PDA

View Full Version : House Republicans Want To Impeach Eric Holder For Refusing To Defend Unconstitutional Law




aGameOfThrones
11-15-2013, 11:45 PM
WASHINGTON -- A fringe group of House Republicans announced this week they will try to make Attorney General Eric Holder the first cabinet official to be impeached since the reconstruction era. One of the reasons? He didn't defend an unconstitutional law.

One of the articles of impeachment against Holder backed by a small group of House Republicans, including Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Ted Yoho (Fla.) and Pete Olson (Texas), involves the Justice Department's decision not to defend key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. The Supreme Court, of course, agreed with the Obama administration's conclusion that the federal law recognizing only opposite-sex marriages was unconstitutional, and it struck down a portion of the law over the summer.

The Republicans also targeted Holder's decision not to sue Washington and Colorado for deciding to regulate rather than criminalize marijuana, arguing that he's not enforcing the Controlled Substances Act.


There are no signs that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will act on the resolution, Politico reports, and his office is referring calls elsewhere. House Republicans previously voted to find Holder in contempt of Congress because the Justice Department refused to turn over certain documents related to the botched ATF operation known as Fast and Furious. Holder said earlier this year the vote didn't have a big impact on him because he had no respect for anyone who voted to hold him in contempt.

During a visit to St. Louis on Thursday as part of his Smart on Crime push, Holder criticized the "meaningless partisan" impeachment effort and said the resolution included "factually incorrect" allegations.

“I have serious things, serious things that I have to engage in," Holder said. "That is how I’m going to be spending my time and I’m not going to be devoting much attention to those kinds of things."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/eric-holder-impeachment_n_4276097.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp000005 92

phill4paul
11-15-2013, 11:50 PM
Never enough votes in a house divided by payola. One might get the feeling that it might be planned that way.

RM918
11-15-2013, 11:59 PM
Holder should definitely be impeached but they're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

dillo
11-16-2013, 12:03 AM
Its honestly like the republicans never want to win another presidential election, shut the fuck up about gay marriage.

Ender
11-16-2013, 12:04 AM
So....Fast & Furious is Ok but the neocons want Holder impeached over personal liberty.

Go figure.:rolleyes:

angelatc
11-16-2013, 12:08 AM
I don't care about gay marriage, but their base does. It will be another 20 years before the GOP candidates can run on a gay friendly platform. Which is insane considering theyre like 4% of the population. And its not like they were chained up and sold, or put in seperate schools BUt they bitch and moan about themselves so much they made themselves far more important than anybody deserves to be.

God I hate liberals and the people that love them.

enhanced_deficit
11-16-2013, 12:15 AM
Holder should definitely be impeached but they're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

On an unrelated note, is it bad if a bad thing is done to a bad person for bad reasons.

surf
11-16-2013, 12:45 AM
The Republicans also targeted Holder's decision not to sue Washington and Colorado for deciding to regulate rather than criminalize marijuana
bunch of f#cking idiots these assclowns are. for all the scum this guy is, they pick about the only good thing he and his boss have done and go after him for that.

there's a reason I consider myself a libertarian (though i'm an "elected" republican): I just don't want to be associated with these people.

dillo
11-16-2013, 02:35 AM
I don't care about gay marriage, but their base does. It will be another 20 years before the GOP candidates can run on a gay friendly platform. Which is insane considering theyre like 4% of the population. And its not like they were chained up and sold, or put in seperate schools BUt they bitch and moan about themselves so much they made themselves far more important than anybody deserves to be.

God I hate liberals and the people that love them.

Im not saying you have to be gay friendly, but is gay marriage really going to matter if the dollar collapses?

dillo
11-16-2013, 02:36 AM
On an unrelated note, is it bad if a bad thing is done to a bad person for bad reasons.

I think so, because the media can then spin it and make Holder look like a good guy. The only spin on Fast and Furious was "bush did it". If he goes after marijuana states hes going to piss off a lot of democrats

Brian4Liberty
11-16-2013, 12:10 PM
Bachmann must live in constant fear that her husband will come out of the closet and leave her. She needs government to help her keep him in that closet.

Pericles
11-16-2013, 12:17 PM
So....Fast & Furious is Ok but the neocons want Holder impeached over personal liberty.

Go figure.:rolleyes:

If you had bothered to read any of the supporting documentation, you would know there are four charges relating to impeachment, and Fast & Furious with the related criminal contempt of Congress leads the list. The other three are just a "bonus".

Christian Liberty
11-16-2013, 12:29 PM
Bachmann must live in constant fear that her husband will come out of the closet and leave her. She needs government to help her keep him in that closet.

LOL!

I don't think the "Full faith and credit" clause was ever conceptually intended to apply for gay marriages that are recognized in one state but not recognized at all in another state. The point was that if a couple got married (or whatever) in NC they wouldn't have to pay a penalty if they moved to SC or another state.

That said, I don't really care, and I don't see why anyone else does either.

On the other hand, the drug issue is absolutely, positively ridiculous. This shows that the GOP is no better than the Democrats.

And yes, Holder should be removed, and not for this reason.

LibertyEagle
11-16-2013, 12:37 PM
I understand what you guys are saying, but this is dangerous what Obama's administration is doing. If the President didn't like the legislation, he should have vetoed it. He didn't do that; instead, he thinks he can pick and choose which parts of the law he will enforce. This is dangerous and I'm sure you can see why.

At this point, the place to get it declared unconstitutional is with the Supreme Court. Agreeing with what the President did, just gives you stamp of approval of the growing dictatorial powers of the Executive Branch.

angelatc
11-16-2013, 12:54 PM
I understand what you guys are saying, but this is dangerous what Obama's administration is doing. If the President didn't like the legislation, he should have vetoed it. He didn't do that; instead, he thinks he can pick and choose which parts of the law he will enforce. This is dangerous and I'm sure you can see why.

At this point, the place to get it declared unconstitutional is with the Supreme Court. Agreeing with what the President did, just gives you stamp of approval of the growing dictatorial powers of the Executive Branch.

SCOTUS ruled that the line item veto was unconstitutional. This is 10 times worse than that.

If the Holder admin thought the law was illegal, there are processes in which they can get a stay while the case winds its way through the courts.

angelatc
11-16-2013, 12:56 PM
If you had bothered to read any of the supporting documentation, you would know there are four charges relating to impeachment, and Fast & Furious with the related criminal contempt of Congress leads the list. The other three are just a "bonus".


Wow. And yet the original poster chose to highlight the only one that he knew would divide the conservatives against the libertarians. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Acala
11-16-2013, 01:03 PM
I happen to think that it is the duty of every Federal government employee from the President to the guy that cleans the toilets in the Smithsonian to REFUSE to enforce unconstitutional laws even if the Supreme Court says they are constitutional.

But Fast and Furious is a good reason for impeachment.

Brian4Liberty
11-16-2013, 03:34 PM
Wow. And yet the original poster chose to highlight the only one that he knew would divide the conservatives against the libertarians. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Don't forget the usual suspect, the media propaganda machine. The Huffpost article only mentions gay marriage and marijuana.

MRK
11-16-2013, 03:45 PM
Yep, the impeachment charges looked pretty good until they tossed in the paragraph about deserving impeachment due to refusing to enforce nonviolent crimes.

MRK
11-16-2013, 03:47 PM
So....Fast & Furious is Ok but the neocons want Holder impeached over personal liberty.

Go figure.:rolleyes:

Actually, I'm not sure if it's mentioned in that article, but Fast and Furious was the first provision that was mentioned in the article I read.

Ender
11-16-2013, 03:48 PM
If you had bothered to read any of the supporting documentation, you would know there are four charges relating to impeachment, and Fast & Furious with the related criminal contempt of Congress leads the list. The other three are just a "bonus".

I don't spend my life on the forum or at the HuffPost.

If the OP wants to emphasize certain issues, they should be included, don'tcha think?

angelatc
11-16-2013, 03:51 PM
Don't forget the usual suspect, the media propaganda machine. The Huffpost article only mentions gay marriage and marijuana.


HuffPo is actually a bunch of bloggers who rewrite press releases. Anybody who gets news from there deserves to be ridiculed. And anybody that reposts it here deserves to be questioned.

CaptLouAlbano
11-16-2013, 04:03 PM
So....Fast & Furious is Ok but the neocons want Holder impeached over personal liberty.

Go figure.:rolleyes:

Neoconservatives favor big government, have little to no opposition to the welfare state, are Wilsonian in their foreign policy views and have a hostility towards religion in politics & government. The articles of impeachment were drawn up by Olson (TX), and are being cosponsored by Roe (TN), Yoho (FL), Westmoreland (GA), Bucshon (IN), Farenthold (TX), Weber (TX), Williams (TX), Flores (TX), Gohmert (TX), Bachmann (MN). I don't think you can classify any of these as neoconservatives, they are not all Jeffersonian in their FP views, but they aren't Wilsonian either, and based upon their voting records they aren't supportive of the welfare state. In fact, Yoho, was endorsed by Ron Paul and YAL.

aGameOfThrones
11-16-2013, 04:07 PM
Wow. And yet the original poster chose to highlight the only one that he knew would divide the conservatives against the libertarians. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

I usually don't post the whole article, nor do I read the whole article. I did post like 10 threads in a row which included this one.

Update OP.

Henry Rogue
11-16-2013, 04:19 PM
The Republicans also targeted Holder's decision not to sue Washington and Colorado for deciding to regulate rather than criminalize marijuana, arguing that he's not enforcing the Controlled Substances Act.I'm not a fan of holder, he should be in prison for "fast and furious", but I thought republicans are for giving back to the states their authority to govern their own people. We can nullify, but he can not?

eduardo89
11-16-2013, 04:23 PM
Neoconservatives favor big government, have little to no opposition to the welfare state, are Wilsonian in their foreign policy views and have a hostility towards religion in politics & government. The articles of impeachment were drawn up by Olson (TX), and are being cosponsored by Roe (TN), Yoho (FL), Westmoreland (GA), Bucshon (IN), Farenthold (TX), Weber (TX), Williams (TX), Flores (TX), Gohmert (TX), Bachmann (MN). I don't think you can classify any of these as neoconservatives, they are not all Jeffersonian in their FP views, but they aren't Wilsonian either, and based upon their voting records they aren't supportive of the welfare state. In fact, Yoho, was endorsed by Ron Paul and YAL.

Didn't Massie cosponsor it as well?

Edit: Yes, Massie did sign on.

http://i.imgur.com/3yUpnc4.png

CaptLouAlbano
11-16-2013, 04:26 PM
Didn't Massie cosponsor it as well?

I was looking at the Roll Call article from the 13th. Here's the bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:9:./temp/~bdkC0s:@@@P|/bss/|

Massie is a co-sponsor. So are Duncan (SC) and Stockman (TX). Lousy neo-cons :rolleyes:

eduardo89
11-16-2013, 04:32 PM
I was looking at the Roll Call article from the 13th. Here's the bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:9:./temp/~bdkC0s:@@@P|/bss/|

Massie is a co-sponsor. So are Duncan (SC) and Stockman (TX). Lousy neo-cons :rolleyes:

There are a lot of Ron Paul endorsed neocons: Massie, Yoho, Weber, and Stockman.

CaptLouAlbano
11-16-2013, 04:36 PM
There are a lot of Ron Paul endorsed neocons: Massie, Yoho, Weber, and Stockman.

Haha. Yeah there are.

It's a shame that on a political forum, where people are supposedly educated on the issues more so than the general public, the "neo-con" label is tossed around so haphazardly.

Brett85
11-16-2013, 04:40 PM
The Supreme Court was right to strike down the defense of marriage act as being unconstitutional, because that particular provision of the law violated the 10th amendment, since the federal government doesn't have the authority to define marriage. But Kennedy's decision didn't actually have anything to do with the 10th amendment. He just came up with some bogus ruling that the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional because it's "discriminatory" or some other such nonsense. So that was the correct ruling, but for all the wrong reasons. It wasn't a victory for federalism or limited government.

surf
11-16-2013, 04:43 PM
There are a lot of Ron Paul endorsed neocons: Massie, Yoho, Weber, and Stockman.I still have a lot of hope for Massie.

you forgot Ted Cruz on your list.

Brett85
11-16-2013, 04:46 PM
I was looking at the Roll Call article from the 13th. Here's the bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:9:./temp/~bdkC0s:@@@P|/bss/|

Massie is a co-sponsor. So are Duncan (SC) and Stockman (TX). Lousy neo-cons :rolleyes:

It's certainly disappointing that Massie signed onto a bill that's an assault on the 10th amendment and the right of the states to determine an issue like marijuana legalization.

LibertyEagle
11-16-2013, 05:02 PM
Neoconservatives favor big government, have little to no opposition to the welfare state, are Wilsonian in their foreign policy views and have a hostility towards religion in politics & government. The articles of impeachment were drawn up by Olson (TX), and are being cosponsored by Roe (TN), Yoho (FL), Westmoreland (GA), Bucshon (IN), Farenthold (TX), Weber (TX), Williams (TX), Flores (TX), Gohmert (TX), Bachmann (MN). I don't think you can classify any of these as neoconservatives, they are not all Jeffersonian in their FP views, but they aren't Wilsonian either, and based upon their voting records they aren't supportive of the welfare state. In fact, Yoho, was endorsed by Ron Paul and YAL.

Well, except when it comes to Israel.

CaptLouAlbano
11-16-2013, 05:12 PM
Well, except when it comes to Israel.

But one issue does not make one a neo-con. Just as being a non-interventionist does not make one a libertarian ( eg. Kucinich).

compromise
11-16-2013, 05:50 PM
Due to the verdict that Massie is now a neocon, I formally declare myself a proud, unabashed neocon.

Holder deserves to be impeached for his involvement in the Fast & Furious scandal.

compromise
11-16-2013, 05:54 PM
Farenthold (TX)

Meet Blake Farenthold.

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.mofopolitics.com/i.imgur.com/EnZcfAr.jpg.pagespeed.ce.sCZnEKzX1R.jpg

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.mofopolitics.com/i.imgur.com/vI9Epl6.jpg.pagespeed.ce.-d3U0Fca5c.jpg

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/11/13/congressman-blake-farenthold-exists/

Snew
11-16-2013, 06:06 PM
clowns, the lot of them. Of all things to go after Holder for... this is the one you choose??

eduardo89
11-16-2013, 06:16 PM
Meet Blake Farenthold.

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.mofopolitics.com/i.imgur.com/EnZcfAr.jpg.pagespeed.ce.sCZnEKzX1R.jpg


The full picture:

http://www.juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/blake.jpg

FrankRep
11-16-2013, 09:02 PM
So....Fast & Furious is Ok but the neocons want Holder impeached over personal liberty.

Go figure.:rolleyes:

We all have our motivations. Kick him out.

FrankRep
11-16-2013, 09:06 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/eric-holder-impeachment_n_4276097.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp000005 92

The liberty movement is doomed if Huffington Post is considered a worthy news source.

Keith and stuff
11-16-2013, 09:20 PM
The more I think about this, the more I think it will hurt Republicans. Please don't do this :(

eduardo89
11-16-2013, 09:38 PM
So....Fast & Furious is Ok but the neocons want Holder impeached over personal liberty.

Go figure.:rolleyes:

It's wise to read the bill before commenting (or voting) on it:



RESOLUTION
Impeaching Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and all of the people of the United States of America, against Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanours.

ARTICLE I
Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him in that position by refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 12, 2011, in connection with a legitimate Congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that put thousands of illegally purchased weapons into the hands of cartel leaders, ultimately resulting in the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.

Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office and disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE II
Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, and responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States regardless of personal bias, failed to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.
Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office and disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE III
Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, has failed his oath of office by refusing to prosecute individuals involved in the Internal Revenue Service scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors.
Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office and disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE IV
Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, testified under oath before Congress on May 15, 2013, that he was neither involved in nor had heard of a potential prosecution of the press. However three days later, the Department of Justice released documents naming journalist James Rosen as a co-conspirator in an alleged violation of the Espionage Act. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, confirmed to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives in a letter dated June 19, 2013, that he approved of a search warrant on James Rosen.
Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office and disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.RES.411:

FrankRep
11-16-2013, 09:41 PM
The more I think about this, the more I think it will hurt Republicans. Please don't do this :(

Holder shouldn't be kicked out for Fast and Furious, etc?

Brian4Liberty
11-16-2013, 10:24 PM
ARTICLE II needs to be dropped from that. Holder and the Obama Administration have been aggressive in their prosecution of legitimate State's rights issues.

FrankRep
11-16-2013, 10:37 PM
Current co-sponsors:


Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] - 11/14/2013
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 11/14/2013
Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] - 11/14/2013
Rep Bucshon, Larry [IN-8] - 11/14/2013
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 11/14/2013
Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4] - 11/14/2013
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] - 11/14/2013
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] - 11/14/2013
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] - 11/14/2013
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 11/14/2013
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-50] - 11/14/2013
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 11/14/2013
Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] - 11/14/2013
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] - 11/15/2013
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 11/14/2013
Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] - 11/14/2013
Rep Weber, Randy K. Sr. [TX-14] - 11/14/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 11/14/2013
Rep Williams, Roger [TX-25] - 11/14/2013
Rep Yoho, Ted S. [FL-3] - 11/14/2013

Miss Annie
11-16-2013, 10:42 PM
What needs to be added to Article II is his refusal to enforce the current immigration laws. I just wonder if they are not going for Holder first because he serves as a type of insulation for Obama?

kcchiefs6465
11-16-2013, 10:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQCrIbTmitk

FrankRep
11-16-2013, 10:47 PM
What needs to be added to Article II is his refusal to enforce the current immigration laws. I just wonder if they are not going for Holder first because he serves as a type of insulation for Obama?

Excellent point.

VoluntaryAmerican
11-16-2013, 11:42 PM
1. Refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 12, 2011, seeking information and documents regarding Operation Fast and Furious. This is a violation of 2 U.S.C. 192.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2013/11/16/congressman-introduces-resolution-to-impeach-eric-holder-n1747238

fr33
11-17-2013, 12:27 AM
Ron Paul would have faced a similar impeachment process on different issues had he been elected president. The NSA spying was handed to the GOP on silver platter and they have no problem with it. They are more concerned with telling people what to do in their personal lives.

Keith and stuff
11-17-2013, 05:19 AM
Holder shouldn't be kicked out for Fast and Furious, etc?

Obama and Holder and another 1000 people in DC should all be jailed. But since he certainly won't be kicked out, creating a silly side show will just backfire.

Feeding the Abscess
11-17-2013, 05:36 AM
What needs to be added to Article II is his refusal to enforce the current immigration laws. I just wonder if they are not going for Holder first because he serves as a type of insulation for Obama?

He's already deported more people than Bush. Seriously, what more would you want him to do? Send SWAT teams on nightraids 6 days a week to load up the trains?

Miss Annie
11-17-2013, 10:34 AM
He's already deported more people than Bush. Seriously, what more would you want him to do? Send SWAT teams on nightraids 6 days a week to load up the trains?

Sorry, nothing personal, But I call Bullshit on that one!! Jason Chaffetz went down to the border and there was video documentation of how absolutely unmanned it is. ICE testifies in Congress on almost a weekly basis that how their "orders coming down from the top" is making it impossible to do their job. You do realize that thousands of illegals were release from ICE detention centers on the orders of Janet Napalitano when the sequestration went into effect. So yea, I call Bullshit.

Snew
11-17-2013, 11:54 AM
He's already deported more people than Bush. Seriously, what more would you want him to do? Send SWAT teams on nightraids 6 days a week to load up the trains?

The "illegals" are such a nice scapegoat, aren't they?