Posted on 12/02/2013 5:03:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Since being signed into law by President Obama in 2010, the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, has been stripped, changed and full of devastating consequences for the American economy and American families. It's clear by now that the White House and Democrats who voted for Obamacare, lied to millions of Americans when they said, "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. Period." We not only saw President Obama admit during a healthcare summit in early 2010 (before signing Obamacare) "that between eight million and nine million people may very well lose the coverage that they have, because of this...And I don’t think that you can answer the question, in the positive, to say that people will be able to maintain their coverage, people will be able to see the doctors they want in the kind of bill that you’re proposing."
Republican Whip Eric Cantor Speaks With President Barack Obama At White House Health Care Summit
Then in September of 2010, every single Senate Democrat voted against a resolution that would allow people to keep their healthcare plans.
In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.
Three years later in November 2013, we saw Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admit under oath in front of Congress that end-to-end security testing was not done on Healthcare.gov before it was launched on October 1, putting the personal information of Americans at risk and making them vulnerable to fraud and identity theft.
As a result of all of this and the trashing of the U.S. constitution in the process, Associate Professor of Economics at St. John’s University, New York. M. Northrop Buechner is practically making the case for President Obama's impeachment in Forbes:
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.
The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?
The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).
The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.
Impeachment isn't going to happen with a divided Congress, but that doesn't mean there isn't a solid case for it.
Look in the mirror.
If you think that a Senate GOP majority of 52 or 53 (or 67, for that matter) could lead to "Obama" being removed, you're the moron.
There are not ten GOP Senators that would vote to remove him. There may not even be 5.
US House of Representatives does the Impeachment
US Senate does Removal From Office.
Or Obama’s lies sounded more attractive to key swing state voters than Romneys lies did.
Same for their respective bases, lib base liked Obama’s lies more than conservative base liked Romney's.
Dont expect the Republicans in congress to attempt to impeach Dems for beating their own party nominee in elections, its not happening. Even Pelosi was way smarter than to try that.
That is why we must make sure that we will get the majority in Senate back. What good does it do to impeach that arrogant pos if the senate does not remove him because the rats have the majority
No you are exactly right, and I have been saying that for a long time. The 2014 election is actually more important then the 2016 election IMHO.
We have many grounds to impeach him and could do it. The problem is removing him from office
Anyone suggesting we shouldn't impeach before winning the Senate in 2014 is an absolute moron.
It is not necessary to convict in order to get the facts out. Impeachment may be the only way to get access to information and catalog all the impeachable offenses they have committed. Issa certainly isn't doing anything.
Mind you, despite my opinion, I do not share anyone’s enthusiasm for an impeachment proceeding. It would be political suicide and would squander the Republican’s political capital on a pointless project that would fall upon the rocks in the Senate come what may.
Republicans need to keep their collective eyes on the ball: Obamacare and the 2014 elections. Once those are in the bag, it might be possible to go on to other things. Maybe.
Normally elections are conducted legally. Normally the candidates don’t perjure themselves, use government to harass their opponents, nor stuff ballot boxes in key states.
Where the election of a corrupt candidate was dependent on illegal acts, then the results should be reversed. By legal means if possible.
Many agree that questionable electioneering probably occurred, but finding and presenting enough evidence to support overturning an election is a tough task.
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.