ADVERTISEMENT

Obama's Faithless dereliction of duty may cost him

B

Boiler20

All-American
May 29, 2001
13,270
14
38
A few weeks ago when Speaker Boehner came out with the idea of suing Obama over his lack of carrying out his constitutional duties. I made the comment to a few people that it was a stroke of brilliance.. and it even makes it so Obama can't claim racism like he could if there was an impeachment (which he hasn't done anything that actually qualifies under the impeachment rules)...

Those I talked to didn't seem to agree with my thoughts and thought it was a waste of time...

The article from Forbes below follows along my thought process and why it just might be a very smart move by Boehner and actually accomplish something that is lasting, regardless of which party you favor.

Maybe some of the attorney types on here can comment.



Turnabout is fair play
 
I'm having trouble taking seriously anyone who wants to use the word "faithless" in a conversation about our government. But I will play anyway.

Can you name three clear instances of "deriliction of duty" by the president?
 
lol

truly a ridiculous article.

So the ACA is evidence that he isn't "carrying out his constitutional duties?" Really? Because of executive orders that the opposition party doesn't like?

Why...that's never ever ever happened before.
 
He is incapable of being impeached

I think about 80% of the Senate is psychologically incapable of impeaching The First Black President. The things he would have to do to convince 67 Senators that he deserves to be removed are so remote they're simply not going to happen.

Now, if he was a GOP President then the list of impeachable offenses would be a mile long. The news and entertainment media would be right there with the Democrats in demanding impeachment. "Moderate", "sensible", "reasonable" GOP Senators would be falling over themselves to denounce the President. How many Senators today would vote to convict Nixon just on the one charge regarding the desire to use the IRS against political opponents? Probably 100. The fact that Obama actually did it? Doesn't matter. He is The First Black President (and a Democrat which gives him vast protection from the news and entertainment media). He is de facto unimpeachable.
 
Re: lol

Number of executive orders signed by Obama pertaining to Obamacare?

Zero.

Got in this argument with my father in law who was saying he thought Obama should be impeached for abusing his executive authority in changing ACA all the time. I asked how he thought he could prove that. He said, "he's signed dozens of executive orders!!!" I said, "right, none of which have anything to do with ACA."

He disagreed vehemently, but was wrong nonetheless. This lawsuit and impeachment talk is just more stupid political tactics from Republicans. Waste of time, and will be embarrassing just like the shutdown.
 
Re: He is incapable of being impeached

Funny...your "list of impeachable offenses" has the same number of entries as Boiler20's.

Zero.
 
If Obama was a Republican we wouldn't have to worry about the "proof". We'd already have been convinced. Besides, there'd already have been a much more intense investigation and more evidence would have been produced for skeptics like yourself.

But, if you want to believe that what the IRS did had nothing to do with Obama then go ahead.

Curious, if you were in the Senate in '74 how would you have voted Would you have then voted "No" on the impeachment charge against Nixon that accused him of endeavouring to use IRS against political opponents?
 
Anything that any President does is an impeachable offense

But whether he's actually impeached depends on which party he belongs to. And, of course, whether or not he's The First Black President.

For example, if Mitt Romney had unilaterally (and therefore unconstitutionally) delayed implementation of Obamacare then you'd be calling for his impeachment. Same goes for the IRS stuff, and Benghazi, the failure to secure the border (well, if the millions crossing illegaly were whites who'd end up voting Republican), the amnesty for the "DREAMers", the Bergdahl deal, the NSA spying, and probably a few others that we'd be instructed to be outraged over because Mitt Romney is a Republican.
 
Re: He is incapable of being impeached

It's interesting...the 2 people who are anti-Obama are the ones bringing up race. Is that just your cover for anything? Oh, nothing will get done cause he's black.

You're playing the race card more than anyone else.
 
Re: He is incapable of being impeached

Yeah, its people on the right who brought up race. Totally.

The left has brought up race to defend or support Obama since the day he started running. Its not just Obama either. They use race all the time. I'm more than happy to point it out.
 
He may well be directly involved. Or the simpler more likely explanation that people of his political leaning in his administration did it without his direct knowledge or involvement.

I say again: prove it.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
 
Don't have to prove it. No one does. This isn't a criminal trial.

Just like you don't have to prove to anybody why you vote the way you do, no one in Congress has to prove to anybody why they would vote to impeach a President.
 
Re: He is incapable of being impeached

GMM is a white supremacist. The OP isn't. I'm not sure the OP injected race into the discussion.

About the topic at hand, the GOP really needs an adult to step forward and corral the party into a viable national option. No one in this current crop seems willing to stand up to the Cruz types. They need another closed door meeting. The first one didn't stick and it doesn't appear as if the current leadership cares. There is a huge vacuum in the GOP where the intelligent right used to reside.
 
What amazes me is that people, supposedly intelligent people, sat in meetings strategizing and planing this foolishness.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
 
well

to be fair to your FIL, I will concede that it's somewhat fair to tie rules generated by Executive Branch agencies to the head of said Branch. I doubt they were put together in a vacuum (although it's also not like Obama was sitting in every session making sure every rule was just so).

But even if he did do executive orders:

1. So's every President since the founding of the nation.
2. He's done the fewest in a long, long time.
 
lol

no impeachment ACTUALLY IS a trial...requiring proof and a conviction.

And no not "anything a President does is impeachable."

You might want to sit this one out hoss.
 
In order to impeach someone, you have to have evidence since it is, in fact, a trial against the President of the United States. You know, there are ramifications of bringing the President of the United States to trial without any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever other than "we don't like you, and we're pretty sure you did some illegal stuff."

So sure, the House can absolutely impeach the President by writing up some articles, and voting by simple majority to do so. Then they'll send it to the Senate, which will make an absolute mockery of the situation, and use it for the next three years to trounce Republicans publicly for doing things like spending more time trying to repeal laws rather than fixing them, shutting down the government for weeks at a time, and impeaching the President, rather than, you know, bringing up new ideas.

Stupid.
 
Re: well

Originally posted by qazplm:

1. So's every President since the founding of the nation.
2. He's done the fewest in a long, long time.
Click to expand...
Also points that I made.

But, FIL was pressing that Obama's name was on all of them, which I was able to prove as untrue. In fact, Obama might be responsible for them (as the President), but he has not personally changed boo about the law.
 
no not personally

but I again concede he likely was a strong impetus for some of them (as in they didn't happen without him saying so even if he didn't do the particulars).

What boggles me about this is, if they were going to pick an area to do this in, pretty much any area other than the ACA would have made more sense. For the ACA, Congress kept saying "delay this for a year, delay that for a year" so Obama delays some things for a year (some Congress wanted, some they didn't, some things weren't delayed, etc), and then it's, oh wait, you did it without Congress, we are suing.

Why not pick all of the other Executive Orders if you are going down this road?
 
No, you don't have to have evidence. It may be a trial but its not a criminal trial. You simply have to have enough Senators willing to convict.

You know, there are ramifications of bringing the President of the United States to trial without any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever other than "we don't like you, and we're pretty sure you did some illegal stuff."

I know but that doesn't change the fact that you can impeach and convict a President for whatever reason you want. And it doesn't have to be anything illegal. Endeavoring (not acutally doing it) to use the IRS to punish your political opponents is not a violation of any law but it is an abuse of power. Which is why the Senate would've voted to convict Nixon on that article of impeachment.

Then they'll send it to the Senate, which will make an absolute mockery of the situation......

Because the news and entertainment media will never lay the groundwork for the impeachment of The First Black President. Further, they will actively oppose it with more intensity than they did with Clinton. When the "refs" are blatantly biased then one team can get away with all kinds of cheating and still win the game.
 
Re: no not personally


The delays are a good Republican talking point insofar as they show the law wasn't ready when it was rolled out... but the delays don't change the substance of the law. The biggest problem I have with the delays is the employer mandate, because I do know of many anecdotal instances where uncertainty regarding its impact are affecting hiring and expansion at various organizations. Otherwise, I thought a lot of the delays were prudent.
 
Originally posted by GMM:
No, you don't have to have evidence. It may be a trial but its not a criminal trial. You simply have to have enough Senators willing to convict.

You know, there are ramifications of bringing the President of the United States to trial without any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever other than "we don't like you, and we're pretty sure you did some illegal stuff."

I know but that doesn't change the fact that you can impeach and convict a President for whatever reason you want. And it doesn't have to be anything illegal. Endeavoring (not acutally doing it) to use the IRS to punish your political opponents is not a violation of any law but it is an abuse of power. Which is why the Senate would've voted to convict Nixon on that article of impeachment.

Then they'll send it to the Senate, which will make an absolute mockery of the situation......

Because the news and entertainment media will never lay the groundwork for the impeachment of The First Black President. Further, they will actively oppose it with more intensity than they did with Clinton. When the "refs" are blatantly biased then one team can get away with all kinds of cheating and still win the game.
Click to expand...
No, because the Senate is majority Democratic, let alone gettnig 2/3s of the vote to "convict."

Republicans have been astronomically stupid about picking their battles against the Obama administration, and it's largely the fault of the Tea Party.

Otherwise:



Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "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."
...
According to constitutional lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust.". Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories: Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

You might be able to make a case about the first of those, but goooooooooooooood luck winning that case.
 
Re: He is incapable of being impeached


I thought I liked Paul Ryan until he decided that the best way to trim fat from the military budget was to take money out of the COLA for military pensions first, rather than, you know, trimming bureaucracy within the DOD or - god forbid - getting rid of waste in the acquisitions world.

It really chaps my ass to know we spent $600 million developing RAMICS (essentially a big machine gun for helicopters with which they shoot floating and moored mines in the water) only to decide it's not worthwhile... LCS and JSF continue to run billions of dollars over budget, yet somehow rising personnel costs are the biggest problem in the military budget.

Yeah... I thought I liked Paul Ryan. Hell, the Joint Chiefs and DoD secretaries, at that.
 
Re: Anything that any President does is an impeachable offense

Setting aside your usual noxious racial overtones, I have to respond to your baseless and false assertion about how I would behave.

I would not call for any President's impeachment for any of the things you've mentioned, especially some of the more laughable ones, which are...let's see. There are seven on your list, and I've never even heard of one, and five are laughable, and one is more serious but not impeachable either.

It was a joke to try to impeach Clinton over Lewinsky too.

You see, I have not fallen victim as you have to the "politics is a sport" mindset that calls for screeching and braying about the opposition's misdeeds at every turn, and kneejerk opposition to everything they stand for at every turn. Your mindset in this regard is foreign to me. I consider it un-American. If everyone thought that way then we would be a dysfunctional society at best.

By the way, as another example, I also did not and would not call for GWB's impeachment for what is currently appearing to be a major blunder that Cheney made in invading Iraq. I've said (at the time) it was a surprising decision but I've also said that we wouldn't know for a very long time if ever whether it was the right decision. Even if Iraq fractures and ISIS turns into a country that becomes a world power and nukes Tel Aviv and Los Angeles, it will be hard to say whether that would never have happened had Bush not invaded Iraq.

Point being, there's a difference between a President doing something that is a poor decision made in good faith or something that is merely unpalatable to the opposition, and that President doing something criminal or trying in a major way to subvert our government process.

This post was edited on 7/29 1:16 AM by db
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G

Column on Painter

Replies
15
Views
4K
Boilermaker Men's Basketball
TX4GB
TX4GB
BlackGoldTexas

Best of the Best Basketball Message Boards (Selected Excerpts)

Replies
6
Views
2K
The Depot
greeneman
G
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back