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”.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
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
While absolutely disgraceful, this is regretably all too true. Party-wise I do not know if either one is more guilty in regards to our dishonorable treatment of the Indian Nations. This is a stain on us that cannot be white washed and forever saddens me.
However, in the case of foreign nations the record over the last century is crystal clear. The Dhimmicrats fight tooth and nail agaist our support of “allies” whilst bandying about like supplicants on bended knee before tyrants.
Archimedes on October 17, 2009 at 3:10 PM
No problem, Liam. I understand the arguments of those who think that The Precedent’s misconduct doesn’t arise to the level of impeachment. The fact is, however, that impeachable is whatever Congress decides it is, and the mechanism was put in place to allow Congress a final check on Executive authority in cases where the Executive is totally out of control and driving the nation into irrecoverable damage – which is pretty clearly the situation we have now (even by Ed’s own ‘radical’ and ‘disastrous’ descriptions). That said, the Washington junta isn’t about to do anything of the sort, as they are as culpabale in a lot of the Constitution-shredding, nation-killing policies of The Precedent.
I would just say, though, that Congress’ own determination of prosecutable offenses (as with their desire to jail the last administration, along with their glee at going after our CIA and military for the horrible offense of putting the value of the lives of the US citizenry over the value of the lives of terrorists and enemies bent on destroying us) makes it clear that The Precedent falls easily within their own estimations. For example, they wanted Bush impeached for the firing of certain US attorneys, but The Precedent has done much worse, and the blatant politicization of the Justice Department far exceeded anything they had ever even accused Bush of doing. Just dropping the Black Panther case is more than enough – as that attacks the very fabric of our electoral processes. And that was but one small example. Not nearly the worst.
I have to diasagree, here. The removal is not hard, at all. All it takes is an indictment by the House and a conviction by the Senate. That is, clearly, political, and is much less difficult a process than amending the Constitution – which has been done many times. The real difficulty in impeachment is the people’s view of it, as a last resort. But, in the current situation, the US has never been faced with anything like the current Executive. Nothing even close, either in terms of the America-hate that oozes from the office, or the blatant disregard for any considerations of Constitutionality, or for the actual crimes that emanate from the office.
To go back to what I wrote above, the removal requires nothing more than a vote in the House and a vote in the Senate, essentially. Now, we have a House and Senate that have argued in favor of voting for things that no one has read (that aren’t even actually written in full, for the Crap&Trade in the House), so one cannot look at House and Senate votes as anything sacred to these folks. They have relegated such votes to the level of utter political profanity. Their doing, not ours. In doing so, the votes for impeachment are reduced in status, in kind. Given that the reasons for impeachment abound (by my estimate) this is a double whammy for them.
I have no doubts about where you stand, Liam. We just disagree on this specific impeachment issue. It’s a hearty disagreement, but I have no problem understanding your reluctance in this matter.
Personally, I’m not big on the Nazi analogy. The useful idiots in the feral government tend to view themselves more as the rebirth of the French Revolution than anything. Of course, the French Revolution was pretty friggin’ barbaric and awful. A Reign of Terror is the way they are headed, more than Nazi camps. The problem, of course, is that centralized control opens us up to all sorts of possibilities – many of which would be out of the blue and not part of any intended process.
As to our Constitution, the feral government acts as if we don’t have one. They push the policies of a totally unrestrained government – in exact opposition to the purpose of our Constitutional basis. Effectively, we have no Constitution.
I am in full agreement, here, and have written exactly this many times.
I hear you. I have seen more than enough. To me, he has committed serious crimes, has perverted the office, has worked against the interests of our nation, and has proven himself more than destructive enough to warrant removal from office. If they don’t remove him, then the US will end up splitting, anyway, which might be better in the end, as the new nation can form without having to carry all the baggage of awful decisions and precedent of some of the more disastrous rulings over the past few decades.
The whole impeachment should be a moot point, anyway, as the Constitutional ineligibility should have been enough. Of course, those cases can’t even get so much as a hearing in court, because that would depend on our nation feeling bound by the prescriptions of the Constitution, which the feral government doesn’t … and that brings us back to the original point.
We have really gotten ourselves into a pickle on this one. The escape, however it happens, is not going to be pretty, but the alternative is the fulfillment of national suicide that was declared on Nov 4th.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Your logic is sound, but it assumes a powerful established media that’s politically neutral. But it’s not.
We have two media camps: the MSM, and the Alternative. We’re polarized, and I’m not thrilled at all. I rather all news media be politically neutral.
Really, there is NO 4th estate. That concept, among the media, is a usurpation, and arrogance of self and profession. It’s reported a lot of reporters don’t thing their job is to report history, but rather it’s their obligation to MAKE history.
Inflated egos, anyone?
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:13 PM
I disagree. People followed Starr. By the end, regular folks knew it was a complete witchhunt.
They were disgusted. That didn’t mean they thought Bill hadn’t messed up. But FDR had a mistress in the WH. Frankly, the country was used to hidden stories.
People aren’t as judgmental about this stuff as imagined.
I think people were as disgusted when various GOP philanders were outted. True, they presented themselves as representative of good family values, while behaving badly behind the scenes. The hypocricy bugs people.
But not the actual behavior. That’s just policians. We’ve always known that this type of person has vices and weaknesses.
Ego drives them.
AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Then I’m not stating it well. I do not thing that the current media is objective. They can’t even report “shots heard over the Potomac” objectively right now. It’s truly bad.
I do love to read history, and periods of “yellow journalism” are definitely a part of our own.
My issue is access to records.
That is vital to defend.
AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I haven’t read all your essay, but I thought to get this out. I’ll be back to all you wrote; you have a valuable mind.
What is impeachable isn’t what Congress decides. It’s what the Supreme Law of the Land–the Constitution–provides.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Well the Dims ignored all this for 8 years so all we are doing is following their low standards.
Speedwagon82 on October 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM
You never fail to impress.
fourdeucer on October 17, 2009 at 3:20 PM
On this point I must strenuously disagree. The Constitution leaves the definitions and decisions regarding impeachment to the Congress (unlike the clause ‘natural born citizen’ for which the definition exists in the Constitution, itself, and can only be detailed by either the SCOTUS or an amendment specifiying it). The SCOTUS has no say in impeachment procedures, other than the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate trial.
Thank you, fourdeucer.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 3:27 PM
These calls for impeachment were all over at the last tea party rally I went to. It really opened my eyes to the mind set of some of these folks. They don’t understand the system. You can’t impeach someone for making decisions you don’t like. We have no one to blame but ourselves for Obama. We didn’t work hard enough. How many of you folks chose to not volunteer during the last election? Get involved, period, or shut up.
NoStoppingUs on October 17, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Liam, these are the relevant citations where the Constitution leaves all impeachment power to the Congress.
Art I, Sec 2:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Art I, Sec 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Why are you guys even entertaining this? The GOP can’t defeat even the simplest of bills, nevermind mastermind an impeachment.
You’ve lost me here.
AnninCA on October 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM
The fact is, however, that impeachable is whatever Congress decides it is
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 3:12 PM
I haven’t read all your essay, but I thought to get this out. I’ll be back to all you wrote; you have a valuable mind.
What is impeachable isn’t what Congress decides. It’s what the Supreme Law of the Land–the Constitution–provides.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Hey Liam,
I think on this one p-o-p has got it right, that it is indeed whatever congress deems as impeachable, is. I think this (termHigh Crimes & Misdemeanors) was witten in very vague terms intentionally so as to allow the will of the people through their elected reps the greatest latitude of when it should be raised.
The entire action in the impeachment WJClinton was in congress with nary a word about it by the supremes.
Archimedes on October 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM
On that point, I surely disagree. Here’s why:
Under our justice system, there must be presented evidence. To convict, reasonable doubt must be absent. To acquit, there must be reasonable doubt among the jury.
Leaving Congress to decide what is acceptable or exculpatory is to violate the rule of law we cherish. Imagine a jury deciding which part of law is denied? Yes, there’s the concept of jury nullification, a concept with which I’m somewhat ambivalent.
Any president, being impeached, should and shall enjoy FULL rights guaranteed every other Citizen under the Constitution. The last thing I would like seeing is a jury, or Congress especially, deciding what should be a verdict absent existing laws. It’s not, or ever should be, subjective.
I also don’t believe the Constitution was written to allow that kind of ‘out’ to impeach a sitting president.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Ehhhh… no. Much as I dislike Obama’s actions. He’s done nothing impeachable.
yet.
But you keep this up and we’re going to sound like the Kos whiners not 1 year ago. Or maybe that’s the whole point.
Skywise on October 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM
First, courts look at Congressional intent all the time to resolve issues of what a law means and what it was intended to mean. In terms of the intent behind the U.S. Constitution, the premiere source is the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS has repeatedly heard arguments and based opinions in Constitutional questions on the intent of the Framers included in the Federal Papers. If YOU knew anything besides realpolitik horseshit and appeasement of the Left, you’d know that.
Federalism is dead. We live in a nearly pure Democracy. That is, an Ochlocracy — MOB RULE.
It does not matter that he was Democratically elected. So were Achmadinejad, Hussein, and a who’s who of Tyrants.
We are presently in the midst of a Communist Coup D’Etat. The fact that an ignorant populace voted for it is of no import.
The Putschist in Chief, our historical First Woman President, has, by fiat, routinely disregarded the U.S. Constitution and eliminated the very Rule of Law. He and the Democrat Congress are now in the pocess of implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy in an effort to destroy the entire U.S. economy. They will then usher in the new Communist planned economy and government.
If Obama is not impeached, there are only two possible results:
1) Revolt; or,
2) Tyranny
We know which Ed Morischmuck would choose.
Barack Obama IS an ENEMY OF THE STATE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF OVERTHROWING OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED FEDERAL REPUBLIC.
TREASON, and the OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT AS FOUNDED are plenty enough justification for not only impeachment, conviction, and removal from office; but also for being charged, tried, convicted, and HUNG as a traitor to the Union.
While our Nation is dismantled before our eyes, Quisling Neo-Statists like Morriputz will continue to wring their hands about how true-blue Americanism is “Perceived” and whether real conservatives might lose “Credibility” in the eyes of the State-Run Media, Leftists, and the ignorant independents who voted for “Change” without bothering to question what kind of change was intended.
Eyas on October 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I don’t believe Congress can or should decide what is what. There are laws, and Congress has to abide by them. Any president impeached should and shall enjoy all rights under the Constitution.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:41 PM
The terms “high crimes and misdemeanors” meant mischevious behavior. It is not a legal term as there is no definition of what constitutes a “high crime”. Clinton’s “crimes” while criminal in nature in that he committed perjury certainly did not effect how the country was governed. Obama, on the other hand, has governed and is trying to govern outside the parameters outlined in the Constitution. Government interference in the bankruptsy of GM and the bailout of AIG was just a start. Surely impeachment is a political tool to remove someone from office who tries to deviate too far from what the framers intended. All of this is dependent upon Congress which makes it less than easy and not something often used.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM
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.
Dictatorial powers require precisely nada by congress to enact. A declaration of an emergency grants powers to the executive office that would make your head spin. They were mind boggling pre 9/11, after Bush greatly expanded them, the term police state is not far off.
Despite the left going ape-shit (with some legitamacy) Bush never invoked these powers. However, in what I feel was a dangerous case of short-sightedness he left the door open for any future tyrant that may abscond to high office.
Archimedes on October 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM
There was no witchhunt. Clinton actually committed felonies. He was even disbarred by the Supreme Court unanimously. He should have been removed from office for his crimes, but the media saved him.
JohnJ on October 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Skywise on October 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Really? Done nothing impeachable — according to what?
Eyas on October 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM
How about for giving the Russians tours of our missile facilities?
mizflame98 on October 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM
you’re right. He also had his law license revoked in AK for five years, if I recall correctly.
Very serious…
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Jesus, so much talk about The Constitution.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS DEAD YOU DUMB SHITS!
Eyas on October 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Only if we let it be.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I’m not a religious man. In fact, I’m an atheist.
But, I was put on this Earth, in this Nation, at this time in history, only to give warning.
That some ignore the warning phazes me not at all. That most Americans will never get the warning, and would disregard it if they did, bothers me a great deal.
Let those who have ears hear; Let those who have eyes see; and let those who would fiddle as Rome burns, themselves burn in Hell for eternity.
Thatisall.
Eyas on October 17, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Does no one here realize that the impeachment process is impossible as long as Democrats control Congress?
C’mon people, you’re wasting valuable time on this when you could be spending it working to help a conservative candidate unseat a liberal or a RINO in the 2010 election.
Lynn2008 on October 17, 2009 at 3:56 PM
JohnJ on October 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM
you’re right. He also had his law license revoked in AK for five years, if I recall correctly.
Very serious…
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM
FYI, Both Michelle & Barack lost their licences to practice law here in Illinois. For what, I have no idea, and trust I’ve looked. But if you go to the State of Illinois web-site it most definitively states that each lost their licences. If memory serves, MO in ’93, and BO in ’96.
Archimedes on October 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM
For an atheist, you seem to have hope in God to match your cynicism. Your last post speaks as if from Revelation, knowing believing what is to come.
No attack here, no cynical criticism of you. Just my view you have more going on than you realize. Very cool!
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Cite the law he’s broken.
Skywise on October 17, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Impeachment is not a criminal case and does not result in criminal penalties. Impeachment extends no further than removal from office. This is not the same as a citizen being tried in court. The impeached President, once removed from office, might then have to face criminal trial for the allegations brought up by the impeachment, and in that would have the full rights of any citizen in a criminal trial. For the impeachment, itself, the House decides what it considers to be impeachable (calling whatever it is “high crimes and misdemeanors” as that definition is part of the power given to Congress, or specifically ‘treason’, the definition of which is provided within the Constitution, or ‘bribery’) and then it is all up to the vote. No one else has any say in this process.
The Senate then has the Chief Justice presiding over the trial (the input of the SCOTUS in this process) but as you pointed out with jury nullification (which the SCOTUS has ruled as acceptable and legal) the Senate vote is what it is, no matter what the Chief Justice says or does.
Again, there are no criminal liabilities or penalties emanating from this procedure – just ejection from office – so considerations of criminal court restrictions and rights don’t apply, as the Constitution was clear in leaving out and in giving all power over the process to the Congress.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Impeachment is a mess. I, as much as anyone, wish to see this man out of office, but I want to do it through our election process.
Impeachment would only hurt the conservative movement, and right now we have momentum. Patience is a virtue.
Noelie on October 17, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Ah, but any charges MUST stem from the president’s breaking existing laws! Congress cannot just drop such a bomb without having cause to accuse under law.
Impeachment, under the Constitution, REQUIRES violation of a law. A criminal law, especially. Hence the quote and requirement of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. Congress should never be arbitrary which, as you’re going, would make them the final arbiters of right and wrong. As we see all the time, Congress is the last place where we should put so much power and authority, that they might sit above the law. Remember, too, they are the ones who write and enact the law.
A president should never be at loss of any law that requires what is among the People.
Obama may well be guilty of infraction. As a conservative, I want and demand hard-core bona fide proof of it.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Impeachment is a mess. I, as much as anyone, wish to see this man out of office, but I want to do it through our election process.
Impeachment would only hurt the conservative movement, and right now we have momentum. Patience is a virtue.
Noelie on October 17, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Unfortantely, I think this is indeed the case, an impeachment hearing would be counter-productive, i.e. a WJC redux. Unless a truly damning, iron-clad case of an egregious transgression were brought and executed. One that went beyond an asterix in the history books, but actually led to removal from office. Anything that fell short of this standard would not be in our best interests.
Archimedes on October 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Yes they did. Dachau opened in March 1933, two months into the Hitler administration.
Your Nazi analogies make you look foolish. Even more so when you can’t get your facts straight.
Grow Fins on October 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Ed, I rarely disagree with you, but this time I must.
Obama is EXACTLY like Adolf Hitler.
I’m not going to claim to be an expert in Nazi Germany, but I have always been fascinated by that evil period in history, and have tried to learn as much as I can about that point in time.
Now taking over banks and car companies is too easy of a comparison. Remember, the Volkswagen was Hitler’s baby. Obama is not smart enough to be involved in modern automobile design, but you just know his idea of a “people’s car” is out there somewhere.
People forget that the Nazis were “green freaks” just like the “progressive” nut jobs we have now. The Volkswagen was just as much of a “green machine” as anything that Obama and his idiots would come up with. It’s “green design” was part of the deal.
Nazis were also “health nuts.” Hitler banned smoking, and preached a “healthy lifestyle” to the extreme. Just like today’s bunch. Of course, in Germany, your body belonged to Hitler.
And what about Obama’s strong arm “Chicago” politics, intimidating business, media, and private citizens?
Hitler used the labor unions before he built his own “private army” as enforcers.
Obama sent out his SEIU union thugs to townhall meetings to do the same. Remember when Obama told these union thugs to “punch back twice as hard” and then they went out and promptly sent Kenneth Gladney to the hospital?
Obama is also on record saying he wants a “civilian defense force as large and well funded as the military.”
How Hitleresque!
I could go on and on and on. But suffice it to say, actions wise, agenda wise, Obama=Hitler.
It WOULD NOT be hard to build the case for impeachment. In fact, I think it should be the litmus test for everyone running for office in 2010!
Every Republican running for the House should be asked to answer yes or no as to whether they would participate in submitting articles of impeachment, and every one running for the Senate should be asked if they were inclined to convict, if the evidence is there.
Obama has consistently violated the Constitution. Hell ObamaCare is unconstitutional!
People that say “lay off the Hitler deal” or “shhh, don’t talk about impeaching this moron” really anger me, as do the ones who try to shut down the “birthers.”
Look, I have no idea where Obama was born, and neither does anyone else, except those that were actually there, and most of them are dead!
I do know THIS: Obama has spent over $1.5 million fighting all attempts to see his REAL birth certificate. One can get a certified copy of the REAL Hawaiian BC for around $10.
NO ONE spends that kind of money for giggles. Something is wrong.
BTW, Obama’s half sister, who for sure was born in Indonesia, has the exact same BC as the one Obama trots out and claims to be kosher.
Again, I have no earthly idea if the “birthers” are wrong. But there is certainly enough evidence, real evidence, that something isn’t right about Obama, and not right enough that it demands serious consideration and investigation.
Impeachment is a no brainer. The case for that is solid, and only growing. It’s simply a matter of having the guts to do it.
Frankly, what I would love to see, and I call for it often when I write, is to see a simple movement demanding Obama resign for the good of the nation.
Instead of formal impeachment, he should be strongly urged to step down, admit his failure, and move on.
The poll posted that only 43 percent of America would re-elect this guy shows that a campaign asking Obama to just go away would have strong support. That also might be more palpable to some than actually impeaching the man.
A strong campaign of this type would also put serious pressure on the democrat/communist Congress to get it’s act together, and back off of their insane path.
One thing is for sure, if Obama isn’t stopped, 2010 may not get here quick enough. As much destruction as he has caused in these 9 1/2 months, think what he can do between now and a year from now!
I guess my point is that it’s reckless to try and quash these efforts of sincere and level headed patriots who see Obama and his thugs as the biggest threat this nation has ever faced.
One wonders if our founding fathers faced such scorn from the news people of the their day. Remember, these men were revolutionaries. They were preparing to violently overthrow the Crown!
“Birthers” and those promoting impeachment simply want to use the Constitution, something our founders fought a revolution over, and something men have fought and died for for 233 years to preserve, as a LEGAL mechanism to A) make sure Obama really is legit or B) remove him from power.
Would folks rather see fighting in the streets?
gary4205 on October 17, 2009 at 4:29 PM
!FOOD FOR THOUGHT!
Who Am I?
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
I grow up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
At first, my political campaign focused on my countrys foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the countrys economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
Mine was a people’s campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nations leader. However, anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
Who am I?
Adolf Hitler
WHO WERE YOU THINKING?
Archimedes on October 17, 2009 at 4:34 PM
If nothing else, Osama Obama and his gang of totalitarian thugs in Congress are exposing the Constitution’s sole major flaw: it was designed for a government made up of rational, patriotic people.
The Founders could not have imagined the kind of government the Chicago Jesus and his stooges are establishing. If they had had any inkling, I suspect certain details would have been reworded — such as Congress’s (and the President’s) immunity from arrest for civil crimes while “on the job” — and certain safeguards added.
When a political cabal achieves absolute power, as the Traitor-in-Chief and his fellow Democrats have done, the Constitution offers little hope for the victims of their rule. If it were a simple matter of patriotic citizens disagreeing, which Ed (looking out from his sealed blog-bubble) seems to think it is, we’d have no problem.
But the only recourse when tyranny takes over is found in the Declaration of Independence.
MrScribbler on October 17, 2009 at 4:37 PM
There are many parallels, as you stated, and I largely agree with you.
But pre-Hitler Germany isn’t America. A world apart, really. Germany, at that time, never had an inkling of our American way. So they blew it, as can have been expected.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 4:38 PM
gary4205 makes a a good argument. Although I seriously doubt that a movement to impeach Obama will go any where. Conservatives today don\’t have the cojones…
mcplumbercuda on October 17, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I must, once again, strenuously disagree. The fact that the Constitution gave Congress “sole power” over impeachment says it all. Congress gets to decide, for itself, what constitutes “cause”, restricted only by the later listing of ‘treason’ (Constitutionally defined), ‘bribery’ and ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ (left to Congress to define).
‘High crime’ is not a legal description. ‘Misdemeanor’ describes, if one takes the legal definition, offenses of the the least serious sort. The Constitution did not mean that Congress must find a legal, misdemeanor offense (like jaywalking, for instance) to be part of impeachment. “High crimes and misdemeanors” was descriptive, not definitional, and offered only as a guide to Congress, which was left with the power to define what constituted a ‘high crime’ or ‘misdemeanor’ in regards to impeachment.
Only in the case of impeachment, which the Constitution makes it the final arbiter. This is not an anomaly. The Constitution also makes Congress the final arbiter in determining right and wrong as regards the high seas and crimes of nations, Art I, Sec 8:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
I understand your argument, but this power was part of the separation and checks and balances. The power of Congress over impeachment could have been changed, at any time, with a Constitutional amendment. As written and as it stands, now, Congress has “sole power” over impeachments.
I don’t follow you on this. It is the not the person who occupies the office who is at risk of anything in impeachment, but only the determination that he can continue to occupy the office. Impeachment is a highly restricted process (penalty-wise), which is why power was given to the Congress. If impeachment resulted in criminal penalties, too, than I could see your point. But, it doesn’t.
I could list dozens of actual infractions of law (if proven) and, even worse, actively working to intentionally harm the nation through his official powers and lending aid and comfort to the enemy, including, but not restricted to, rendering the Constitution impotent – as he expressed the desire and intention to do (explicitly) more than a few times in the past.
We both know that this impeachment discussion is purely theoretical, as this Congress would never even think of it and most of the GOP haven’t the guts to even talk about it, but I think it is an important discussion to have. The idea that anyone thinks impeachment talk is radical, as compared to what Congress and The Precedent are actually doing (and trying to do) should be quite chilling.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Bingo!
QOTD!
Sapwolf on October 17, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Thank you Grow Fins.
I had a similar discussion with a bozo a few years ago.
It started right out of the gate.
Sapwolf on October 17, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Thanks.
I don’t know. I don’t know a single person in my circle of family and friends that wouldn’t be on board. I think it would be the RINOs who would be the hindrance.
Frankly though, this is why I advocate a very loud campaign asking Obama to just step down, resign. You start from there, and easily (and quickly) get the majority on your side. THEN you go for impeachment if the first movement hasn’t had the desired effect.
gary4205 on October 17, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Ed … I think it’s enough for you to just say you think this is a wasted effort and let conservatives decide if they want to support this impeachment movement or not.
I’m becoming increasingly agitated by the RINO side’s seeming disdain for the democratic process. And I’ll include this article by Ed in the agitation.
By the way Ed – I agree with you that is a wasted effort. But I would never ridicule fellow conservatives who think this might be a worthwhile use of their time.
If you’re a conservative … don’t you believe in the free sharing of ideas – having faith that the free market process will cause the best ones to surface and the worst to drown?
Apparently not Ed.
HondaV65 on October 17, 2009 at 4:53 PM
We need the people who actually know the REAL dirt on Obama to come forward so we can have the corruption charges proven, then move to impeach. Only when a rock solid case has been built that he cannot argue without lying like a rug will I support an impeachment effort.
Of course, zero could STILL do something that deserves impeachment, but I believe he’s corrupt enough to support one as it stands, we just don’t have the documentation.
Until that happens, I wish people like this bozo that completely skews history hoping enough stupid people will buy into it to move him along in his fundraising efforts..which makes me think;
Either he’s JUST doing this for fund raising, or he’s really a liberal trying to string along enough dumbass republicans to discredit them completely and use their own stupidity as a weapon in the next and 2012 elections. Either way, it’s bad and he needs to STFU.
Spiritk9 on October 17, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Damn, but you’re impelling, aren’t you? I enjoy this, too.
Congress might well have sole power in impeachment processes, but I can’t accept that was meant to mean total discretion and/or subjectivity. Going back, historically, I see the provision meaning that either an individual Citizen or State legislature has no power to impeach the President.
I don’t see the provision meaning that Congress can just do some kind of arbitrary thing. By extention, it means that Congress is still bound by the law.
The provisions of impeachment rest with Congress alone. But I can’t see anywhere that a president is absent of other rights retained by the people.
Yes, with you on this, I believe Obama is a total mess and might well be guilty of criminal offenses. At least, aiding and abetting those who have also done so.
But I need proof, the kind of thing that will stand in a court of law. Being a conservative, I gotta have that first. If and when such is proven, I’ll go with it where I’m able.
Good talk with you, BTW.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Yeah, the silly “Impeach Bush” crap where they were comparing him to a particular Nazi leader, fudging their history and reading the wrong stuff from history didn’t work either.
Ryan Gandy on October 17, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I guess you meant “compelling”?
Ed Morrissey’s QOTD: “Those arguments do nothing but make a certain portion of the grassroots look ill-educated and hysterical.”
Grow Fins on October 17, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I didn’t see where Ed advocated censorship, or suggested debate should be stifled. He characterized these tinfoil “arguments” as what they are–idiotic and misinformed.
Grow Fins on October 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Yes, wrong term while multitasking.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM
It’s funny how all of these nut jobs – and you are nut jobs, calling Obama “just like Hitler!” – hate the Republican party, but demand impeachment. You can’t have it both ways, and as long as you continue to rail against any and all Republicans (lets face it, you’re damn near anarchists), impeachment isn’t even plausible.
NoStoppingUs on October 17, 2009 at 5:11 PM
With Nancy Pelosi next in line.
*shudders*
Yakko77 on October 17, 2009 at 5:17 PM
I don’t know that anyone has said that Obama is “just like Hitler!”, but there are pronounced similarities and to not see them one must close the eyes of his mind and keep them shut by force.
MB4 on October 17, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Clinton is a sexual predator. He lied under oath about predatory tendencies. (Don’t forget Paula Jones the victim) That is a FELONY.
A FELONY is a HIGH CRIME.
Clinton needed to be removed from office for committing a HIGH CRIME.
Obama hasn’t committed a high crime yet, at least that we know of, but it’s obvious he hates America so we have to stop him through the ballot come election time.
scotash on October 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM
The Pubs are to blame for that. They didn’t have the brass to do the job for We the People.
I can’t blame Dems for that fiasco, but the Pubs.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM
….TO PRESERVE, TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES….
He is in violation of his oath of office, and is working hard to transfer those “negative rights” of the Constitution into some kind of Progressive Cancer nightmare for the U.S.A. at what point will his violation of the oath be enough? What might be a tipping point?
Perhaps a video of the President HIMSELF quoting Mao or speaking glowingly? How about audio or video of Obama saying something like “Let me be clear, we will never have a fully fair America until this Constitution is replaced and the Founders rejected.”
Does Beck or Breitbart already have this video?
PappyD61 on October 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Does anyone really doubt…….
That some Lib group has already bought the domain names of IMPEACHPALIN.COM
IMPEACHROMNEY.COM
IMPEACHHUCK.COM
IMPEACHPAWS.COM
This is a game that the LIBS have no problem playing yet the GOP just can’t bring itself to play hardball politics………..and THAT friends is why the GOP gets Michael Steele promoting some stupid “WHATUP” website and a CAJONES-FREE GOP.
PappyD61 on October 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Archimedes at 2:54 PM – add to your list Obama’s effort to co-sponsor anti-free speech resolution at the UN
Rather than up holding our Constitutional rights, he blatantly undermines them.
**********
Archimedes @4:34 PM
that’s a keeper!
heroyalwhyness on October 17, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Me too. I’d take Joe any day. I prefer a patriotic bumbler to an America-hating (a la Alinsky and Wright) international socialist.
petefrt on October 17, 2009 at 5:58 PM
I don’t think impeachment is so well defined as you imply. It appears you can impeach for any plausible cause, and the real threshold is whether you can get enough of Congress to agree.
Clinton, for example, absolutely should have been impeached for the White House Travel Office scandal alone. Falsely accusing private citizens of fraud so you can give their jobs to political cronies is as sleazy as you can get.
Obama has done multiple things that could plausibly bring impeachment, such as meddling in Honduras, firing Inspectors General, depriving GM bondholders of their property so he could give it to the unions — very similar to Travelgate, and personal corruption linking him to Rezko and Acorn. The reason impeachment is not plausible at this point is that a Democratic Congress would never go along with it unless the evidence was so overwhelming they had no choice. And maybe not even then. Plus, you could be sure voting against impeachment would be rationalized because of his “historic” presidency.
But I’ll certainly agree that impeachment talk needs to wait until it’s cleare we have the goods. I expect eventual impeachment simply because I think he’s a lot more corrupt than most realize.
BTW, I think Hitler is the wrong historic parallel. Mussolini is more like it.
tom on October 17, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Paddy, it’s not a few of playing ‘hardball politics’. It’s an understanding that it’s a wasted effort on our part. The far right is NOT the majority of the country. As much as I love the tea party, they are NOT the majority of the country. May a majority of the country agree with the basic principals of the tea party movement? Yeah. But a majority of them are not as extreme as some of these folks. It does us no good to demand impeachment. It only makes us look more extreme (think a bunch of Republican dennis kucinichs!) and allows the mainstream media to further alienate Conservatives into a permanent minority. One of the biggest tools liberals use is ridicule. Do you have any idea how easy it would be to ridicule any and every Republican and Conservative if they call for impeachment? Hello permanent Democrat majority! Some of you folks have never been involved in politics, have you? You just don’t get it. Incredible!
NoStoppingUs on October 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Not for nothing, but does this sound at all familiar?
Just sayin
AngelStandlngBy on October 17, 2009 at 6:04 PM
FIFY.
Despite not being “regular folk”, you’re a perfect example, because for some reason, like so many others without a clue, you believe he was impeached for having a mistress. He wasn’t. He was impeached for perjury, which is a crime. Just ask Scooter Libby, or Martha Stewart.
xblade on October 17, 2009 at 6:34 PM
As for impeaching Obama, wake up….it’s not going to happen. The Dems own congress….they’re not going to impeach their own president.
xblade on October 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM
If impeachment is not an option at this point, can we at least throw peaches at him? If you can get enough peaches on target before the secret service guns you down, one can say, regardless of the constitutional issues, “President Obama was impeached”.
keep the change on October 17, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Reading what Brown said, this almost sounds like an “Axlerod you magnificent bastard” moment for the Democrats.
Leaving aside how Floyd expects to get ‘r done, if that voice-never-cracked loon had his way, the 2010 Congressional elections will be fought instead of on all the screw-ups and failed promises of the first two years of Obama and the Democratic Congress, along the lines of “If the Republicans regain Congress they’re going to impeach Obama,” which is probably the only way to gin up African-American turnout in the off-year election, when Obama’s not on the ballot. Plus, it will force Republicans to have to deny a charge that — barring some obvious constitutional violation and not just asinine policy between now and next November — shouldn’t be a main campaign issue, but will be made one by Democrats wanting to talk about anything but their legislative and foreign policy failures.
Whatever it is Axelrod, Rahm or George Soros are paying Floyd Brown to do this, they’re getting more than their money’s worth.
jon1979 on October 17, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Excellent post.
A special prosecutor should look into the firing of Walpin even if it doesn’t lead back to Obama. Someone should DO something. It’s amazing how many crimes get glossed over just because you’re a high ranking politician (Rangel, etc.)
Daggett on October 17, 2009 at 7:06 PM
LOL.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Ugly as was that mess, the president has wide discretion. Those who serve with/under him do so at his/her pleasure. It’s the same as those eight fired Fed prosecutors under Bush that the Dems want to harangue for political points that mean little in the end.
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Impeach Obama? That\’s not really sound. Not yet anyways. It would be better to wait until he commits a crime first.But how about impeaching congress?
RedbonePro on October 17, 2009 at 7:21 PM
That’s why, in their infinite wisdom, the Framers gave us election every two years. Pure genius!
Liam on October 17, 2009 at 7:26 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
+1000!!!!!
Let’s not forget the takeover of Chrysler and GM, with Obama shredding contract law in order to steal billions from secured investors to hand the company to his union thugs and to himself – because Obama IS the U.S. govt.
That takeover was and remains an act of extortion, contract violation and larceny on the grandest of scales. He is a criminal and indeed makes the Water and Clintongate scandals pale. And it has only been nine months. If he doesn’t get impeached, we won’t have a country left. I expect that we will see the unfolding of the manufactured crisis leading to Marshall law and “delayed elections” before Nov. 2010 if it looks bad for the Dems or Obama isn’t sure that Acorn can steal enough votes. Obama doesn’t ever plan on leaving – ever – and he will will do the lowest and dirtiest to make sure he doesn’t lose Congress in 2010, either.
tigerlily on October 17, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Mixing up economic and political terms to criticize Ed’s opinion is kind of silly. I’ve pasted the definitions from Wikipedia for Free Market and Conservatism. Burke would probably consider Ed a conservative.
A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. The terminology is used by economists and in popular culture. A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates prices or how property is used.
Conservatism (from Latin: conservare = “save” or “preserve”[1]) is the diverse political and social philosophy that supports tradition and the status quo, or that calls for a return to the values and society of an earlier age, the status quo ante.[2] However, the term has been used by politicians and political commentators with a variety of meanings. The modern political term conservative was used by French politician Chateaubriand in 1819.[3]
In Western politics, the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought based on British politician Edmund Burke’s criticism of the French Revolution. Though his legacy as a conservative is disputed, he wrote against the excesses of mob rule.[4][5][6]
Bradky on October 17, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Try going to those sites you mention and you will see that no one has bought those domain names.
Bradky on October 17, 2009 at 8:06 PM
The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.
- Joseph Stalin
I suppose the same ‘logic’ applies to extortion, contract violation and larceny.
MB4 on October 17, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Issa dropped out of the race on August 7th. The deadline to file for the contest was August 9th. The election was October 7th. Issa was long gone before the real campaign even started. I don’t think his name even made it to the ballot.
If Arnold had lost, California would have had governor Cruz Bustamante. Anyone who thinks someone more conservative than Arnold could have won that election is living in a fantasy world. Anyone who thinks someone more conservative than Arnold is going to win the NEXT election for California governor does not really have a grasp of the California electorate.
John9400 on October 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM
gary4205 – Your brand of crazy is hilarious
My favorite part of your rant is that espousing a healthy lifestyle is nazi-esque. I guess any time someone says you should eat well and exercise, they must be like Hitler too.
Unless you can cite your ‘facts’ you are just … hot air.
A Axe on October 17, 2009 at 8:27 PM
It is what the Constitution calls for but the process requires the House of Representitives to pass a bill of impeachment, followed by a trial in the Senate after which a 2/3rds vote to convict is necessary to remove the sitting President from office. Given the Democrats’ control of both houses I find it hard to envision what offense Obama may commit / may have committed that would overturn their slavish devotion to him. I loathe the man and his policies but we’re going to have to derail them via taking away the Democrats’ Congressional majorities in 2010.
ya2daup on October 17, 2009 at 8:36 PM
or much more realistically:
3) Obama staggers on with depressingly low poll numbers until he is voted out of office in 2012.
John9400 on October 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Hmmm…I was told impeachment was patriotic. Oh yeah, that’s sooooo 2007.
BHO Jonestown on October 17, 2009 at 8:45 PM
No of course their not. The left is just slandering their opponents with phony racist charges until they are destroyed, having SEIU beat them up in the street, and passing bills to give Obama dictatorial powers whenever he can’t do it directly though his czars. Oh wait…
Look I agree that Obama hasn’t yet committed any offenses to get him impeached as far as we know, but to say there aren’t real and substantial similarities between the modern leftist power structure in America and the rise of Nazi Germany is foolish. One could easily find common ground between current American progressivism and the rise of nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Maoist China. The government is swallowing up private industry and civil liberties at a breakneck pace. What is end goal for modern progressives? It certainly isn’t European style socialism. It’s outright tyranny.
chicagojedi on October 17, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Breaking…
I dunno if anyone mentioned it, but there’s another mocking session goin’ on at LGF, regarding the comments in this thread.
But to be fair and balanced, I’ll also mention that there’s a mocking session of LGF goin’ on over here (warning: you will laugh).
ChenZhen on October 17, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Impeachment takes too long.
Alden Pyle on October 17, 2009 at 9:04 PM
It seems that all LGF can do these days is get together and discuss what’s going on somewhere else. In order for them to have a discussion on their own site, wouldn’t someone have to disagree with Charles Johnson? But disagreeing with Charles gets you a ban…
How many posters are left on LGF who hold a viewpoint opposite of Charles on ANY subject?
John9400 on October 17, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Impeachment is just a lot of wishful thinking, and I have no problem with that. No one is under the delusion that the Dems in Congress will vote to do anything about anything. It’s just a bumper sticker, not a legal argument (at the moment).
Ronnie on October 17, 2009 at 9:18 PM
That’s awesome.
Ronnie on October 17, 2009 at 9:20 PM
I wish all scholarly minds and technorats would work on what we do have.
Criminality……ACORN and SEIU……NEA……It is the key to taking these people down, even hussein. That should be the aim of a money raising group.
Breitbart and Glenn can’t do it all.
There are a lot of great minds right here tonight. Help Breitbart and Glenn with what we do have….not impeachment…arrest….not birthers…..arrests
nondhimmie on October 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM
The proportion of crazy to sane comments here used to be about 1/10. Now it’s more like 7/10.
crr6 on October 17, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Pragmatism isn’t insane. But live in your bubbly world.
A Axe on October 17, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Unless I’m mistaken, the president and vice-president would both have to go before the speaker of the house could be sworn in. If the vice-president becomes the president, isn’t a new vice-president chosen? And doesn’t that put the speaker back to 3rd-in-line?
sloopy on October 17, 2009 at 10:00 PM
You seem to assume that these “high crimes and misdemeanors” must be violations of written laws. I’m not sure that’s warranted. The grounds for impeachment and removal from office seem to have been defined only generally, and purposely so, for we cannot imagine all of the circumstances under which it may be best for the Americans remove a President from office. So the Congress may impeach a President and remove him from office on grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors, and high crimes and misdemeanors are the grounds for which a Congress does reasonably impeach a President and remove him from office.
None of this is said in defense of Floyd Brown.
Kralizec on October 17, 2009 at 10:02 PM
The president nominates and both Houses confirm.
Ronnie on October 17, 2009 at 10:07 PM
The Speaker moves backwards in the line of succession only after a new VP has taken office. That could be a considerable amount of time, as the new VP needs to pass through Senate confirmation before being allowed to assume the office, and there is no guarantee that the President’s nominee would pass confirmation.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Oops. Confirmation by both houses, as you said. My mistake on the above post.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Thank you, Ronnie and progressoverpeace. Yes, long process.
sloopy on October 17, 2009 at 10:16 PM
For historical perspective, Agnew resigned on Oct 10, 1973 and Ford didn’t pass confirmation and get into office until Dec 6, 1973.
Ford took the Presidency on Aug 9, 1974 (leaving the VP open) and Rockefeller came into the VP slot on Dec 19, 1974.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM
I agree there are no legal grounds for impeachment yet, and as a practical matter it’s a dead letter.
But this statement sadly reveals the limitations of being a pragmatist. True, neither Obama nor the Democrats in Congress (and many of the Republicans) are nowhere near the brutal level of Nazis. But that’s a very superficial analysis. Where it counts — in terms of ideas and policy — there are scant differences.
The Nazis were – as the name indicates – National Socialists. That is, they simultaneously pushed for socialist policies and touted national interests that those were alleged to serve.
At a deeper level, the Progressives in American government – which is who we’re really talking about here – are philosophically very close cousins of the Nazis. Collectivist to the core, unalterably statist, both groups are utterly opposed to private property and individual liberty. Yet, both want(ed) to retain the appearance of private property and capitalism while controlling it completely. I.e. both are committed to Fascism.
Don’t be misled by non-essentials. And don’t take my word for it. Read Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. Read Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Read Quin Hillyer’s columns on the subject in American Spectator. Or, just reflect seriously on your own about what has happened in the Federal Government the past two years, now on sterioids. The signs are all there and easy to read for anyone who doesn’t fear the disapproval of the Left for being thought “hysterical.”
JDPerren on October 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »