Impeachment

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

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

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by bluelang

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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/thepre...mpeachment.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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

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