Plus, wouldn't they have to get the Speaker of the House sobered up first?
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 ...
How high up does somebody have to be in the military, to classify someone as an enemy combatant and capture them, according to the NDAA?
Anybody know enough about that law to address what I’ve suggested?
That has “Banana Republic” written all over it. ... :-) ...
That’s what WE need to do, yes. Along with being prepared for the S to HTF, because Obama knows his time is limited.
But the military needs to classify him as an enemy combatant, capture him, and put him in Gitmo. I believe they are authorized to do that, and both the spirit and the letter of the law is satisfied if they use the same measures to classify Obama as they would use if they were evaluating anybody else.
I listed some measures for determining if somebody is a terrorist, and Obama meets EVERY qualification.
Maybe somebody knows what formula the military actually uses; I’m sure the issues I mentioned play into the classification. They have a duty to evaluate Obama just as they would evaluate anybody else. This is national defense, after all. The officers all made an oath to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. If Obama fits the bill, they have a duty to obey their oath, and the NDAA authorizes them to do just that.
If the determination was made on the basis of politics it would. But that’s not what I am suggesting.
Any objective measure of what constitutes an enemy combatant comes up saying Obama is one. This isn’t politics. This isn’t banana republic. This is the military doing what both the NDAA and their officer’s oath DEMANDS that they do.
Sort of like the Honduran Constitution REQUIRED the government to oust the guy who tried to serve 2 terms. It was not a military coup or a banana republic; it was the system obeying their Constitution.
Of course it’s worth it to vote, in order to give support to others to vote likewise. Think of it as a process which will outlive you. You’re doing it for future generations.
And other measures are having an effect. The US Supreme Court has slapped down Obama in an unprecedented 12 times. If the US House of Representatives succeeds with the US Supreme Court, it will severely constrain Obama.
Boehner to Seek Bill to Sue Obama Over Executive Actions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3173301/posts
Don’t overlook the fact that Obama has already been constrained quite severely from what he “wanted” to do.
Plus, wouldn't they have to get the Speaker of the House sobered up first?
Well, I can’t help you to see it simply won’t work, because of the long traditions of the USA being a Constitutional Republic. There’s absolutely nothing in all our traditions for our entire history that would give any “backing” for this.
All you are offering is a “Johnny-come-lately” law, designed for terrorists that the public recognizes as terrorists - against - the entire history of the USA and its Constitution.
If you can’t see that ... there’s nothing much more I can do about that.
Executive power and military power under the Constitution is given to the president. It would be ludicrous to think the president could be arrested by subordinates under powers derived from him.
More to the point, the Constitution makes the President C in C. No law can override that.
BS. He can be tried for treason.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the President shall not be evaluated for treason and/or enemy combatant status in the same way that anybody else is?
Seems to me that equal protection and due process demand that he BE evaluated by the same standards in all matters of the law.
If Obama took a vacation to Hawaii and then nuked Washington DC, what would the Constitution say should be done about it? What role, if any, does the War Powers Act play in that, or Congress’ standing authorization for the military to detain terrorist enemy combatants in defense of this nation?
That’s what the Constitution says about the role of the military in defense of this nation. The Congress is to authorize the military, and they’ve already given standing authorization for the military to detain enemy combatants - even “belligerents” which is a much lower standard and isn’t even defined - recognizing that the warfare against us is not 2 armies lining up and shooting at each other in an open field. Our enemies today pose as our friends in order to get access to us and kill us. That’s why we have the NDAA, duly passed into law.
What you are saying writes out of the Constitution Congress’ vital role in authorizing war. Is that really what you want to do?
The Constitution does make provision for what you say ... it’s called “Impeachment” and then “Conviction”.
Of course we saw how that worked for Clinton in the Senate.
Not arrested. Detained. It’s authorized by the NDAA. Does the NDAA exclude the executive branch from among those who can be detained? Does it require the CINC to sign off if, for instance, they wanted to come knocking on my door and haul me away for being “belligerent”?
The logic you’re using would say that no police chief could be arrested if one of the guys under him caught him murdering somebody. I don’t buy it. In fact, I believe that the 14th Amendment speaks loudly against that. The law is NOT to be a respecter of persons but is to treat all equally, and having a political office does not make one exempt from the law - especially not when it regards what Congress (the body authorized by the Constitution) has decreed regarding the making of war and of national defense when asymmetric warfare is the warfare used against us.
Are you saying that Congress cannot authorize the military to detain enemy combatants for the sake of national defense?
Bear in mind - I am not saying the military should remove Obama from the Presidency. I am saying that they are authorized to DETAIN him as an enemy combatant. Congress can decide what to do from there - whether to impeach him or not, but while he is detained he could not dispense the duties of the office and so the Constitutionally-authorized line of succession would come into play as to who is to ACT AS PRESIDENT, just as it would if he was shot like Reagan and temproarily (or permanently; that would be up to Congress) couldn’t perform the duties.
I don’t see how releasing the Taliban 5 while we still have soldiers in the field fighting the Taliban, was not treason. Seems pretty black and white to me.
I’ve never seen a Republican candidate for President fight a dem like they did one of their own in MS. It was so disgusting.
Unless I’m quite confused, the military is prohibited by posse comitatus, and probably other laws, from performing law enforcement in the United States, except under very specific exceptions.
Do you really, seriously want to set a precedent for the military to remove presidents from office?
I don’t know . . I thought the Clinton trial was the proper application of Scottish law - more or less
Ironically, it would be the ONE thing the Republican party could do to salvage its image, which right now is on life support.
A while back there was a claim that Obama had moved a nuke from Nevada to the east coast, with plans to detonate it there and bring about martial law. I think it was shortly before the Navy Yard shooting. What was said in that claim was that there is somebody who has the responsibility of ARRESTING the President if he clearly wages war against the country.
Who remembers who that person is, and what is the legal/Constitutional justification for that?
That is for an ARREST.
The legal justification for DETAINMENT is already there in the NDAA, unless there is some clause that excludes the POTUS from among those who can be detained. And they can be detained just for being “belligerent”. Those who paid for, trained, provided logistics for, harbored, etc the 9-11 attackers are considered to have been attackers too. They committed an act of war against the US by doing those things.
Well.... so has Obama...
How many acts of war against us does he have to commit before he gets evaluated the same way that any of our other enemies get evaluated? Right now he is keeping the states from being able to protect our borders from invasion by groups that we KNOW include Hezbollah and Hamas operatives bent on killing us. What does he have to do before that is called an act of war? Personally walk them to a plane and hand them a bomb?
Instead of "blaming Obama", the right needs to indict him and his minions.
While the rule of letting the crimes of past Administrations go has been a constant in the USA, these sons of degenerate whores are outside of that box,and merit prosecution with extreme prejudice.
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.