is there a logical reason Obama is not facing articles of impeachment?

[ATOMonkey]

The only thing that has stopped over-reaching presidents in the past, is when they try to take power from another branch of government, in their own party.

It wasn't until FDR started stepping on the toes of Democrat Senators that they grew a spine. And even then it was only due to concern that their own power and influence might be reduced.

 

[dross]

Are you trying to apply logic and reason to politics?

Logic and reason are alive and well in politics. In fact, logic and reason are honed to a fine edge in politics. The disconnect is if you expect politics to follow some other set of rules other than political rules. If you observe how the game is played rather than constantly lamenting it's not played some other way, the logic and reason emerge.

 

[rhino]

The reason why logic and reason aren't readily apparent in politics to the observer is because the motives and goals of the participants neither coincide with the observer's, nor are they always readily apparent. Nor are politicians always honest about them.

It's kind of like the public education system in America. Most of the decisions made above the classroom level make little sense and seem illogical -- if you assume that the goals are to actually educate students and prepare them for the next stage of their lives. If you recognize that the real goals of the people involved are different, then their decisions, which often make things worse, make a lot more sense in terms of logic.

 

[AtTheMurph]

The Constitution is very clear on impeachment. Can someone cite the code and criminal statute he's broken?


Coming up with things he's done is all well and good but, unless they are an actual crime you're whistling Dixie here.

Edit: While you might be able to make a case for a "High Crime" it is a huge uphill battle, as the term itself is vague. Add into it that there is no political will in the house, from whence it would have to originate and a certitude of never going anywhere in the senate and it's just a mental exercise, at best. It ain't gonna happen. He just hasn't done anything egregious enough to rise to that level.

Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" - Well done article on the meaning of the "High Crime's and misdemeanours" language used in the Constitution.

I would suggest that Obama should certainly be subject to Impeachment for the simple fact that he has not faithfully executed the laws of the United States as required of his high position. That's his entire job.

What any elected official before him has gotten away with is of no consequence. The Law is the Law.

 

[mrjarrell]

Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" - Well done article on the meaning of the "High Crime's and misdemeanours" language used in the Constitution.

I would suggest that Obama should certainly be subject to Impeachment for the simple fact that he has not faithfully executed the laws of the United States as required of his high position. That's his entire job.

What any elected official before him has gotten away with is of no consequence. The Law is the Law.

Not executing laws is not a reason to impeach. There is plenty of precedent for the executive to fail to enforce laws, going all the way back to Jefferson and the Alien and Sedition laws. High crimes is vague, at the best of times and Obama's refusal to enforce certain laws mirrors the opinions of a decent segment of the population, too. He has support for this.

 

[Blind Squirrel]

Not executing laws is not a reason to impeach. There is plenty of precedent for the executive to fail to enforce laws, going all the way back to Jefferson and the Alien and Sedition laws. High crimes is vague, at the best of times and Obama's refusal to enforce certain laws mirrors the opinions of a decent segment of the population, too. He has support for this.

We seem to believe that our elected officials are held to a higher standard than the public at large. They in fact are not, do not, will not take that as the mandate of their office. Both sides play the game very well................................we need to except the fact that both parties are little interested in the affairs of the common man.

 

[gstanley102]

Not executing laws is not a reason to impeach. There is plenty of precedent for the executive to fail to enforce laws, going all the way back to Jefferson and the Alien and Sedition laws. High crimes is vague, at the best of times and Obama's refusal to enforce certain laws mirrors the opinions of a decent segment of the population, too. He has support for this.

Not executing laws should be a reason to impeach.
He has not only not executed, he has changed and created law.
I don't believe either power resides in his office.

 

[uberpeck]

Is the support of his brother not enough?

Report: Congressional Delegations to Egypt about Obama's support for Terrorism | Walid ShoebatWalid Shoebat

 

[ArcadiaGP]

A lot of the really ****ty stuff this President does, or has done, or will do.... is the choice of the mind-dead, hoople-head voters that brought him to office. That's not an impeachable offense. He can buddy up with the Brotherhood, he can hold Anti-American views, he can hate all that this country is....

... But that's America. He's allowed to do that... and the ****bags that voted for him are to blame for him being in power. Until then, he's un-impeachable... and you can blame our ****ing media for it.

 

[rambone]

At least come up with a real reason to impeach.

Impeach him for assassinating 4 American citizens without charges or trial.

 

[dross]

Go read Nixon's full articles of impeachment. Most of them could apply to this administration.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

At least come up with a real reason to impeach.

Impeach him for assassinating 4 American citizens without charges or trial.

Are you of the opinion that the IRS situation didn't happen? Just curious. Or do you think it's just not something that could be tracked back to him.

 

[TRWXXA]

What high crime or misdemeanor has he committed (please cite the relevant code to make your case). I don't care for the guy, but he's not done anything impeachable, yet, as far as I can see.

And there lies the fault in your logic.

You are thinking that the phrase in the Constitution, "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", is in reference to criminal law. It is not. If it were, then impeachment would be a criminal procedure.

In the Constitution, a "misdemeanor" is not a crime that fails to rise to the level of a felony. It means "bad demeanor" -- bad behavior. The framers of the Constitution considered violations of the public trust and immoral behavior to be impeachable offenses. Do you think multiple and repeated lies to the public ("If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period!") or end-runs around the legislative process ("I have a phone and a pen.") might be included in that?

If you have any doubts as to what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, you should read the the "Rodino Report" ("Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment" - 1974). It was written by a bunch of democrat lawyers (including, ironically, one Hillary Diane Rodham), and used to frame the Ariticles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon, who was never charged with any criminal behavior.

O'bama won't be impeached simply because he is the first black president, and no one in Washingron wants to leave that legacy. It would be like Jackie Robinson getting caught taking HGH. I'm sure the same treatment will be apllied to the first woman president. So as the US burns in the background, the liberatards will declare the Obama administration, "The greatest presidency, EVER!"

 

[Hoosierkav]

As smart as the government has gotten at controlling our every waking moment, I am sure they have good lawyers who say, "You can do this, and this and this, and you'll be ok; just don't do that, or they'll have you".

 

[rgrimm01]

... The Republicans need to put forward some moderate, electable candidates.

More moderate than Rommney?

... The truth is that I used to vote both ways until the religious zealots hijacked the GOP, and then the tea party sealed the deal. And my views are closer to the mainstream - the group that swings the general elections.

In the early years, I wonder if our country was more closely aligned with "tea party" and "far-right zealot" types than today?

 

[Bummer]

Nope. Make your case for impeachment using the law.


I know of nothing he's done that fits the bill. I dislike much that he's done, but don't think it reaches the level, yet, of an impeachable offence.

President Obama used a targeted drone strike to kill Anwar AlAwlaki. Mr. Obama even bragged about doing it.

AlAwlaki was a citizen of the United States. Technically all he had ever done was talk and write, both of which are protected by the First Amendment. What AlAwlaki did might have risen to the level of treason, but there was no trial, no testimony of two witnesses, no confession in open court, so no finding of treason. (Article 3, Section 3.)

Unlike the strike that killed his son, this was not collateral damage, it was targeted directly at AlAwlaki. He was not killed on an actual battlefield. He was deprived of life without due process. (Fifth Amendment.)

Supporters of both major parties have made the excuse that the Congress has declared that the entire world is the battlefield in the "War Against Terror". If that is indeed the case then anyone can be quietly declared a terrorist and killed, even US citizens here in the United States, and that renders much of the Constitution meaningless.

The authorization of the murder of a citizen of the United States without due process certainly qualifies as abuse of authority, and as such is an impeachable offense. By abusing his authority in this manner he also failed to fulfill his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, also impeachable. It is also a crime, punishable at trial after removal from office.

 

[rambone]

Are you of the opinion that the IRS situation didn't happen? Just curious. Or do you think it's just not something that could be tracked back to him.

I haven't seen anything that specifically tracked back to him directly. You are welcome to show me in case I missed it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is the support of his brother not enough?

Report: Congressional Delegations to Egypt about Obama's support for Terrorism | Walid ShoebatWalid Shoebat

Support of terrorism? That could apply to EVERY single American president that has supported opposition groups to national govts.

 

[Snapdragon]

More moderate than Rommney?

 

[Purdue Plinker]

Conventional wisdom = 40% Democrats, 40% Republicans, 20% "Independent". Recent poll says that 70% of the population considers themselves "conservative." So your argument that your views represent "the mainstream" is flat-out wrong.

Huh? Maybe look at actual recent polls that put the ratio of 23 Republican / 45 Independent / 30 Democrat

Party Affiliation | Gallup Historical Trends

You're the one flat out wrong. Being out of touch with reality like the last election or assuming not existent strength doesn't do any good. Whatever anyone wants to do politically needs to recognize that the lion's share is independent, even if the two party system doesn't make it seem so.