Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

Sir, I have read, studied, applied, taught, and/or practiced the Constitution, including research and writing about the meaning of it and implementing statutes, for a relatively long period of time, and still do. One reason I am usually the first to post the actual opinions or links to opinions discussed on this board, as well as statutes and provisions in the Constitutions (Federal and State) is because I don't rely on uninformed opinions for the basis of my thought processes. And something tells me much longer than you.

Do yourself a favor: Take your condescending attitude and shove it. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Interesting response.

Interesting response. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Jackie, LLIdiot can't seem to help himself! He occasionally makes sound arguments and then, as is always his custom, the arrogant, egotistical, condescending attitude toward anyone he disagrees with, will eventually take over. His arrogance seems to be the default setting.

Once the attitude sets in, it's all downhill after that.

LLIdiot has never played well with others.

Jackie, ..... Originally Posted by bigtex

Well, I can see you've exhausted your vast knowledge on the subject ...

.. FYI .. your buddie "Jackie" was "just" disagreeing ... like you .. he "assumed" I had not read the U.S. Constitution and went on with his condescending discourse about

"This is what is wrong with most Americans in today's society. They are so caught up in an opinion that they never actually see what the Constitution says."

when addressing my evaluation of the issues ... but since you are so busy looking for something to say .. .just anything to appear relevant .. you, like "Jackie" overlooked my literal quotes from the Constitution in posts .. and repeated questions of where does it say what "Jackie' and COG and IBH keep repeating ... it doesn't ... so I mentioned a couple of Supreme Court cases that I considered relevant on the topic .... I invited them to read them ...

Let's see ... here are the introductory remarks of Judge Roberts in the 2012 case ... I didn't cherry pick them just removed the examples he gave .. the are on pages 2-6 in the beginning of the Majority Opinion (not the synopsis):

In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder. Nearly two centuries ago, Chief Justice Marshall observed that “the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted” to the Federal Government “is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819). In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess. Resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role inpolicing those boundaries.

The Federal Government “is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.” Ibid. That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers….. The enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers, because “[t]he enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 195 (1824).The Constitution’s express conferral of some powers makes clear that it does not grant others. And the Federal the Constitution’s text does not authorize any governmentto do so.”
National Federation, 367 U.S. 3-4 (2012).

“The Federal Government has expanded dramatically overthe past two centuries, but it still must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions. See, e.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___ (2010).”
National Federation, 367 U.S. 5 (2012).

“Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176."
National Federation, 367 U.S. 6 (2012).

That introduction in so many words has been repeated on numerous occasions for the past 200 years. I don't see any quotes out of the "Free Dictionary" authorizes Congress to enjoy "full discretion" on anything.

Now, you all enjoy your circle jerk.

Well, I can see you've exhausted your vast knowledge on the subject ...
Originally Posted by LexusLover

The only "vast knowledge on the subject" I brought to the forefront was your arrogant, egotistical, condescending attitude, openly displayed in post #59 of this thread. (See below)

Do yourself a favor: Take your condescending attitude and shove it. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If LLIdiot was paid for arrogance and bad attitude, he would be a friggin' multi millionaire!

LL, all of what you say is true except in regards to impeachment, because The Constitution reserves that procedure to Congress, and only Congress.

If the House tomorrow decided to vote Articles of Impeachment against President Obama for over reaching his Constitution authority, and a majority voted yes, it would make no difference what any Law Professor, Teacher, Judge, Supreme Court Justice, Pundit, or anyone else said, the Articles would then go to the Senate.

And then, if 2/3 of those Senators present voted "yes" on the Articles, it would make no difference what any Law Professor, Teacher, Judge, Supreme Court Justice, Pundit, or anyone else said, the President would be removed from Office.

And, there is no appeal.

In the end, the ONLY people that the Congress will have to answer to are the Voters.

That's it.

Well, I can see you've exhausted your vast knowledge on the subject ...

.. FYI .. your buddie "Jackie" was "just" disagreeing ... like you .. he "assumed" I had not read the U.S. Constitution and went on with his condescending discourse about

"This is what is wrong with most Americans in today's society. They are so caught up in an opinion that they never actually see what the Constitution says."

when addressing my evaluation of the issues ... but since you are so busy looking for something to say .. .just anything to appear relevant .. you, like "Jackie" overlooked my literal quotes from the Constitution in posts .. and repeated questions of where does it say what "Jackie' and COG and IBH keep repeating ... it doesn't ... so I mentioned a couple of Supreme Court cases that I considered relevant on the topic .... I invited them to read them ...

Let's see ... here are the introductory remarks of Judge Roberts in the 2012 case ... I didn't cherry pick them just removed the examples he gave .. the are on pages 2-6 in the beginning of the Majority Opinion (not the synopsis):

In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder. Nearly two centuries ago, Chief Justice Marshall observed that “the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted” to the Federal Government “is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819). In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess. Resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role inpolicing those boundaries.

The Federal Government “is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.” Ibid. That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers….. The enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers, because “[t]he enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 195 (1824).The Constitution’s express conferral of some powers makes clear that it does not grant others. And the Federal the Constitution’s text does not authorize any governmentto do so.”
National Federation, 367 U.S. 3-4 (2012).

“The Federal Government has expanded dramatically overthe past two centuries, but it still must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions. See, e.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___ (2010).”
National Federation, 367 U.S. 5 (2012).

“Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176."
National Federation, 367 U.S. 6 (2012).

That introduction in so many words has been repeated on numerous occasions for the past 200 years. I don't see any quotes out of the "Free Dictionary" authorizes Congress to enjoy "full discretion" on anything.

Now, you all enjoy your circle jerk. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Constitution emphatically states that the House has the 'SOLE POWER' to impeach: 'power' encapsulates the right to construe and formulate the charges, and the charges need not be based on some strictly illegal action. Meanwhile, LL, you have yet to cite by paragraph and line the Constitutional basis for your POV that some entity other than the House has any power, let alone the 'sole power,' to impeach the president.

RE: The Founder's intent:

Mason's suggestion to add "maladministration," Madison's objection to it as "vague," and Mason's substitution of "high crimes and misdemeanors against the State" are the only comments in the Philadelphia convention specifically directed to the constitutional language describing the grounds for impeachment of the President. Mason's objection to limiting the grounds to treason and bribery was that treason would "not reach many great and dangerous offences" including "[a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution." His willingness to substitute "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," especially given his apparent familiarity with the English use of the term as evidenced by his reference to the Warren Hastings impeachment, suggests that he believed "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" would cover the offenses about which he was concerned.

Contemporaneous comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment

as those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

Comments in the state ratifying conventions also suggest that those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. Thus, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina stated that the impeachment power of the House reaches "those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." Edmund Randolph said in the Virgina convention that the President may be impeached if he "misbehaves." He later cited the example of the President's receipt of presents or emoluments from a foreign power in violation of the constitutional prohibition of Article I, section 9. In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

In reply to the suggestion that the President could summon the Senators of only a few states to ratify a treaty, Madison said,

Were the President to commit any thing so atrocious... he would be impeached and convicted, as a majority of the states would be affected by his misdemeanor.

Edmund Randolph referred to the checks upon the President:

It has too often happened that powers delegated for the purpose of promoting the happiness of a community have been perverted to the advancement of the personal emoluments of the agents of the people; but the powers of the President are too well guarded and checked to warrant this illibeal aspersion.

In short the framers who discussed impeachment in the state ratifying conventions, as well as other delegates who favored the Constitution, implied that it reached offenses against the government, and especially abuses of constitutional duties. The opponents did not argue that the grounds for impeachment had been limited to criminal offenses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...rgatedoc_3.htm

Dare one call it treason?




The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see - Ayn Rand



Many Americans believe that the US Government, the Democrat and Republican Parties and the media are deliberately misleading the American people, hiding the most heinous fraud and Constitutional crisis in the history of the United States.

Individuals at the highest levels of the federal government may have aided and abetted a deception, which included willful ignorance, misinformation, false interpretations of the Constitution, outright lies and the creation of fraudulent documents and computer records to protect an ineligible, ill-prepared and unworthy candidate for the office of President of the United States.

In the age of Obama we have witnessed the complete metamorphosis of the media, no longer objective journalists, but partisan liberal activists, who control, manipulate, even create news to support a left-wing political agenda.
On April 27, 2011, Barack Obama presented as his official birth certificate a digital image so riddled with anomalies that only counterfeiters or the complicit could vouch for its authenticity.

Evidence has been reported claiming that Barack Obama has been using a fraudulent Connecticut Social Security Number (SSN) since at least 1986. That number, 042-68-4425, issued in 1977, was set aside exclusively for Connecticut residents, a state in which he never lived nor did any member of his immediate family. In addition, SSN Verifier Plus showed the birth year 1890 linked to that number. Because SSNs are not re-issued, multiple birth dates for one card suggest a stolen number.

The data and documents associated with Obama's Selective Service registration also contain inconsistencies. Most noticeably, Obama's registration card has a two digit year ‘80" on the postal stamp, unlike the four digit year stamp "1980" found on all other registration cards completed at the same time in Hawaii and other states. It appears that a 2008 postal stamp was cut, the 08 inverted and reinserted into the stamp to mimic a 1980 registration. Interestingly, Obama's SSN 042-68-4425 appears on his 1980 Selective Service registration, which is six years before that number can be found in personal background databases.

I believe that Barack Obama did not register with the Selective Service in 1980 because he was attending Occidental College in a foreign student status and in 1981 traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. According to the law, failure to register with the Selective Service would forever prevent Obama from working in the executive branch of the US government.

One could readily conclude that Obama lied and flouted the law to get elected. It should come as no surprise then, that he would lie and flout the law to implement his policies.

I believe Obama succeeded in 2008 because the Republicans struck a deal with the Democrats not to question Obama's eligibility for office and his personal history. Furthermore, the liberal media took radical steps to protect their favored candidate, killing negative stories about Obama and even threatening to accuse his opponents of racism in order to make them "sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

In addition to the apparent creation of fraudulent documents and the doctoring of computer records by Obama supporters, then Democratic National Chair Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) prepared two different Certifications of Nomination, an action unprecedented in US history, presumably to hide Obama's ineligibility for office.

And so committed has the liberal media been to protect their investment in Obama, they continue to dispense with gusto misinformation, disinformation or no information.

The conspiracy of silence continues out of complicity or fear. The political-media establishment realizes that if the truth is told about Barack Obama the system from which they accrue enormous personal power and profit will collapse.

Republicans will oppose Obama, but they will not expose him because, by doing so, it will reveal their own dereliction of duty. Many believe, and with reasonable cause, that all the hearings and law suits conducted by the Republicans are a subterfuge meant to run out the clock.

It doesn't matter if Obama thinks he is right or if he thinks he is being virtuous. The policies he is pursuing are destroying the country. Even if one rejects treachery or treason as motives, the unrealistic and impractical far-left liberalism promoted by Obama and his acolytes is an inevitable march from altruistic dreams to coercion, oppression and, ultimately, failure.

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality - Ayn Rand


Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...#ixzz3JwkQ4pyX
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Obama is not doing enough to wreck the country


by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD November 23, 2014

(Satire)

There are self-appointed mouthpieces for the illegal immigrant community, who have complained that Barack Obama did not go far enough with his executive order delaying deportation of new Democratic voters prior to the next Presidential election.

I agree.

I believe that the economy can potentially absorb five million additional gardeners and nannies. The challenge will be to create a corresponding number of rich young liberals to hire them.

I was relieved to hear that California Governor Edmund Gerald "Jerry" "Moonbeam" Brown, Jr., who has welcomed all five million amnesty recipients to his state, has proposed a new Middle Class tax that will subsidize wealthy left-wing yuppies to bridge the gap between a livable wage for illegal immigrants and that which liberals are willing to pay them. Brown sees this as a first step in his campaign to become the Democratic Party's candidate for President of Mexico in 2016.

Although I was concerned that Republicans might actually do something to block Obama's unprecedented usurpation of power, I was comforted to learn that the party of decalcified spinal columns has already excluded every possible course of action that might thwart additional attempts to undermine the Constitution and delay Obama's nationwide plan to create a North Korean version of Detroit.

While Republicans have the luxury of only needing to lie to conservatives, the Obama Administration and its mainstream media propaganda team have raised lying to an art form not seen since the demise of the Soviet Union.

There is no longer any attempt to disguise the tactics employed by the radical left Democratic Party, which fully endorses and shamelessly embraces lying and lawlessness as an "ends justify the means" approach to achieving their goals.

The media, formerly known as the people's watchdog, are now nothing more than clapping seals, who never miss an opportunity to mislead or under-report in order to nurture and protect the Democrats at the expense of journalistic integrity and the national interest.

In Mountain of Crumbs, a memoir of childhood in the 1960s and 1970s Soviet Union, Elena Gorokhova explains the meaning of "vranyo", the Russian word for a lie or half-truth:

"In Russia we played the ‘vranyo' game on a daily basis. The government lied to us, we knew they were lying, they knew we knew they were lying, but they kept lying anyway and we pretended to believe them. "

It is ironic that Democrats and the liberal press, contrary to our traditions and values, have succeeded in implementing a corrupt Soviet-style political-media culture, in a sense, doing the jobs that Americans won't do.

The Obama Administration now operates outside of any Constitutional constraints and has become entirely unaccountable to the American people, a situation where voting and petitioning the government are exercises in futility.

The Republican Party exists, not to restore the Constitution and limit government, but to hold endless inconclusive Congressional hearings and provide token political resistance in order to maintain the illusion of democracy while preserving their access to the federal revenue trough as junior members of the ruling class.

I, for one, am looking forward to ever more outrageous Obama executive orders as a prelude to a political equivalent of 9-11 and a much needed culling of the elected official and journalist herd.

Potential future Obama executive orders may include: enforcing gun control based on the United Nations Arms Treaty; closing Guantanamo Bay prison; limiting carbon emissions as part of his climate change agreement with the Chinese government; eliminating voter ID laws; expanding pre-kindergarten programs for minorities; issuing a Presidential pardon for himself; deporting the Koch brothers; making the National Cathedral a mosque; inviting ISIS to join NATO; declaring Ebonics as the official language of the United States; establishing a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender SEAL team; inaugurating Al Sharpton Appreciation Day; outlawing common sense, logic and the stating of facts as federal crimes; forbidding all future fundamental transformations of the United States.

What do you think?


Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...#ixzz3JwsFNQzy
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Obama is not doing enough to wreck the country Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Geez, just think how much you guys would be bitchin' & moanin' if Obama would have started a war that would eventually cost $1 trillion.

And if that same war eventually led to the deaths of 4500+ American soldiers.

And during Obama's watch, the country fell into the worst economic conditions in America since The Great Depression.

Let me take an educated guesstimate: You guys would have gone absolutely friggin' BALLISTIC.

Geez, just think how much you guys would be bitchin' & moanin' if Obama would have started a war that would eventually cost $1 trillion.

And if that same war eventually led to the deaths of 4500+ American soldiers.

And during Obama's watch, the country fell into the worst economic conditions in America since The Great Depression.

Let me take an educated guesstimate: You guys would have gone absolutely friggin' BALLISTIC. Originally Posted by bigtex

Look at the eavening news. President Obama is on the verge of getting us back into a war and in the end, we just might end up spending another $Trillion, and the body count might be higher.

And afterward, the Muslims will still hate us, despise us because we refuse to believe in a fairy tale religion that is stuck in a 12th century time warp.

So, ToyotaLover, you have spent all that time researching and studying the Constitution? Well, keep it up! Someday, you might actually understand it!

Meanwhile, LL, ...basis for your POV some entity other than the House has any power, let alone the 'sole power,' to impeach the president. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

First, you need to show me the post in which I wrote:


"some entity other than the House has any power ... to impeach the president."

Or even anything close to it.

Youngstown, et seq, confirms Congress has the "sole power" to legislate, but that does not mean at all, as stated by Roberts for the majority in Federation , that the Courts cannot review the decision and set the decision aside if it is contrary to the authority or outside the authority of Congress as enumerated in the Constitution.

Do yourself a favor .... don't fabricate something and attribute it to me in order to appear "correct" .... just like don't fabricate what the Constitution says to appear "correct" ....

So, ToyotaLover, you have spent all that time researching and studying the Constitution? Well, keep it up! Someday, you might actually understand it! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Since I can read and comprehend what Roberts, et al, write it makes it easier for me to understand what the Constitution means. Rather than the Free Dictionary.And I do "keep it up" .... that's why I raised Youngstown AND Federation. Try it sometime. it's called reading and studying precedents. They are valuable for not only determining what the Courts do today, but what they may do tomorrow (as into the future).

Additionally, as long as I am on the same page with Roberts, et al, your "assessment" of my academic and/or practical application of the provisions of any constitution or statute is unworthy of consideration by me or anyone else.

My point all along has been ...

"And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176."

So when you, or any other "junior bird man" mouths off about "full discretion" without any judicial review (no appeal), Roberts seems to believe otherwise, even when "political" considerations are in play, and I repeat ....

" as long as I am on the same page with Roberts, et al, your "assessment" of my academic and/or practical application of the provisions of any constitution or statute is unworthy of consideration by me or anyone else."

My other "points" on the "political side" were, and are, the House voting an impeachment (whether they have the authority in their "full discretion" or not) is a waste of time, energy, and money when they don't have the votes in the Senate for a conviction. In other areas where you apparently lack sufficient experience that IS called "prosecutorial discretion" and I know of at least one House member who has plenty of it. "Over indicting" is a losing proposition.

And the "appropriate" remedy to stop Obaminable's nonsense is just what has been occurring in a piecemeal fashion ... the filing of lawsuits by private groups to stop the enforcement of his various illegal executive orders.

Roberts practically invites it, and a careful reading of his opinion is road map for future litigation regarding some of the administration's overreaching.

Impeachment of Obama won't happen. It should.

But the act of impeachment by Congress wouldn't be suicide as you claim....

I may be mistaken, but aren't you one of the many made the phony claim that the shutdown would be harmful the GOP brand? It wasn't. The GOP now controls more statehouses, governor's offices, and Congressional seats than anytime in modern history.

The "mistakes" with the Bill Clinton impeachment wasn't the impeachment, but the years of the independent counsel that superseded it. It gave the Clinton defenders plenty of time to mobilize and demonize Starr and thus the impeachment process. Also, the media environment 15 years ago was much more one sided and favorable to the Democrats.

If Obama were to be impeached (again, it won't happen), the Congressional GOP could manage the process better and to their favor. And there would be significantly more media favorable to the impeachment process, as well as no Kenneth Starr to demonize.

Suicide much?

It is "forbidden" because what you are proposing is insane. And would destroy the GOP for at least 20 years. A stupid statement. As a factual and historical reference; the Clinton impeachment didn't destroy the GOP for 20 years; no reason to think an Obama impeachment would.

Impeachment is meant for actual crimes as noted by Lexus Lover, not overstepping the powers of your office. Breaking the oath of office is the primary reason for impeachment (an easy case to make against Obama, if there is the political will)..
Originally Posted by ExNYer

Impeachment of Obama won't happen. It should.

But the act of impeachment by Congress wouldn't be suicide as you claim....

I may be mistaken, but aren't you one of the many made the phony claim that the shutdown would be harmful the GOP brand? It wasn't. The GOP now controls more statehouses, governor's offices, and Congressional seats than anytime in modern history.

. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What you are mistaken about is timing.

Ebola and beheadings hurt the Dems more than anything. Have that impeachment/government shurdown bullshit happening anywhere near an election and the GOP will be toast. Voters have a short memory. The 2008 banking crisis was blamed on the GOP wrongly or rightly, it was fresh in the voters mind and McCain and Palin took a beating.