SOTU: "But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress – to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; "
",,,collective shoulder to the wheel of progress -,,,"
There is a good chance Mick that if the Repubs take the senate next Fall king Obama may find himself facing impeachment. That would make for a very interesting final two years in office, no?
Just a few items come to mind, NSA, IRS, Philadelphia voter fraud, Benghazi-Las Vegas, birth certificate-clerk death, fast and furious,,,
Of course the king and his court deny knowledge of any on the matters listed above.
He prays that Hillary follows him so she can cover his tracks.
We were able to watch excerpts from the SOTU address yesterday. Initial reaction down under is that the Pres is displaying little more than frustration at being blocked in his plans and aspirations. Makes life more complicated of course when your system provides three allegedly equal arms of government. I sometimes wonder why there is so much angst on the hill and in the White house when those who inhabit the places, all claim to be there for the people who cast their votes, to ensure a continuation of government of the people for the people by the people. I see William is still fixated on Obama seeing himself as “King”, makes a change I suppose to seeing Australians as loyal subjects to a “Queen”. By the way, it was announced two days ago that we are to have a new Governor General. Army General Cosgrove has been appointed by the Prime Minister to fill the ceremonial role for the next five years. This bloke has an almost god like status here and his appointment, as with all vice regal representative appointments is made by the Prime Minister and is then automatically ratified by Buck House in London. Cheers from Aussie
I was watching a program produced for travel tv about a UK presenter... an avid bike rider who does segments about great bike rides all over the world. He did a 3 program series traveling from Sidney to Perth. While he had many positive things to say about the experience,(Many of which I must agree, with having spent about 6 months in and around Sidney some 15 years ago) he made a comment I had to ponder... "Coming from the UK, Australia feels like a police state". Given that he had previously done segments in various parts of the US, the comment gives me some hope about the US. Of course for me, coming to Britain from the US, the US feels very much like a police state and Britain just a well regulated, desensitized nanny state. As far as Obama being King... well, lets just say, I have never seen one person push the boundaries of the Presidency with as much vigor and disregard for the other two branches as he.. Of course, just like everyone on here, the presenter, the president and myself... its just one mans opinion.
if he doesn't like a law, he ignores it proclaims it broken. The immigration law. The only thing broken is the chief law enforcer, Obama. Lou You are aware of my academic only interest so I have no dog in the fight other than a thirst for knowledge. Can you advise how, under the constitution, the Pres can change a Law already on the statute books without approval of Congress? Maybe I have missed a most important point in my studies. I am aware of course of the Presidential veto but that I believe can only apply for a limited period and to a bill which has been passed by both houses. Please clarify, both to facilitate debate on this site and also privately if you wish. Cheers from Aussie
King it's called executive orders. The president cannot change the law but he can change how it is handled, ie: the dream act instituted by executive order. The bill has been debated in congress since 2001 has passed in the house but went down in the senate. Obama by executive order prohibited the deportation of children who were brought here by their parents if they were under a certain age. It also gives them a track to citizenship and other benefits. Not an official law but just the right thing to do for a group coming of age that had no control over their circumstances and know no other home except the United States.
Rick and Lou. My thanks for the comment above and to Lou for the private email received overnight. A great light has dawned as I had previously considered executive orders were intended, but not limited to, National Security. It is not for me to judge your situation but even after a twenty odd year interest, I am still fascinated by your history and politics. cheers from Aussie
William has made the point above that if the Repubs win the Senate Mid Term, the possibility of impeachment exists. I presume this is the object of those most dissatisfied with the conduct of the Pres. So, if I have learned anything at all can I interpret the procedures involved? The House is the starting point and the House Judiciary Committee must first decide there is a case for impeachment and then list the reasons (articles) of impeachment. The full house then debates and a simple majority only is required to vote for impeachment. I think here in Australia we would consider that process somewhat unfair as the Party controlling the house can send a President to trial in the Senate. From what I have learned, the Senate MUST proceed to trial, having been directed by the House there is no option. Here we have an anomaly of my understanding that all three branches of government are equal; but perhaps not here? / The Senate therefore holds a trial and I believe the Chief Justice presides. Rules for the trial are determined by the Senate and a 66 percent margin is required to convict. Now to Williams proposition, If the Senate changes Mid Term, with say a ten percent Republican majority, (a very large swing in any jurisdiction) Does anyone believe that the current Pres has done anything to date which would result in a guilty verdict? Therefore is it not more likely that the administration will run full term and Obama will not join the other four who have been investigated with a view to impeachment? I do believe Nixon would have been convicted been had he not resigned and as a personal opinion only, Clinton should have been! The case against Clinton appears from here, to have been involved in a tawdry affair and then to deny the association. As a final aside, I guess JFK was a prime cause for investigation if the same standards had been used as with Clinton Cheers from Aussie
The Senate therefore holds a trial and I believe the Chief Justice presides. Rules for the trial are determined by the Senate and a 66 percent margin is required to convict.
Today, the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and would never impeach Obama as they didn't impeach Clinton.
As far as Clinton, he certainly perjured himself and people go to jail today for perjury. In this case the President according to the Senate Democrats placed Clinton above the law.
I would contend the impeachment process is a purely political game today. In Nixon's time both the House and Senate would have voted to impeach Nixon, Republicans and Democrats. They had integrity. Today that integrity no longer exists.
And King although the president has stretched the authority of the office,he has done nothing that other presidents haven't done at one time or the other. There are no impeachable offenses other then what lou describes above politics. Making a mis statement about the causes of Benghazi or the right to keep you're health care plan are not impeachable grounds by far.
"And King although the president has stretched the authority of the office,he has done nothing that other presidents haven't done at one time or the other. "
I guess we should just add perjury to that list of things other presidents have done and excuse that going forward? For the last one hundred years the US government has operated on precedent rather than law based in the constitution... Now, at least from the supporters of the party in office, the president and congress can do no wrong because someone else has already gotten away with it...
President Richard M. Nixon, whose bills of impeachment recounted how he had "acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."
*The procedure set up under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for notification of the Congress, and obtaining its subsequent approval, President Barack Obama went ahead with a war against the nation of Libya in March of 2011. While Obama notified the Congress of the action, no vote of approval was ever sought, or obtained.
His loose and very creative excuses do not discount the fact that he engaged US troops in another country which presented no threat to the US.
*The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." At least three American citizens, Anwar Al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son, and Samir Khan, without benefit of due process of law.
This kind of qualifies as “high crimes and misdemeanors”…. The definition of this action by any other person would be called …. Murder.
*The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Indeed GWBush and he are both guilty of policies that allow for secret courts and warrantless searches and arrests without probable cause….
There are other things that people aren’t particularly happy about but the three listed don’t go well with his oath to protect and defend the constitution…..
But as Lou has said, this is no doubt a waste of time because logic does not work well with the liberal mind and it is the liberal mind who will rationalize all of these things away… and create yet more precedent for expansion of future presidential powers.
This is the best debate I have yet seen on AP.Perhaps I am a little biased as most of your recent posts are directed at increasing my understanding of your system. Of course any casual student of American history has a reasonable grasp of the constitution, its reason for being and the way and environment in which it was pulled together in the first place. What we do not comprehend from afar is that the document is 200 plus years old and that the character of the American people has changed.
Overnight ( our time) Lou has sent me a quite lengthily piece and this together with the posts here have in various ways emphasised the changing nature of politics and the American values displayed by the members currently making up the three arms. Lou in a post above QUOTE I would contend the impeachment process is a purely political game today. In Nixon's time both the House and Senate would have voted to impeach Nixon, Republicans and Democrats. They had integrity. Today that integrity no longer exists. UNQUOTE. This is a most thought provoking statement and expresses in a nutshell the present day view of politics throughout the developed world. Britain is constantly embroiled in scandal and we in Australia have had our fair share. America, because the rest of the world is obsessed with American scandals leads the way. As Politicians are a reflection of the people they are leading, I guess we all bear some responsibility and it would be no bad thing to read again the constitutions of our various nations. Before William points out that Britain has no written constitution, I refer him to Magna Carta as a start point! My thanks to you all Cheers from Aussie
Scott, Excellent comment, both sides use the same excuse to justify the lawlessness, the other guy did it defense. Imagine, if either party took the other to court over the excesses, they would be forced to then stay within the guide lines of the constitution instead of expanding the power of the executive office.
The Federal Government has all but gutted States Rights unless it suits their purpose as recently demonstrated with the non drug enforcement of POT in Colorado.
Interesting as both houses were ready to impeach Nixon for his excesses which are far less egregious that Obama's over reach yet neither party would touch it with a 10' pole.
Just one housekeeping item. iouman stated above that the senate did not impeach Clinton, in fact the house did impeach Clinton, the senate did not "convict" Clinton as is their responsibility.
The current house certainly has more than enough votes to impeach Obama. I would add to TheScott's list above the IRS-TeaParty scandal. Our attorney general could easily face impeachment for any number of refusals to enforce laws on the books. Obama and Holder would make a nice double header in their refusal to enforce our immigration laws.
Why haven't impeachment proceedings been called? I would suggest the countless scandals engaged in by this administration have kept our DC lawyer types on both sides more than busy enough.
Orderly succession by twenty or more States, as allowed in our constitution, would be a simpler and much less time consuming endeavor, Lincoln's war of aggression not withstanding.
William I am glad you have rejoined and I am interested in Loumans response to your claim that the House did not impeach Clinton. From my reading, I concluded that the house did but the Senate did not support impeachment. William, I must ask, do you agree with Loumans assertion that the Impeachment process is a political game today? If so, the following situation needs clarification. We imagine the impeachment of the President by the Senate (you address the possibility in a post on this thread). Are you going to accept the appointment of Joe Biden as the next president until the term expires? If so, is not the position of the Tea Party weakened because the target suddenly becomes smaller? Now here we run into another conundrum, how much weight does the tea party group have within the Republican Party and do you foresee some point in the future when the Tea Party actually takes over the Republican movement? Cheers from Aussie
Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial. At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "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 House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings. Wiki
The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence (as opposed to the House of Lords in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who vote upon their honor). After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority.
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 19) -- A deeply divided House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton Saturday on charges of lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair. The two allegations of "high crimes and misdemeanors" next go to the Senate for trial.
Enough Republicans broke ranks to defeat the two other articles of impeachment recommended one week ago by the House Judiciary Committee. Those accused Clinton of committing perjury in his deposition in the Paula Jones case and abusing his power in his efforts to cover up his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, a former White House intern.
Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, who will prosecute the case in the Senate, delivered the impeachment articles to the Secretary of the Senate at 3 p.m. ET. The trial is expected to get underway in mid-January after the 106th Congress takes office.
Clinton will be only the second U.S. president in history to face a Senate trial. The last time the House voted impeachment articles was 130 years ago when President Andrew Johnson was impeached following the Civil War.
The president, who vowed to serve out his remaining two year in office, told top aides he was disappointed but not surprised by the House impeachment votes. Clinton said he was committed to seeking a quick bipartisan compromise.
"We need to move beyond partisanship and get on with the business of the country," Clinton said.
The vote was largely along part lines.
It is nothing but a charade. There is little integerity in the House or Senate today. Obama could do the darkest deed and there would be no impeachment.
1. The minority community would scream racism, the media echoing the claim.
2. The Senate controlled by the Democrats would never in a million years validate an impeachment.
3. There is no political will in the House to begin such a process.
4. Takes honesty, integrity and all we have are partisan politics.
King, the movement as recently stated is a multi headed conglomeration. Quantifying impact or attempted regimentation of the various factions in play would be a fools errand. The deep blue state that I live in is home to dozens of Tea Party offshoots. Movements are what they are, rivers are deep and crosscurrents remain a natural byproduct. This diversity is a strength. Our president has already been neutered, as has our senate. Joe Biden is a laughable joke, has been for years. The ash heap of former VP's, Gore, Cheney, ,,pretty much fade quickly away.
The rally point for the Tea's remains the debt, limited government, rule of law. Pretty much doesn't matter the opponent.
Really Scott you are going to invoked the death of American terrorists living abroad as a crime? We are, I believe, still engaged in a war on terrorism and al Qaeda. al-Awlaki was a member of that group. He was fair game whenever the opportunity presented itself. By being a traitor to our nation and aligning himself to the enemy he had no rights except the right to die for his cause. That situation is not a war crime. He was an enemy combatant in an enemy land. His son was 16. If he was aligned with al Qaeda he was old enough to know what he was doing and old enough to carry out terrorist acts against our people and our country another traitor. The Libya campaign you speak of was not our war. But under the treaty agreements of NATO we were obliged to help our ally France in that endeavor providing that they provided a reason under the NATO charter for the conflict and they did. Yes it was a shady deal and no I didn't agree with it, but it still was not an impeachable crime.
@ KING, yes king the impeachment process has always been more political then criminal. We have impeached two presidents, Andrew Johnson, he succeeded Abe Lincoln, and he was impeached for removing a cabinet member who dis agreed with him after the Congress had passed a bullshit "Tenure of Office Act" designed solely to keep Johnson from firing those in his cabinet who were against him. Although we didn't impeach Richard Nixon he would have been had he not resigned. Yes he did some awful things but it is really questionable whether those were the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors required to remove the President. Then we come to Bill Clinton who, yes he lied. He lied about a personal matter that had no bearing on the work of the office or the safety of this nation or it's people. Thank god in all cases the Senate had the good sense to stop these proceedings. All these were pure political plays as will be any attempt to impeach Obama. The reasons listed in the discussion so far are not a one a true impeachable offense though William wishes they were. Yes King the tea party will be weaker when Obama is gone. They constantly deny the racial aspect of their support but it does exist.
Yes Scott add perjury to the expressed powers of the presidency unless you can of course definitely show 1 president outside of perhaps G. Washington who hasn't spend most of their careers lying about one thing or another, under oath or not. There is a reason we don't subpoena our Presidents during any inquiry that matters if ever at all.
Perjury can easily be avoided by executive order. Issue an executive order to keep Holder from providing documentation for the Fast and Furious investigation, investigation over, no more lies.
As a side note, today, Nixon would never been impeached. Lies from the president have become a way of life in the USA.
A lack of integrity and what Americans have come to accept as the norm from the leaders of our country. We as Americans have become accustomed to making up excuses for our leaders. The left ran cover and still does for Clinton. The right made up excuses for Bush. (No capitalization as there is no respect). The left as you can see from the above posts are full of excuses for the current president of the democratic party, the great divider.
The upside is that what ever Bush did, obama can do it better. Spying on Americans comes to mind.
As I said before no use responding to such posts as they hear but will never listen, look but never see.
I respectfully disagree with Iouman. I do think Nixon would have been impeached and convicted.
At that time in history we had three broadcast networks and the public broadcasting system. All were beating the same leftest drum that started during Vietnam in the late Sixties. Cronkite alone spewed his propaganda on a nightly bases and there was no counterbalance of public opinion over the airwaves.
Yes he would have been impeached in his time. Today, just wouldn't happen. Then people demanded more of their public officials, today, nothing is beyond reproach.
Everything that Nixon did - with the possible exception of the actual break in - is pretty much S.O.P. for today's public officials.
There's almost zero actions that our "representatives" take today that illicit real (not phony, ginned-up, fake for political purposes) outrage and demand for accountability amongst the electorate, particularly if it's complex and convoluted.
The only scandals that shame our politicians into resigning anymore are those that involve sex that are gossipy & titillating and play well on TV.
The only scandals that shame our politicians into resigning anymore are those that involve sex that are gossipy & titillating and play well on TV.
Don't they cheer them on for that type activity now??
Today's boring scandal, traffic jam on a bridge and the media tries to gin up outrage. I have to remember that when I'm on I25 in a 2-3 hour dead stop waiting for construction to stop so traffic can resume. I also get out raged when they do blasting in the mountains and stop traffic. What up with that?
The debate continues and long may it do so. On reading Ricks post I almost had an attack of convulsions when I thought he referred to my old friend Andrew Jackson! All well as I misread Andrew Johnson a President lost in the shadow of Honest Abe Lincoln. Jackson (old hickory) to his friends was the only President in your history to clear the National Debit, yes I know it was only for one year and there was a blow out in the following year. I wonder if he would be happy to look down on the hill today and try to understand the mindset of his one time Democratic Party. I would think there would be a few on both sides of the aisle who would be a little fearful of a slap on the cheek with a glove followed by pistols at dawn. Perhaps that which is obvious to you is something outsiders have to be dragged into understanding. This is the changing nature of the American character. Read Federalist papers and the measured courtesy and honesty of Madison, Hamilton etc.Read again the transcript of the Lincoln Douglas debates or perhaps listen to recordings or read transcripts of the Fireside chats of FDR. All of these are polite considered views, honestly held and articulated with the good of the nation at the forefront. Now listen to the outpouring of the recent and current crop of lawmakers. Jeb Bush and the election of GWB. Nancy Polosi, the candidates in recent presidential campaigns (on both sides).All, without exception appear to be driven by the credo of “whats in it for me” rather than “am I articulating what is good for America”. Here in this small debate I believe we have seen party politics at least temporally put aside while we exchange views not for our own advantage but to the advantage of others. I for one acknowledge the courtesy and assistance received as I struggle to understand some important point, obscure perhaps to me but blindingly obvious to an American. It is only in recent days has the distinction between impeachment and the senate trial become obvious. I had previously considered that impeachment was confirmed by the Senate before the “trial”. Cheers then from Aussie
As for presidential immunity and the ability to issue subpoenas, just because Jefferson stonewalled the courts and set a precedent does not mean that it was a strong one. Both Nixon and Clinton claimed such immunity but both were forced, in the end, to comply.
In United States v. Nixon the justices ruled that President Nixon had to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Nixon immediately prepared to turn over the subpoenaed materials to Chief Judge Sirica. Chief Justice Burger agreed that, if military or diplomatic secrets were at stake, the Court might reach a different conclusion. However, given that President Nixon's claims were based on a blanket statement of executive privilege without claiming that any state secrets were at stake, the constitutional duty of the courts is to guarantee due process of law, something that Nixon's actions were gravely impairing, according to the Court. As was the case with President Nixon, President Clinton eventually accepted his and his office's place under the rule of law. The precedent of legal obstruction in the United States v. Burr case has been broken.
"Really Scott you are going to invoked the death of American terrorists living abroad as a crime?"
Hum... I've heard tell that those 'Tea Partiers' are terrorists... and constitutionalists too.... and then perhaps one day you.... Its nice that you can see the law and the constitution so loosely... I guess they are both living... until they are dead.
The Magna Carta has served England since 1015.... in the last decade they have abandoned the principles of trial by jury and double jeopardy...
A law isn't a law unless it is the law for everyone all the time.... I believe that the penalty for treason is death... the proof of treason is evidence provided in a trial by jury... its called due process. I am sure you will spin it to suit your apparently warped vision of law but ... oh, never mind
Scott Please excuse if I correct an error of fact in your otherwise excellent post. Magna Carta (or Magna Charter) was signed at Runnymede in 1215 not 1015 as you state. 1015 of course pre dates Hastings and the Roman conquest. The 1215 ceremony was to placate the landowners and I guess a case could be made that it signaled the beginning of the end of the concept of "Divine right to rule". By the way, to show new found solidarity with William, I can advise that of the four surviving copies of the Inspeximus edition of 1297, one is housed in the Australian National Parliament and one is in the National Archives in Washington DC. Yours perhaps as a trophy and ours as a reminder that dictatorships are never a good thing
What you fail to consider TS is that we are at war with these people a war declared whether constitutionally our not by GWB. al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant. He had no rights on the field of battle which is where he was when he was scorched. Do we go back now and prosecute every American soldier who has killed in battle? Or the officers that made the orders? Believe me we have offed a lot more innocent people then al-Awlaki. Do we need to back up and prosecute all those soldiers like you want to prosecute the president for ordering an enemy combatant taken out? Absolutely no impeachable crime involved here. You guys are reaching. Ya got nothing but a political stunt to stand on.
Articles of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama
1. He has clearly communicated his intent to eviscerate the second amendment rights of American citizens by pursuing executive orders to curtail the right to keep and bear arms without congressional authorization and in violation of the second amendment.
2. He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
3. He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal government.
4. He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens. The cover-up has been called “Obama’s Watergate,” yet four months after the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.
5. He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” said Obama. This is an act that “constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” according to Congressman Walter Jones.
6. He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order.
7. He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included in the final NDAA bill.
8. He has enacted universal health care mandates that force Americans to buy health insurance, a clear violation of the Constitution in exceeding congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Obama has also handed outpreferential waivers to corporations friendly to his administration.
9. He has declared war on America’s coal industry by promising to bankrupt any company that attempts to build a new coal plant while using unconstitutional EPA regulations to strangle competition, ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.
10. He has violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
11. He has violated Article II of the Constitution by using signing statements as part of his executive usurpation of power.
Talking impeachment down at the Fox and Hound Posted by Dan Barkin on January 31, 2014 FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusRedditE-mailPrint Thursday night in Huntersville, several candidates for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination spoke at a forum sponsored by a group called Lake Norman Conservatives.
Some spoke about impeaching President Obama.
Here is what Charlotte Observer reporter Jim Morrill wrote in his story:
Obama was a frequent target.
[Heather] Grant, a Wilkesboro nurse, acknowledged that there aren’t enough votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate to convict the president if he were impeached by the House.
“By God in 2014 I’m hoping we’re going to have enough,” she said. Republicans must win six seats to take the Senate.
[The Rev. Mark] Harris, pastor of Charlotte’s First Baptist Church, said he’s surprised the House hasn’t begun impeachment proceedings.
“When we get a majority in the United States Senate the president will be held in check or he will be impeached,” Harris said.
According to the Associated Press, another candidate, Dr. Greg Brannon of Cary, also talked about impeachment of the president for overreaching.
In some acreage of the Republican grassroots, there is always talk about the need to remove President Obama through impeachment for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors such as a purported Benghazi coverup, the IRS nonprofit scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, Obamacare, immigration policies, his birth certificate, you name it.
@Rick - The problem with your overly broad acceptance of the ‘War on Terror’ and the ‘battle field’ is that it includes anywhere external to the lands governed by the USA. The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan .
This is not dissimilar to the 2002 U.S. drone strike in Yemen that targeted Abu Ali al-Harithi, a Yemeni al-Qaeda operative wanted by the FBI for questioning about the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. That strike also killed a U.S. citizen who the CIA knew was in Harithi’s vehicle but who was not a target of the attack. I am against these kinds of assassinations... and that is exactly what they are. Would, in a court of law be given the death penalty?.. Perhaps, but the thing is, because I think this behaviour is wrong, regardless the president, given today’s liberal interpretation of the word ‘belligerent’... one day, sitting here in the UK... bang I’m dead.
Sometimes your positions and their long term implications make me raise an eyebrow... I am beginning to get a pretty clear picture of why liberals like you despise the constitution and the people who believe in it.
@Kingston... Thanks for the catch... over exuberant and dyslexic fingers I guess. I was surprised to see your comment and just as surprised at the error. When I wrote it originally, I changed it from 'for 800 years' to the date..
What you don't know is Obama has drawn done the drone strikes. When a suspected terrorist is out there we have 3 choices ,kill him, leave him or work with locals to arrest and detain him in hopes that he can eventually be extradited here for a trial. It is probably quite certain that Yemen, where many of these type of attacks have occurred is not going to arrest and detain anybody for us. So depending on the circumstances we strike. All is fair in love and war. We have one now Ali Khan , the brains behind an attack in Afghanistan that killed Americans, running free because we failed to act. We did get Pakistan to pick him up and he was tortured etc before they released him to the Netherlands a country of which Ali Khan is a citizen. Now we can't get him extradited for a fair trial although we have extradition agreements with Holland. Extradition can be a long drawn out process and this guy is sitting there probably making more plans to harm Americans, so either you don't fully understand the global implications of bringing these folks to justice or you don't care that they kill Americans and get away scott free. Enemy combatants don't have American rights. If we would quit assuming that maybe we would win one or two of these conflicts.
Since the reinstitution of the death penalty in 1976 we have executed some 1250 people. Currently residing on death row are about 3200 people. Since 1973 some 140 people have been exonerated, not on a technicality but on evidence that confirmed the conviction to be in error. Now I know in this world of convenience abortion and euthanasia for the bored 140 people don’t matter to some... but when the state has the right to commit murder, they do matter.
We use to live in a world of presumed innocence... a world of trial where evidence is produced and examined. a world that deplored kangaroo courts... I guess all of that has changed in the new modern, evolved and progressive world.
We apparently learned nothing from our ‘intelligence’ experience with Iran? The US has not been on the winning side of a war since WWII.... perhaps it was the last legitimate reason for US citizens to be asked to die in the name of an actual threat to our sovereign existence.
Obama pretends to be king
ReplyDeleteWe the people pretend to be his loyal subjects
Ted is an Idiot and of course you believe every opinion he opines.
ReplyDeleteProgressive logic 101
DeleteAll conservatives are idiots.
Not true just the tea party ones.
DeleteSOTU:
ReplyDelete"But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress – to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; "
",,,collective shoulder to the wheel of progress -,,,"
You didn't build that all over again.
I'm sorry, if Obama has broken any law then have him arrested, or start an investigation or something.
ReplyDeleteThere is a good chance Mick that if the Repubs take the senate next Fall king Obama may find himself facing impeachment. That would make for a very interesting final two years in office, no?
DeleteJust a few items come to mind, NSA, IRS, Philadelphia voter fraud, Benghazi-Las Vegas, birth certificate-clerk death, fast and furious,,,
Of course the king and his court deny knowledge of any on the matters listed above.
He prays that Hillary follows him so she can cover his tracks.
We were able to watch excerpts from the SOTU address yesterday. Initial reaction down under is that the Pres is displaying little more than frustration at being blocked in his plans and aspirations. Makes life more complicated of course when your system provides three allegedly equal arms of government. I sometimes wonder why there is so much angst on the hill and in the White house when those who inhabit the places, all claim to be there for the people who cast their votes, to ensure a continuation of government of the people for the people by the people. I see William is still fixated on Obama seeing himself as “King”, makes a change I suppose to seeing Australians as loyal subjects to a “Queen”. By the way, it was announced two days ago that we are to have a new Governor General. Army General Cosgrove has been appointed by the Prime Minister to fill the ceremonial role for the next five years. This bloke has an almost god like status here and his appointment, as with all vice regal representative appointments is made by the Prime Minister and is then automatically ratified by Buck House in London.
ReplyDeleteCheers from Aussie
I was watching a program produced for travel tv about a UK presenter... an avid bike rider who does segments about great bike rides all over the world. He did a 3 program series traveling from Sidney to Perth. While he had many positive things to say about the experience,(Many of which I must agree, with having spent about 6 months in and around Sidney some 15 years ago) he made a comment I had to ponder... "Coming from the UK, Australia feels like a police state". Given that he had previously done segments in various parts of the US, the comment gives me some hope about the US. Of course for me, coming to Britain from the US, the US feels very much like a police state and Britain just a well regulated, desensitized nanny state. As far as Obama being King... well, lets just say, I have never seen one person push the boundaries of the Presidency with as much vigor and disregard for the other two branches as he.. Of course, just like everyone on here, the presenter, the president and myself... its just one mans opinion.
DeleteIf he doesn't like a law he changes it. The ACA has numerous examples.
DeleteIf he doesn't like a law, he ignores it proclaims it broken. The immigration law. The only thing broken is the chief law enforcer, Obama.
Seems that part is truthful. King, not so much.
if he doesn't like a law, he ignores it proclaims it broken. The immigration law. The only thing broken is the chief law enforcer, Obama.
DeleteLou
You are aware of my academic only interest so I have no dog in the fight other than a thirst for knowledge.
Can you advise how, under the constitution, the Pres can change a Law already on the statute books without approval of Congress? Maybe I have missed a most important point in my studies. I am aware of course of the Presidential veto but that I believe can only apply for a limited period and to a bill which has been passed by both houses. Please clarify, both to facilitate debate on this site and also privately if you wish.
Cheers from Aussie
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteKing it's called executive orders. The president cannot change the law but he can change how it is handled, ie: the dream act instituted by executive order. The bill has been debated in congress since 2001 has passed in the house but went down in the senate. Obama by executive order prohibited the deportation of children who were brought here by their parents if they were under a certain age. It also gives them a track to citizenship and other benefits. Not an official law but just the right thing to do for a group coming of age that had no control over their circumstances and know no other home except the United States.
ReplyDeleteRick and Lou. My thanks for the comment above and to Lou for the private email received overnight. A great light has dawned as I had previously considered executive orders were intended, but not limited to, National Security. It is not for me to judge your situation but even after a twenty odd year interest, I am still fascinated by your history and politics. cheers from Aussie
ReplyDeleteThe current president has made it clear he will by pass congressional authority to implement his way. Clearly an over reach of authority.
Delete3 more years and this reign of terror will finally be over.
William has made the point above that if the Repubs win the Senate Mid Term, the possibility of impeachment exists. I presume this is the object of those most dissatisfied with the conduct of the Pres. So, if I have learned anything at all can I interpret the procedures involved? The House is the starting point and the House Judiciary Committee must first decide there is a case for impeachment and then list the reasons (articles) of impeachment. The full house then debates and a simple majority only is required to vote for impeachment. I think here in Australia we would consider that process somewhat unfair as the Party controlling the house can send a President to trial in the Senate. From what I have learned, the Senate MUST proceed to trial, having been directed by the House there is no option. Here we have an anomaly of my understanding that all three branches of government are equal; but perhaps not here? / The Senate therefore holds a trial and I believe the Chief Justice presides. Rules for the trial are determined by the Senate and a 66 percent margin is required to convict. Now to Williams proposition, If the Senate changes Mid Term, with say a ten percent Republican majority, (a very large swing in any jurisdiction) Does anyone believe that the current Pres has done anything to date which would result in a guilty verdict? Therefore is it not more likely that the administration will run full term and Obama will not join the other four who have been investigated with a view to impeachment? I do believe Nixon would have been convicted been had he not resigned and as a personal opinion only, Clinton should have been! The case against Clinton appears from here, to have been involved in a tawdry affair and then to deny the association. As a final aside, I guess JFK was a prime cause for investigation if the same standards had been used as with Clinton
DeleteCheers from Aussie
The Senate therefore holds a trial and I believe the Chief Justice presides. Rules for the trial are determined by the Senate and a 66 percent margin is required to convict.
DeleteToday, the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and would never impeach Obama as they didn't impeach Clinton.
As far as Clinton, he certainly perjured himself and people go to jail today for perjury. In this case the President according to the Senate Democrats placed Clinton above the law.
I would contend the impeachment process is a purely political game today. In Nixon's time both the House and Senate would have voted to impeach Nixon, Republicans and Democrats. They had integrity. Today that integrity no longer exists.
And King although the president has stretched the authority of the office,he has done nothing that other presidents haven't done at one time or the other. There are no impeachable offenses other then what lou describes above politics. Making a mis statement about the causes of Benghazi or the right to keep you're health care plan are not impeachable grounds by far.
Delete
DeleteThe conversation isn't worth the time or effort as you stated your position and would never objectively look at any other position.
"And King although the president has stretched the authority of the office,he has done nothing that other presidents haven't done at one time or the other. "
DeleteI guess we should just add perjury to that list of things other presidents have done and excuse that going forward? For the last one hundred years the US government has operated on precedent rather than law based in the constitution... Now, at least from the supporters of the party in office, the president and congress can do no wrong because someone else has already gotten away with it...
President Richard M. Nixon, whose bills of impeachment recounted how he had "acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."
*The procedure set up under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for notification of the Congress, and obtaining its subsequent approval, President Barack Obama went ahead with a war against the nation of Libya in March of 2011. While Obama notified the Congress of the action, no vote of approval was ever sought, or obtained.
His loose and very creative excuses do not discount the fact that he engaged US troops in another country which presented no threat to the US.
*The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
At least three American citizens, Anwar Al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son, and Samir Khan, without benefit of due process of law.
This kind of qualifies as “high crimes and misdemeanors”…. The definition of this action by any other person would be called …. Murder.
*The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Indeed GWBush and he are both guilty of policies that allow for secret courts and warrantless searches and arrests without probable cause….
There are other things that people aren’t particularly happy about but the three listed don’t go well with his oath to protect and defend the constitution…..
But as Lou has said, this is no doubt a waste of time because logic does not work well with the liberal mind and it is the liberal mind who will rationalize all of these things away… and create yet more precedent for expansion of future presidential powers.
This is the best debate I have yet seen on AP.Perhaps I am a little biased as most of your recent posts are directed at increasing my understanding of your system. Of course any casual student of American history has a reasonable grasp of the constitution, its reason for being and the way and environment in which it was pulled together in the first place. What we do not comprehend from afar is that the document is 200 plus years old and that the character of the American people has changed.
DeleteOvernight ( our time) Lou has sent me a quite lengthily piece and this together with the posts here have in various ways emphasised the changing nature of politics and the American values displayed by the members currently making up the three arms. Lou in a post above QUOTE I would contend the impeachment process is a purely political game today. In Nixon's time both the House and Senate would have voted to impeach Nixon, Republicans and Democrats. They had integrity. Today that integrity no longer exists. UNQUOTE.
This is a most thought provoking statement and expresses in a nutshell the present day view of politics throughout the developed world. Britain is constantly embroiled in scandal and we in Australia have had our fair share. America, because the rest of the world is obsessed with American scandals leads the way. As Politicians are a reflection of the people they are leading, I guess we all bear some responsibility and it would be no bad thing to read again the constitutions of our various nations. Before William points out that Britain has no written constitution, I refer him to Magna Carta as a start point! My thanks to you all
Cheers from Aussie
Scott,
DeleteExcellent comment, both sides use the same excuse to justify the lawlessness, the other guy did it defense. Imagine, if either party took the other to court over the excesses, they would be forced to then stay within the guide lines of the constitution instead of expanding the power of the executive office.
The Federal Government has all but gutted States Rights unless it suits their purpose as recently demonstrated with the non drug enforcement of POT in Colorado.
All in all a very sad state of affairs.
K,
DeleteInteresting as both houses were ready to impeach Nixon for his excesses which are far less egregious that Obama's over reach yet neither party would touch it with a 10' pole.
Just one housekeeping item. iouman stated above that the senate did not impeach Clinton, in fact the house did impeach Clinton, the senate did not "convict" Clinton as is their responsibility.
DeleteThe current house certainly has more than enough votes to impeach Obama. I would add to TheScott's list above the IRS-TeaParty scandal. Our attorney general could easily face impeachment for any number of refusals to enforce laws on the books. Obama and Holder would make a nice double header in their refusal to enforce our immigration laws.
Why haven't impeachment proceedings been called? I would suggest the countless scandals engaged in by this administration have kept our DC lawyer types on both sides more than busy enough.
Orderly succession by twenty or more States, as allowed in our constitution, would be a simpler and much less time consuming endeavor, Lincoln's war of aggression not withstanding.
William I am glad you have rejoined and I am interested in Loumans response to your claim that the House did not impeach Clinton. From my reading, I concluded that the house did but the Senate did not support impeachment.
DeleteWilliam, I must ask, do you agree with Loumans assertion that the Impeachment process is a political game today? If so, the following situation needs clarification.
We imagine the impeachment of the President by the Senate (you address the possibility in a post on this thread). Are you going to accept the appointment of Joe Biden as the next president until the term expires? If so, is not the position of the Tea Party weakened because the target suddenly becomes smaller? Now here we run into another conundrum, how much weight does the tea party group have within the Republican Party and do you foresee some point in the future when the Tea Party actually takes over the Republican movement?
Cheers from Aussie
Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.
DeleteImpeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.
At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "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 House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.
Wiki
The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence (as opposed to the House of Lords in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who vote upon their honor). After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority.
DeleteAs to the impeachment:
DeleteWASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 19) -- A deeply divided House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton Saturday on charges of lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair. The two allegations of "high crimes and misdemeanors" next go to the Senate for trial.
Enough Republicans broke ranks to defeat the two other articles of impeachment recommended one week ago by the House Judiciary Committee. Those accused Clinton of committing perjury in his deposition in the Paula Jones case and abusing his power in his efforts to cover up his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, a former White House intern.
Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, who will prosecute the case in the Senate, delivered the impeachment articles to the Secretary of the Senate at 3 p.m. ET. The trial is expected to get underway in mid-January after the 106th Congress takes office.
Clinton will be only the second U.S. president in history to face a Senate trial. The last time the House voted impeachment articles was 130 years ago when President Andrew Johnson was impeached following the Civil War.
The president, who vowed to serve out his remaining two year in office, told top aides he was disappointed but not surprised by the House impeachment votes. Clinton said he was committed to seeking a quick bipartisan compromise.
"We need to move beyond partisanship and get on with the business of the country," Clinton said.
The vote was largely along part lines.
It is nothing but a charade. There is little integerity in the House or Senate today. Obama could do the darkest deed and there would be no impeachment.
1. The minority community would scream racism, the media echoing the claim.
2. The Senate controlled by the Democrats would never in a million years validate an impeachment.
3. There is no political will in the House to begin such a process.
4. Takes honesty, integrity and all we have are partisan politics.
Have a good evening.
King, the movement as recently stated is a multi headed conglomeration. Quantifying impact or attempted regimentation of the various factions in play would be a fools errand. The deep blue state that I live in is home to dozens of Tea Party offshoots. Movements are what they are, rivers are deep and crosscurrents remain a natural byproduct. This diversity is a strength.
DeleteOur president has already been neutered, as has our senate. Joe Biden is a laughable joke, has been for years. The ash heap of former VP's, Gore, Cheney, ,,pretty much fade quickly away.
The rally point for the Tea's remains the debt, limited government, rule of law. Pretty much doesn't matter the opponent.
Really Scott you are going to invoked the death of American terrorists living abroad as a crime? We are, I believe, still engaged in a war on terrorism and al Qaeda. al-Awlaki was a member of that group. He was fair game whenever the opportunity presented itself. By being a traitor to our nation and aligning himself to the enemy he had no rights except the right to die for his cause. That situation is not a war crime. He was an enemy combatant in an enemy land. His son was 16. If he was aligned with al Qaeda he was old enough to know what he was doing and old enough to carry out terrorist acts against our people and our country another traitor.
DeleteThe Libya campaign you speak of was not our war. But under the treaty agreements of NATO we were obliged to help our ally France in that endeavor providing that they provided a reason under the NATO charter for the conflict and they did. Yes it was a shady deal and no I didn't agree with it, but it still was not an impeachable crime.
@ KING, yes king the impeachment process has always been more political then criminal. We have impeached two presidents, Andrew Johnson, he succeeded Abe Lincoln, and he was impeached for removing a cabinet member who dis agreed with him after the Congress had passed a bullshit "Tenure of Office Act" designed solely to keep Johnson from firing those in his cabinet who were against him. Although we didn't impeach Richard Nixon he would have been had he not resigned. Yes he did some awful things but it is really questionable whether those were the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors required to remove the President. Then we come to Bill Clinton who, yes he lied. He lied about a personal matter that had no bearing on the work of the office or the safety of this nation or it's people. Thank god in all cases the Senate had the good sense to stop these proceedings. All these were pure political plays as will be any attempt to impeach Obama. The reasons listed in the discussion so far are not a one a true impeachable offense though William wishes they were. Yes King the tea party will be weaker when Obama is gone. They constantly deny the racial aspect of their support but it does exist.
Yes Scott add perjury to the expressed powers of the presidency unless you can of course definitely show 1 president outside of perhaps G. Washington who hasn't spend most of their careers lying about one thing or another, under oath or not. There is a reason we don't subpoena our Presidents during any inquiry that matters if ever at all.
DeleteScott, Kingston,
DeletePerjury can easily be avoided by executive order. Issue an executive order to keep Holder from providing documentation for the Fast and Furious investigation, investigation over, no more lies.
As a side note, today, Nixon would never been impeached. Lies from the president have become a way of life in the USA.
A lack of integrity and what Americans have come to accept as the norm from the leaders of our country. We as Americans have become accustomed to making up excuses for our leaders. The left ran cover and still does for Clinton. The right made up excuses for Bush. (No capitalization as there is no respect). The left as you can see from the above posts are full of excuses for the current president of the democratic party, the great divider.
The upside is that what ever Bush did, obama can do it better. Spying on Americans comes to mind.
As I said before no use responding to such posts as they hear but will never listen, look but never see.
All is well in Nirvana.
I respectfully disagree with Iouman. I do think Nixon would have been impeached and convicted.
DeleteAt that time in history we had three broadcast networks and the public broadcasting system. All were beating the same leftest drum that started during Vietnam in the late Sixties. Cronkite alone spewed his propaganda on a nightly bases and there was no counterbalance of public opinion over the airwaves.
JMHO in the matter. Nixon did fall on his sword.
Yes he would have been impeached in his time. Today, just wouldn't happen. Then people demanded more of their public officials, today, nothing is beyond reproach.
DeleteI agree with Lou on this one.
DeleteEverything that Nixon did - with the possible exception of the actual break in - is pretty much S.O.P. for today's public officials.
There's almost zero actions that our "representatives" take today that illicit real (not phony, ginned-up, fake for political purposes) outrage and demand for accountability amongst the electorate, particularly if it's complex and convoluted.
The only scandals that shame our politicians into resigning anymore are those that involve sex that are gossipy & titillating and play well on TV.
We've become a nation of teenage boys ...
The only scandals that shame our politicians into resigning anymore are those that involve sex that are gossipy & titillating and play well on TV.
DeleteDon't they cheer them on for that type activity now??
Today's boring scandal, traffic jam on a bridge and the media tries to gin up outrage. I have to remember that when I'm on I25 in a 2-3 hour dead stop waiting for construction to stop so traffic can resume. I also get out raged when they do blasting in the mountains and stop traffic. What up with that?
The debate continues and long may it do so. On reading Ricks post I almost had an attack of convulsions when I thought he referred to my old friend Andrew Jackson! All well as I misread Andrew Johnson a President lost in the shadow of Honest Abe Lincoln. Jackson (old hickory) to his friends was the only President in your history to clear the National Debit, yes I know it was only for one year and there was a blow out in the following year. I wonder if he would be happy to look down on the hill today and try to understand the mindset of his one time Democratic Party. I would think there would be a few on both sides of the aisle who would be a little fearful of a slap on the cheek with a glove followed by pistols at dawn.
DeletePerhaps that which is obvious to you is something outsiders have to be dragged into understanding. This is the changing nature of the American character. Read Federalist papers and the measured courtesy and honesty of Madison, Hamilton etc.Read again the transcript of the Lincoln Douglas debates or perhaps listen to recordings or read transcripts of the Fireside chats of FDR. All of these are polite considered views, honestly held and articulated with the good of the nation at the forefront.
Now listen to the outpouring of the recent and current crop of lawmakers. Jeb Bush and the election of GWB. Nancy Polosi, the candidates in recent presidential campaigns (on both sides).All, without exception appear to be driven by the credo of “whats in it for me” rather than “am I articulating what is good for America”. Here in this small debate I believe we have seen party politics at least temporally put aside while we exchange views not for our own advantage but to the advantage of others. I for one acknowledge the courtesy and assistance received as I struggle to understand some important point, obscure perhaps to me but blindingly obvious to an American. It is only in recent days has the distinction between impeachment and the senate trial become obvious. I had previously considered that impeachment was confirmed by the Senate before the “trial”. Cheers then from Aussie
As for presidential immunity and the ability to issue subpoenas, just because Jefferson stonewalled the courts and set a precedent does not mean that it was a strong one. Both Nixon and Clinton claimed such immunity but both were forced, in the end, to comply.
DeleteIn United States v. Nixon the justices ruled that President Nixon had to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Nixon immediately prepared to turn over the subpoenaed materials to Chief Judge Sirica. Chief Justice Burger agreed that, if military or diplomatic secrets were at stake, the Court might reach a different conclusion. However, given that President Nixon's claims were based on a blanket statement of executive privilege without claiming that any state secrets were at stake, the constitutional duty of the courts is to guarantee due process of law, something that Nixon's actions were gravely impairing, according to the Court. As was the case with President Nixon, President Clinton eventually accepted his and his office's place under the rule of law. The precedent of legal obstruction in the United States v. Burr case has been broken.
"Really Scott you are going to invoked the death of American terrorists living abroad as a crime?"
DeleteHum... I've heard tell that those 'Tea Partiers' are terrorists... and constitutionalists too.... and then perhaps one day you.... Its nice that you can see the law and the constitution so loosely... I guess they are both living... until they are dead.
The Magna Carta has served England since 1015.... in the last decade they have abandoned the principles of trial by jury and double jeopardy...
A law isn't a law unless it is the law for everyone all the time.... I believe that the penalty for treason is death... the proof of treason is evidence provided in a trial by jury... its called due process. I am sure you will spin it to suit your apparently warped vision of law but ... oh, never mind
Scott
DeletePlease excuse if I correct an error of fact in your otherwise excellent post. Magna Carta (or Magna Charter) was signed at Runnymede in 1215 not 1015 as you state. 1015 of course pre dates Hastings and the Roman conquest. The 1215 ceremony was to placate the landowners and I guess a case could be made that it signaled the beginning of the end of the concept of "Divine right to rule". By the way, to show new found solidarity with William, I can advise that of the four surviving copies of the Inspeximus edition of 1297, one is housed in the Australian National Parliament and one is in the National Archives in Washington DC. Yours perhaps as a trophy and ours as a reminder that dictatorships are never a good thing
Cheers from Aussie
What you fail to consider TS is that we are at war with these people a war declared whether constitutionally our not by GWB. al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant. He had no rights on the field of battle which is where he was when he was scorched. Do we go back now and prosecute every American soldier who has killed in battle? Or the officers that made the orders? Believe me we have offed a lot more innocent people then al-Awlaki. Do we need to back up and prosecute all those soldiers like you want to prosecute the president for ordering an enemy combatant taken out? Absolutely no impeachable crime involved here. You guys are reaching. Ya got nothing but a political stunt to stand on.
DeleteArticles of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama
Delete1. He has clearly communicated his intent to eviscerate the second amendment rights of American citizens by pursuing executive orders to curtail the right to keep and bear arms without congressional authorization and in violation of the second amendment.
2. He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
3. He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal government.
4. He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens. The cover-up has been called “Obama’s Watergate,” yet four months after the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.
5. He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” said Obama. This is an act that “constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” according to Congressman Walter Jones.
6. He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order.
7. He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included in the final NDAA bill.
8. He has enacted universal health care mandates that force Americans to buy health insurance, a clear violation of the Constitution in exceeding congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Obama has also handed outpreferential waivers to corporations friendly to his administration.
9. He has declared war on America’s coal industry by promising to bankrupt any company that attempts to build a new coal plant while using unconstitutional EPA regulations to strangle competition, ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.
10. He has violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.
11. He has violated Article II of the Constitution by using signing statements as part of his executive usurpation of power.
Talking impeachment down at the Fox and Hound
DeletePosted by Dan Barkin on January 31, 2014
FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusRedditE-mailPrint
Thursday night in Huntersville, several candidates for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination spoke at a forum sponsored by a group called Lake Norman Conservatives.
Some spoke about impeaching President Obama.
Here is what Charlotte Observer reporter Jim Morrill wrote in his story:
Obama was a frequent target.
[Heather] Grant, a Wilkesboro nurse, acknowledged that there aren’t enough votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate to convict the president if he were impeached by the House.
“By God in 2014 I’m hoping we’re going to have enough,” she said. Republicans must win six seats to take the Senate.
[The Rev. Mark] Harris, pastor of Charlotte’s First Baptist Church, said he’s surprised the House hasn’t begun impeachment proceedings.
“When we get a majority in the United States Senate the president will be held in check or he will be impeached,” Harris said.
According to the Associated Press, another candidate, Dr. Greg Brannon of Cary, also talked about impeachment of the president for overreaching.
In some acreage of the Republican grassroots, there is always talk about the need to remove President Obama through impeachment for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors such as a purported Benghazi coverup, the IRS nonprofit scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, Obamacare, immigration policies, his birth certificate, you name it.
@Rick - The problem with your overly broad acceptance of the ‘War on Terror’ and the ‘battle field’ is that it includes anywhere external to the lands governed by the USA. The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan .
ReplyDeleteThis is not dissimilar to the 2002 U.S. drone strike in Yemen that targeted Abu Ali al-Harithi, a Yemeni al-Qaeda operative wanted by the FBI for questioning about the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. That strike also killed a U.S. citizen who the CIA knew was in Harithi’s vehicle but who was not a target of the attack.
I am against these kinds of assassinations... and that is exactly what they are. Would, in a court of law be given the death penalty?.. Perhaps, but the thing is, because I think this behaviour is wrong, regardless the president, given today’s liberal interpretation of the word ‘belligerent’... one day, sitting here in the UK... bang I’m dead.
Sometimes your positions and their long term implications make me raise an eyebrow... I am beginning to get a pretty clear picture of why liberals like you despise the constitution and the people who believe in it.
@Kingston... Thanks for the catch... over exuberant and dyslexic fingers I guess. I was surprised to see your comment and just as surprised at the error. When I wrote it originally, I changed it from 'for 800 years' to the date..
What you don't know is Obama has drawn done the drone strikes. When a suspected terrorist is out there we have 3 choices ,kill him, leave him or work with locals to arrest and detain him in hopes that he can eventually be extradited here for a trial. It is probably quite certain that Yemen, where many of these type of attacks have occurred is not going to arrest and detain anybody for us. So depending on the circumstances we strike. All is fair in love and war. We have one now Ali Khan , the brains behind an attack in Afghanistan that killed Americans, running free because we failed to act. We did get Pakistan to pick him up and he was tortured etc before they released him to the Netherlands a country of which Ali Khan is a citizen. Now we can't get him extradited for a fair trial although we have extradition agreements with Holland. Extradition can be a long drawn out process and this guy is sitting there probably making more plans to harm Americans, so either you don't fully understand the global implications of bringing these folks to justice or you don't care that they kill Americans and get away scott free. Enemy combatants don't have American rights. If we would quit assuming that maybe we would win one or two of these conflicts.
ReplyDeleteSince the reinstitution of the death penalty in 1976 we have executed some 1250 people. Currently residing on death row are about 3200 people. Since 1973 some 140 people have been exonerated, not on a technicality but on evidence that confirmed the conviction to be in error. Now I know in this world of convenience abortion and euthanasia for the bored 140 people don’t matter to some... but when the state has the right to commit murder, they do matter.
DeleteWe use to live in a world of presumed innocence... a world of trial where evidence is produced and examined. a world that deplored kangaroo courts... I guess all of that has changed in the new modern, evolved and progressive world.
We apparently learned nothing from our ‘intelligence’ experience with Iran? The US has not been on the winning side of a war since WWII.... perhaps it was the last legitimate reason for US citizens to be asked to die in the name of an actual threat to our sovereign existence.
Guilty until proven innocent. The new way in America. The worlds our playground to kill people.
DeleteAnd Americans wonder why we are hated so much.