50 Reasons To Impeach Obama.
50 Reasons To Impeach Obama
1. Obamacare
2. The failed $850 billion stimulus
3. High, persistent unemployment
4. Gas prices
...5. His 2012 budget's fecklessness
6. Massive deficits each & every yr
7. Seizure of GM & Chrysler, transfer of bondholder wealth to unions & the dumping of the GM stock at a loss
8. Dodd-Frank
9. Hostility to Israel, including attack on apartment expansion & icing of P.M. Netanyahu in the White House basement
10. Failure to support Iran's Green Revolution
11. Failure to support Syrian revolution
12. Libyan Fiasco
13. Incompetent handling of Gulf Oil disaster
14. Unnecessary permitorium in the aftermath of Gulf Oil disaster
15. Shutdown of Shell's Arctic oil exploration by EPA
16. His push for cap-and-tax in Congress
17. Attempt to unconstitutionally impose cap-and-tax via EPA when Congress wouldn't pass cap-and-tax
18. His push for unconstitutional restrictions on free speech on his political enemies while keeping unions free to spend money on campaigns via The Disclose Act
19. Attempt to unconstitutionally impose The Disclose Act on his political opponents but not unions via Executive Order
20. Use of unaccountable "czars"
21. Refusal to accept Congressional direction vis-a-vis his "czars" contained in the last 2011 Continuing Resolution
22. His verbal assault on the Supreme Court while the members of the Court sat before him in the state of the Union
23. His & Eric Holder's politicization of the Dept of Justice, including the black panthers case & the refusal to defend DOMA
24. Use of demonizing rhetoric towards his opponents, such as accusing doctors of performing unnecessary surgery for $
25. His hyper-partisan approach to governing including "I won, you lost" in 2009 & the assault on Paul Ryan w/ Paul Ryan as an invited guest in the president's April 2011 "deficit speech."
26. Bowing to the Saudi King & the Japanese emperor
27. Returning bust of Churchill to Great Britain
28. Removing the missile shield from Poland & the Czech Republic
29. Backing the would-be dictator of Hondorus when that nation's Supreme Court rightfully removed him from office
30. Failure to push for quick ratification of free trade agreements w/ Columbia, Panama & South Korea
31. Indecision on Afghanistan surge coupled w/ announcement of eventual withdrawal.
32. Incoherence on Egypt, most obviously w/ the dispatch of Frank Wizner & then rejection of Wizner's advice vis-a-vis Mubarak.
33. Appointment Craig Beck to NLRB via recess appointment
34. Appointment of FCC commissioners who are pursuing "net neutrality" w/o Congressional authorization
35. Failure to resume full water deliveries to CA's Central Valley because of the Delta Smelt
36. Attempt to close Guantanamo Bay
37. Attempt to try terrorists in NYC
38. Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano
39. Gov't takeover of student loan program
40. Cancellation of "virtual border fence" project w/ no replacement or indeed concern for border security
41. The "Beer Summit" & the attack on the Cambridge Police Department
42. Dept of Justice's attack on AZ for that state's exercise of its sovereign legislative authority on the issue of citizen identification rules
43. The attack on Scott Walker & WI for the gov's & the state legislature's exercise of their sovereign legislative authority on public employment issues
44. Dabbling in basketball brackets while Middle East fell into chaos & gas prices skyrocketed
45. Arguing American exceptionalism was the same as any nation's sense of exceptionalism
46. Implying MN bridge collapse was the result of lack of infrastructure funding
47. Inserting self into campaign for Olympics
48. Attack on D.C. voucher program
49. Van Jones & a long list of other appointees
50. Teleprompter dependency combined w/ testiness in the few interviews he grantsDid you write this or did someone email it to you? Regardless, someone has too much time on their hands.
You know, you probably should've made this into a hub versus a forum discussion.... just saying..
I'll take on the first 10 points:
1. Obamacare is not an impeachable offense. It's a policy that is still in the process of being rolled out (and will be for the next 7 years). This policy has many supporters.
2. The stimulus failed by what measure? It was a stop-gap measure to keep the economy from collapsing. The economy hasn't collapsed.
3. High unemployment followed the economic downturn that occurred months before the 2008 election. Jobs moved overseas, and they probably won't be coming back. Once again, not an impeachable offense.
4. Gas prices also reached these levels during the Bush administration. I'm not sure why Obama should be blamed for the market price of gasoline.
5. Republicans are stonewalling Obama on the budget. He's even proposed budget cuts bigger than their's, but they have openly admitted they are more interested in Obama failing than getting the job done.
6. How many times was the debt ceiling raised under George W? The major cause of the deficits isn't NPR or Planned Parenthood, it's military spending. Bush was the one who stretched our military out on multiple fronts with no easy exit.
7. The auto bailout was a success at a minimal cost and saved a huge number of jobs directly and indirectly from businesses that supply the American auto industry.
8. The biggest problem with the Dodd-Frank Act is it isn't strong enough. It brings back some regulation and fiscal responsibility to Wall Street, but it might not be enough to stop another "too big to fail" situation.
9. Obama hasn't bent over backwards for Israel, a country that receives billions in aid from the United States and yet has been caught spying on us within the past few years. Apparently he should be impeached for this.
10. Do you really want to stretch our military out even more? At some point we've got to say we won't intervene without significant support from other countries.DB
Before answer , none of these are impeachable offenses, but personally perhaps it would qualify a recall vote, but it is so close to election time let him finish and see if he gets voted out. I have been here long enough to know Oly is just venting his frustrations.
I will answer your points
1. There are not many supporters. If there were and it was so good, why have the unions and many companies opted out? Why are so many people going to lose insurance next year as a result of Obamacare giving owners an out by paying $2,000 instead of insurance policies? Not national health care, then why will there be a huge upsurge over the next 2 years in Medicare? Current Rasmussen, shows respondents favoring repeal by a tally of 65 to 30 percent
2. The stimulus has failed. It was designed to keep unemployment under 8 %, Failed, The stimulus would create 3.5 million jobs, Failed, even Biden said so on Meet the Press
On “Meet the Press” VP Joe Biden admitted that the Barack Obama stimulus plan was a failure. Biden stated that “everyone guessed wrong;” however that is not the case. Everyone did not get it wrong, the Obama Administration got it wrong. The fact of the matter is that Obama’s minions have kept stating that the stimulus package would create or save 3.5 million jobs. Now Biden is lowering that expectation to 600,000. In a recent Rasmussen poll, 53% Say More Government Spending Hurts the Economy. Also, Americans now trust Republicans more than Democrats on the issue of the economy, 45%–39%
MR. GREGORY: Right. But the, but this package was sold on the premise that it would in fact keep unemployment at 8 percent. It’s exceeded that…
VICE PRES. BIDEN: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
MR. GREGORY: …with the recovery plan.
VICE PRES. BIDEN: It wasn’t sold on that. It was sold on it would create…
MR. GREGORY: That’s what the report said, Mr. Vice President.
VICE PRES. BIDEN: …or–no, it said it would–what would happen was it would save or create jobs. It’s doing that. It is doing that. Everyone guessed wrong, at the time the estimate was made, about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed. Now, we’re going to recalibrate, what in fact is going on out there. But look, the bottom line is that jobs are being created that would not have been there before.
VP Biden also got the numbers incorrect during his MTP interview with host David Gregory when Joe said that the stimulus package decreased the unemployment rate in the United States. As stated by Mr. Gregory and is obvious to any thinking American, the US has continually lost jobs after the stimulus package was signed, not gained.
MR. GREGORY: But the point of the stimulus was it would stop the unemployment picture from getting worse, right? Wasn’t that the claim?
VICE PRES. BIDEN: And it has.
MR. GREGORY: It has? Well, here…
VICE PRES. BIDEN: It’s not getting worse.
MR. GREGORY: But here’s the reality, and that is…
VICE PRES. BIDEN: Relative.
MR. GREGORY: …that when this report was issued by your economic adviser…
VICE PRES. BIDEN: Yes.
MR. GREGORY: …and Dr. Romer from the White House, the assertion was that you could keep unemployment at 8 percent and then it would go down after that. In fact, it’s now at 9.4 percent. Was it oversold?
Do the math.
The US lost over 2.5 million jobs in the first four months of this year under the Obama Administration.
The US unemployment rate rose from 7.6% to 9.4% under Obama… the highest rate in 25 years.
3. I do not think any one can disagree that Unemployment was on the rise before Obama took office. But it took a turn for the worse as he instilled wrong policies. It has been 2 ½ years and nothing has improved. Under Bush, Clinton, Reagan each faced Economic downturns. Each made moves that improved the economy and put people to work.
4. While you are correct Gas prices have reached the High under Bush, the difference is Bush took action that dropped gas process. Obama has done nothing. His reserves release has not done anything for gas prices were going down before he decided to make that move.
5. Republicans are not stonewalling, they are negotiating like the Dems but you do not here main stream media say they are stonewalling. In fact they are. Both sides have drawn their lines in the sand, Obama wants tax hikes, and Repubs want cuts. And it is incorrect to say Obama made the bigeest cut odffer. It was the Repubs trying to get cuts much higher than the one Obama agreed to. Then Obama said he would agree to it only if Repubs agreed to tax cuts. And lets be clear, Obama is not just talking about closing the loopholes for the rich that we all agree should happen, but he wants to raise and create taxes. FACT
6. To start, it's important to realize that both Republican and Democratic presidents have signed off on raising the nation's debt limit. Congress has enacted "74 separate measures that have altered the limit on federal debt" since March of 1962.
As the nation's debt load has surged from $1 trillion to $10 trillion to its current level of $14.3 trillion, the debt ceiling limit has also been raised accordingly.
In terms of George W. Bush, the nation's debt limit was raised 7 times during his time in office (Bush was President from January 20th, 2001 to January 20th, 2009). In case you were wondering, the nation's debt ceiling has been raised three times (with a fourth coming soon) under President Obama. The majority of spending was not military when Bush was president.
7. Casting an upbeat message on a day when gloomy job growth figures loomed, President Obama touted the recovery of the Big Three automakers at a Chryslerplant in Toledo, Ohio, on June 3, 2011, saying it couldn't have happened without his 2009 bailouts. A quote from the speech (source-Transcript of speech) “I'm proud to announce the government has been completely repaid for the investments we made under my watch by Chrysler because of the outstanding work that you guys did. (Applause.) Because of you. (Applause.) Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes the American taxpayer from the investment we made during my watch. And by the way, you guys repaid it six years ahead of schedule. (Applause.)”
Here are the facts: So far, the federal government has invested roughly $80 billion in Chrysler and General Motors (GM, Fortune 500), half of which has been returned so far, White House economic adviser Ron Bloom explained earlier in the week. The money that has been paid back is from the TARP legislation under President Buch. The other U.S. automaker, Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500), did not receive federal assistance. Obama also claimed that GM has rehired all employees that were laid off. 800,000 lost their jobs and none have been rehired. Obama was not shy bragging how it was all him that saved the auto industry. The quotes straight from the speech (source-Transcript of speech) “So we decided to do more than just rescue the industry from crisis. We decided to retool it for a new age”. Retool it, really? Mr. President, did you go to the board meetings? Did you redesign the cars? Did you write the ad campaigns? Not at all. So if you saved the auto industry, what is your answer about Ford? Ford took no money, not one dime, and is doing well despite recession.
So would the auto industry have collapsed if there were no bailouts? While we will never know the true answer, here is what we know. Ford was willing to purchase GM and assume all of its debt. Under that plan, cost to taxpayers, zero. Chrysler wanted to go into bankruptcy protection. They had a plan to implement a successful recovery and to emerge from bankruptcy. Knowing what we know now, that would have worked perfectly. Cost to taxpayers, zero.
8. The Act is categorized into sixteen titles and by one law firm's count, it requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. The stated aim of the legislation is:
To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes
The Act changes the existing regulatory structure, such as creating a host of new agencies (while merging and removing others) in an effort to streamline the regulatory process, increasing oversight of specific institutions regarded as a systemic risk, amending the Federal Reserve Act, promoting transparency, and additional changes.
The act does not address the reason for the banking and home loan problems actually created and ignored by Frank. The bill created a much larger government which was not the point os the legislation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9l_Ax … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qE … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXqxN1XB … re=related
Funny watching those links of many years back how they knew what was going to happen and who was against it. Nothings changed.
9. I am not touching this one
10. Do we want to spread our troops? No, I do not think any one does.Dear Mr. Obama,
How about you and the rest of the politicians take a pay cut and leave our soldiers alone. We put our lives on the line for you and your agenda everyday. Oh, and before you decide not to pay us, just remember what you trained us to do AND THAT IS TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!
Sincerely,
The United States Armed Forces
1. Obamacare
This is a mere disagreement about policy, and not even close to an impeachable offense. For my money, the only thing wrong with the health care reform is that people who don't like their health care options can't buy into the same plan that congress gets. (A newly elected Republican Rep actually asked to be able to do this until the 30 day wait period had passed, thus asking for the much derided "public option," but only for himself.)
2. The failed $850 billion stimulus
Again, a mere disagreement about policy. Try again.
3. High, persistent unemployment
Not his fault; try again.
4. Gas prices
Not his fault; try again.
5. His 2012 budget's fecklessness
Policy disagreement; try again.
6. Massive deficits each & every yr
Policy disagreement; try again.
7. Seizure of GM & Chrysler, transfer of bondholder wealth to unions & the dumping of the GM stock at a loss
Policy disagreement; try again.
8. Dodd-Frank
WTF? Try again.
9. Hostility to Israel, including attack on apartment expansion & icing of P.M. Netanyahu in the White House basement
This is actually a good reason to support Obama--I don't know what you're smoking.
10. Failure to support Iran's Green Revolution
11. Failure to support Syrian revolution
We shouldn't be involved in either of these. Try again.
12. Libyan Fiasco
This was a big cluster-screw; we should never have gotten involved. I dunno if it's an impeachable offense, but at least we agree that it was a mistake.
13. Incompetent handling of Gulf Oil disaster
No, this is a reason to fire the CEO of British Petroleum, not the PotUS.
14. Unnecessary permitorium in the aftermath of Gulf Oil disaster
A policy disagreement. Try again.
15. Shutdown of Shell's Arctic oil exploration by EPA
No, this is actually a reason to support Obama.
16. His push for cap-and-tax in Congress
Policy disagreement; try again.
17. Attempt to unconstitutionally impose cap-and-tax via EPA when Congress wouldn't pass cap-and-tax
Policy disagreement; try again.
18. His push for unconstitutional restrictions on free speech on his political enemies while keeping unions free to spend money on campaigns via The Disclose Act
19. Attempt to unconstitutionally impose The Disclose Act on his political opponents but not unions via Executive Order
The disclose act is a great reason to support Obama; it should apply to all political speech across the board.
20. Use of unaccountable "czars"
W had more of them. Try again.
21. Refusal to accept Congressional direction vis-a-vis his "czars" contained in the last 2011 Continuing Resolution
Congress has no authority to tell the President whose advice he should listen to. Try again.
22. His verbal assault on the Supreme Court while the members of the Court sat before him in the state of the Union
He was right: citizens united was a disastrous decision.
23. His & Eric Holder's politicization of the Dept of Justice, including the black panthers case & the refusal to defend DOMA
Refusal to defend DOMA is a good reason to support him; try again.
24. Use of demonizing rhetoric towards his opponents, such as accusing doctors of performing unnecessary surgery for $
You got mad at him because you thought he was limiting political speech in 18 and 19, but you're wanting to punish him for speech you don't like here? Classic.
25. His hyper-partisan approach to governing including "I won, you lost" in 2009 & the assault on Paul Ryan w/ Paul Ryan as an invited guest in the president's April 2011 "deficit speech."
So? W did it too. Did you also want to impeach him?
26. Bowing to the Saudi King & the Japanese emperor
Disagreement. Try again.
27. Returning bust of Churchill to Great Britain
Disagreement; try again.
28. Removing the missile shield from Poland & the Czech Republic
Policy disagreement; try again.
29. Backing the would-be dictator of Hondorus when that nation's Supreme Court rightfully removed him from office
Policy disagreement; try again. (Also, very inconsistent with getting mad at him for not backing revolutions in other countries.)
30. Failure to push for quick ratification of free trade agreements w/ Columbia, Panama & South Korea
Policy disagreement; try again.
31. Indecision on Afghanistan surge coupled w/ announcement of eventual withdrawal.
Policy disagreement; try again.
32. Incoherence on Egypt, most obviously w/ the dispatch of Frank Wizner & then rejection of Wizner's advice vis-a-vis Mubarak.
Policy disagreement; try again.
33. Appointment Craig Beck to NLRB via recess appointment
Policy disagreement; try again.
34. Appointment of FCC commissioners who are pursuing "net neutrality" w/o Congressional authorization
Policy disagreement; try again. Also, support for Net Neutrality is a good reason to support Obama.
35. Failure to resume full water deliveries to CA's Central Valley because of the Delta Smelt
Policy disagreement; try again.
36. Attempt to close Guantanamo Bay
Policy disagreement; try again. Also, actually a good reason to support the president.
37. Attempt to try terrorists in NYC
Policy disagreement; try again.
38. Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano
Policy disagreement; try again.
39. Gov't takeover of student loan program
Policy disagreement; try again. Also actually a good reason to support the president.
40. Cancellation of "virtual border fence" project w/ no replacement or indeed concern for border security
Policy disagreement; try again.
41. The "Beer Summit" & the attack on the Cambridge Police Department
Tempest in a teapot disagreement; try again.
42. Dept of Justice's attack on AZ for that state's exercise of its sovereign legislative authority on the issue of citizen identification rules
WTF are you talking about? US Citizens are not required to carry their papers on them; the AZ law was a "Your papers, please" law. Attacking it was right.
43. The attack on Scott Walker & WI for the gov's & the state legislature's exercise of their sovereign legislative authority on public employment issues
Policy disagreement; try again. Also, the president gets to say stuff. Further, he was right.
44. Dabbling in basketball brackets while Middle East fell into chaos & gas prices skyrocketed
And you never do anything but your job, any time. You're always at work, and you never take so much as a coffee break while you're there. Silly.
45. Arguing American exceptionalism was the same as any nation's sense of exceptionalism
He was right.
46. Implying MN bridge collapse was the result of lack of infrastructure funding
He was right.
47. Inserting self into campaign for Olympics
So the heck what?
48. Attack on D.C. voucher program
He was right.
49. Van Jones & a long list of other appointees
He gets to appoint people.
50. Teleprompter dependency combined w/ testiness in the few interviews he grants
Tempest in a teapot.
So basically, there was only one thing out of the 50 you listed that was both an actual reason to be upset and Obama's fault. One out of 50.
You get a 2%. If I were giving out letter grades for good use of reason, this post would get about a Z+.
I get that you disagree with some of Obama's policies and decisions, and that's cool. But policy disagreements are not impeachable offenses. There's a pretty high bar for impeachment.Just to comment on one of your arguments: #2.
The stimulous packages were unconstitutional, so they are a valid reason to impeach both Obama AND Congress.Evan,
I am curious. I have not heard this argument before. Why do you think it is unconstitutional?First off, I learned of this through Ron Paul.
Here's the reason bailouts are unconstitutional
Read the 10th amendment followed by the A1 S8 followed by the Federalist Papers #41.
(Relevant quotes only. Read the Constitution to further understand why half of what our country does is illegal)
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution....are reserved to the States..."
A1S8: The only possible mention of "bailing out companies" would be the "General Welfare Clause".... but, this is nonsense because...
Federalist #41: James Madison makes fun of people who think that "common defense and general welfare" mean "anything". He says they don't have proper reading skills:
"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"
Check out the original documents here and here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
TARP was Bush and Paulson...what are you gonna do about them?
I'm not sure what all the grounds for impeachment are but the president I feel, has taken us down a dangerous path. I feel he has violated the plain meaning of the Constitution with Obamacare. Penalizing a US citizen for not buying healthcare, I feel is unconstitutional.
The 850 billion stimulas was a largely a transfer of wealth from hard working Americans to his political allies in big labor, wall street and other interests.THE TITLE OF THIS POST SHOULD BE " 50 REASONS TO INDICT OBAMA"
IMPEACHMENT IS ONLY USED IN THE CASE OF A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT, WHICH obummer IS NOT . THERE IS NO TRUE VERIFIED PROOF THAT HE WAS BORN IN AMERICA , BUT A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS NOT . ADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT HIS FATHER WAS NEVER AN AMERICAN CITIZEN , AND WHAT YOU HAVE IS A TREASONOUS , LYING , UN~AMERICAN , MUSLIM BORN , SOCIALIST
DICTATOR WHO HAS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY, STOLEN OUR FREEDOMS , CREATED A SOCIALIST STATE , AND RULES BY THE
FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT ~ EXECUTIVE ORDER .
The worst joke is that no one considers "reneging on every campaign promise and trampling the Constitution" an impeachable offense anymore.
I guess BJs are the only way to get impeached anymore.
Versus these treasonous acts:
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/Document … ntID=93581How many of these concerns has Obama addressed?
None of them, nor did the House and Senate when it was proposed.
Nor do they do anything regarding the false crap regarding 9/11. Nor do they do anything regarding the crimes of Bibiguns.
What do you want? I guess you think it will be just and right if Obama takes the fall for it all.
We already know the label has turned from traitor to patriot when questioning a pres...hell, it's patriotic to have no respect for a pres! Russsshhhhhhhhhh showed us that.
So--let's go on and on about Obama, and forget Bushco.....
They wouldn't have it any other way.
USA USA USAObama could have his Justice Department investigate BUT he would not want the next president to do the same.
So we are left with a precedent of allowing our presidents to get away with murder.
Literally!We'll see about that. It aint over til it's over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2T7RCuIU14Oh come one lmc! What are ya doin here? Dont u know the Commies are trying to reclaim the 4th of July?!
This one was funny: "attack on apartment expansion"...Oh, is THAT what they're doing? Apartment expansion....now THAT is twisting perception to pretzel-like proportions!
and these: "Use of demonizing rhetoric towards his opponents",and
"His hyper-partisan approach"
Both classic examples of mirror-programming. Accuse your enemy of what you yourself are doing.
Or, as me dad would say: the 3 card Monty.
Obama is the calmest, most Un partisan and UN demonizing person out there!!!
Hey Hooch....we are NOT sleeping you know
And all these rabid talking points versus this:
"Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq."
I don't know.....somehow I think Kucinich had it right...but those "living is easy with eyes closed" people will remain blind.
That's why right is wrong."Obama is the calmest, most Un partisan and UN demonizing person out there!!!"
Forgot one: He's also completley anesthetized to the problems confronting America. O needs to GO!
" Arguing American exceptionalism was the same as any nation's sense of exceptionalism". No one can be superior to me. That is why I am superior. Of course I get special considerations. Sorry you don't. And don't think you're entitled.
I can see how those on the right would actually believe that drinking a beer is an impeachable offense. How does one impeach a president for the actions of the preceeding president? It seems that disagreeing with the GOP should be considered treason in your opinion. This list is a friggin joke with out a punchline. Try learning what is considered an impeachable offense and see how many of your rediculous statements fit the bill. Of course impeachable offenses have never been a reason for the GOP to pursue impeachment. According to them a blow job is considered treason and illegal wars are standard operating proceedure.
Here try and see if you can comprehend any of this.
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/130987.html
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:
"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." (Emphasis supplied).
There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories. The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:
"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).
This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.
The second view is that the above Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms. There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed. Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature.
The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard. Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. See Impeachment Trial and Errors, by Irving Brant, pages 17-19. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious then simply "maldministration." This view is buttresses in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
The president is a Democrat and you seem to think this is sufficent grounds for impeachment. War crimes are not a problem for you are they?Great Post, Stump Parrish. Only one thing wrong.
Ya got to have a Government, THAT WORKS.
WE, DON'T.
OLYStump,
Good read. Clinton was not impeahed for sex, it was for lying under oath. Of course if we go by that standard, there would be noone left in Washington
Nice list. Too bad you went to all that trouble. Those who agree will cheer, but those who **need** to know will close their minds and claim the facts are skewed in a bias toward conservatism.
Me? I appreciate it.OLY, I dont disagree with you about our non-functioning government. I simply believe that giving the GOP full control again will result in more problems. Each side thinks that their side has all the answers and the problem is they both forgot what the questions are. This constant ranting that the GOP has done nothing wrong and that every problem started the day Obama was sworn in, is rediculous.Some more of the rediculous examples you supplied include...26. Bowing to the Saudi King & the Japanese emperor. What is the problem with showing another nation a bit of respect. Of course those in the Tea Party assume that Obama is hell bent of playing second fiddle to these country from that day forth.
6. Massive deficits each and every year. No one wants to discuss when these deficits began or that borrowing the money to fight two war and tax cuts for the wealthy had anything to do with them.
40. Cancellation of "virtual border fence" project w/ no replacement or indeed concern for border security. The fact that billions have been spent already on a fence that doesn't do any good is all the reason we should continue pouring billions more into the waste of funds. I thought that wasteful spending cuts were supposed to be cut. If they make millions in profits for the company doing the work, and these companies are GOP supportters, said wasteful spending is no longer considered wasteful.
44. Dabbling in basketball brackets while Middle East fell into chaos & gas prices skyrocketed. Sitting in an elementary classroom pretending to read a kid's book while the country was actually under attack is acceptable behavior.
42. It is suprising to me that the supreme joke of a court actually ruled large parts of this is unconstitutional considering their detrmination to give control of the country to corporate America.
45. Arguing American exceptionalism was the same as any nation's sense of exceptionalism. Please show me some examples of this so called American exceptionalism. I keep hearing about it but I sure can't find any examples of it. Most people feel this country is exceptional simply because they were born in it.Every one of the 50 items listed is not an impeachable offence. Sorry. My advice for you is to stop listening to clueless morons like Limbaugh and Beck.
There was a list just like this circulating when ol' GW was in office and I found it to be much more intelligently written (as in, having actual arguments stating how each act could be construed as an impeachable offense). For this list to even begin to have relevance, each point needs to include what offense has been committed, what statute has been violated...something of substance.
You may not agree with his policies, decisions, and so forth, but I don't think these are necessarily impeachable offenses.HUBBERS
Aug. 2nd will soon be here, will Obama have a plan to present to the country? The Senate still don't have a plan neither.
Obama tells us that Congress needs to do their job.Just wondering when Congress will wake up and do their job.The Democrats have had 2/3s control of our government since 2007.
Somehow the President and the Democrats are blaming the Republicans, when will the people wake up and get by the propaganda?you forgot the fact he is Black... which no doubt bothers many people
Greek One
Some People voted for Barak Obama because he was BLACK. Some people voted for him because Obama is half WHITE. Many people voted because of his promises to fix the economy and produce or save JOBS. Many voted because Obama was running as a DEMOCRAT. Many voted because he would rid Washington of lobbyists, make government more transparent and cut the deficits in half in his first term.
Well, there are 14 million unemployed (now 9.2%), increased the deficits in 2.5 years( $4.5 trillion ) and counting. Will the people again be duped and vote for him in 2012?
Suit, the people voted for Obama because they didn't want John and Palin. Now, between me and you ,ain't you glad John and Palin lost? I believe the people know what or who is standing in the way of Obama's success. Suits, is going to be a sitcom on tv soon. The people will be duped and vote for two women this time. lol
Junko,
I may get crap for this or I might not, but I, for one, do NOT want a woman in charge of this country. I'm totally not sexist, I just have experience with women in management positions, and they are either ineffective, too chatty, or no one wants to give them the respect they deserve. Then there is the BEECH factor, women in power begin to feel powerful. Kinda like Obama, though, don't you think?
I still would not vote for either of those women for President. I'd rather sit out the whole thing and let Texas just pick a republican without my vote being held responsible.
Kate, I agree with you that in a historically white male dominated position like President of the United States of America. WOMEN AND MINORITIES in that position might feel power, I would hope so. I will vote democrat because of what they stand for and not vote Republican because of what they stand for at this time and space. They both know something must be done about the debt and jobs. I think the problem should be solved from the top down, not bottom up.
What a list! But some of the mess was prior to Obama so personally a woman should be voted in as President. Our men appear to be a little un-organized, to much testosterone going on. Geez.
Hey, here's a thought...just don't vote for the guy in 2012...hmmmm (shrugs)
Um, you do not have to major in economics to realize these problems are all problems placed on Obama by the GOP. They do this as a political strategy to make democrats look bad. This is why the republican party is single handedly bringing America to its knees financially.
Thanks to Obama my girlfriend could get her surgery which saved her life from the cancer that riddled her body. Obama Care gave her the chance that the Bush white house did not. She is alive today because of it, thank God for Obama!Thank you Steve!!
They has been media campaign against Obama since before he got in.
AND to let Bushco and Repub policies OFF THE HOOK.
I hope more Americans like you SPEAK UP.
If they get back in, it's the end.
Just LOOK at Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin....coming to a town near you.
Republicorp, a business not a country.
They knew there was no way any Repub was winning after 8 years of the shrub and the Dick. These type of attacks would be occurring regardless of which Dem was elected. It has been too systematic and coordinated not to have been pre-planned. They have declared all out war on the Dems and if the country is destroyed in the process, it's simply more of that old fashioned collateral damage they are so fond of. They have gotten so comfortable killing millions of innocent people around the world, they have no problem setting their sites on the American citizens they have shown to expendable in their quest for wealth and control. I can't help but wonder how many they are willing to kill in this country in search for oil, among other things. They already have the laws on the books that will allow them to ship any Americans they dislike to Cuba. Once their we can be executed with no recourse or defense. Possession of Marijuana can actually be consider a terrorist activity under the patriot act they rammed thru congress. I am beginning to believe this goes a lot farther than just wanting the Whitehorse back. They intend to destroy this country for their masters.
Do you have proofs to what you said? If you can show us the proofs, then, you win! If not, then, better stop criticising people you least know.
Related Discussions
- 407
Is America "Exceptional"?
by Susan Reid 12 years ago
I read this in my local paper yesterday. What do you think?Is "exceptionalism" a good word or a bad word?Does it describe what America was? What America is today?By Kathleen ParkerSunday, January 30, 2011 He didn't say it. That word: "exceptional." Barack Obama described an...
- 45
Pelosi waves off impeachment. She says it would divide country
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting a high bar for impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her left flank clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of...
- 13
Is Biden Phone Call an Impeachable Offense?
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
President Donald Trump was forced to endure a bogus impeachment because of a phone call. The Democrats are now showing their hypocrisy and double standards. It appears biden told the president of Afghanistan to lie about the reality of the Taliban. There is no doubt Biden tried to...
- 47
Obama, the ANTI-American
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
With Obama as president, America does not need any enemies. In fact, Obama is America's enemy. First, he blasted the Constitution as an outmoded document. He showed irreverence for the American flag, refusing to salute the flag. He furthermore embodied an...
- 20
President Obama Makes Best Argument for American Exceptionalism Yet
by undermyhat 12 years ago
"If you own a business, you didn't build that..."President Obama says taxpayer funded roads and bridges built American business.President Obama has said Americas infrastructure is in of repairPoorest Countries in the world - #1 Democratic Republic of Congo ...
- 11
Are there sufficient grounds for a bill of impeachment for President Obama?
by AlexDrinkH2O 10 years ago
Are there sufficient grounds for a bill of impeachment for President Obama?Even though I believe he is by far the worst president in US history, I'm not convinced there are sufficient grounds for impeachment . . . yet. The scandals and lies are mounting up and I believe in the near future,...