Posted on 11/13/2014 12:52:51 PM PST by gwgn02
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) says impeachment should be on the table if President Barack Obama moves forward with executive amnesty. Speaking with Breitbart News Wednesday evening, Jones explained that should Obama move to unilaterally legalize undocumented immigrants, it would be a constitutional issue, not an issue to be solved by restricting funding, as some Republicans have floated. “To me a constitutional question means that we have the option of impeachment,” Jones said, explaining that he thinks the best option to confront Obama’s executive amnesty would be impeachment. “We have a Constitution, and I am very disappointed from year to year that we do not follow the Constitution. To me, if you think the president has violated his trust of office, meaning with the American people, then follow the Constitution,” Jones added. The North Carolina Republican is no stranger to calls for impeachment, having at varying times seen impeachment as a way to deal with Obama on Obamacare and former President George W. Bush on Iraq. He voted against the Republican resolution earlier this year to sue the President over Obamacare because he said it would be kicked out. He told The Hill at the time that impeachment would be preferable if the GOP were serious about the issue. Jones further noted that he supported a resolution from former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to impeach Bush over Iraq. “We continue to forget that we have a constitutional responsibility, and to me, look at the constitutional responsibility first before you look at something second,” Jones said to Breitbart News, then stressed that he thinks Obama is a “fine person.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Huh?
Thought so
Your post makes the most sense here. Anyone thinking the GOPe will do something is out to lunch. The writing is on the wall unless other methods are taken.
Don’t feel bad. He always drags God into everything, mounts a high horse and makes a fool of himself. Confusion is the natural result.
Well...I guess it's the part of the collective's fault...that doesn't pay attention.
Kinda like the dead brain idjet's on the left. Who vote lock step..Dummie.
What happened during the War to win separation from England. Supposedly about 1/3 supported fully separation...Enough to allocate their fortunes, their families and lives. I'd guess we are smack right there again....................
FWIW-
Really....I've no idea where you are headed.............
We are indeed.
Collective/groupthink is always a bad idea and often the cause of some of the biggest disasters in human history. Nazi Germany being the biggest example...perhaps communism in general would actually be a better one.
But ultimately the members of that collective make it what it is and it’s them that elect the people leading them to destruction.
Taking the constitutional wording of Article 4 Section 2 is deliberately construed to mean a more shallow/diluted meaning then what our founders intended when they wrote the Section 2
“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.”
The clause was understood and deliberate at the time of its adoption during the Constitution Convention Debates of 1787. As explained below from an excerpt from both
http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
AND
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment
With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and corruption.” Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the grounds.
But the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding “maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally.
Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.
Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “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.”
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
Violation of the Constitution by the President is very much within the meaning of Article 4 Section 2.
No reasonable commander launches an attach which he knows will fail. Until you can name a sufficient number of democrats who will vote to convict, you are only advocating a reckless assault with no chance of success. That is so dumb it borders on criminal.
And your refusal to act on the laws of the constitution go over the border entirely. What? It’s not good enough for you?
0bama should be a FAILURE not a MARTYR.
So then if any act that a POTUS enacted by executive order is declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then COTUS can start impeachment proceedings. He’s violated the Constitution, so has committed an HCAMD. That once again destroys the system of checks and balances, and puts unlimited power in the hands of the legislative branch, at the discretion of the judiciary’s whim. You need a little more than that, I think.
It might work better to say that he’s giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US by enabling an invasion, but people living far away from the Rio Grande valley will have trouble thinking of their gardeners and landscapers as invaders, even if they do tend to vote excessively often on behalf of dead people.
So while it might work legally, it would be hard to sell politically. Let’s not forget that there were legal grounds to impeach Clinton and remove him from office, but those grounds failed to gain political support, so the entire process ended badly.
Why just an option? They should have the papers ready to go already.
Amnesty now will begin a huge surge of illegals.
This amnesty will allow all family members to also come, which is why Obola engineering the flood of illegal minors.
So we can estimate 35,000,000 illegals to become Dem voters initially, which will do to all States what the massive illegal, etc flood has done to California...turned it permanently Dem, because the Hispanics become Free Sh*t Army voters.
But this amnesty will trigger new tidal waves of illegals coming to join the FSA, so within 10 to 20 years, the United States will be minority non-hispanics.
The USA Dem (aka Socialist Fascist) Party will gain permanent majorities.
This will allow them to, in time, to replace all judges with Socialist/Fascists in lifetime jobs to make sure to squash any legal objections or legal rebellions.
Just as a State now makes gay marriage illegal and some hack Federal judge overturns the Will of the People in that State...just one man triumphs over the will of millions.
The the Socialist-Fascist Police State dictatorship is finalized and the USA is transformed into a tyranny, like Communist China...only without the freedoms there.
Is there hope?
Sure.
If you trust in the Repub RINO leadership who have already been bought off or blackmailed.
Remember the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc are domestic opposition suppression tools ala the KGB of the old USSR.
Watch the news.
If Obola is allowed by McSurrender and Boner to do this amnesty, the USA is dead.
Maybe still twitching.
But clinically dead.
And its transformation into a tyranny is only a limited time away.
Via this amnesty Obola is screwing his fellow Blacks.
Will they take their Fergusons to Wash DC to oppose Obola?
Probably would if Obola was white.
But.....we shall see.
If the Blacks do not act to stop Obola, then one must conclude they are incurably racist...or even more so, stupid.
No commander knows whether they will be victorious at the outset of a battle. Only God knows the sure outcome. You may have the odds against you but then do you not fight? I suppose some would not but many have gone into battle with little in their favor except a belief in God and that God was on their side.
It is a good thing that Washington didn’t have your sage advice. I have read the stories of battles during the Revolution where the odds were greatly against the Patriots. Indeed, a majority wanted to avoid confrontation with the British. The Americans had no army nor a navy. The British ruled the seas. They were a super power. What reasoned chance did a ragtag group of cobbled together farmers and townsmen, many without weapons, have against a well trained and funded British army and navy?
Washington got down on his knees and prayed to God knowing that the odds were greatly against his men. Yet they prevailed.
What of Capt. John Paul Jones who took on the British at sea during the Revolutionary War? When asked to surrender he famously replied “I have only begun to fight!” Again, with all odds against him and a greatly inferior navy he prevailed. I would not consider Washington nor Jones “stupid”.
I would also not consider impeachment charges against a tyrannical and lawless president who has destroyed our country, put our lives in danger, lied, stole money from our citizens to redistribute to others and enabled an invasion on our borders failing to protect our sovereignty a “reckless assault”.
The problem is that we have too many who are afraid. Afraid of what the other side is going to say about us, afraid of making Obama a martyr (whatever that would mean)or that this is some kind of political trap that the left wants us to step into or how the media will present it. Baloney! These are all cowardice excuses. Impeachment is a DUTY.
News flash: The left will always paint their enemies in a bad light and say bad things & lie about them. The media will always dislike us and say bad things and lie about us. If Obama is a made a martyr those to whom he is will never like us anyway and will always lie and say bad stuff about us.
Since the repubs do not plan on overturning Obamacare, shutting down the government, putting the reins on government spending, closing our borders or much of anything else shouldn’t they be doing something to earn their salaries? What else do they have to do with their time? They certainly haven’t had an aversion to running dog-and-pony show investigations that have gone nowhere.
And unless you have a crystal ball you have no idea how this would turn out. I believe that the majority of the American people are despairing of their representatives stopping this self-made king and would WELCOME and support any move to impeach Obama. With enough pressure and the American public DEMANDING impeachment you have no idea who may vote which way.
You want to compare a move to impeach to going into a battle in war? Really? Who is going to die here? I don’t think there will be any loss of life if we attempt to impeach Obama but I can guaranty you that people will die if we do not.
0 is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US by helping ISIS, the Muslim brotherhood, and the Arab spring.
THAT is a high crime and misdemeanor.
Good luck convincing John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Ruling Class Oligarchy of that.
They are going to laugh at you in your face and call you a 'nutcase'.
We are not the same people our Forbears were in terms of honor and morality, God is not going to honor a wayward people - and we suffer tyranny because of our collective sins and apathy as a people.
Hard truth - but it is what it is.
The GOP Ruling Class is not afraid of Obama and what he has done.
THEY LIKE what he is doing and what his party has done, and in the tradition of Teddy and Woodrow - the GOP seeks to do what it began over 100 years ago.
We are a Fascist Oligarchy with a defacto dictator for an Executive.
The longer it takes for the American people to wake up to that reality - the more people are going to suffer and the greater the cost will be to avoid what they intend to do to us all.
Because it is going to take thinking beyond fixing it within a corrupted system that no longer operates within the bounds created for it - to arrest what this government has morphed into.
Yup. One of many. And yet ‘conservatives’ right here demand that no impeachment take place because ‘dems’ might use it against us.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. This happens to be one of them. On this issue, he makes a hell of a lot more sense than the Speaker does.
There is exactly one type of person that does not want the Constitution followed. A liberal.
The founders would puke in disgust at the cowardice displayed by Republicans on the impeachment issue. And for the exact reasons your excellent post laid out.
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.