Posted on 06/27/2014 5:09:42 PM PDT by kingattax
Impeachment is the only procedural mechanism in the American system of government that can be used to remove from office a president who has willfully abused his executive power under the Constitution.
Technically there are other extraordinary measures that can be taken, but these measures cannot fully address in an expeditious manner the present crisis of executive abuse of power by this president.
In my view the problem we have today is not whether the case can be made for the impeachment of the president, but rather the frivolous arguments made by many commentators and political partisans that prevent us from moving forward. Here are some of these arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
This is perhaps the oddest thread I’ve ever seen on FR. Given some of the competition, that’s saying something.
Federal marshals presumably enforce a court order.
Who would have standing in a lawsuit to have the president arrested? Who would enforce it, and how, if the Secret Service resisted such an attempt, which they no doubt would?
It’s all really very simple. The Constitution precribes exactly how a President who fails sufficiently in his duties is to be removed from office. It’s called impeachment by the House, and conviction by the Senate.
Any other process is by definition unconstitutional. Of all the things the Founders were afraid of, a standing army and it misuse headed the list.
Yet on this thread a number of “conservatives” want to bypass the constitutional provision for removing the President and give that to some unelected General or Admiral.
Because doing if the constitutional way would be “too hard.” So by all means let’s ignore the Constitution and descend to banana republic military coup level.
Let me put it in very simple terms for everybody. The Courts have zero authority to have the president arrested while in office. The military has zero authority to detain, arrest or otherwise interfere with the President. In fact, their doing so is an oxymoron, since any authority they do have derives from him as Commander in Chief of the military.
There is one and only one way to constitutionally remove a sitting President. You could look it up.
This might help you.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42143.pdf
“Section 1021 does not expressly clarify whether U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens may be determined to be “covered persons.” The potential application of an earlier version of Section 1021 found in S. 1867 (in that bill numbered Section 1031) to U.S. citizens and other persons within the United States was the subject of significant floor debate. An amendment that would have expressly barred U.S. citizens from long-term military detention on account of enemy belligerent status was considered and rejected. Ultimately, an amendment was adopted that added the following proviso: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authority relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
“This language, which remains in the final version of the act, along with a separate clause which provides that nothing in Section 1021 “is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” makes clear that the provision is not intended to either expand or limit the executive’s existing authority to detain U.S. citizens and resident aliens, as well as other persons captured in the United States. Such detentions have been rare and subject to substantial controversy, without achieving definitive resolution in the courts. While the Supreme Court in Hamdi recognized that persons captured while fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan could be militarily detained in the conflict with Al Qaeda potentially for the duration of hostilities, regardless of their citizenship, the circumstances in which persons captured in the United States may be subject to preventive military detention have not been definitively adjudicated. Section 1021 does not attempt to clarify the circumstances in which a U.S. citizen, lawful resident alien, or other person captured within the United States may be held as an enemy belligerent in the conflict with Al Qaeda. Consequently, if the executive branch decides to hold such a person under the detention authority affirmed in Section 1021, it is left to the courts to decide whether Congress meant to authorize such detention when it enacted the AUMF in 2001.”
Here is Section 1021 for the 2012 NDAA.
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1540/text
It appears to my non-lawyer reading that the President and the Evecutive Branch determines if some one can be detained under NDAA. In the case of a U.S. Citizen in the U.S., I interpreted it as the President determines if someone arrested by civil authorities on terrorism charges can be transferred to military authorities to be detained indefinitely. I don’t read it as the military gets to act unilateral for citizens in the U.S.
YMMV
Thanks. For all our differences I really do appreciate that you are mostly willing to engage with the actual content, and bring the applicable sources into the conversation.
I think that was the same document I was reading late last night. Basically they said journalists who attempted to have the issue clarified in the courts lacked standing because they had not yet been captured and sent to Gitmo. So the court reserves the right to decide what’s lawful however they want depending on circumstances at the time - like who is President...
I was going to look up the NDAA itself this morning, to get a better idea of what it actually says, since the courts won’t answer any questions about it.
What I did gather from what I read last night was that it matters greatly as to where a person is captured - whether in the US or outside the US. It’s a different thing if Obama is in Russia, for instance, telling Medvedev that he will have “flexibility” after the election. Or if he had been in Egypt rather than in DC when he told the Egyptian ambassador that he was and is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda and would get working on that once he passed ACA... The big difference being that it would be the military who INITIALLY captures somebody in a foreign country, as opposed to civil law enforcement or DHS who captures somebody in the US.
I’ll have to dig through this some more. The Denise Lind decision in Lakin’s case was that specific combat orders are not dependent on approval by the CINC. For instance, the lawfulness of orders carrying out a “surge” don’t depend on a Constitutionally-authorized, AUF-authorized POTUS deciding to conduct a surge.
If that’s the case then the military capturing a particular enemy combatant outside the US would not have to be specifically ordered by the CINC either. And actually, them capturing somebody inside the US and detaining them in Gitmo wouldn’t have to be ordered either - it’s just that when the courts decide whether the detainment is Constitutional, after months of legal maneuvers to stretch out the issue, it would be more likely to stand. But the immediate purpose of preventing an attack by that person would have been served.
But I probably shouldn’t even be saying anything because I haven’t processed all the information. When I first spoke out I thought this stuff was already clear and somebody could point it out to me. But it isn’t clear and until you joined the conversation nobody was willing to address the meat of what I was talking about.
Extortion 17 is really important, because if Joe Biden leaked the identity of the SEAL unit which conducted the Bin Laden raid so that Obama’s DOD could trade a couple dozen of our SEALs in return for the Bin Laden raid.... that is direct cooperation with the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda who were responsible for the 9-11-01 attacks. There would be absolutely NO question that Obama and Biden are enemy combatants under the NDAA if that was what happened.
If the State Dept correlated their Benghazi excuse with the Muslim Brotherhood - which is a real possibility given that the attackers in Egypt who flew the AQ flag over the US Embassy there on 9-11-12 told people not to shoot because they had been sent by the Egyptian guy that the Obama regime conspired with the MB to install in Egypt -Morsi (I forgot his name briefly). And if the person who created the video that the Obama regime used as an excuse actually did so at the orders of the Obama regime.... then this is collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood AND with the Benghazi attackers to make an excuse for this attack. If that is the case then - again - there would be no question that Obama and others in his regime are enemy combatants under the definitions of the NDAA. (Tiger, I’m pinging you because you have good info regarding how that video happened and may have something you’d like to add here.)
If Lois Lerner gave Obama’s brother Malik tax-exempt status for his MB group and if that group was known to be supporting AQ, then Lerner would fit the NDAA’s definition for an enemy combatant. And if she did it because Obama told her to, then he also fits the definition for that instance as well.
Obama negotiating to set free the Gitmo 5 (supposedly in exchange for Bergdahl, even though Obama had been talking about releasing those 5 even without Bergdahl involved, IIRC) is actually letting go at least one of the people who masterminded the 9-11-01 attack. I don’t know how ANYBODY gets off being called an enemy combatant as defined by the NDAA on that one... If there was no threat made to Bergdahl and Obama refused to inform Congress, then it is a LAW-BREAKING act of belligerence in support of operations by at least one person who actually planned the 9-11-01 attack. How the heck do you get around that? And the MILITARY knows whether there was a threat made to Bergdahl. They know if Obama was a proven enemy combatant in that particular case of treason...
The whole border thing - if Obama and Holder are aware that Al Qaeda operatives are allied with the Mexican drug cartels and yet they armed that same drug cartel and sued AZ to keep them from protecting the border from entry by these cartels and their AQ allies, that means Eric Holder fits the NDAA definition of an enemy combatant...
Every stinkin’ thing that this regime has done needs to be evaluated according to NDAA definitions in this way, because the Muslim terrorist enemies of the US are thriving and gloating, and every action by this regime has AIDED them either directly or indirectly.
When the D’s in the Senate consider that they will ALWAYS vote the party line, they better realize that they themselves could be classified as enemy combatants and/or traitors according to the Constitutional definition, for giving material aid and comfort to the enemy combatants Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc...
It is WAY past time for Congress to get serious about NATIONAL SECURITY, which is laid at THEIR feet. If they shirk national security in favor of political schmoozing, then THEY are traitors, as defined in the Constitution.
I think everybody in that DC cesspool needs to be reminded of all that. BEFORE the desperately-flailing Obama takes out a lot of Americans for political purposes, to stage a Reichstag fire...
A LOT of Americans have the gnawing sense that we have an out-of-control, lawless POTUS who always just happens to support our enemies and throw US to the dogs. And because Congress has a 9-10 mentality as if national security takes a back-seat to sheer politics, we are desperately looking for a way to stop the guy before he drives the nation over the cliff. He’s speeding toward the cliff and the political players have disabled the brakes. We’re all unsettled, as well we should.
Who is the emergency brake?
We all want to know. I don’t believe our Founders made this car without an emergency brake.
Is it the chiefs of staff who are to be involved in authorizing the actual ARREST of a POTUS who has committed acts of war/attacks against this nation? Is it the military who needs to catch Obama and others in the regime when they are outside the US?
Who is the emergency brake? ‘Cause the edge is getting closer and closer, and we’re accelerating towards it...
Oh, don't EVEN get me started on him. Actually, i think Boehner may give him a run for the money on the prize for spinelessness.
What an awful legacy to leave for your children and grandchildren. A century from now, after the fall of our once-great Republic, their descendents will deny any relation to these Benedict Arnolds.
A sitting president cannot be arrested. He cannot be detained. The Department of Justice issued an opinion about this back in 1973, and reviewed that decision and updated it in 2000. The decision can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/olc/opiniondocs/op-olc-v024-p0222.pdf.
The basic finding:
“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”
So, again, go back to the Constitution. The only way to remove a sitting President is through impeachment and conviction.
Quit pinning your hopes on a military coup.
The DOJ? The DOJ that is appointed by a POTUS said that a POTUS can never be arrested?
How convenient.
The DOJ is not in charge of the military so they can’t say what the military can or can’t do. (And just as an aside, has any court affirmed this DOJ opinion? DOJ opinions have been overturned many times when brought to a court)
“Indictment or criminal prosecution” is not the same thing as the detainment of an enemy combatant who may or may not ever be charged with an actual crime.
Answer me this: How would an impeachment ever stop an enemy POTUS from having his surrogates attack this country while the enemy DOJ and DHS are looking at naked pics of 90-year-old nuns and letting Saudi Arabian Wahhabists waltz through the airports with “preferred” status so they aren’t scrutinized at all - all before the Senate could even begin to collect evidence?
Impeachment is a pathetic joke, if the POTUS is really an enemy combatant. It’s like saying to protect itself from ISIS, the Iraq government could impeach ISIS - never arrest anybody in ISIS, never take away the ammunition, etc - just hope that ISIS complies and doesn’t destroy the country while the government piddles around with this joke of an “impeachment”.
If what you’re saying is correct, then the US has NO emergency brake and in fact, not even ANY brake, because the brake (impeachment) can only stop the car about 6 months after you press on it, while the car keeps going unhindered...
The emergency brake in my opinion is still Congress.
NDAA Section 1022 deals with the detention of terrorists caught outside the U.S. And it specifically excludes U.S. Citizens.
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
IMO, the U.S. Military cannot act in the U.S. Borders without authorization from the from the President. I just don’t see how your scenario of detention by the military inside of or outside of the U.S. Is legally possible.
Custody pending disposition. Sounds like this is about where the detained person awaits “disposition” (determination whether they should be continued to be held, whether they need to be brought to trial, etc). If they’re a US citizen they are to be held in civilian custody. If they’re not a US citizen they are to be held in military custody.
It would behoove Obama to show his naturalization papers, unless he wants to be held in Gitmo.
They’re already going after Obama with everything they can
Take care star man, and keep up the good fight... I just want to take the time and thank you and all the hard working dedicated Republicans Star man.
They've made Obama's life miserable and stopped his evil at every turn. And since it's impossible to impeach him, no doubt he's now on the verge of resigning in disgrace.
Yesssir it's Republican fortitude, honor and dedication which once again has saved our Republic!
It’s difficult living in the “real world” ... instead of the one inside your head ... :-) ...
Eeeeew!!!! :-)
Well, I’m done with you.
You have absolutely no respect for either the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States.
You call for a military coup while stubbornly refusing to see it for what it is.
Again, in the United States, you remove a sitting President by impeaching and convicting him. Rogue military troops will not detain a sitting President. Moreover, anyone attempting to detain the President would end up in a gun battle with the Secret Service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.