Were half of y'all, our wonderful, loyal, regular users to reliably donate $5, $10, $20 or $30 Monthly, this FReepathon and all FReepathons would be events of the past.
PLEASE CONSIDER SIGNING UP TO DONATE MONTHLY PROVIDED YOU RELIABLY CAN!
There is not a majority in the Senate big enough to make it worth while.
The G.ive O.bama P.ower party has ruled
impeachment out, as before,
and then they hurried home to hide again,
and to encourage more antiConstitutional behavior again
from the First Undocumented Sociopath,
as they have done before, over and over.
They are EXEMPT and DO NOT CARE about the People
whom they rule below themselves.
None of the Republican politicians are talking about Impeachment. That’s why I think it’s precisely what they will do -— next year.
Impeach. Remove from office. Arrest. Convict. Imprison for life.
Impeachment turned against the Republicans because Clinton was still relatively popular with the public - Nixon was on the way out when his own party turned against him and pulled the rug out from under him - with Obama’s approval rating this week down to 37%, he may just be getting into an area where he is in fact vulnerable....
Which is exactly what a court will say... “Constitution says right here that you can impeach him.... I don’t see anything else on this”
it is not going to happen.
It is over. The left and the GOP-e are one.
It is like killing one rat in your garage and hoping the new rat will not chew and eat your stuff. They are still rats.
Bastards.
5.56mm
No, it is not.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. LINK
The President of the United States swears an oath. Here is that oath.
It is found at the bottom of Article II, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. LINK
This is only one of several ways a president could be challenged for having done what Obama has. He is tasked with preventing the states from being invaded. He has shirked that obligation. Further, he is not tasked to facilitate it.
A sitting governor could challenge him on this. That governor's state having been over-run by illegal aliens, that governor has every right to demand they be removed, not made legal.
What Obama has done is unconstitutional.
Impeachment is only for Presidents. When Kings and Dictators take over there are other means to remove them from office!!
Eventually it’s going to happen whether the Repubs like it or not.
House Congs should send impeachment articles every month until Obama is gone.
The more Obama’s popularity sinks into embarrassing regions, the easier it will be for the Republicans in Congress to get needed reforms passed.
So before considering impeachment, the Republicans should focus on helping Americans by improving the tax code, replacing ObamaCare with better, less expensive alternatives, approving the job-creating X-L Pipeline, etc.
Every time Obama vetoes one of the Republican bills that the majority of Americans want, Obama’s approval numbers will fall...until they reach impeachable territory, where even Democrats running for reelection in 2016 would be willing to join Republicans in order to avoid the fates of Mary Landrieu and her doomed colleagues.
If that point is not reached, then the Republicans should forget about impeachment and let the Democrats mary-landrieu themselves into oblivion in 2016, taking Hillary and Fauxcahontas, and their whole misbegotten party with them.
When the ef did these illegal alien criminal invaders become Americans, Tom?
I thought that Congress could bring an emergency case before the SC? That would get the EO overturned.
It takes 66 votes to convict.
No Dem is going to vote to convict.
Impeachment might be the remedy, but it requires enough congressman with the courage and integrity to pull it off. I have little faith that politicians will do what’s best for this great country.
Congress thinks it can't produce new law on the subject without Obama's signature so is limited to leaning on Obama and the media, which strategy to date has been a complete flop. But the states can also produce new law. Many of them are not only on our side on this issue, they are firmly under our control. However they currently lack jurisdiction. So give it to them, at least those that request it. States' rights folks like to talk about the tenth amendment. I give you the last paragraph of the tenth section of Article I:
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.We're used, through common usage, to thinking states simply can't do the things on this list, but really they can't do them "without the consent of the Congress." Which means they can do them... if Congress consents. Does anyone see anything that says or implies Obama must consent? Furthermore I'd argue, explicitly, along the lines Harry Reid used when suspending filibuster of presidential nominations. This should require a simple Senate majority, not 60 votes.
The process would start outside of Washington in the States. Two or more States (I imagine TX would take point, but assume at least one more would go along) would get together and hash out what was wanted, needed and practical. They then present their solution to Congress for formal consent. Any states that wanted to join the Compact and its model solution would free to do so. Those that wanted to stay with the Obama-centric status quo would be free to do so. Use the laboratory of the States as the Founders intended.
I can't fully envision what such a Compact might provide, as I'm neither a lawyer nor an expert of this situation. But I imagine Congress authorizing local authorities, within the Congressionally approved framework of the Compact, to administer and enforce pre-existing federal immigration law in place of the abdicated federal executive branch. They could also remove all jurisdiction from Article I courts in favor of present or newly established state courts. Call the Compact legal system "Citizen Exchanges." People would use them to establish their legal right to be there. Those failing would be exchanged back to their proper country. Constitutional questions regarding the rights of those judged to be illegals would be resolved via the State courts, with only Article III courts for federal oversight. They could authorize Compact states to keep troops in peacetime as needed to enforce it, holding the [States] "engaging in war" portion in reserve. They could authorize Compact states to make arrangements with foreign powers to return their stray citizens, either directly or by transportation through other Compact states. Congress probably couldn't fund it, but even without federal funding the benefits may be worth the state's costs. The participating States would be free to leave the Compact and return to Federal administration of such issues once they were convinced they'd be properly administered and enforced there.
If desired they could add other issues, such as voter fraud, to the Compact, or they may choose to form separate Compacts regarding other Federal Executively abdicated issues with like minded states. Just how much to include would depend on the wishes of the requesting states, and eventually on just how much they could convince Congress to consent. With the hard work being done at the State's level, with there being plenty pressure on the GOPe leadership to do something effective against Obama to save their own faces... and skins, and with the safety valve that the poor illegals could still enter the liberal back yards outside the Compact this may be politically possible. They wouldn't be proposing shutting the government down, they'd just be relocating part of it. Congress probably couldn't fund it, but even without federal funding the benefits may be worth the state's costs.
There doubtless would be controversy over just how legal or even Constitutional such arrangement would be. I know there is a body of law regarding Compacts, but certainly am no authority on such. Big legal minds at the State, and eventually the Congressional level (ie. Ted Cruz) should take part in its design. It should state in the preamble that this is being done on an emergency basis, in response to a crisis of willful lawlessness and failure to act by the President. Congress presently lacks the political will to exercise the Constitutionally suggested remedy of impeachment. If and when a sufficiently bipartisan will for that remedy arises, or when a lawful President be comes available through other means, the Compact can be resolves as no longer necessary to the public good. It also should point out that the principles underlying the Compact are far more Constitutional than the royalistic hot air creating the current emergency. Throw in all the quotes from Obama pointing out how what he did was illegal. And throw in quotes from the Declaration regarding our previous King's actions. And throw in quotes from the trial of Charles I for salt.
Some will say this is dividing the country, starting another Civil War. Well, as Phyllis Schafly said this week, it was Obama who shelled Ft. Sumter Thursday. He started it and against the will of a large majority of the country as expressed in both polls and a recent landslide election. Ft. Sumter divided the country into North and South. Obama's actions would be dividing it into Right... and Wrong. Wrong as he himself frequently had noted. This could have the effect of dividing the country into two large sections regarding immigration issues. When pressed on grounds of equal justice under the law we should firmly point to Obama as the source of any illegal inequality. If he'd just do his sworn duty and exercise the law conventionally there'd be no trouble. If unresolved the dichotomy of Compact (American) law vs. Obama's lawlessness would change the complexion of the two sections. Compact States, rather than becoming bluer as Obama had hoped, would lose much of their illegals and become redder. The blue Obama states would have to absorb most of the illegal influx. Although federal taxes would place part of that burden on Compact states, the Obama states would carry much of the burden at the state level and all of the social burden of their many new neighbors. I predict blue politics will shift. Over time even NYC wanted Mayor Rudy to clean us the place.