True- Congress doesn't have to follow the words of the Constitution when pursuing impeachment. There literally is no appeals so Congress can if it wishes just act to nullify the election, as so many of the right are in effect proposing. That is the kind of country the far right wants.
America just voted, but go ahead and try to say we don't like that the president won, and sense were sore losers were gonna talk about impeachment even though there is no reason for us too, why, cause were sore losers
The Constitution does not require that a law be broken to impeach a judge or a President or Vice-President.
If you don't understand the reason he would face an impeachment for his failure to act to protect our personnel and national security interest and then if he participated in an attempted cover up...............oh well.
Like I said- the Constitution in no way forbids Congress from impeaching for whatever it wants- there is no appeal if Congress decides to impeach a President for purely political reasons: The Constitution of course spells out what impeachment is a tool for: 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. You don't consider those to be crimes- I get that- that is the rational the right would use. Congress doesn't have to follow the words of the Constitution when pursuing impeachment. There literally is no appeals so Congress can if it wishes just act to nullify the election, as so many of the right are in effect proposing. That is the kind of country the far right wants.
A representative republic is a form of democracy. Do you read? Like, at all? There are two definitions of democracy. One is mob rule, the other is any form of government that isn't a monarchy or tyranny. We are a democracy under the second definition.
Well certainly bribery and treason are crimes as are "high crimes", misdemeanors are not necessarily criminal acts as the word is used in the Constitution. And the Constitution doesn't limit it. For instance if Obama decided he just did want to live at the White House anymore and move to Costa Rica and refused to meet with his cabinet nor take care of Government business, Congress could impeach him for his misdemeanor behaviors and violation of his oath of office. It is Obama who is doing his best to skirt the Constitution and rule by decree so I think you should aim your remarks towards them.
There's not enough proof to impeach him on anything, yes clearly something in Libya is up. Yet I guarantee you if some president you liked did something exactly like that, you would not impeach him. We can't simply start impeaching presidents because they keep secrets. Every president ever inaugurated has held secrets. If you can provide solid proof as to how his "actions" with Libya are treason, or worth impeaching over, I will support you all the way.
Yes and it seems I understand it better than you. Here this might help you The Origins of the Phrase To better understand the meaning of the phrase, its important to examine how the framers of the Constitution came to adopt it. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers wanted to create a stronger central government than what existed under the Articles of Confederation. Adopted following the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation provided for a loose organization of the states. The framers wanted a stronger federal government, but not one too strong. To achieve the right balance, the framers divided the powers of the new government into three branchesthe executive, legislative, and judicial. This is known as the separation of powers. They also gave each branch ways to check the power of the other branches. For example, although Congress (the legislative branch) makes laws, the president (the executive) can veto proposed laws. This complex system is known as checks and balances. Impeachment of judges and executive officials by Congress was one of the checks proposed at the Constitutional Convention. The impeachment of judges drew widespread support, because federal judges would hold lifetime appointments and needed some check on their power. But some framers opposed impeachment of executive officials, arguing that the presidents power could be checked every four years by elections. James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic if the president could not be removed until the next election. With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be treason, bribery, and corruption. Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left treason or bribery as the grounds. But the committees recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding maladministration. He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the Indian people brutally. Madison objected to maladministration. He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of maladministration. This would give Congress complete power over the executive. Mason abandoned maladministration and proposed high crimes and misdemeanors against the state. The convention adopted Masons proposal, but dropped against the state. The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The convention adopted high crimes and misdemeanors with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used high crimes and misdemeanors as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of high crimes and misdemeanors were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament, granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve. After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as those 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. http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
So your level of maturity it to behave the same way as the people you criticize? A look into the mind of a child. Fascinating.
As usual it is the cover up that will play a leading role it what does or does not happen. Already they are refusing to testify to the committee and we have the VERY strange case of Petreaus now. Of spare us the moral equivilant arguments as if that somehow mitigates what is going on with this administration. Do you really not understand what this is about and what happened? This is about keeping codes or names of agents secret, this is about failure to act to save our own personnel and defend our territory and then blatantly and knowingly lying to the American people about a direct attack on us for political purposed. That is an abuse of power. Why are you demanding I prove something I don't contend? Either his total incompetence in handling our security and total ignorance of what goes on around him or his complacency in this total breakdown of or foreign security and the attempts to cover it up for political gain.
All these anti-Obama threads are also a sign of epic maturity. I don't even think they are pretending to be either, it's just flat out temper-tantrums and non-stop whining. A thousand threads that all say, "I'm a loser because I associate myself with my loser political party and I'm going to whine about it for the next for years...or eight, if democrats win again."
The fringe right are so delusional. Obama will not be impeached. The wet dreams you have about impeachment are just that mental masterbation. You poor retarded fools.
Apparently, you missed the part where it listed nothing but crimes as grounds for impeachment and the fact that they wrote it like they did specifically to prevent Congress from impeaching the President/Vice President for any old reason at all. Ironically, your source proves you wrong.
Back off, man. He stated multiple times in this thread that the idea of impeaching Obama for the reasons brought up in the thread was wrong.
Apparently you missed this part "The convention adopted high crimes and misdemeanors with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used high crimes and misdemeanors as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of high crimes and misdemeanors were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament, granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve." Maybe you missed the dictionary too Definition of MISDEMEANOR 1 : a crime less serious than a felony 2 : misdeed
Oh really and you know this how? You know all there is to know about the why the people were deceived about Libya and what Obama knew and when he knew it? You know all this even before Congress has found out?
Well, that's the point. He doesn't know, I don't know, and likely, you don't know. But everyone is arguing like they know exactly what happened, exactly who's to blame, and all that.
I don't have to know any of that to know Obama will not be impeached. Having a reasonably functioning brain and understanding politics is how I know this. It is also why anyone else who can't figure it out is a complete (*)(*)(*)(*)ing moron. If a fringe right winger predicts something it has almost zero chance of occurring. What people who have (*)(*)(*)(*) for brains want to happen and what actually happens are two different things.
