Posted on 08/04/2014 8:37:39 AM PDT by centurion316
Some 40 years after Richard Nixon resigned to avoid his likely impeachment by the House of Representatives, Washington is again talking impeachment. Members of Congress are denouncing the president’s contempt for constitutional law, while the president is raising money to fight the effort to remove him. But this time, the money pouring in would be just as well spent on defense against Bigfoot. Much of the debate has been more mythological than constitutional...
But Congress’s exclusive power to impeach does not license it to abuse that power, any more than the Supreme Court’s final say on laws gives it license to deliver arbitrary rulings. The framers carefully defined the grounds for impeachment as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” — language with British legal precedent. They clearly did not want removal of the president subject to congressional whim. Indeed, they rejected the addition of “maladministration” after James Madison cautioned that “so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He can certainly be impeached, he just can't be convicted so it makes no sense to use this remedy at this point. The founders made impeachment a very difficult thing to do, it has never succeeded. That's a good thing.
You need to learn how to read. I said senate REMOVAL is irrelevant.
So you did, which makes even less sense. Some political carnival act without hope of its intended purpose does nothing but give the Democrats a stage to fire up their base and strengthen a very weakened President.
I’ll work on learning how to read, perhaps you should focus on thinking.
“Senate removal is independent and irrelevant. Obama’s actions warrant impeachment - multiple times! Obama deserves the distinction of being the first president impeached TWICE!”
So do it after the election. This way you have two years and by 2016 the media willbp be focusing on Hillary’s courageous actions in Benghazi. No need to make impeachment a campaign issue for 2014.
As the democrats control the Senate, impeachment would only be a symbolic gesture by the House.
However, the House has the power to defund everything Obama. Boehner refuses to use the only real power he has. This silly lawsuit that the House is trying is an embarssment that emphasizes how spineless Boehner is.
False. While no president has been removed from office after an impeachment, both presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton was successfully impeached. Others have been both impeached and removed, just not presidents.
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only examples of a Presidential Impeachment. They were both quite unsucessful since they were not removed from office, the only possible outcome of Impeachment that can be deemed success.
Your comment is like saying we had a very successful Super Bowl, we lost.
By your definition. Future actions have been changed by impeachment.
Turley notes that impeachable offenses include behavior such as continuing unconstitutional abuses even after the courts have ruled against them. Somehow he misses that Boehner’s lawsuit is aimed at exactly that. They need to hurry it along, and add more cases.
You do realize obama has proven there is no limit on Executive Power if you control over 1/3 of the Senate and the DOJ?
He could theoretically refuse to step down in 2016, and there isn’t a damned thing that could be done about it
Do it now and then repeat and do it regularly.
Apparently you are in the weeny camp of “oh NO we can’t impeach Obama or we will make them mad and when they get mad I get scared!!”. We need to get of offense and stay on offense
The founders did not envision that a Chief Executive would be the head of an organized criminal conspiracy. That leaves the voters, but many of them, including members of this very forum, are prepared to continue supporting Democrats.
New tagline ...
When you change self apparent definitions, anything can be deemed a success. To wit, the Democrats with Obamacare.
When you claim the results of a separate process, anything can be deemed a failure.
“Apparently you are in the weeny camp of “oh NO we can’t impeach Obama or we will make them mad and when they get mad I get scared!!”. We need to get of offense and stay on offense.”
Nope. Not in weenie camp. This is an election year and with the congress critters campaigning and such, why give the MSM ammunition to go after Republicans and risk losing the House? We have our two strongest issues (Obamacare and Illegal Immigratiion) which should give Republicans more seats.
Why give that up when the threat of impeachment will still be there in January? Especially with a new congress and the potential of majorities in both houses?
I know this would never happen, but wouldn’t it be sweet if new Senate Majority leader Cruz goes nuclear and calls for 51 votes to remove Obama from office. He invokes the “Reid Rule.”
Unfortunately, impeachment without removal is almost a political "win" for the President. Certainly for a Democrat President, anyway. It is true that Bill Clinton was disbarred, and probably paid some civil fines, but I don't think he's hurting or caring too much about his legacy. The same would hold true for Obama.
Surely, our Founding Fathers had a President like Obama in mind when they gave instructions on how to legally impeach and remove. How do we both impeach and remove in today's partisan environment?
Demonstrating the willingness to stand up to a tyrant is not a win for the tyrant.
If that tyrant, along with his complicit media paint a picture that it's just "extremist Republican and Tea Party sour grapes..." it's not much of a win for those that impeached him.
The eGOP has for too long, allowed themselves to be trampled on by Obama. Simply put, they don't know how to effectively communicate or describe how the President's agenda is bad for the United States. They don't know how to challenge his anti-Constitutional actions, and they don't know how to stay on-message.. The GOP is disjointed; its message is never crisp, never repeatable, never fully orchestrated to achieve a goal.
While I'm in agreement that impeachment is long overdue, I worry that a symbolic action by the House will be painted as overly partisan, and that failure to obtain 67 votes in the Senate play to Obama's advantage.
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.