Posted on 10/31/2012 11:30:10 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Say Obama loses the election and then these emails that Gingrich are talking about surface. And then eventually the videos come out.
Obama has LIED to the American people just like Clinton. Even though he wouldn't be around can elected officials still vote to impeach him? Even though it wouldn't be knocking him out of office per se? Just a mark on his record?
What are the ramifications of impeachment?
You’re talking about compassionate conservatism, right? GOP...taking that cue from the GWB “philosophy”?
“by working hard to empanel a grand jury...(...from what I’ve been told it goes through politicians so it’s nearly hopeless unless you can apply so much pressure that even a politician would respond).”
Perhaps a Five Million Citizen March would be enough to get their attention.
That, and “extend further”. The Constitution sets an outer limit on what the judgment can be in impeachment cases. The outer limit is removal from office and disqualification to “hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States.”
If the outer limit is the inclusion of all those things, then is there any prohibition on a judgment that is less than that? Alcee Hastings got only part of that judgment against him, so it seems like anything UP TO the inclusion of all those measures is Constitutional. Could they decide not to remove somebody from office but take away all their positions of trust? Well.... where is that forbidden in the Constitution? Could they impeach somebody who was not currently in office and strip them of their profits from the US government? Again, where is that forbidden?
I’m looking at the Constitution and see there’s another place where it talks about impeachment. Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
So if the grounds for impeachment are treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removal from office is mandatory upon conviction in the Senate. I don’t know what impact that has on whether somebody receiving a pension from the United States can still be impeached.
Article II, Section 2 says the President “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
So an impeached President cannot pardon himself.
I made a quick perusal of the comments and everyone missed the important issue:
What was the High Crime and Misdemeanor?
He failed to do his job. He acted like a selfish SOB. That’s not a crime.
“Could they impeach somebody who was not currently in office”
No, nobody can.
I understand your (and my own) desire to find sufficiently impactful the call him but a Wookie isn't one of them.
The terms Liar. thief, murderer, treasonous also fall short in sufficiency to describe him.
I wouldn't even call him Satan despite the fact that he definitely is an Antichrist fully fighting against God and Israel, Satan is uniquely evil and in a class all of his own.
I firmly believe that the term Antichrist is very appropriate and he has fully earned that designation.
How does that apply to the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ producer being arrested without a trial?
Once everything comes unsealed it ALL can be used as evidence of something and that even includes his school records if he was claiming to be a foreign student.
Claiming to be a foreign student alone would be a felony and enough to impose heavy punishment but even greater are the penalties if he obtained the office of president while he was never a ‘Natural Born’ or even a ‘normal born’ citizen.
The roof and more MUST fall on this traitor who is actively trying to overthrow the U.S. government and constitution.
I wonder if removing any U.S.Marshall or Secret Service protection would also be included as ‘benefits’.
By the way, My wife and I did our patriotic duty today and voted for Romney.
Prayerfully we will also take over the Senate giving us control of House, Senate, and presidency.
make that REMOVABLE benefits.
Your question stems from a very common, as well as basic, lack of understanding of the term: "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
“I think there needs to be hearings on this though?
How could Congressman and Senators begin treason proceedings?”
There will be extensive hearings I’m sure, and it may dominate much of the news between election day and inauguration day. Not sure how Congress and the Senate starts treason hearings. Need someone with more expertise than me to comment on that.
Absolutely correct. And, if you read my comment, that's not what I said.
The impeachment is the proceeding. The House conducts the "trial" (if you will) to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict. If you recall, in the Clinton case, they found sufficient cause for him to be found guilty of the crime of lying.
It is the Senate's duty to assess the penalty, Again, if you recall from Clinton, the Senate voted along party lines NOT to assess any punishment.
So, we have, essentially, a split decision. The House found sufficient grounds to find the president guilty of lying, but the Senate refused to assess punishment. As a result, Clinton's legacy is still stained with the fact that he was impeached despite the fact that no penalty was assesed.
Should 2/3rds have found him guilty, he would have been removed from office immediately.
Again, not true. Removal from office is an option that the Senate can impose as a penalty, but it is NOT a mandatory sentence to be imposed. There are lesser penalties they can impose if they choose, including censure (which os meaningless).
No. But NOT because he was impeached. Federal law requires that once someone has served as POTUS, they cannot run for any other elective office.
However, that does not preclude them from being APPOINTED to serve in a variety of unelected capacities. Again, Clinton and his liberal predecessor Carter provide us with examples.
In Clinton's case, he wanted to run for another elected office after his second term ended in 2000, but was prevented by federal law. In Carter's case, look how many times he has been appointed as a "special ambassador" to represent the U.S.' interests to a variety of oppressive dictators whom he loves and gets along with - to the disadvantage of America.
I agree with the first part, but I'm not so sure about the last.
The records that Obama sealed are personal and private and, to the best of my knowledge, only a judge can order them unsealed if those records are believed to contain material evidence pertinent for a trial.
If we assume a Romney victory next week, I don't believe that Romney, or ANY POTUS, has the power to unseal zero's personal and private records. The only thing he can do is rescind the E.O.s that Obama has used to circumvent the Congress.
“The House conducts the “trial” (if you will) to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict.”
I disagree. The House does not conduct a trial, it is essentially a grand jury which determines if there is sufficient evidence to indict, not convict. If sufficient evidence is found (i.e. impeachment charges are voted in the affirmative), the House then prosecutes the indicted or accused in the senate. The senate conducts the trial and determines if the evidence presented by the House is sufficient to convict by finding the indicted guilty or not guilty of the charge. And if found guilty, the seneate would then assess the penalty.
You may be right on whether the senate could keep a impeached and guilty official in office but I don’t know why they would.
I think Obama could try and run for President again as he has only served one term. If he loses this time he’d still have one term he could run for???
Yes he could. And I have nightmares about 2016 for that very reason.(I know, I worry too much).
Those ‘seals’ requested by Obama in a court of law as a private person will require another lawsuit to unseal. Obama did that in Illinois in order to get elected as a state senator.
EO’s however are NOT court ordered seals but simple actions taken by a president for ‘National’ reasons even though the president had ‘Personal’ reasons for ordering them. A new EO by a new president based on ‘National’ reasons will be able to override older EO’s.
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.