Posted on 02/14/2014 8:43:11 AM PST by bestintxas
Should the President be impeached?
For setting the Obama Precedent?
Also known as those multiple of multiples of arbitrary changes to Obamacare? And launching the IRS on employers who refuse to hire fifty employees so they can avoid paying for health care? Not to mention using the IRS and the full power of the federal government to harass and intimidate all those Tea Party groups?
The headline in the Los Angeles Times, reads this way:
U.S. to further delay Obamacare employer mandate
One of countless stories on the subject appearing all across the media landscape the Times version began this way:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration again delayed a requirement that large employers provide their workers with health benefits, offering businesses more relief from the president's health law deadlines.
Stop.
Let’s move ahead three years. To 2017 and this news story:
Washington, January 21, 2017
President Ted Cruz, citing what he called “The Obama Precedent” today unilaterally repealed Roe v. Wade, once again making abortion illegal in the United States.
The White House briefing room erupted in a chorus of anger as the President’s new press secretary joked that “the President found former President Obama’s pen and telephone hidden in a safe underneath a floorboard in the Oval Office.” The White House spokesman cracked that the safe had a note addressed “Dear Hillary” and held the safe’s combination.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
...and if there is clear and convincing evidence of impeachable offenses and the Senate doesn’t convict, then it’s up to THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to throw the bums out who voted against conviction. The ONLY language politicians understand.
Moving forward with impeachment would give Zero a legitimacy that he does not merit.
Remove him from power? Yes.
““you should read your copy of the Constitution.
The Senate has nothing to do with impeachment.”
I think you might want to take your own advice:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
US Constitution, Article I, Section 3”
At the risk of belaboring.
Impeachment is the sole domain of the House.Senate has nothing to do with this.
The Trial AFTER IMPEACHMENT and Removal from Office is the Domain of the Senate, with the Head of Supreme Court overseeing the trial. The House has nothing to do with this other than to present evidence.
Does that make things clear for you?
But the real motivation should be for Congress to simply adhere to the Constitution.”
Absolutely agree. These guys who keep mixing up impeachment with removal from office are missing the point: Impeachment is the way to get the evidence of wrongdoing in front of the American people in simple, easy-to-understand language that shows the laws of this country are not being followed. Will not depend on the MSM.
It is NOT about removal, which is unlikely to happen.
When Clinton was impeached it demonstrated a clear disregard for the laws of this country as a sitting President lied to a federal judge.
With Obama, there would be a lot more ammunition to deliver, and the American citizenry would make up their minds on the evidence of fitness for further duty.
“The Trial AFTER IMPEACHMENT and Removal from Office is the Domain of the Senate, with the Head of Supreme Court overseeing the trial.”
Your own statement here demonstrates that, yes, the Senate does have something to do with impeachment, as my quote from the Constitution amply proved.
I think most people around here understand the process, you’re just obsessing about semantics.
BTTT!
““The Trial AFTER IMPEACHMENT and Removal from Office is the Domain of the Senate, with the Head of Supreme Court overseeing the trial.”
Your own statement here demonstrates that, yes, the Senate does have something to do with impeachment, as my quote from the Constitution amply proved.
I think most people around here understand the process, you’re just obsessing about semantics.”
Ok, I’ll be nice and simple for someone like you one last time:
Tell me whether the Senate had ANYTHING to do with the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Answer: NOTHING
You do not know what an indictment is vs a trial friend.
Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment.
Pay attention to our Constitution. It is dissolving before our eyes.
And you ain’t helping with the ignorance of it.
You talk about semantics. I am talking about what we live under in this country.
“Tell me whether the Senate had ANYTHING to do with the impeachment of Bill Clinton.”
It tried the impeachment, just as stated in the Constitution. That’s “having something” to do with an impeachment, at least on the planet that most of us live on.
U r brainless
That is like saying I grew grapes because I bought some at the supermarket
Read the constitution
““Tell me whether the Senate had ANYTHING to do with the impeachment of Bill Clinton.”
It tried the impeachment, just as stated in the Constitution. That’s “having something” to do with an impeachment, at least on the planet that most of us live on.”
New article out today that explains in more detail. http://spectator.org/articles/57838/course-he-should-be-impeached
Note the following extraction: “It is true that, to remove a President from office, a two-thirds majority of the Senate must vote to convict him of charges emanating from the House impeachment process. However, impeachment itself is a separate step — roughly analogous to an indictment in a criminal court — and requires only a simple majority in the House of Representatives.”
Impeachment is totally separate, and requires zero from the Senate.
I don’t understand why you keep feeling you need to explain a process that everyone already understands. We all know the House prepares the impeachment, and the Senate tries the impeachment. Of course, that means both houses have “something to do” with impeachment.
Because people like you confuse what roles the Congress play in the Constitution.
I have seen too many people on FR say that Obama cannot be impeached because the GOP does not have the votes in the Senate.
If you go back and look at my original reply to the Freeper who inferred that due to Reid being in Senate that impeachment cannot happen. My original post is what you replied to that distorted what the Consitution clearly says.
Most people do not know enough Civics to understand that the House is solely responsible for impeachment, period.
The process of Impeachment raises awareness on the whole series of foul play that Obama has been engaged in, reveals such outside the MSM to the American public, especially the LI voters, and, besides is the only real remedy to an out-of-control President that the House has at its disposal.
The inference that one does not do this if you cannot remove him as well, which is what many Freepers suggest, is not the point.
It is the solicitation of a change in public opinion when crimes against the Constitution are exposed that is the point.
Bill Clinton was neutered when he was impeached by the House, in spite of him remaining in office.
We need to neuter Obama.
I believe we are on the same page, but believe different things. You seem to suggest there is a role by the Senate for impeachment, whereas that is clearly not in the Constitution, and reamins the sole responsibility of the House.
“Because people like you confuse what roles the Congress play in the Constitution.”
No, I don’t, and I quoted you the exact quotation from the Constitution that supports what I have been saying.
you miss the point entirely.
And besides, you conveniently forgot to quote Art 2.5 “5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
If that is not clear as can be on who actually impeaches, then woe is the nation if more are like you, blissfully unaware of what is at stake.
“If that is not clear as can be on who actually impeaches, then woe is the nation if more are like you, blissfully unaware of what is at stake.”
I never said anyone else impeaches, only that the Senate does have something to do with impeachment, just as it says in the Constitution.
““If that is not clear as can be on who actually impeaches, then woe is the nation if more are like you, blissfully unaware of what is at stake.”
I never said anyone else impeaches, only that the Senate does have something to do with impeachment, just as it says in the Constitution.”
I see you are still blissfully unaware of what this is about.
Cannot dialogue with someone who cannot grasp the point of actually Impeaching someone and Removing them from office.
Tying them together is the problem and you seem incapable of separating them.
And God help this country.
“Tying them together is the problem and you seem incapable of separating them.”
Take it up with the Constitution, that’s what you need to argue with. You can insult me all you want, but that won’t make that pesky little sentence you want to ignore go away.
“He reads but cannot see”
It’s a yes for me.
Like I said, insult away, but you can’t get around that pesky little sentence in the Constitution.
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.