PDA

View Full Version : Congress Officially Initiates President Obama’s Impeachment




TomKat
02-12-2014, 04:04 PM
Admin note- this story is reported to be FALSE.


While many have speculated over the potential of impeaching Pres. Barack Obama, several members of Congress have finally filed.

A resolution written by Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC) claims Obama should be impeached for his defiance against the Constitution. The congressman officially stated the purpose of initiating the impeachment process was to “bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.”

The most recent and notable Constitutional defiance included a range of offenses regarding the Affordable Care Act. The president has changed the language of the law as well as, processes of implementation without the consent of Congress.

Rice wrote, “President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President. However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents.”

So far, the impeachment proceedings have garnered support from 29 members of Congress.


Admin note- this story is reported to be FALSE.

TomKat
02-12-2014, 04:07 PM
I wonder why Walter Jones isn't included in the list. He brought the last articles of impeachment on Obama.

Zippyjuan
02-12-2014, 04:13 PM
Is this the same resolution he filed in December? http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/new-congressional-resolution-lead-impeachment-obama/
What happened with that one?
Or has he refiled?

compromise
02-12-2014, 04:18 PM
A group of backbenchers co-sponsoring a bill isn't an official initiation of impeachment.

Ronin Truth
02-12-2014, 04:21 PM
Oh shucks, I was hoping things would spice up a bit.:(

Tywysog Cymru
02-12-2014, 04:26 PM
A group of backbenchers co-sponsoring a bill isn't an official initiation of impeachment.

Yeah, this isn't going to go anywhere.

enhanced_deficit
02-12-2014, 04:26 PM
A group of backbenchers co-sponsoring a bill isn't an official initiation of impeachment.

Do you support or oppose SWC neocons plant's impeachment?

69360
02-12-2014, 04:54 PM
A group of backbenchers co-sponsoring a bill isn't an official initiation of impeachment.

It is actually, but they won't get a simple majority to move it to the senate and even if they did by some miracle it's dead in the water in the senate.

torchbearer
02-12-2014, 04:56 PM
It is actually, but they won't get a simple majority to move it to the senate and even if they did by some miracle it's dead in the water in the senate.

what is the likely hood that the GOP can squeek a majority in the senate during 2014?

Mr.NoSmile
02-12-2014, 04:57 PM
Yeah, okay, sure.

angelatc
02-12-2014, 04:58 PM
It is actually, but they won't get a simple majority to move it to the senate and even if they did by some miracle it's dead in the water in the senate.

That's not how it works. You do not need the Senate to impeach - that function belongs entirely to the House.

torchbearer
02-12-2014, 04:58 PM
I know some people are going to say, 'why bother, we'll just get biden"
but i say, congress needs to whip the president when he is acting outside of his jurisdiction.
when he thinks he is king, he should be removed. the guy that replaces him will be on notice, and we will be better off with the return of checks and balances.
which will only occur when the house and senate is an opposition party to the president.
otherwise, the party system negates those checks. sorta like having a democratic senate protecting a dictator.

torchbearer
02-12-2014, 04:59 PM
That's not how it works. You do not need the Senate to impeach - that function belongs entirely to the House.

who tries the president? is it the senate?

angelatc
02-12-2014, 05:00 PM
I know some people are going to say, 'why bother, we'll just get biden"
but i say, congress needs to whip the president when he is acting outside of his jurisdiction.
when he thinks he is king, he should be removed. the guy that replaces him will be on notice, and we will be better off with the return of checks and balances.
which will only occur when the house and senate is an opposition party to the president.
otherwise, the party system negates those checks. sorta like having a democratic senate protecting a dictator.

He won't be removed. Clinton was impeached, after all.

Regardless, I don't mind seeing it get brought up again, if indeed that's what's happening. Never can tell when something will catch fire for no reason.

tsai3904
02-12-2014, 05:01 PM
Is this the same resolution he filed in December? http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/new-congressional-resolution-lead-impeachment-obama/
What happened with that one?
Or has he refiled?

It's the same one. Someone decided to bring up the same story months later. The original story is already misleading since his resolution doesn't even mention the word impeachment.

Here's another article from December on the same topic:
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/12/28950-congress-preparing-to-impeach-obama/

compromise
02-12-2014, 05:10 PM
Do you support or oppose SWC neocons plant's impeachment?

Of course, but it isn't realistically going to happen.

69360
02-12-2014, 05:12 PM
what is the likely hood that the GOP can squeek a majority in the senate during 2014?

possible, but I wouldn't say likely


That's not how it works. You do not need the Senate to impeach - that function belongs entirely to the House.

The house votes to impeach then the trial is in the senate.


who tries the president? is it the senate?

Senate does and the chief justice of scotus presides

Zippyjuan
02-12-2014, 05:21 PM
Steps of Impeachment: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/impeachment/


Stage 1. Resolution:
A resolution, known as an inquiry of impeachment, is referred to the Judiciary Committee. Or, among other alternatives, a member may introduce a bill of impeachment, to be referred to the committee.

Stage 2. Committee vote:
After considering evidence, the Judiciary Committee votes on a resolution of inquiry stating whether there is enough evidence for impeachment.

Stage 3. House vote:
In this case, the full House would vote whether to approve a Judiciary Committee decision to proceed to a full-blown impeachment hearing.

Stage 4. Hearing:
The Judiciary Committee holds hearings into the accusations, possibly broadening the inquiry into other subjects.

Stage 5. Report:
The committee votes on one or more bills of impeachment and issues a report to the House, setting forth articles of impeachment.

Stage 6. House vote:
The House votes on the bill of impeachment. A simple majority decides whether to bring the case before the Senate. The House can overturn a Judiciary Committee vote in which the majority recommended against impeachment.

Stage 7. Senate trial:
In a trial conducted on the Senate floor, the House Judiciary Committee brings the case against the President, who is defended by his own lawyers. The Senate acts as the jury, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

Stage 8. Senate vote:
The Senate votes on each article of impeachment. If a two-thirds majority supports impeachment, the President is removed from office.

This thread seems to be stuck at Stage 1.

torchbearer
02-12-2014, 05:23 PM
Steps of Impeachment: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/impeachment/



This thread seems to be stuck at Stage 1.

funny how times have changed.
Nixon did far less, and congress got him to resign.

willwash
02-12-2014, 05:29 PM
A group of backbenchers co-sponsoring a resolutionisn't an official initiation of impeachment.

corrected. It's not even a bill.

tsai3904
02-12-2014, 05:37 PM
Steps of Impeachment: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/impeachment/

This thread seems to be stuck at Stage 1.

Not even. His resolution doesn't mention anything about impeachment. It's some "journalist" trying to make news.

Occam's Banana
02-12-2014, 05:49 PM
funny how times have changed.
Nixon did far less, and congress got him to resign.

It just goes to show how steeply things have gone downhill since then.
Maybe Nixon was kinda like a pioneer who took an arrow to make things safer for the scumbags who followed ...

TomKat
02-12-2014, 06:44 PM
Not even. His resolution doesn't mention anything about impeachment. It's some "journalist" trying to make news.

Sorry for being a "Johnny Jumping The Gun", I saw it on twitter and thought this was new because it was dated today. Somehow I missed this in December.

tsai3904
02-12-2014, 06:48 PM
Sorry for being a "Johnny Jumping The Gun", I saw it on twitter and thought this was new because it was dated today. Somehow I missed this in December.

It's not even about the story reappearing now. The resolution doesn't mention the word "impeachment" once.

Read the resolution in the December article here: http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/12/28950-congress-preparing-to-impeach-obama/

GunnyFreedom
02-12-2014, 06:51 PM
who tries the president? is it the senate?

Yes, the House Impeaches, the Senate tries and holds forth the sentence.

TomKat
02-12-2014, 07:23 PM
It's not even about the story reappearing now. The resolution doesn't mention the word "impeachment" once.

Read the resolution in the December article here: http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/12/28950-congress-preparing-to-impeach-obama/

You are correct but the op did
While many have speculated over the potential of impeaching Pres. Barack Obama, several members of Congress have finally filed. I would have looked more into it if I had seen the December articles.

Dianne
02-12-2014, 07:58 PM
Obama has a multitude of impeachable crimes... wtf? Why is anyone negative ... When that man opens his mouth, and uses his poison pen; he is always lying.

Why is the lying bastard still in the White House?

CPUd
02-12-2014, 08:11 PM
Obama has a multitude of impeachable crimes... wtf? Why is anyone negative ... When that man opens his mouth, and uses his poison pen; he is always lying.

Why is the lying bastard still in the White House?

http://i.imgur.com/eUkgDx7.png

enhanced_deficit
02-13-2014, 04:18 AM
God forbid if SWC drone king got convicted by congressional plants (unlikely at this point), would he go to regular prison with common criminals or some special prison with AC and TV funded by tax payers?


What Egyptians did with their SWC looks kind of harsh though.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/08/18/obamamubarak460.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=RQzB02FULKbILM&tbnid=CSQxYIDCYdbYUM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfr ee%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Ffeb%2F09%2Fbarack-obama-white-house-egypt&ei=tJz8Us2sN-b80wHK8oCgCg&bvm=bv.61190604,d.dmQ&psig=AFQjCNFylgIB12dy1mJ3iqaLk3vJ-V_00Q&ust=1392373267091135)http://im.rediff.com/news/2011/aug/03sld1.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=-qq6AGbVzFLrLM&tbnid=CtcJaHc6rSzYqM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rediff.com%2Fnews%2Fslide-show%2Fslide-show-1-in-a-cage-mubarak-faces-trial-for-murder%2F20110803.htm&ei=U5z8UvatONTv0QHQ_oGoBw&bvm=bv.61190604,d.dmQ&psig=AFQjCNEEZtQJtNAdg_w6nxOL_a8DzdbuDA&ust=1392373182273518)

Travlyr
02-13-2014, 04:28 AM
funny how times have changed.
Nixon did far less, and congress got him to resign.

The dirt on Nixon was far deeper than any dirt NSA has on Obama.

torchbearer
02-13-2014, 07:30 AM
The dirt on Nixon was far deeper than any dirt NSA has on Obama.

maybe prior to snowden.
but unlike Obama's drone victims- I'm advocating Obama get a trial to defend himself.

GunnyFreedom
02-13-2014, 10:41 AM
The dirt on Nixon was far deeper than any dirt NSA has on Obama.

I think it has more to do with their motives than the grade of the dirt. Back in Nixon's day they were trying to 'do their duty as Americans,' but nowadays they are trying to "protect the tyranny enabler at all costs."

Maybe they had worse on Nixon than they have on O-bummer. Maybe they have worse on O-bummer than they had on Tricky Dick. I'm pretty sure the operating principle here is not the level or depth of the dirt, but the motives of the people who are in the knowledge of the dirt.

69360
02-14-2014, 09:15 AM
The dirt on Nixon was far deeper than any dirt NSA has on Obama.

I doubt that. Obama was and is up to his ears in crooked Chicago politics.