesGator]

So now he has become a mastermind and will be able to overcome a lack of a majority in the House and a lack of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? That was an impressive four years of progress on his part.

You guys are as bad with Obama as the other side was with Bush. Make up your mind, is Obama a brilliant politician capable of overcoming some huge political obstacles in order to be able to install himself as dictator for life, or is he an idiot with no experience doing anything meaningful who lucked his way into the highest office in the land?

This ^

[g8orbill]

What did he do in his first four years that makes you think he wants to be in total control? If he had control of both the House and the Senate, why didn't he do more during his first two years?

1- he has shown time and time again he is not a leader (and that may end up being our saving grace)
2- he no longer has to worry about re election and will be unfettered in his decision making

[GatorJeff]

So now he has become a mastermind and will be able to overcome a lack of a majority in the House and a lack of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? That was an impressive four years of progress on his part.

You guys are as bad with Obama as the other side was with Bush. Make up your mind, is Obama a brilliant politician capable of overcoming some huge political obstacles in order to be able to install himself as dictator for life, or is he an idiot with no experience doing anything meaningful who lucked his way into the highest office in the land?

True. They can't decide whether Obama is Simon Bar Sinister or Barney Fife. Goes back and forth, depending on whatever political issue they are trying to demagogue the voters with.

[fredsanford]

Nutty GOP House rep sez what?

[philnotfil]

1- he has shown time and time again he is not a leader (and that may end up being our saving grace)
2- he no longer has to worry about re election and will be unfettered in his decision making

Therefore he is planning to take total control of the country?

It seems like there are a few steps missing here.

[rivergator]

Yes, every time a Democrat is elected president, Republicans should try to impeach him. That's exactly how this whole electoral thing is supposed to work.

[GatorJeff]

Therefore he is planning to take total control of the country?

It seems like there are a few steps missing here.

Baffling that conservatives actually think he's going to take away their guns and that he's planning some sort of coup to seize control of the country. Don't you have to be smoking one of those great big 'ole Cheech and Chong sensimilla joints to be that paranoid?

[rivergator]

Baffling that conservatives actually think he's going to take away their guns and that he's planning some sort of coup to seize control of the country. Don't you have to be smoking one of those great big 'ole Cheech and Chong sensimilla joints to be that paranoid?

It could just be the meth and cheap wine.

[DanseRusse]

Baffling that conservatives actually think he's going to take away their guns and that he's planning some sort of coup to seize control of the country. Don't you have to be smoking one of those great big 'ole Cheech and Chong sensimilla joints to be that paranoid?

The NDAA, still trying to get SOPA passed, the UN gun bill that was presented in his first term, drones being flown over US soil....

Nope nothing to see here.

[rivergator]

The NDAA, still trying to get SOPA passed, the UN gun bill that was presented in his first term, drones being flown over US soil....

Nope nothing to see here.

I'd love to see your explanations about Obama controlling everything in regards to SOPA, the UN small arms treaty and drones.
Please explain.

[GatorJeff]

The NDAA, still trying to get SOPA passed, the UN gun bill that was presented in his first term, drones being flown over US soil....

Nope nothing to see here.

Right. And right wingers accuse bankers of controlling the money supply and "retinal scans" of customers in order to spy on them. In reality, bankers are just trying to figure out how to change the toner in their copiers.

[GatorJeff]

I'd love to see your explanations about Obama controlling everything in regards to SOPA, the UN small arms treaty and drones.
Please explain.

I'm guessing he's more in he "evil mastermind" camp rather than the "bumbling idiot" camp relative to Obama's abilities. Great to know our president is such a diabolical genius.

[neisgator]

So now he has become a mastermind and will be able to overcome a lack of a majority in the House and a lack of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? That was an impressive four years of progress on his part.

You guys are as bad with Obama as the other side was with Bush. Make up your mind, is Obama a brilliant politician capable of overcoming some huge political obstacles in order to be able to install himself as dictator for life, or is he an idiot with no experience doing anything meaningful who lucked his way into the highest office in the land?

This was brilliant. Way to skate around what I posted. Where did I say any of the crap you just said?
How "independent" of you.

[philnotfil]

This was brilliant. Way to skate around what I posted. Where did I say any of the crap you just said?
How "independent" of you.

My point was that the Democrats were being stupid when they said these types of things about Bush and the Republicans are being stupid when they say these types of things about Obama. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are putting making the other side look bad ahead of doing what is best for America.

(I'm not sure what you mean by independent, if thinking that both sides are wrong isn't independent, what do you mean by that word?)

[MichiGator2002]

I don't think impeachment is a warranted remedy for unconstitutional acts as such -- I think that only becomes a legitimate choice if when we say "unconstitutional acts" we are talking about frequent and habitual acts that appear knowingly unconstitutional and have been declared so by the courts. Case by case to some extent, but if he went on a tear of doing things that Congress would actually sue to prevent because it exceeds his powers or violated theirs and he kept losing, but showed no sincere sign that he cared, that's about the point at which I'd say we've got something genuinely impeachable.

And, fond of Obama as I'm not, I don't think he's pushed hard enough, fast enough, or frequently enough (that's what she said) or been told "no, you can't do that" by the actual authority on the subject enough, to impeach him for that alone.

Put another way -- Congress, if you want to impeach him for violating the constitution, sack up and bring him to court instead of just whining about it, and get the court to agree he's violated the constitution.

As a side note -- yes, "unconstitutional acts" and "violating the constitution" are not phrases that exclusively refer to individual rights, even though I think his defenders try to set that as a term of the debate. It's just as unconstitutional for Obama to issue an executive order claiming the power to lay taxes from the White House as it is for him to issue an order banning individual gun ownership.

[rivergator]

More ridiculous about Obama doing away with the entire Bill of Rights. Lou Dobbs:

Dobbs responded by claiming that Obama is "so committed to constraining or dismissing outright our Second Amendment rights, it makes you wonder why he's not ridding the Constitution of the First Amendment as well." He later said, "You've got to wonder why the president doesn't double down in his assault on the Constitution, taking on not only the Second, but the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Fourteenth." Dobbs then suggested that the reason Obama has "begun with the Second Amendment" is because "[w]ithout our rights under the Second Amendment, removing the rest of our Bill of Rights would be a lot easier."


link (hhttp://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/14/lou-dobbs-paranoid-theory-obama-will-seize-guns/192233)

[fredsanford]

Impeachment of a president is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," not for proposing things that the other side doesn't like.

[g8orbill]

shab- if he does something that counters or over rides our Constitution it is a high crime

[mocgator]

Impeachment of a president is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," not for proposing things that the other side doesn't like.

... like multiple violations of the US Constitution...

[gatorman_07732]

Impeachment of a president is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," not for proposing things that the other side doesn't like.

And abuse of authority would fall under high crimes and misdemeanors

[rivergator]

And abuse of authority would fall under high crimes and misdemeanors

pretty much a judgment call on everything a president does.

[DanseRusse]

I'd love to see your explanations about Obama controlling everything in regards to SOPA, the UN small arms treaty and drones.
Please explain.

Drones-
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=all

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46499162/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/us-opening-airspace-use-drones/

Ammo-
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-200-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/

And he did give up on SOPA for the time being. And the treaty didn't get discussed when it was proposed. The US stalled and asked for more time.

[philnotfil]

Drones-
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=all

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46499162/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/us-opening-airspace-use-drones/

Ammo-
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-200-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/

And he did give up on SOPA for the time being. And the treaty didn't get discussed when it was proposed. The US stalled and asked for more time.

I don't think you posted the right links.

[gatorman_07732]

pretty much a judgment call on everything a president does.

By continuously circumventing congress makes a pretty good argument

[wgbgator]

By continuously circumventing congress makes a pretty good argument

All you need to do is convince 2/3rds of the Senate then.

[rivergator]

Drones-
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=all

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46499162/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/us-opening-airspace-use-drones/

Ammo-
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-200-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/

And he did give up on SOPA for the time being. And the treaty didn't get discussed when it was proposed. The US stalled and asked for more time.

Let's see, this was supposed to be in the context of Obama controlling everything and becoming a dictator.
The FAA Reauthorization Act was sponsored by a Republican and includes instructing the FAA to develop laws by 2015 to license and test drones for police, etc.
The online privacy act was also sponsored by a Republican and Obama did not support it.
The UN small arms treaty has absolutely nothing to do with what goes on within U.S. borders.
So I don't think you've made a case for those three being examples of Obama's dictatorship.
But, yes, DHS bought a bunch of ammo for a bunch of federal agencies. You don't think the Secret Service, Border Patrol, Customs, etc., should have bullets?

[gatorman_07732]

All you need to do is convince 2/3rds of the Senate then.

They are not the president

[wgbgator]

They are not the president

Well, that's who votes on guilt in an impeachment trial.

[gatorman_07732]

Well, that's who votes on guilt in an impeachment trial.

Sorry misread your post, I understand that and it makes 2014 elections very important

[wgbgator]

Sorry misread your post, I understand that and it makes 2014 elections very important

Well, every election is important. But impeachment wont be riding on the outcome. Just to have 66 GOP votes there would need to be a +21 net gain. Could be wrong, I doubt there are even that many seats contested in 2014.

[fredsanford]

pretty much a judgment call on everything a president does.

No one here complaining on this thread thought George Bush should be impeached for going to war in Iraq based on the most questionable of intelligence. That was a violation of his constitutional obligations as Commander In Chief.

Many of you here would have impeached him for signing Healthcare Reform into law. The Roberts Court said you were wrong.

The High Crimes and misdemeanors standard is pretty high. Ask Slick Willie.

[rivergator]

No one here complaining on this thread thought George Bush should be impeached for going to war in Iraq based on the most questionable of intelligence. That was a violation of his constitutional obligations as Commander In Chief.

Many of you here would have impeached him for signing Healthcare Reform into law. The Roberts Court said you were wrong.

The High Crimes and misdemeanors standard is pretty high. Ask Slick Willie.

you had some rightwingers calling for impeachment during Obama's first year in office.

[MichiGator2002]

pretty much a judgment call on everything a president does.

Hence my point. I totally agree a President acting in habitual and intentional violation of the constition in either the ends or means of his use of power is impeachable. But, the place to argue the constitutionality of his ends and means is in court.

For instance, when he flouted the court ruling against his drilling moratorium, when he took a big wet dump on that ruling... there, something is actually on paper. But one instance alone, even, is not enough for me to say "yes, that is impeachable". I do think if he, say, restated the legislatively passed and then legislatively lapsed assault weapons ban by his own authority, that is unconstitutional by any measure (as to both ends and means, arguably, since the ban would also have to be reconsidered under Heller), buy only officially so if he was taken to court over it and the court agrees.

[gatorman_07732]

No one here complaining on this thread thought George Bush should be impeached for going to war in Iraq based on the most questionable of intelligence. That was a violation of his constitutional obligations as Commander In Chief.

Many of you here would have impeached him for signing Healthcare Reform into law. The Roberts Court said you were wrong.

The High Crimes and misdemeanors standard is pretty high. Ask Slick Willie.

Are you serious? Congress voted to go to war and in fact you can make the argument that Obama did not seek advice and consent of congress to go into Libya. Your example is horrible.

[bluelang]

This is insanity. You can't just be angry about something and call it abuse of the constitution. There are zero grounds for impeachment.

[108]

sigh

just more obstructionist grandstanding

how dare he use executive privileged to tighten some common sense gun laws that can't pass Congress due to enough of them being bought out by the NRA

[rivergator]

An opinion piece from 2010:

Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won’t do it right away. And they won’t succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office.

Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense.

A December poll found that 35 percent of Republicans already favor impeaching Obama, with just 48 percent opposed and the balance undecided. That is a large base of support to impeach Obama for literally anything at all.

link (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/78198/republicans-impeach-obama#)

[fredsanford]

Are you serious? Congress voted to go to war and in fact you can make the argument that Obama did not seek advice and consent of congress to go into Libya. Your example is horrible.

Congress was shown the cherry-picked intelligence by the Bush foreign policy team. They get a pass.

[wgbgator]

Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House over violating some fairly obscure law called the Tenure in Office Act. Getting a conviction is a different matter.

[gatorman_07732]

Congress was shown the cherry-picked intelligence by the Bush foreign policy team. They get a pass.

No Shab, the Senate intelligence committee has access to the same information as did all the other countries that were involved. You can say the intelligence was wrong, but it wasn't cherry-picked. If he simply wanted the excuse he had the violation of sanctions. To say that he violated the constitution is nonsense.

[bluelang]

Nevermind, I didn't realize congress could impeach someone for anything they wanted. Amazing.

[fredsanford]

No Shab, the Senate intelligence committee has access to the same information as did all the other countries that were involved. You can say the intelligence was wrong, but it wasn't cherry-picked. If he simply wanted the excuse he had the violation of sanctions. To say that he violated the constitution is nonsense.

It was cherry-picked and then presented to the Intelligence Committee CHAIRMEN, not even the full committees. Any intelligence counter to their desire to invade, which far outweighed the opposite, was ignored.

[wgbgator]

Nevermind, I didn't realize congress could impeach someone for anything they wanted. Amazing.

If they have the votes, they can "impeach." But that's only phase one. You've got to draw up articles, and then there is a trial in the Senate, requiring 2/3rds majority for conviction.

[MichiGator2002]

sigh

just more obstructionist grandstanding

how dare he use executive privileged to tighten some common sense gun laws that can't pass Congress due to enough of them being bought out by the NRA

What do you mean, though, by "tighten up common sense gun law". Bottom line is, he can't reach back and just self-impose the lapsed assault weapons ban. He flat out can't. If you can't see that, you are simply not qualified to the conversation. If you think he could, do you seriously mean to say what you would by definition be saying, that the President always could have done that on his own, that he never needed Congress?

[g8orbill]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm

Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.

Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

[108]

What do you mean, though, by "tighten up common sense gun law". Bottom line is, he can't reach back and just self-impose the lapsed assault weapons ban. He flat out can't. If you can't see that, you are simply not qualified to the conversation.

i didn't say he could do that specifically, nor do I think he is trying to

[gatorman_07732]

It was cherry-picked and then presented to the Intelligence Committee CHAIRMEN, not even the full committees. Any intelligence counter to their desire to invade, which far outweighed the opposite, was ignored.

That's what you claim but not true, because if it was simplay about going to war there were other ways to skin that cat.

[g8orbill]

Constitutional powers of the President of the United States

The President of the United States is granted these powers under Article II of the Constitution:

Powers of the President
+ Serve as commander in chief of all U.S. armed forces
+ Commission officers of the armed forces
+ Grant pardons and reprieves from Federal offenses (except impeachments)
+ Convene special sessions of Congress
+ Receive foreign ambassadors
+ Take care that Federal laws are faithfully executed
+ Wield the "executive power"
+ Appoint officials to lesser offices

Powers of the President Shared With the Senate
+ Make treaties
+ Appoint ambassadors, judges, and higher officials

Powers of the President Shared With Congress as a Whole
+ Approve legislation

[dudehead]

I don't recall Rs (or Ds for that matter) impeaching Bush, Sr. when he issued executive orders prohibiting some gun imports back in the late 1980s.

There is a group of bat-sh!t crazy Rs that is absolutely destroying the Republican party.

[fredsanford]

That's what you claim but not true, because if it was simplay about going to war there were other ways to skin that cat.

It is true, and Richard Clarke and many others have talked about the Bush team's hard on to attack Iraq as soon as he was inaugurated.

Eventually, they were going to find their Gulf of Tonkin to go in.

[gatorman_07732]

It is true, and Richard Clarke and many others have talked about the Bush team's hard on to attack Iraq as soon as he was inaugurated.

Eventually, they were going to find their Gulf of Tonkin to go in.

If it was true he would have been impeached. You're right up there with the truthers

[fredsanford]

If it was true he would have been impeached. You're right up there with the truthers

What's true and what you can prove are two different things. We also had a GOP-controlled congress for 6 of his 8 years in office, and a GOP Senate for all 8.

[gatorman_07732]

What's true and what you can prove are two different things. We also had a GOP-controlled congress for 6 of his 8 years in office, and a GOP Senate for all 8.

You are filled with excuses

[fredsanford]

You are filled with excuses

They're called explanations. Meanwhile, you would impeach Obama for 1% as much.

[gatorman_07732]

They're called explanations. Meanwhile, you would impeach Obama for 1% as much.

They are not called explanations, but rather craziness based on nothing based on hatred.

[fredsanford]

They are not called explanations, but rather craziness based on nothing based on hatred.

They're called facts. Your "Romney! Landslide! Book it!" side wouldn't recognize them.

[gatorman_07732]

They're called facts. Your "Romney! Landslide! Book it!" side wouldn't recognize them.

I'm not sure you would know what a fact is

[fredsanford]

I'm not sure you would know what a fact is

It's the opposite of what your beloved Fox broadcasts.

[gatorman_07732]

It's the opposite of what your beloved Fox broadcasts.

And you know what I watch? Obviously you have reached a desperation point in your dumb argument.

[DanseRusse]

The reality is all these morons need to go. Between the patriot act and the NDAA we don't have any real rights left. "All in the name of safety, freedom, and prosperity" haha

[gatordowneast]

Obama keeps using the line..."we had an election and the people are with me on this." And the "this" is anything he is talking about.

No Obama...we did have an election and yes you won....your organization got the mooches, slackers, government dependents and food stamp recipients to the polls in greater #s than those paying the income taxes necessary to fund the mooches.

But no, most of us do not agree with you on much of anything.

[MichiGator2002]

Obama keeps using the line..."we had an election and the people are with me on this." And the "this" is anything he is talking about.

No Obama...we did have an election and yes you won....your organization got the mooches, slackers, government dependents and food stamp recipients to the polls in greater #s than those paying the income taxes necessary to fund the mooches.

But no, most of us do not agree with you on much of anything.

Why do you think he ran a campaign utterly devoid of anything like a second term agenda? I mean, there was a list of pro forma platitudes that was talked about barely the rest of the day it came out, but otherwise, he himself was his second term agenda, and it was hos obvious intention from the start to position himself exactly this way.

[dadx4]

He's already overstepped the constitutional boundaries but no one has had the balls to tell him no. So until they do he will just keep going all "king" on us and tell us to shut up while he's doing it.