Is that law (the US constitution itself) not sufficient for you?
To be honest with you - no it is not as we can all argue all day and through the week about what it actually means and if the Constitution has actually become incidental to the entire issue since events of history has supplanted much of it regarding the power of the President.
So I ask again to get to the heart of the matter - what specific law has Obama broken with these actions?
None. No POTUS would ever sign a specific law allowing that congress critters may arrest him or limit his power. So far, our congress critters have not even attempted to write such a law - leaving only the impeachment process, constitutional amendment and, to a much lesser extent, judicial action as a realistic check on presidential power.
And I think that is the point here. I have little doubt that tons of attorney hours were spent going over every single thing Obama said he was going to do and the conclusion was its all legal........ or at least not illegal. And impeachment needs a crime at its center.
I join with my conservative brothers and sisters in wanting an end to the imperial presidency and the expansion of executive power that we have seen for far too long now. But I think the way to achieve it is something you touched upon - Constitutional Amendment. Without that we simply see the continuation of it by presidents from both parties and their allies - willing or less than willing - in the Congress who will go along to get along or see it as some sort of crisis or emergency so they look the other way while precedent is set against their own powers.
And I think that is the point here. I have little doubt that tons of attorney hours were spent going over every single thing Obama said he was going to do and the conclusion was its all legal........ or at least not illegal. And impeachment needs a crime at its center.
I join with my conservative brothers and sisters in wanting an end to the imperial presidency and the expansion of executive power that we have seen for far too long now. But I think the way to achieve it is something you touched upon - Constitutional Amendment. Without that we simply see the continuation of it by presidents from both parties and their allies - willing or less than willing - in the Congress who will go along to get along or see it as some sort of crisis or emergency so they look the other way while precedent is set against their own powers.
What cost? The cost for the background check is on the immigrant.
An interesting take on many legal theories about presedential impeachment is in this link:
Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw
An Indictable Crime
The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.
There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed. Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature. In the past, England had used impeachment of the King's ministers as a means of controlling policy (Parliament could not get rid of the King, but could get rid of his ministers who carried out acts Parliament believed to be against the best interest of the country). However, in English impeachments, once convicted that person was not only removed from office but was also punished (usually by execution).
And I think that is the point here. I have little doubt that tons of attorney hours were spent going over every single thing Obama said he was going to do and the conclusion was its all legal........ or at least not illegal. And impeachment needs a crime at its center.
I join with my conservative brothers and sisters in wanting an end to the imperial presidency and the expansion of executive power that we have seen for far too long now. But I think the way to achieve it is something you touched upon - Constitutional Amendment. Without that we simply see the continuation of it by presidents from both parties and their allies - willing or less than willing - in the Congress who will go along to get along or see it as some sort of crisis or emergency so they look the other way while precedent is set against their own powers.
Impeachment is a political act to solve a political problem. It requires no crime. It requires only high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Article V Convention of States was written into the Constitution for this purpose, that the people should not lose their country because of the growth of federal tyranny. We are here. We have a tyrant and he is not stoppable by a weak, pathetic Congress. Americans rebel slowly. Article V is our last, best hope for restoring the nation short of war.
Right. Or one could read what the political philosophers who influenced the framers said.I would urge you to read the excellent article that ttwtt78640 just posted on this and pay attention to the discussion of the misdemeanors material.
For sure, legal challenges to Obama's actions are already being worked on. We should see suits filed very soon. But I agree with you that they will come to naught. I also agree that impeachment is not the answer. Not because of lack of criminal behavior on Obama's part, though. But because politically such an action would not only not work, but would have bad results...from the Republican's point of view. They know this. That's why the only ones talking about impeachment are the Democrats.
But I disagree that the amendment process is the answer because I am opposed to making changes to our Constitution just because half our country doesn't like something. Furthermore, given the difficulty in actually CHANGING our Constitution, I wouldn't expect such an amendment to become part of our Constitution in less than 50 years...if at all.
No...I think the only solution, poor as it is, is for the voters to actually acquire some ethics, honor and responsibility and stop electing "the ends justify the means" politicians.
Right. Or one could read what the political philosophers who influenced the framers said.
Thank you for that thought provoking article. I appreciate how the author laid out the different interpretations and what supported each. I would be interested to know which of the four - if any - you subscribe to?
I come down on this point:
Given the obvious highly political nature of the job - and given that when the Founders wrote the language there was no such polarized politicization of government as there is today (an in my opinion the split between Federalists and Anti's does not qualify) - I think the criminal standard is a fair one. Given that we have had two presidents actually impeached and a third in the process of being impeached but who resigned before its conclusion - the only one that would have met that standard would have been Nixon and that seems very appropriate in all respects.
Of course you bypassed the other relevant paragraph. It is a political act to solve a political problem. If a crime is also committed then there are two reasons to impeach. Either one is sufficient if the Congress and, ultimately, more than half of the people who vote, want someone impeached.Thank you for that thought provoking article. I appreciate how the author laid out the different interpretations and what supported each. I would be interested to know which of the four - if any - you subscribe to?
I come down on this point:
Given the obvious highly political nature of the job - and given that when the Founders wrote the language there was no such polarized politicization of government as there is today (an in my opinion the split between Federalists and Anti's does not qualify) - I think the criminal standard is a fair one. Given that we have had two presidents actually impeached and a third in the process of being impeached but who resigned before its conclusion - the only one that would have met that standard would have been Nixon and that seems very appropriate in all respects.
Call your congressman and tell them to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Have them do their jobs so the Pres doesn't have to do it for them.
I know. Tyrant supporters are always full of themselves. you are offended easily and, in my opinion, are the kind of person who "reports" others so I will have as little to do with you as possible.I do not want to derail the discussion but I personally could not care less about what some dilettante said in their detached musings well over two centuries ago.
Of course you bypassed the other relevant paragraph. It is a political act to solve a political problem. If a crime is also committed then there are two reasons to impeach. Either one is sufficient if the Congress and, ultimately, more than half of the people who vote, want someone impeached.
Sorry is right.Sorry but I do not subscribe to that interpretation. If we make the survival of every elected president a daily political problem subject to the impeachment process we are going down the road to failure as government.
I know. Tyrant supporters are always full of themselves. you are offended easily and, in my opinion, are the kind of person who "reports" others so I will have as little to do with you as possible.
You seem to care little for the founding of this nation which may be why you care so little as a tyrant presides over its destruction.
Uh-huh. Moving on...I really have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry is right.
I would classify simple fraud, not only perjury, as a misdemeanor crime worthy of starting impeachment proceedings. When a POTUS states that congress must act (as I wish) or I will simply no longer keep my oath of office to enforce the standing constitutional laws of the nation that is enough, IMHO, to start the ball rolling. Whether that would ever carry the day in the Senate remains to be seen.
And I think you support authoritarian statism so long as it moves in directions you prefer.I believe your posts illustrate the perfect difference between a concerned citizen who views the accumulation of presidential power over the last several decades as a problem that needs to be dealt with in a sober and thoughtful fashion and the rabidly partisan political opportunist who simply wants to smash into politicians who they don't like because they do not prostrate themselves before the same altar and worship the same gods as they do.
And I think you support authoritarian statism so long as it moves in directions you prefer.
Your response indicates that. It is this tyrant, today, that must be dealt with. Impeachment, conviction and removal from office is what you are looking for. It is thoughtful, deliberate, and sober.
But your message above really implies that we should do nothing, doesn't it? No impeachment. No budget withholds. No withholding appointments. No withdrawal of approvals for the 500 independent agencies to be legislatures, executives and judges all in one tidy package.
What would you do to stop this tyrant and his tyrannies?
We disagree on that. I believe your standard is too broad and too vague and would subject the nation to a potentially endless series of impeachment's which are largely motived by craven political purposes. Now please understand I am not accusing you of that as I see you as a far more thoughtful poster. But I think the door you open could quickly be entered by those far less noble and far less concerned with our Constitution and the government it provides for us.
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?