Impeach Obama?

posted at 1:42 pm on October 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

When the grassroots come together for events like Western CPAC, it usually brings together a great deal of energy as well as a wide idea of ideas, some better than others.  One of the worst — and worst defended — ideas at WCPAC comes from Floyd Brown, whose ImpeachObamaCampaign.com is one of the sponsors for this event.  In his speech this morning, Brown misstates history, draws ridiculous parallels to the Nazi era, and takes the wrong lessons from the Clinton impeachment, which at least had the virtue of coming from an actual impeachable offense.

Brown’s best argument for impeaching Barack Obama was his reliance on Federalist 65 to claim that impeachment was a mechanism to express political dissent from the executive.  Unfortunately, Federalist 65 is a philosophical, not legal, document.  The language of the Constitution is pretty clear: impeachment is reserved for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” not political dissent.  Contra Brown, the US is not set up to be a parliamentary democracy with votes of no confidence, because the President does not derive his powers from Congress in our system as the Prime Minister does from Parliament in those systems.  Presidents get elected by the states through popular votes in our constitution.  Congress has no jurisdiction to issue no-confidence votes, and to arrogate that role would be a usurpation of power from the people and the states.

The Constitution includes impeachment for Congress to remove corrupt Presidents, and other federal officials as well.  Even then, it uses a large amount of political capital, which usually comes to the detriment of those pursuing it, especially when the effort is seen as partisan.  Floyd Brown not only missed this, he fundamentally misrepresented the impact of the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  Brown claims that before Clinton’s impeachment, he was pursuing a radical agenda on health care and foreign policy, and that the impeachment left him a lame duck and compliant to a Republican Congress.  Unfortunately, he’s completely wrong about this history.  The impeachment came in 1998, long after Clinton lost Congress to Republicans in 1994 and successfully tacked back to the center.   The impeachment effort left Republicans on the defensive, somewhat divided, and provided enough momentum for Democrats to keep the GOP from gaining seats in both the House and Senate, as had been expected in the last Clinton-era midterms.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Brown then drew parallels between Obama and Adolf Hitler and the Nazi seizure of power in the 1930s.  I have no love of Barack Obama as President, but one would have to have never studied the Nazis in order to claim that the Democratic majority is following in their footsteps.  They have a radical agenda that is a disaster for America in both the short and long terms.  There are plenty of grounds to argue for their defeat in the next election, and fortunately for us, the Democrats are making most of them for us, which is why they’re crashing in the polls.  However, the Democrats are not rounding up opposition and throwing them in camps, shooting them on the streets, or passing bills granting Obama dictatorial power.  Those arguments do nothing but make a certain portion of the grassroots look ill-educated and hysterical.

If we want to “remove” Obama from office, we  have an election in 2012 that will do the trick nicely, if we can remain focused on it.  If we want to cut into his power, the midterms in 2010 give us the same opportunity we seized in 1994.  Calls for impeachment only make us less credible for both efforts.

Update: Fixed the link and corrected “misrepresented”.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Yes.

On the one hand we have embarrassments like this dweeb, on the other we have Newt supporting a lib running against a conservative.

Which one do you think the State Run Media will focus on?

Akzed on October 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM

It’s even simpler than that, Ed. The reason not to scream for impeachment can really be boiled down to two words:

JOE BIDEN.

Good Lt on October 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM

And Biden would be a big improvement?

(sheesh)

BigAlSouth on October 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Well, if we’re merely asking whether Obama has committed any impeachable offenses, we need to investigate who was responsible for the NEA conference call (6 federal laws and regulations violated, according to Ben Shapiro) and the firing of Gerald Walpin. Those are actual crimes committed by his administration and possibly authorized directly by him. I’m not saying that they’re foolproof grounds for impeachment, but they should be seriously investigated.

However, the last thing we need is Obama becoming a political martyr.

CarpeFishem on October 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM

*enters his bunker before the comment war ensues*

MadisonConservative on October 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Clicking on that link takes me here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama&btnG=Google+Search

?

visions on October 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

I’d rather have Joe.

Sarjex on October 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Can’t we have a recall election? It worked so well in California!

…oh, wait, never mind. ^^;

Orange Doorhinge on October 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM

I bet Brown won’t want to read this post. And if his arguments are as shotty as you point out, then MSNBC is probably contacting him now.

therightscoop on October 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Calls for impeachment only make us less credible for both efforts.

To whom?

I’m not trying to argue, I just don’t think these things have any impact with the average voter.

Those arguments do nothing but make a certain portion of the grassroots look ill-educated and hysterical.

To people who follow politics for a living, or attend politic conferences, sure. What is the concern, that they get put on Hardball? If they get publicized by MSNBC etc, does it effect an audience that is a swing vote?

If it does, does hand wringing about different parts of the party dampen enthusiasm for GOTV efforts?

All said, though, I agree with the view that impeachment is not valid for policy disagreements.

Spirit of 1776 on October 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Floyd Brown not only missed this, he fundamentally represented

I think you mean mis-represented.

TexasDan on October 17, 2009 at 1:50 PM

If we want to “remove” Obama from office, we have an election in 2012 that will do the trick nicely, if we can remain focused on it. If we want to cut into his power, the midterms in 2010 give us the same opportunity we seized in 1994. Calls for impeachment only make us less credible for both efforts.

I agree with you Ed but you left out a very important part of the above statement. It should have begun:

As of October 17, 2009…..

I don’t have your certitude that the filthy lying coward in the White House is going to be free of impeachable actions for four full years.

highhopes on October 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM

If you don’t follow the Constitution, out you should go. He should really resign out of shame for failing to uphold the oath of office.

The Dean on October 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Agreed Ed,

Impeachment talk is just stupid at this point. I personally have no doubts that Obama has broken the law and therefore could be impeached at some point, but we have yet to link him to any illegal activities and should not throw around the impeach speech until we do.

To do so now just belittles our side and I am quite frankly surprised that Floyd Brown is allowed to be a sponsor of Western CPAC.

conservnut on October 17, 2009 at 1:52 PM

I liked the birther stuff better than this wing nut idea.

IlikedAUH2O on October 17, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Sarjex on October 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

I’d rather have Joe too, but look who’s next in line behind him.

Best strategy is to get as many Dems out of office as we can next fall.

Shay on October 17, 2009 at 1:52 PM

http://www.impeachobama.org

DanaSmiles on October 17, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Ed, great article. But one thing you left out. This administration and the left is most definitely deliberately intimidating the opposition. And not through normal means of discourse. They are also underhandledly pushing their political vision for our society, see what they tried with the NEA and this “organic” “call to serve”. That may not be “Nazi-like” but it’s definitely scary.

p0s3r on October 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I have no love of Barack Obama as President, but one would have to have never studied the Nazis in order to claim that the Democratic majority is following in their footsteps.

Well they sure the Hell are not following in the Founding Fathers footsteps.

They have been trying to control more and more of what was private and are more and more into demonization and those sure ring a couple of fascist like bells.

MB4 on October 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM

He should really resign out of shame for failing to uphold the oath of office.

The Dean on October 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Good luck naming a handful of members to Congress that uphold the constitution.

WashJeff on October 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I’d rather have Joe too, but look who’s next in line behind him.

Best strategy is to get as many Dems out of office as we can next fall.

Shay on October 17, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Yeah, and she’d probably make Joe *disappear* so she could be the first woman president.

therightscoop on October 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Biden..then Pelosi… 2 reasons against. But we can ridicule him, as done here… MR. NOBEL – Can U Hear Us Now?

deedtrader on October 17, 2009 at 1:55 PM

I’d rather have Joe.

Sarjex on October 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

So would I but let’s remember one thing. The filthy lying coward in the White House could commit a murder, rape, and bank heist at the State of the Union speech and he still would not be impeached. There are too many who are willing to ignore the rat bastard traitor’s actions because he is black. This is the sine qua non of using the race card to destroy America.

highhopes on October 17, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Good stuff Ed.

DanStark on October 17, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Bravo to Ed for deftly diffusing this hot wingnut mess.

The only “i” word that can accurately be applied to Obama (for now) is “incompetence.”

.

locomotivebreath1901 on October 17, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Good luck naming a handful of members to Congress that uphold the constitution.

WashJeff on October 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I don’t think anyone wants me naming names at this point. But deep down inside, you know who does it. The truth always comes out.

The Dean on October 17, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I’d rather have Joe.

Sarjex on October 17, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Ah, but with Joe, comes NANCY PELOUSY!

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I’m not sure impeaching him would be a good idea even if he ever gets caught in an impeachable act. I think it might be best just to let his term run it’s course and then deliver a massive ego crushing election defeat.

Oldnuke on October 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM

He’s a real Control Freak Man
Ruling in what he wants to be a vassal land
Making all his controlling plans
For everybody

Doesn’t listen to an opposing point of view
Control Freak man, ruling all he thinks is his purview
Control Freak Man, he had better listen
He don’t know with what he’s messin’
Knows already just what he wants to do
Doesn’t he seem more and more like Hitler and Mussolini to you?

He’s a real Control Freak Man
Ruling in what he wants to be a vassal held land
Making all his controlling plans
For everybody

He’s as blinded by his lust for power as he can be
Just sees what he wants to see
He’s got such a God complex point of call
Control Freak Man can you even see America at all?
Knows already just what he wants to do
Doesn’t he seem more and more like Hitler and Mussolini to you?

He’s a real Control Freak Man
Ruling in what he wants to be a vassal land
Making all his controlling plans
For everybody

About Control Freak Man we should all worry
To destroy all America built he is in a hurry
If he controls everything his fascist way
It will be a forlorn day
Hes going to leave it all a mess
Anyone of sound mind must confess

He’s a real Control Freak Man
Ruling in what he wants to be a vassal land
Making all his controlling plans
For everybody

MB4 on October 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Right now there is no reason to pursue this avenue. However, I do believe that Obambi has committed “high crimes” but that we are ignorant of the details right now. He is a Chicago Daly machine political hack. It is a given that he has gotten his hands dirty and will continue that in the White House. The interesting thing will be if anything does come out as he continues to throw people under the bus. Sooner or later someone will want revenge. The next interesting thing will be if there is any one either in Congress or DOJ who would pursue an investigation. That is where the intimidation factor kicks in. My bet is not.

catlady on October 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Well, if we’re merely asking whether Obama has committed any impeachable offenses, we need to investigate who was responsible for the NEA conference call (6 federal laws and regulations violated, according to Ben Shapiro) and the firing of Gerald Walpin. Those are actual crimes committed by his administration and possibly authorized directly by him. I’m not saying that they’re foolproof grounds for impeachment, but they should be seriously investigated.

However, the last thing we need is Obama becoming a political martyr.

CarpeFishem on October 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Great point…remember this incident? (There are so many bad things happening, it’s hard to keep up…)

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Ah, but with Joe, comes NANCY PELOUSY!

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Huh? The Speaker of the House doesn’t become VP if the VP becomes POTUS. Fact of the matter is going from Speaker to VP means less power and influence.

highhopes on October 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM

pushing the Impeach Obama theme is just plain crazy. hasn’t anything been learned from history? if Clinton couldn’t be impeached for lying then Obama isn’t going to be impeached for being a sucky president. 52% of the people voted for him and probably either think he’s doing a great job or are to stupid to realize that he’s a total socialist who is intent on screwing this country over. He will be stopped next election.

poppieseeds on October 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM

People like Floyd Brown only make our side look bad. Impeachment is a tough call even when there’s solid evidence to support it, as Ed stated, for the cost in political capital. Still, some things appear shady and fishy, so a deeper look might well be needed.

Too bad the MSM is so in the pocket of the Democrats, because the press was supposed to be one of the guardians of our liberty. It would remove politics entirely from any possible impeachment of a president if we still had a press politically neutral, but for right now that concept has gone by the wayside.

Hopefully the current scandals in the press (ignoring the ACORN mess, slandering Rush Limbaugh) will begin to whittle away at liberal hegemony of the MSM.

Liam on October 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM

What would be better for the GOP om 2010:

A) Take the house and senate
B) Take the house and more than 40 GOP seantors.
C) Narrow the GOP in the house, but still in the minority, and more than 40 GOP seantors.
D) Same make-up as is

The major question is does Obama have Clinton’s skills to tack to the center?

WashJeff on October 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM

I’m not sure impeaching him would be a good idea even if he ever gets caught in an impeachable act. I think it might be best just to let his term run it’s course and then deliver a massive ego crushing election defeat.

Oldnuke on October 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM

I think part of that would depend on the crime. You can’t impeach the filthy lying coward on minor infractions because the screams of racism (whites trying to take the black President down because of his skin color). The door should be left open if all the Chicago corruption bubbles up and it is found that the rat bastard traitor did indeed commit some unpardonable crime like voter fraud.

highhopes on October 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM

highhopes on October 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I wouldn’t advocate it unless it was a really high crime or treason and only then if the evidence was overwhelming and irrefutable. Kicking him out of office would just make a political martyr out of him and split the country even more than he’s already done.

Oldnuke on October 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM

What would be better for the GOP om 2010:

A) Take the house and senate
B) Take the house and more than 40 GOP seantors.
C) Narrow the GOP in the house, but still in the minority, and more than 40 GOP seantors.
D) Same make-up as is

The major question is does Obama have Clinton’s skills to tack to the center?

WashJeff on October 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM
____________________________________________________________
I will go with B.

Regardless of the question of Obama’s skills in tacking to the center, does he have the desire to tack to the center?

ICBM on October 17, 2009 at 2:09 PM

On Friday Glenn Beck said (radio) that his people are working on four big stories. They are attempting to verify the information, but Beck said based on what they’ve seen so far they believe them to be true. Then, almost as an aside, he said (paraphrasing here), I believe one of them will take this presidency (or administration) down.

I think we need to pour all of our energy into defeating Obama’s legislative agenda and retaking Congress next fall. Sometimes I get so outraged by Obama that I joke about impeachment, but it’s a pipedream and I know it won’t happen. That said, if hard evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors comes to light (so far it hasn’t), isn’t impeachment what the Constitution demands?

flyfisher on October 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM

ICBM on October 17, 2009 at 2:09 PM

He may talk center but he’ll never actually move in that direction. His ego won’t allow it.

Oldnuke on October 17, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Huh? The Speaker of the House doesn’t become VP if the VP becomes POTUS. Fact of the matter is going from Speaker to VP means less power and influence.

highhopes on October 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM

What the hell happened to the Speaker Of The House being the 3rd in lime for the Presidency???

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 2:12 PM

You can’t impeach the filthy lying coward on minor infractions because the screams of racism (whites trying to take the black President down because of his skin color).

I agree. No semen-stained dresses. (Even though we know that’s not what Clinton was impeached for.)

flyfisher on October 17, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Regardless of the question of Obama’s skills in tacking to the center, does he have the desire to tack to the center?

ICBM on October 17, 2009 at 2:09 PM

That question was in my mind when I wrote that comment. I do not think he does. Clinton was about Clinton. Obama is about his principles and policies, and that is the only thing I respect the man for even though I dislike his principles and policies.

So if B, the GOP’s media machine (ha ha ha) has to be ready for the “GOP is stonewalling my initiatives” blast that will come their way in 2011. Can they do that? If history is any guide…(gulp).

WashJeff on October 17, 2009 at 2:13 PM

In his speech this morning, Brown misstates history, draws ridiculous parallels to the Nazi era, and takes the wrong lessons from the Clinton impeachment, which at least had the virtue of coming from an actual impeachable offense.

The Precedent has committed more than enough crimes to impeach him. Why don’t you just start his illegal campaign contributions (that everyone on the site has PERSONAL knowledge about), his lying about the money that went to the ACORN affiliate (listed as “lighting” when it was a ‘get out the vote’) and move on from there. His declaration that the Honduran government perpetrated a coup (in order to trigger automatic US responses to juntas …) was another (when it is clear that the adminstration intentionally lied about this, as anyone with a brain knows that it was a fabrication). His sending of SEIU goons over to intimidate AIG executives, his threats against opponents (using the full force of the Executive branch to carry out personal fights), his intentionally putting US military hanging out (in order to further his desire to have people call for a withdrawal), his lying about the Porkulus to try and intimidate Congress and the People into signing the blank check for his political payouts, and on and on and on. Any of these would be an impeachable offense, in normal times, and that doesn’t even take into account The PRecedent’s giving aid and comfort to the enemy, denigrating the US overseas, purposely violating COnstitutional restrictions, the czars and filling the White House with marxists and maoists, …

There is so much fodder for impeachment that it boggles the mind, and every single one of these is far, far worse than either Watergate or Clinton’s very serious perjury.

I have no love of Barack Obama as President,

If that’s the way you prefer to frame it, then you really have not a clue as to what threats he poses to the nation.

but one would have to have never studied the Nazis in order to claim that the Democratic majority is following in their footsteps. They have a radical agenda that is a disaster for America in both the short and long terms. There are plenty of grounds to argue for their defeat in the next election, and fortunately for us, the Democrats are making most of them for us, which is why they’re crashing in the polls. However, the Democrats are not rounding up opposition and throwing them in camps, shooting them on the streets, or passing bills granting Obama dictatorial power.

You need to learn some history, Ed. The Nazis didn’t start out rounding people up and putting them in camps or shooting them. The Nazis started out the same way that The Precedent is starting out. And you are very flippant about their “radical agenda that is a disaster for America in both the short and long terms”. Either you don’t believe your own words, about it being ‘radical’ and a ‘disaster’, or you just don’t understand what the consequences of such a radical disaster are going to be. I would guess it’s the latter.

Those arguments do nothing but make a certain portion of the grassroots look ill-educated and hysterical.

LOL. When you say ‘radical’ and ‘disaster’ most put you right in the same group with us. THe only difference is that we understand how these things unfold. We remember that ancient history of Oct 2008 and understand what precipice this nation is perched over. We understand what that fall will be like. You don’t. That’s how things were in Germany … and most of the other places where people saw the ‘radical’ and ‘disastrous’ policies that were being implemented, but ignored them as being just blips in the line of history.

progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM

I think he will be impeached. Impeached for his unrelenting assault on America. Impeached for his alliances with dictators – he offers his hand… Not America’s hand…. just his. With a small ‘h’.

hE does not speak for America. He speaks for himself, his own enrichment, his own agenda and out of his own personal rage. hE does not speak for me.

A shameful past, a shameful agenda, a shameful existence, a shameful hubris. This man will forever be known as the shame of America.

We will thrive. hE will fall.

Key West Reader on October 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM

lets impeach Biden too, oh wait that means President Pelosi. Seriously why is time wasted on such nonsense when actual work can pay political dividends in the near future.

rob verdi on October 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Oh, so it’s not a crime to completely destroy the economy of a nation? It’s also not a crime to completely decimate our monetary system? How about if his healthcare and cap & trade schemes are passed and it bankrupts every single citizen of this country, it’s still not considered a crime? Me thinkith something stinkith.

Also, a Vice President can be impeached just as well as the President.

moonsbreath on October 17, 2009 at 2:15 PM

You need to learn some history, Ed. The Nazis didn’t start out rounding people up and putting them in camps or shooting them. The Nazis started out the same way that The Precedent is starting out. And you are very flippant about their “radical agenda that is a disaster for America in both the short and long terms”. Either you don’t believe your own words, about it being ‘radical’ and a ‘disaster’, or you just don’t understand what the consequences of such a radical disaster are going to be. I would guess it’s the latter.

progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM

AMEN!

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM

So if B, the GOP’s media machine (ha ha ha) has to be ready for the “GOP is stonewalling my initiatives” blast that will come their way in 2011. Can they do that? If history is any guide…(gulp).

WashJeff on October 17, 2009 at 2:13 PM

The GOP is already being accused of being obstructionist. The key to all this is the independents, who have run away from Obama in droves. In 2010, will they be willing to let the Dems have total control for 2 more years?

ICBM on October 17, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Nutty nuttiness, for sure.

Given the choice, however, I’d take McNutter here looking under rocks and around trees for the next Hitler if he’s (they’re) working to preserve liberty than the complacency that so easily numbs us in Western societies.

Diane on October 17, 2009 at 2:18 PM

President Pelosi. Seriously why is time wasted on such nonsense when actual work can pay political dividends in the near future.

rob verdi on October 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Botox is unimpeachable.

Key West Reader on October 17, 2009 at 2:18 PM

progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM

As usual, you put everything in it’s proper perspective.

Thanks.

yellow_railroad on October 17, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Given the choice, however, I’d take McNutter here looking under rocks and around trees for the next Hitler if he’s (they’re) working to preserve liberty than the complacency that so easily numbs us in Western societies.

Diane on October 17, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Diane, I thought you were fired on Friday. Your job as a rock checker is done. Oh, and the numb thing? Nahhh…. We’re not numb. We’re electrified. ZAP!

Now bite me, biyatch.

Key West Reader on October 17, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Zap

Key West Reader on October 17, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Hah if hysterical nonsense turned away moderate voters, the democrats would be a permanent minority party.

Full speed ahead I say. Most people have no idea what’s going on and probably judge the president by how much background anger there is.

So on that note, gnash your teeth and light the torches.

jhffmn on October 17, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Ok, I think this may be the answer to my own question. I stand corrected (I think others may mistakenly think as I did)

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/if_a_vice_president_assumes_the_presidency.html

(When the Pres is out and the VP takes over, the VP chooses a new VP).

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Oh, brother…The “impeach Obama” crowd is as wacky as the ol’ “impeach Bush” crowd was. It’s as frustrating having knuckleheads like this on my “side” of the aisle. Much like the birfers.

But alas, everyone has a right to their own opinions. I guess.

JetBoy on October 17, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Ah well, the same thing happened to PUMAS, birthers, etc. The flakes who would never get 10 seconds of attention become “representative” for a reporter looking for an example.

Meanwhile, to get ACORN out, real investigative journalism is required.

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Presidents get elected by the states through popular votes in our constitution.

Wrong. The President is not elected by popular vote. In fact, there is no requirement for a popular vote at all.
The President is elected by the Electoral College and each state determines the manner of choosing its Electors.
While it’s true that currently all the states choose their Electors through some form of popular vote, they may change to a different method any time they wish.

single stack on October 17, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Time to win some elections guys. That is how you remove a politician you disagree with.

Mr. Joe on October 17, 2009 at 2:30 PM

progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM

I very seriously have to disagree, though I’m on your side emotionally. It’s been said that sharing a like is enjoyable, but sharing a dislike can be intoxicating.

However, while the Constitution provides for removal of a sitting president, it’s also a very hard thing to do. It’s designed to be hard, in a best effort to keep politics out of any such matter. I believe the provision for removal from office requires specific and provable acts done by the president himself, by the person so accused. I don’t believe it involves acts done by underlings in the Administration; Obama has deniability and enough reasonable doubt to be exonerated–at this point. Remember, too–I’m so totally opposed to Obama I refuse to claim he’s my president. The only time I’d call him ‘Mr. President’ is by some odd twist and fluke of faith I meet him person and have chance to speak to him. I will then use his title, because he is duly and properly elected to the Office.

I can’t make a parallel between America and pre-Nazi Germany. They didn’t have a Constitution like we do, and the country resented the Weimar Republic. Germans wanted their Kaiser but he was forced to abdicate. Democracy and liberty as we know it don’t work for a people not ready for such, and for evidence I present what happened to Africa at the end of colonialism in the 60s–those various countries fell into disarray and series of dictators, civil wars, and massacres.

In sum, I, as a conservative, will be demanding rock-solid proof Obama requires removal from office before anyone tries taking the matter to the House.

Liam on October 17, 2009 at 2:31 PM

In 2010, will they be willing to let the Dems have total control for 2 more years?

ICBM on October 17, 2009 at 2:17 PM

My oldest brother, who would fall in that independent camp (I called it squishy since for the most part they just do not think their politics through) and voted Obama last year, voted for Obama because the GOP “screwed things up.” Seems like that same squishy thought process will apply in 2010.

WashJeff on October 17, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Oh, great: Clinton redux. Ask Newt Gingrich how that worked out. For one thing, there simply isn’t enough ‘fodder for impeachment’, as someone phrased it. Policy disagreements do not constitute impeachable offenses. For another, there aren’t enough votes even if there were grounds for impeachment. I’m also guessing it would be viewed by the majority of Americans as a dirty trick, an attempt to bypass the ballot, and would consign the GOP to the political wilderness for, well, ever.

Lastly and most importantly: President Joseph Biden. Let that thought linger in your mind for awhile. Our Vice President is a self-aggrandizing idiot, an insufferable windbag, the fool the Left claimed Dan Quayle to be but never was. The thought of Biden wielding real power gives me chills.

troyriser_gopftw on October 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Meanwhile, to get ACORN out, real investigative journalism is required.

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:30 PM

That doesn’t exist, babygirl. Any deep look will be billed as racist, anti-Obama, etc.

Well, unless the MSM itself changes.

Liam on October 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM

I’d like to throw out some definitions just for the record. I’m not saying this is expedient or possible at the moment. Since we’re talking history, I want to look at some historical definitions.

This is from an article, The Founding Fathers, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Impeachment, by Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD., published in 1999. There is much to chew on in this article and he has many quotes.

Here is the groundwork:

Impeachment, according to the Founding Fathers, was the remedy for those officials who through professional or personal misconduct violated the public trust and vitiated our republican form of government. Accordingly, Article VI, Paragraph 3, of our constitution provides, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution….” And Article II, Section 4 notes, “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.”

Some definition of terms (his emphasis):

The Founding Fathers defined treason in Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Bribery was, and remains, well understood, then and now — namely, the intention to corrupt or influence, particularly public policy, by offering, or a government official accepting, something such as money or favor, quid pro quo, his vote or support in a particular public policy matter.

Which brings us to “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” As constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter correctly notes in her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors — The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery Publishing, 1998): “The derivation of the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached,” but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.

INC on October 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Dr. Faria has more commentary and definitions of high crimes and misdemeanors from history (my emphasis):

Indeed, in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845; the intellectual mate of Chief Justice John Marshall) explained: “The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature…[W]hat are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “[S]ome provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers (No. 65) that impeachment of the president should take place for “offenses 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 society itself.

INC on October 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Well, unless the MSM itself changes.

Liam on October 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Well, if they keep pulling stunts like making Bubble Boy into a “debate,” they’ll have to change.

Didn’t everyone roll their eyes at the media over that junk? (Everyone I knew was laughing at the media. What a stupid circus.)

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Since the article I’m quoting was written during the Clinton administration, Dr. Faria goes back to these words of Hillary and Bill Clinton during the Nixon era (my emphasis):

From Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, then a young activist lawyer, sat on the legal staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry which set forth a report on the “constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment.” Ironically, Mrs. Clinton’s very words on the defense of impeachment would come back to haunt her when Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) quoted them in a letter** to the president’s wife printed in The Wall Street Journal:

“…You said in 1974 that impeachment as understood by the framers of our Constitution, reflected the long history of the term used at least since late-14th-century England: ‘one of the tools used by the English to make government ‘more responsive and responsible’…

“You also noted then clearly in response to those who mistakenly claimed impeachment presupposes or requires a violation of criminal law — that British history, to which our Founding Fathers turned for guidance, clearly envisaged impeachment as a tool to correct ‘corruption in office’ that ‘alleged damage to the state,’ and was ‘not necessarily limited to common law or statutory…crimes’

“You find support for your properly broad interpretation of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ in no less a legal scholar than Justice Joseph Story. I was in awe of your use of Justice Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) supporting your proposition that ‘impeachment…applies to offenses of a political character…[that] must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty’…”(3)

From Bill Clinton:

But perhaps, most ironic were the words uttered by an Arkansas law school professor who was running for Congress in 1974. In February of that year, Bill Clinton explained “high crimes and misdemeanors” as follows: “I think the definition should include any criminal acts plus a willful failure of the president to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. [Another] factor would be willful, reckless behavior in office; just totally incompetent conduct of the office and the disregard of the necessities that the office demands.”

And, on August 8, 1974, the young professor was quoted in the Arkansas Gazette: “I think it’s plain that the president should resign and spare the country the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding. I think the country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry about inflation and a lot of other problems if he’d go on and resign. [There is] no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and the CIA is an impeachable offense.”

INC on October 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM

We just need to make sure that Obama is lame-ducked in 2010. Elect a Congress that will put the brakes on–hard.

jimmy2shoes on October 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Hey, leave Bill Clinton alone. *haha

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM

“The derivation of the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached,” but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.
INC on October 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Thanks Inc! I like the sound of this! We are all learning stuff today!

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Can’t we have a recall election? It worked so well in California!

…oh, wait, never mind. ^^;

Orange Doorhinge on October 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM

If we had gotten Darryl Issa instead of Ahnuld who jumped on Issa’s horse and knocked him off just as it was crossing the finish line we might be talking a different story here…

CCRWM on October 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Gob, You’re welcome! I found this article a while back and much that was in it was new to me. I was fascinated to read as he extensively made his case for the actual definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.

INC on October 17, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Impeachable offenses: I don’t know. I know we lowered the bar for acceptable candidates and we are raising the bar for removal.
Tolerance, Diversity and social justice at work. Caution enter at your own risk.

fourdeucer on October 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM

The “Impeach Obama” crowd is just more impassioned at taking the Socialist down. However, they need to actually have the goods on him before shouting their intentions from the roof tops. It just gives Barry more talking points, as we heard from his stupid “Grab a mop” Bullsh!t meme.

Obama is going down, that is a fact. I’d like to see him flounder under the weight of his own failings than for him to be the Martyr of having been taken down with a Conservative torpedo.

portlandon on October 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM

What the hell happened to the Speaker Of The House being the 3rd in lime for the Presidency???

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Read the Constitution. If the President leaves the scene, the VP moves up and then appoints a replacement VP (a la Gerald Ford) who is confirmed by Congress. If BOTH the POTUS and the VEEP leave the scene before a new VP can be confirmed, then you start going down through the line of succession…

mcassill on October 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM

The strongest argument against trying to remove Obama from office other than via election in 2012 comes from the next in line successors — Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. As bad as Obama is, they are incalculably worse in all respects. (Although Pelosi’s extremely low approval would no doubt make the 2012 elections easier.)

I agree. Impeaching Obama makes no sense at all, and is a diversion from the real challenges confronting us.

DaMav on October 17, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Obama is going down, that is a fact. I’d like to see him flounder under the weight of his own failings than for him to be the Martyr of having been taken down with a Conservative torpedo.

portlandon on October 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Obama is mediocre as a president. That’s all. Normally, the US can withstand mediocrity in presidents. We’ve had more than a few.

I do give him credit for biting the bullet on TARP. He’s taking huge heat now, over the bonus stuff, but it was the right thing to do. To interfere with executive pay really would be crossing a line. And to do nothing while pension plans across the country went up in smoke would have set off a domino effect in the retiree class that would be unprecedented.

Worse, it would have led to a true welfare situation, since those are the citizens who cannot recoup.

So I don’t think he’s necessarily handled everything horribly. Nor did Bush. That’s why many of Bush’s policies are actually being continued. That’s why Obama’s policies will also be continued in some areas.

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Didn’t everyone roll their eyes at the media over that junk? (Everyone I knew was laughing at the media. What a stupid circus.)

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM

We laugh but nothing changes–yet. As I imagine you already know, excess is its own undoing. Now the MSM is at a cusp in history. They will either clean house or fall by the wayside as alternative media rise more to the fore.

The Net is their greatest enemy. Site are set up where people can exchange ideas in seconds, instead of being shunted to some editor who has power to pick and choose. It’s a new era, and the MSM is going to have to do something to save itself. In my estimation, they’ll remain behind the times for a while; the slowest way to accomplish anything is by committee.

Liberty rests with the People, not with the MSM, politicians, or government.

John Lennon had it right: Power to the People! Those who impose themselves on us are getting a new wake-up call.

Sweet, isn’t it?

Liam on October 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM

They have been trying to control more and more of what was private and are more and more into demonization and those sure ring a couple of fascist like bells.

MB4 on October 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM

That they are, MB4.

BetseyRoss on October 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Impeachment? Over what, pray tell.

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM

I agree on every point except one:

The Federalist papers are considered a primary source for the interpretation of the Constitution – among the most important in interpreting it for originalists, actually. They are no mere philosophical documents, but the papers written by the framers of the Constitution and used to argue to the citizens of the U.S. that they should adopt the Constitution.

That said, the idea that something Obama has done thus far is truly impeachable is a bit more debateable. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is wide open to Congress, and there is no requirement that a sitting president be impeached and then convicted by the senate on a crime found in the U.S. criminal code.

Of course, none of the uncertainty about whether Obama could be impeached means he should be impeached. While I personally can’t say I’m a huge fan of Obama (except to the extent that his inexperienced bumbling has largely shut down the Democrats’ huge advantage from having a supermajority in Congress – that I approve of entirely), impeachment at this point would be politically foolish and, more importantly, against the Republican (not the party) spirit of government. For all of the sliminess of Bill Clinton, I think it was a mistake for the Republicans to impeach him and that it would be a greater mistake to impeach Obama at this point. If something serious comes up? Sure. But I don’t see any indication of that yet.

ChePibe on October 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM

The Net is their greatest enemy. Site are set up where people can exchange ideas in seconds, instead of being shunted to some editor who has power to pick and choose. It’s a new era, and the MSM is going to have to do something to save itself. In my estimation, they’ll remain behind the times for a while; the slowest way to accomplish anything is by committee.

Absolutely correct. They have yet to figure out the obvious.

Leave the instant news stuff to the net. Focus on in-depth stories. And STOP beating the dead horse.

Get rid of using “experts,” except when they are authentically experts. Everytime an earthquake hits, we all tune into our CA gal who is an expert. She’s the real deal. She’s matronly, reassuring, and never fails to answer the same old questions that, “No, we can’t predict earthquakes,” without becoming irritating or condescending.

I’d feel lost without her. *haha

But the ones they are getting on now? Oy vey. A good third of posters on here are better polical analysts than some getting airtime right now.

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Not to nitpick, but impeachment is not limited to “high crimes and misdemeanors.” REMOVAL is so limited. (US Const. Art. II,§4)
That said, I have little doubt that any attempt to impeach Obama on the existing record would provoke a disastrous political backlash.

Seth Halpern on October 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM

By no stretch of the imagination am I a legal scholar of any sort what-so-ever. But, Obama having sworn to uphold the constitution, and patently underminnig said document at almost every turn, surely merits the label “high crimes and misdemeanors does it not?

Exhibit 1,
Arbogation of contract law in the denuding of GM,s & Chrysler’s preffered shareholders.

Exhibit 2,
Circumvention of bankruptcy law in same action above.

Exhibit 3,
Breach of contract by way of treaty pacts with two sovereign nations,Poland & Czechland.

Exhibit 4,
The use of public office and employees for partisan purposes, the NEA + the various efforts entailing Obama’s volunteer programs.

Surely in one these, or upcoming revelations of vote rigging/voter intimidation in the primaries and the general. Or in the possible collusion with Paul Booth(AFSCME) and Andy Stern(SEIU) dealing against an elected representitive, Arnold Gov of CA.

Not to mention what yet may arise from Patrick Fitzgerald’s ongoing investigations in Chicago. Things have been awfully quiet on the Fitzy front, but trust me between Obamas (both), Emanuel, Axelrod, Jarrett, Gouliannis, & the Blago/Daley machine someone, somewhere is gonna talk.
Especially as the shine wears off The One’s “refomer” image and he becomes more politically vulnerable. If his polls continue to tank and he begins to be percieved as weak here in Chicago, someone is going to roll-over.

The moronic case above is lame at best and works to discredit any future efforts at impeachment. BTW, such pre-emptive tactics are standard proceedure in the methodolgy we have come to call, The Chicago Way.

Hmmmmm,… read into that what you will.

Archimedes on October 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM

What the hell happened to the Speaker Of The House being the 3rd in lime for the Presidency???

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Read the Constitution. If the President leaves the scene, the VP moves up and then appoints a replacement VP (a la Gerald Ford) who is confirmed by Congress. If BOTH the POTUS and the VEEP leave the scene before a new VP can be confirmed, then you start going down through the line of succession…

mcassill on October 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Thanks Macca! I will re-read it…oh, and I already corrected myself, but others were mistaken like me, so your post only further educates the mistaken (like me).
Danke!

Gob on October 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM

For all of the sliminess of Bill Clinton, I think it was a mistake for the Republicans to impeach him

I’ll take that one. :)

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:55 PM

http://veteranoutrage.com/?p=1166

Im sorry but i disagree because of one thing
what obama is currently doing
with the democrats is TREASON..

they Disobeyed the will of the people
they sicked the FBI and nepalitano on veterans in the usa
they activly helped the Islamic terrorists and even sent them to bermuda all paid for at our expense
they tried to jail cia officers while allowing
islamic terrorists to roam free in downtown usa

These alone are charges worthy of at least a grand jury
or impeachement
I honestly would trust osama bin laden MORE
than all of the democrats and obama combined..

For osama is only trying to kill us

Democrats are trying to destroy our entire nation..

They are ALL EVIL..

http://veteranoutrage.com

To damned bad if you dont like it..

veteranoutrage on October 17, 2009 at 2:57 PM

I say we do it the old fashioned way: via the ballot box. That makes the victory even sweeter. Simply impeaching Obama will not resolve the problems we face. And besides, who would take over? Oy!

Philly on October 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Breach of contract by way of treaty pacts with two sovereign nations,Poland & Czechland.

Hello. Our history on treaties is quite checkered, and that’s being charitable. I love to read history. Talk about reneging on treaties? Man, we set records!

The Indian treaties are the most obvious, but it only starts there.

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM

And who the heck still finds Floyd Brown relevant? He was a loser has-been 15 years ago…

mcassill on October 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Section. 4. 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.

Treason can be defined in various ways… and it could even come down to abrogating his oath to not protect and defend the Constitution…

Now… Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.

Sadly that definition pretty much describes the Washington political scene…

Romeo13 on October 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Democrats are trying to destroy our entire nation..

They are ALL EVIL..

I’d scold you, but they say the same about Republicans. I don’t get either side.

It’s just silly. We’re all well-intentioned. However, solutions differ, and visions differ, and someone is right or wrong or a bit right or wrong, anyway.

I do appreciate our democracy. It allows for experimentation on solutions. Hate the other guy’s ideas, OK. But some work. And the yin-yang of the system seems to actually work better than what I see in a lot of other types of governments.

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM

A good third of posters on here are better polical analysts than some getting airtime right now.

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM

And that’s the killer of the old MSM! We the People no longer need ‘experts’ telling us what and wherefore.

We can talk amongst ourselves, reach a united front despite difference of detail, and keep ourselves free.

Funny, might you agree, the press has long called itself ‘the fourth estate’, like they’re part of government?

I like the Net, it’s freedom.

Which is why governments the world over are trying hard to get control.

Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Archimedes on October 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM

A powerful assessment, to be sure.

All you have shown, though, is that Congress alone is responsible, not Obama.

Most faults in American history rest with Congress, not the White House. If Congress did its job, the president couldn’t do squat.

Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM

CORRECTION: Removal is mandatory for high crimes. Otherwise it is implicitly optional.

Seth Halpern on October 17, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Funny, might you agree, the press has long called itself ‘the fourth estate’, like they’re part of government?

I like the Net, it’s freedom.

Which is why governments the world over are trying hard to get control.

Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM

It’s still absolutely vital to support the Fourth Estate, since that demands access to records. Even in our system, politicians try to clam up, justifying it on the grounds of over-reaction of people. (They are right. It does bog down the system.)

HOWEVER, without that access, nobody can get past talking points.

People always look at dictator countries and think it’s about coups, etc. I never have agreed. I think it’s about information.

That’s the big difference.

AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 3:05 PM

As I recall, Clinton’s approval ratings shot up when he was impeached. Democrats love portraying themselves as victims, because they always seem to win when they make it personal. Would impeaching Obama also raise his approval ratings?

JohnJ on October 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM

They didn’t have a Constitution like we do

Are you sure? The way I read it, they actually did have a constitution, but Hitler made himself the highest law of the land in 1933, thus rendering it void?

Shay on October 17, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3