About impeachment.

[Arbo]

Now you will incur the wrath of the Obama lovers

There would have to be more than one for the word to be plural. So far the one one I recall is Gabby. Just correcting you yet again.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sadly Obama will reek damage on us for the rest of his stay in the WH. We can't even get a gov elected in Virginia, so how do you plan to get rid of this worthless POS in the WH?

The bamtraitor will not be ejected before his term ends its duly scheduled course. They didn't spend a billion dollars getting him in for a second destructive term only to have him forced out by impeachment. Any meaningful impeachment trial and verdict would be rejected by he and his corrupt admin with Civil War being the only alternative remaining. That being the case is his insurance against being impeached IMHO.
ONLY THOSE WILLING TO WAGE WAR TO RESTORE THE REPUBLIC WILL SERIOUSLY GO FOR HIS WELL DESREVED IMPEACHMENT AND PROSECUTORIAL REMOVAL. He and his handlers know it will take more than they dish out piecemeal OVER 8 LONG YEARS to trigger such a campaign... In fact , they bank on it.. Sad to have to say they are almost certainly correct on that.. --Tyr

[aboutime]

The bamtraitor will not be ejected before his term ends its duly scheduled course. They didn't spend a billion dollars getting him in for a second destructive term only to have him forced out by impeachment. Any meaningful impeachment trial and verdict would be rejected by he and his corrupt admin with Civil War being the only alternative remaining. That being the case is his insurance against being impeached IMHO.
ONLY THOSE WILLING TO WAGE WAR TO RESTORE THE REPUBLIC WILL SERIOUSLY GO FOR HIS WELL DESREVED IMPEACHMENT AND PROSECUTORIAL REMOVAL. He and his handlers know it will take more than they dish out piecemeal OVER 8 LONG YEARS to trigger such a campaign... In fact , they bank on it.. Sad to have to say they are almost certainly correct on that.. --Tyr

Sadly. As much as many of us would absolutely, positively hope, and wish for the Impeachment, and removal of Obama. He has an ACE in the hole...he probably laughs at. Namely...Joe (FootinMouth) Biden.
Granted. Obama needs to be removed, and the sooner the better. But...once again.
We must remember WHO we get if Obama gets kicked back to CAPONE-ACORN-LAND.

What we should all do while the Obamidiot remains in office is...CHEER for his FAILED Legacy. Remind everyone who ever thought about voting for him, and those who foolishly did TWICE, how they...THEY....are responsible for everything that is wrong with our nation today.
If they disagree. Nobody really cares.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Its high time impeachment becomes a daily subject IMHO. WHO CAN TRULY THINK THAT OBAMA HAS DONE NOTHING TO GET IMPEACHED FOR? Who still thinks that he does not break his oath of office often?--Tyr

[aboutime]

Its high time impeachment becomes a daily subject IMHO. WHO CAN TRULY THINK THAT OBAMA HAS DONE NOTHING TO GET IMPEACHED FOR? Who still thinks that he does not break his oath of office often?--Tyr

TYR. MOST ALL OF US TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS!

Problem is. CONGRESS stands in the way. Especially before a MID-TERM election. And, especially when we have so many WORN-OUT, WUSSIES, and RINO's in the U.S. Senate...from BOTH SIDES of the political aisle.

If there was some MAGIC switch we could push to make IMPEACHMENT a reality. I'm sure....we would have had that Button pushed....right after Obama was elected the first time.
But. Reality is. NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE DEMAND IT.
YOU, and I, the millions of Uneducated Americans out there who do not care...like we do. Will never get that WISH to come true until WE VOTE OUT all of the DEAD WOOD in both houses of Congress.
That's the Reality. Sad to say.

[logroller]

TYR. MOST ALL OF US TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS!

Problem is. CONGRESS stands in the way.

Especially before a MID-TERM election. And, especially when we have so many WORN-OUT, WUSSIES, and RINO's in the U.S. Senate...from BOTH SIDES of the political aisle.

If there was some MAGIC switch we could push to make IMPEACHMENT a reality. I'm sure....we would have had that Button pushed....right after Obama was elected the first time.
But. Reality is. NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE DEMAND IT.
YOU, and I, the millions of Uneducated Americans out there who do not care...like we do. Will never get that WISH to come true until WE VOTE OUT all of the DEAD WOOD in both houses of Congress.
That's the Reality. Sad to say.

Its truly ironic that those who call for the impeachment of Obama, allegedly for violating his oath to defend the constitution, see the constitutional design as the 'problem'.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/..._but_wont.html

November 24, 2013
Why Obama Should Be Impeached, but Won't
By Richard Winchester
Barack Obama should be impeached and convicted. Alas, he probably won't be.

Other than electoral defeat, the U.S. has two peaceful procedures for removing a head of government. Some state constitutions provide for recall election to remove an errant governor. (Two governors have been recalled, the most recent being "Gray" Davis [CA] in 2003.)


At the national level, the only legal, peaceful means to remove a president -- other than voting the individual out -- is by impeachment and conviction.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states that, "[t]he 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" (my italics).

Alexander Hamilton's The Federalist #65 specifies the kinds of offenses for which impeachment would be appropriate: "those offenses which proceed from ... the abuse or violation of some public trust" (my italics).

Both Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court's Chief Justice are involved in the impeachment process. Article I, Section 2, paragraph 5 grants "the sole Power of Impeachment" to the House of Representatives. (This is akin to a legal accusation. A simple majority vote suffices.) Articlethirds of the Senators who are present must vote for conviction.) Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6 limits the penalty for conviction to removal from office and disqualification for holding any position "of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law."
Article III, section 3, paragraph 1 defines treason as "levying War against ... [the United States], or ... adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Bribery's meaning needs no definition.

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors'" meaning is less obvious. The Constitutional Convention, however, adopted the phrase without much debate. Most of the Framers were familiar with the phrase, which had been used to remove English officials since 1386. The term "high" signified a very serious crime. The phrase boils down to abuses of power and misconduct in office.

Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliot have written a new book exploring Obama's Impeachable Offenses. Their catalogue of impeachable offenses is extensive, including "Operation Fast and Furious," Obamacare, drone attacks that murdered American citizens abroad, and the Benghazi fiasco and its aftermath, just to list four. Other impeachable offenses -- such as the IRS targeting of conservatives, DOJ spying on reporters, etc. -- were revealed after Klein and Elliott had completed the book.

The American Thinker's readers probably have reasons for impeaching and convicting Obama. Very likely among them are revelations that Obama delayed for one year Obamacare's mandate that large businesses provide healthcare insurance for employees, demanded that insurance companies rescind cancellation of pre-Obamacare health insurance policies, and lied about citizens keeping their health insurance plans and doctors once Obamacare took effect.

Unless Obama drastically changes his MO, by the time his second term expires there will be additional evidence buttressing Klein and Elliott's contention that "Barack Obama has ... fundamentally abused the powers of his office" (my italics).

I restrict my contention that Obama should be impeached and convicted to what can be certified as "abuse of power." Specifically, I focus on Obama's violation of the Constitution's stipulation (Article II, section 3) that a president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...."

Never mind that he lied when he said that citizens could keep their health insurance policiespoint to justify Obama's lies.

There were Kool-Aid drinkers during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998; there are Kool-Aid drinkers today. As long as the mainstream media buttress today's Kool-Aid drinkers, the claim that Obama lied has little chance.

When it comes to taking care that "the Laws be faithfully executed," however, Obama is liable. The Constitution does not permit a president (single-handedly) to change a law's provision.

Like it or not, Obamacare is the law.

Therefore, Obama's decision to postpone Obamacare's mandate that large businesses pay for employees' healthcare violates the Constitution. Since that decision contravenes the Constitution's requirement that a president take care that "the Laws be faithfully executed," Obama should be impeached, and convicted of the "high crime" of abuse of power.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2rzBqprnn

^^^^^ Post for those that declare he has done nothing that warrants impeachment. To me those people are like this. "So Jeffry Dahmer ate a few people. Don't you eat when you are hungry"? While they can not see the forest for the trees! While they dismiss as nothing the many scandals and his constant actions he justifies by saying Congress will not act. And that in itself presents the fact that he himself considers its their duty to act thus its not legal for him to assume their duties! What he says is they will not pass a law/bill to address this so I will just Executive Order it be done. The Constitution clearly states the President can not do that.--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/liberal-l...is-the-danger/

Liberal law professor: Obama is the danger

Warns against 'concentration of power' in Oval Office

Published: 12/05/2013 at 11:28 AM
A noted liberal Georgetown University law professor who represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases says Barack Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

The comments from Jonathan Turley came during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday.

Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/liberal-l...dPehtl8Q1jX.99

Now after belittling my contention that Obama has engaged in unconstitutional actions what say yee geniuses to this Constitutional scholar's words citing he has?? And he is not a CONSERVATIVE nor a man without knowledge of the subject. HE STATED THIS UNDER OATH... -Tyr

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

[aboutime]

Its truly ironic that those who call for the impeachment of Obama, allegedly for violating his oath to defend the constitution, see the constitutional design as the 'problem'.

No log. YOU, and people like YOU are the problem.

[logroller]

No log. YOU, and people like YOU are the problem.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...923#post681923

[aboutime]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...923#post681923

So, you back it up by posting a link that proves YOU are the problem?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now after belittling my contention that Obama has engaged in unconstitutional actions what say yee geniuses to this Constitutional scholar's words citing he has?? And he is not a CONSERVATIVE nor a man without knowledge of the subject. HE STATED THIS UNDER OATH... -Tyr

So I present the accusation made by a noted Constitutional expert and nobody in the bampunk "did nothing impeachable crew" replies to it or even attempts to call the man a dumbass . --Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Not gonna happen. End of story.

[fj1200]

So I present the accusation made by a noted Constitutional expert and nobody in the bampunk "did nothing impeachable crew" replies to it or even attempts to call the man a dumbass . --Tyr

And if Congress cared about itself as an institution and it's necessary role then they would do something about it. It shouldn't be a shock when a unitary executive acts in a unitary manner.