Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) warned President Barack Obama is “getting perilously close” to the standard for impeachment.According to Tulsa World, Coburn referred to the president as “a personal friend of mine" before criticizing Obama's "lawless" administration while speaking during a Wednesday town hall meeting at Oklahoma's Muskogee Convention Center.
BuzzFeed reports Coburn said impeachment is "not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means," noting that he feels there is a great deal of "incompetence" in the Obama administration.
"I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions," Coburn said.
"Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time," Coburn continued. "I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”
Tom Coburn: Obama 'Getting Perilously Close' To Standard For Impeachment
As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
My guess? His skin color. If he were a white democrat, I expect he would have been treated with different standards.
I don't think it has much to do with party.As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
Name a thing. You talk about "clear violations" any yet didn't name a single one.As a non lawyer, I agree with Sen. Coburn...I think that Obama is doing things that long ago should have been considered for action. So my question is, why do you think that he can get away with some of the clear violations he has, when if we were talking of a republican violating the constitution in the same way the calls for impeachment would be loud and steady....
My guess? His skin color. If he were a white democrat, I expect he would have been treated with different standards.
Article 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution charges the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It doesn’t say that he “should” execute the laws of the United States; it uses the imperative “shall.”
Nor does the Constitution say that the President can pick and choose to enforce some of the laws, or just the ones he likes.
Nor does the Constitution give the President the authority to create new laws. Article 1, Sec. 1 is clear on that point; “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
The editors at Investor’s Business Daily picked up on the issue, too. Following is what they call “just a small sampling” of a “Lengthy Legacy of Lawlessness.”
Aug. 14, 2013: The Obama administration delayed the provision in ObamaCare to cap out-of-pocket health care costs, picking and choosing parts of the law to enforce, which is to exceed its authority.
July 17, 2013: The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the federal appeals courts in D.C. and Philadelphia in ruling President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board recess appointments — who by law must be approved by Congress — were unconstitutional. Thus far, the president has ignored the ruling.
July 1, 2013: The Obama administration unilaterally decided to delay the employer mandate provision of ObamaCare for a year, which is to provide information to the feds about the extent of an applicant’s insurance. Never mind that the law states the mandate must go into effect on Jan. 1, 2014 — they are now relying on the “honor system” from applicants to determine if they are qualified for subsidies.
June 25, 2013: The Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Eric Holder that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is “unconstitutional” and that “the formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdiction to preclearance.” Instead of complying with the ruling, Holder filed suit to order Texas to submit to preclearance, in defiance of Congress’ authority to legislate and the Supreme Court’s authority to rule on the constitutionality of the law.
June 15, 2012: The Obama administration announced it will stop deporting illegal immigrants under the age of 30 in a “deferred action” policy to circumvent immigration laws. This comes after Congress rejected a similar measure about a year ago. Since then, more than 500,000 illegals have received the deferment and only 20,000 have been rejected. As for the law-abiding applicants who have been waiting in line, well, that’s Obama’s idea of “lawfulness.”
May 20, 2013: A Washington Post article revealed that Fox News reporter James Rosen was investigated by the DOJ, which subpoenaed his phone records and emails in direct contravention of the First Amendment under the pretense of a leak investigation.
Obama's 13 Impeachable Offenses
So why not a white republican? To hear the Cons talk everyone hates a con....
It would depend on what that white republican did which merited impeachment. I wasn't referring to party differences, but differences in how different members of the same party may be treated. I'm not sure why that wasn't clear.
My guess? His skin color. If he were a white democrat, I expect he would have been treated with different standards.
Why would the Republicans, who control the House and thus the start of any impeachment proceedings, care what race the Democrat President might be? The Democrats don't control the House. They have ZERO say in the impeachment proceedings.
It is very difficult for anyone to make the case that the House Republicans have been giving the current President a pass due to race, what makes you think they would start now? My answer is simple enough, if Congress didn't impeach BushII they are not going to try and impeach this president- black, white or striped...
But your first sentence is closest to the answer.... it depends on what the president did which would merit impeachment... not what race the president happens to be... Sen. Coburn is just wolf whistling because there is precious little he can do...
That the House is in NO WAY thinking of impeachment says everything we need to know.... last I heard they were going to engage in even more useful politics... another vote on the ACA... :roll:
My guess? His skin color. If he were a white democrat, I expect he would have been treated with different standards.
Ever wonder why Harry Reid won't allow a single vote on any of those ACA bills sent up? Things that make you go hmmmmm.
Sad time in American history when one of the best things about change from Dem to GOP in the senate would be forcing the president of the United States to finally start following the law.
Absolutely. Foreskin. It was just too, too prominent.So what is the excuse for when the GOP dogged Clinton with pointless investigations for a very long time? skin?
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?