- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 33,000
- Reaction score
- 13,973
- Location
- FL - Daytona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense' | The Weekly Standard
Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News tonight that amnesty via executive order is an "impeachable offense."
"Look, I believe it is an impeachable offense," Krauthammer told Kelly.
"If the circumstances were different, if we were at the beginning of a presidency, if we hadn't had years when the Congress has been supine and unresponsive at other grabs of their authority by the executive--like Obama unilaterally changing Obamacare after it was passed about 30 times with no response from the Congress--the same as Obama essentially re-writing some of the drug laws.
Watch his comments to Megyn Kelly:
Will Congress try to impeach a President for using executive power to make sweeping immigration law changes, and is it warranted?
When I think of partisan hack I think of Krauthammer.
Republicans need to get off the impeachment wagon and get on to things that matter.
Impeachment is not going to happen. For 1 thing, in a couple of years, BarryO will be gone. It would take nearly that long to carry out any results of impeachment. For another, neither Boehnor or McConnell has the cojonese to do it.
Better to cut Obama off at the knees. Deny funding, tie illegal actions up in court. Then get on with putting things right.
Impeachment requires an actual crime or an act directly in conflict with the president's duty to work for the good of the nation and the American people. Arguably going beyond his authority in order to actually do some governing when congress won't is hardly either of those. Congress is welcome to attempt to rein in presidential power via legislation or constitutional amendment, but it would have to apply to the office itself, not just this president that they don't like.
I haven't seen the video - at work - and haven't really been following the issue outside of knowing it exists.
First off what crime is being alleged? Presidents get impeached for breaking the law. Testing the bounds of presidential authority or putting forth an unconstitutional order are not crimes. So the whole impeachment things sounds like political talk and not something that's legal reality.
What is Obama claiming as legal authority for granting amnesty?
When I think of partisan hack I think of Krauthammer.
Impeachment requires an actual crime or an act directly in conflict with the president's duty to work for the good of the nation and the American people. Arguably going beyond his authority in order to actually do some governing when congress won't is hardly either of those. Congress is welcome to attempt to rein in presidential power via legislation or constitutional amendment, but it would have to apply to the office itself, not just this president that they don't like.
Agreed.
This type of issue has been discussed several times before; Presidents issue EO's all the time and as long as the context of the EO is within the bounds of standing law (in this case, INA law), there's really nothing anyone in Congress can do about it. Will such an EO on immigration brush up against Art. 2, Section 3, clause 5 of the constitution where questionable use of executive powers is concerned? Maybe, but doubtful.
Let's not forget that any EO issued is first and foremost directed to a specific department (or departments) within the President's Cabinet. As such, he can direct his Administration to carry out certain provisions of the law (or laws) as necessary for "good order and discipline" as it were, and as deemed fit for the "general welfare" of the republic.
As long as he adheres to the law as opposed to making law (which will be the argument pundits will try to make), there's really nothing Congress can do short of putting forth a bill that effectively changes the law that either goes counter to the EO issued or absorbs the policy directive issued in the EO.
You could say an EO issued on immigration policy at this point would be more like a power play as opposed to a power grab.
Talk of impeachment at this point is largely premature. Lets see what he ACTUALLY proposes.
If it literally grants anyone here illegally the ability to naturalize, then yes it's arguably an impeachable offense and given such a flagrant act at a time where the american voting base just sent forth a stout repudiation of the President and where it would be CLEARLY against the implied will of Congress I'd almost actually be able to get on board with such.
If it simply allows them the ability to stay in the country legally for a few years then its likely not an impeachable offense and attempting to do such would just be a waste of time and the tax payers money.
Right now we have no clue what he'll ACTUALLY do, so speculating on it is kind of worthless.
Watch his comments to Megyn Kelly:
Will Congress try to impeach a President for using executive power to make sweeping immigration law changes, and is it warranted?
When I think of Krauthammer I think of an incredibly intelligent and educated human being.
Watch his comments to Megyn Kelly:
Will Congress try to impeach a President for using executive power to make sweeping immigration law changes, and is it warranted?
I guess in practice an "impeachable offense" is whatever the House of Representatives says it is.
Krauthammer represents some of the worst of what America is today. He reminds me of a little dog that sits on the porch and yaps day and night and never shuts up. Doesn't do anything, but yap, yap, yap.
With all due respect to this once Pulitzer prize winning journalist, he's lost his mind.
He give emotional reasons as to why this amnesty is "impeachable" offense, but makes no reference to any form of "high crime" or "misdemeanors" stated in the United States Constitution.
And, based on recent history, Nixon and Clinton, talk of it on this issue is absurd. The constitution gives the president full power over pardons, unquestioningly so that Ford's pardon of Nixon BEFORE being charged, was not even challenged.
This feeds right into the mistake Republicans always make, stupid, irrational claims tending toward extremism.
If they want to attack this, the only way is through the courts, where a pardon for an on-going crime is questionable
I haven't seen the video - at work - and haven't really been following the issue outside of knowing it exists.
First off what crime is being alleged? Presidents get impeached for breaking the law. Testing the bounds of presidential authority or putting forth an unconstitutional order are not crimes. So the whole impeachment things sounds like political talk and not something that's legal reality.
What is Obama claiming as legal authority for granting amnesty?
I understand the fascination on the left for Congress to enter into impeachment proceedings against Obama. Nothing but total amnesia and/or a failed impeachment will save Obama from being one of the worst Presidents ever to hold the office. Imagine the utter dread on the left realizing that history will portray George W. Bush as a stronger, more competent President than the left's messiah - must be incredibly depressing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?