Are there sufficient and compelling offenses by President Obama to impeach him?

[johnwk]

I believe there is no excuse for the House to not move forward with the impeachment of Obama which is the constitutional solution to our present circumstances. And for the Republican controlled House to not utilize this solution, its members are enabling the ongoing destruction of our country!


But getting back to our Constitution, just what were our Founder’s expressed intentions regarding impeachment of a President? Let us read their intentions which were made on July 20th (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp) when framing our Constitution:


Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.

Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of impeachments. A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them. He hoped the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief magistrate could do no wrong.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him. Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS'S opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for any [FN12] time in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in forign pay, without being able to guard agst. it by displacing him.

It was moved & 2ded. to postpone the question of impeachments which was negatived. Mas. & S. Carolina only being ay. On ye. Question, Shall the Executive be removeable on impeachments &c.? Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay.
__________

Is it not a fact that our President is ignoring our immigration laws and is allowing our borders to be invaded; has engaged in bribery in the passage of Obamacare (the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the infamous $300 million "Louisiana Purchase"); has lied with impunity to the American People that under Obamacare they could keep their existing health insurance and doctors if the like them; has engaged in a money laundering operation under the guise of “green energy” in which he has plundered billions of dollars from our federal treasury and transferred them to his political donors (see: 80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors. (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/80-obama-green-jobs-money-goes-obama-donors-green-energy-7-times-more-expensive-oil-and-coal-financial-numbers-are-stagge)); and has usurped legislative power when he arbitrarily gutted the work requirement for welfare recipients passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton?

Our wise founding fathers placed the power of impeachment in the hands of the people’s representatives to be specifically used to remove the kind of president we now have. Our nation cannot survive as a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government for another two years with President Obama and his henchman Eric Holder in the driver’s seat.

Why is the Republican controlled House not moving forward with impeachment and letting the chips fall where they may? Do our Representatives in the House not have a sworn duty to stop the above mentioned tyranny?


JWK


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

[PaulConventionWV]

It's never going to happen. Because if it were to happen and Obama were successfully ousted, then people might realize it's actually a plausible solution, and that cannot be tolerated.

[klamath]

Impeachment is a dead issue since Clintons impeachment. If Clinton couldn't be convicted of obvious perjury, the bar has been set far beyond what any congress is willing to go for another impeachment.

[presence]

There have been convicing and compelling reasons to impeach every president I've lived under.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bw2kYfXsJ3U/U2PWYzaYjJI/AAAAAAAA4e0/vvXOe7ZK42w/s1600/our-dream-773771.jpg

[William Tell]

There have been convicing and compelling reasons to impeach every president I've lived under.

Yes, pretty much Lincoln and those since him.

[Acala]

Biden! Biden! Biden! Biden for President! Yaaaaa!

[William Tell]

Biden! Biden! Biden! Biden for President! Yaaaaa!

Lol, that would be a good bumper sticker: "Joe Biden for president, Impeach Obama"

[Root]

Lol, that would be a good bumper sticker: "Joe Biden for president, Impeach Obama"
Funny :)

[thoughtomator]

The question could have been answered affirmatively from the moment he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize.

[thoughtomator]

Lol, that would be a good bumper sticker: "Joe Biden for president, Impeach Obama"

back in the day I went to DC to march for Clinton's impeachment with a sign that said "Gore '98"

[William Tell]

back in the day I went to DC to march for Clinton's impeachment with a sign that said "Gore '98"

Wow, imagine 'Reelect Gore' in 2000, can't say if we'd be worse off or not. It's scary either way.

[Vanguard101]

Do you really think impeaching the first black president would go well? The right and libertarians will forever be dubbed as racist.

[thoughtomator]

Do you really think impeaching the first black president would go well? The right and libertarians will forever be dubbed as racist.

By the time it happens it will be obvious to all that it needs to be done. Obama is clearly a highly mentally unstable individual.

[Vanguard101]

By the time it happens it will be obvious to all that it needs to be done. Obama is clearly a highly mentally unstable individual.

No. Lol absolutely not.

[Ender]

By the time it happens it will be obvious to all that it needs to be done. Obama is clearly a highly mentally unstable individual.

Gimme a break.

Do you really think that O is worse than W? Everything he has done was first put into place by Bush. O is a neocon with a progressive smile. ;)

As presence stated:


presence:
There have been convicing and compelling reasons to impeach every president I've lived under.

Probably the only 2 presidents since Lincoln ruined the US of A, that might have been OK (one died mysteriously and the other was assassinated),were Harding & JFK. Possibly Coolidge, as well.

[Cutlerzzz]

Who cares what the Founders said about the Constitution? They established a system that would allow future generations to reestablish its meaning whenever they want. They didnt even impeach Adams for the sedition act.

[Acala]

Gimme a break.

Do you really think that O is worse than W? Everything he has done was first put into place by Bush. O is a neocon with a progressive smile. ;)



Agreed. All the Obama hate is a diversion into unproductive effort. Obama is a done deal. Get over it and focus on not having a repeat. Even if you COULD impeach him, which is virtually impossible, it would accomplish nothing at all.

[johnwk]

Do you really think impeaching the first black president would go well? The right and libertarians will forever be dubbed as racist.

Why? Obama is doing more harm to hard working people living in our nation's inner cities than to rich White folk who are making out just fine under Obama.


JWK

[thoughtomator]

I see some people here still haven't discarded their normalcy bias. Things are getting downright not-normal at a breathtaking pace.

[Zippyjuan]

Biden! Biden! Biden! Biden for President! Yaaaaa!

John Boehner is right behind him.

[erowe1]

It would be pretty remarkable if there were ever a president who never did anything deserving impeachment.

[enhanced_deficit]

There are at least 116 "why's" and counting:

Poll: Would you support Obama impeachment?



(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417115-Would-you-support-Obama-impeachment&)http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ht_obama_kennedy_090821_main.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=saBcunaH9WJv_M&tbnid=Sk3MP4LjjgOLkM:&ved=0CAgQjRw4Zg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Ftopics%2Fnews%2F us%2Fcaroline-kennedy.htm%3Fmediatype%3DImage&ei=oiSrU4HXNY6eyATyxIDICg&psig=AFQjCNGRvhtt6WiPH3QKPr_8RYqAhU7yEQ&ust=1403811362990961)

SWC disgrace (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?433586-Majority-of-Americans-now-believe-Obama-is-quot-dishonest-and-untrustworthy)
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417115-Would-you-support-Obama-impeachment&)

[cajuncocoa]

As always, partisanship is the key. Team Blue will never impeach a Team Blue president...Team Red will never impeach a Team Red president.

That's really all you need to know.

[johnwk]

Who cares what the Founders said about the Constitution? They established a system that would allow future generations to reestablish its meaning whenever they want.

Well, to answer your question about “Who cares what the Founders said about the Constitution”, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is to enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted. The rule is summarized as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

And, with regard to our founders allowing future generations to alter the Constitution, that occurs through our Constitution’s amendment process, which is the only lawful way to change what the Constitution means.


JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[fisharmor]

Do you really think impeaching the first black president would go well? The right and libertarians will forever be dubbed as racist.

Which is clearly worse than not impeaching the first black president and forever being dubbed as racist (which has been going on since before I was paying attention anyway).

[Philhelm]

Let's face it - someone with the name "Barack Hussein Obama" probably shouldn't be President of the United States of America to begin with. It's like someone named "Nigel Warwick Collinsbroke" being the Emperor of Japan. It really ruins my immersion in this world.

[Philhelm]

EXTRAJUDICIAL DRONE STRIKE OF A U.S. CITIZEN AND HIS U.S. CITIZEN CHILD

[Acala]

As always, partisanship is the key. Team Blue will never impeach a Team Blue president...Team Red will never impeach a Team Red president.

That's really all you need to know.

And neither party will impeach any President for abuse of power because they want to abuse power when they get into the White House. You will only get impeachment, if at all, for sins related to the individual president that will not tie the hands of the next one.

[TheCount]

Let's face it - someone with the name "Barack Hussein Obama" probably shouldn't be President of the United States of America to begin with. It's like someone named "Nigel Warwick Collinsbroke" being the Emperor of Japan. It really ruins my immersion in this world.

How's that collectivism working out for you?

[erowe1]

Well, to answer your question about “Who cares what the Founders said about the Constitution”, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is to enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted. The rule is summarized as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

And, with regard to our founders allowing future generations to alter the Constitution, that occurs through our Constitution’s amendment process, which is the only lawful way to change what the Constitution means.


JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


Those people had no right to impose their government on us no matter what their intentions were. Their intentions and the document they wrote have no true and rightful authority. I could make up my own constitution (and actually already have) which would be just as valid.

[willwash]

Voted no. I don't think there's a specific "high crime or misdemeanor" associated with his policies. He has displayed wonton disrespect for the Constitution, but so has every President in recent years.

[DamianTV]

I dont think it makes any difference if he is or is not charged. Nixon was charged (resigned before complete) with Impeachment over Watergate, but Clinton was impeached (although not removed from office) over a Blow Job. If any president is replaced by a successor of "Next in Chain of Command" (VP) or replaced by an Election or replaced by Impeachment, the very next person that takes the position of power takes a Puppet Position and things will NOT change one damn bit.

If an impeachment were to occur, it would become a Spectacle of Distraction. Obamas Impeachment bla bla bla, Justin Beibers hair bla bla bla, Miley Cyrus' tongue bla bla bla, all the while the rest of the string-pullers continue their war against the rest of the world.

[69360]

Starting an impeachment against Obama increases the chances of a 3rd Clinton term. It would be stupid. The democrats control the senate in case you didn't notice. It's dead in the water.

Obama probably overreached with the EO enough to get a conviction if the GOP takes the Senate, but again the backlash probably puts Clintons back in the white house.

[kcchiefs6465]

Voted no. I don't think there's a specific "high crime or misdemeanor" associated with his policies. He has displayed wonton disrespect for the Constitution, but so has every President in recent years.
He ordered the assassination of an American citizen absent a trial. He has prosecuted whistleblowers to an alarming degree, his Justice Department picks and chooses which laws to enforce and who to target. His Justice Department spies on journalists. The NSA collects every digital piece of data it can. Fast and Furious, Benghazi (possibly not for the reasons most would imagine), the IRS targeting political dissidents. Bombing Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Mali, etc. Sending troops here and there on whim.

I don't understand your view on this matter. What other presidents have done does not absolve the current administration of its crimes (and he is arguably the worst offender since Wilson).

He is a war criminal. Provably and admittedly so.

[erowe1]

He has displayed wonton disrespect for the Constitution, but so has every President in recent years.
Impeach them all.

[erowe1]

..

[Philhelm]

How's that collectivism working out for you?

Better than the stick up your ass, I'd wager.

[Carson]

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

Notice how the little boxes look like tiny coffins?

He should be impeached for the drone attack on October 30, 2006 alone. Hover your mouse and you see 69 children were killed with the one missile. I think they were in school.


Some might jump in and say, "He wasn't President then!"

And I might retort that he didn't bring anyone to justice when he was.

[johnwk]

Well, to answer your question about “Who cares what the Founders said about the Constitution”, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is to enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted. The rule is summarized as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

And, with regard to our founders allowing future generations to alter the Constitution, that occurs through our Constitution’s amendment process, which is the only lawful way to change what the Constitution means.


JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)





Those people had no right to impose their government on us no matter what their intentions were. Their intentions and the document they wrote have no true and rightful authority. I could make up my own constitution (and actually already have) which would be just as valid.



:rolleyes:


JWK



Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

[johnwk]

He ordered the assassination of an American citizen absent a trial. He has prosecuted whistleblowers to an alarming degree, his Justice Department picks and chooses which laws to enforce and who to target. His Justice Department spies on journalists. The NSA collects every digital piece of data it can. Fast and Furious, Benghazi (possibly not for the reasons most would imagine), the IRS targeting political dissidents. Bombing Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Mali, etc. Sending troops here and there on whim.

I don't understand your view on this matter. What other presidents have done does not absolve the current administration of its crimes (and he is arguably the worst offender since Wilson).





Let us remember that: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Are we to forget Obama’s bribery in the passage of Obamacare (the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the infamous $300 million "Louisiana Purchase")?

And let us not forget that during the Gulf Coast oil spill Obama imposed a third moratorium on drilling in spite of the court rejected the first two and he was also held in contempt of the Court’s previous ruling!

When we start putting together Obama’s long list of refusing to enforce existing law, and taking it upon himself to usurp legislative power and re-write law to his own linking, there is no question that Barack Hussein Obama is the very kind of president for which the power of impeachment was put into the Constitution. But don’t take my word for it, let us once again review our Founding Fathers expressed intentions regarding impeachment of the president stated on July 20th (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp) when framing our Constitution:


Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.

Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of impeachments. A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them. He hoped the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief magistrate could do no wrong.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him. Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS'S opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for any [FN12] time in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in forign pay, without being able to guard agst. it by displacing him.

It was moved & 2ded. to postpone the question of impeachments which was negatived. Mas. & S. Carolina only being ay. On ye. Question, Shall the Executive be removeable on impeachments &c.? Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay.
__________


I sincerely believe we cannot survive another two years as a constitutionally limited system of government with Obama in office.

We have been amply warned in THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787. H0W TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS (http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=oldg;cc=oldg;rgn=full%20text;idno=oldg0001-5;didno=oldg0001-5;view=image;seq=00127;node=oldg0001-5%3A1) that:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.”




JWK



Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

[erowe1]

:rolleyes:


JWK



Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote



That's ridiculous. Amending the Constitution wouldn't create the consent of the governed. There is no possible way that a law forcing people to buy something they wouldn't have already bought without the law can ever be governing people by their consent. That law passed by a supermajority vote of a bunch of politicians around the country would be every bit as illegitimate as any unconstitutional law passed by a majority vote of Congress.

[kcchiefs6465]

That's ridiculous. Amending the Constitution wouldn't create the consent of the governed. There is no possible way that a law forcing people to buy something they wouldn't have already bought without the law can ever be governing people by their consent. That law passed by a supermajority vote of a bunch of politicians around the country would be every bit as illegitimate as any unconstitutional law passed by a majority vote of Congress.
Indeed.

There are amendments already that are unconstitutional.

[Dianne]

Because, he's an off the cuff arrogant perpetual liar. He has lied to Americans and the World since he ran for President .. He's a very dangerous man, who snubs his nose at the law, and to the citizens. The greatest rape of American wealth and lack thereof, is directly related to that thing's Presidency and he needs to be gone... yesterday was too soon !!! The U.S. won't survive another 2 years of this being's dictatorship ... And by the way, take half the Congress with him and U.S. may have a second chance.

[Brett85]

There have probably been convincing and compelling reasons to impeach every President we've ever had. It's still a waste of time to try it though.

[kcchiefs6465]

There have probably been convincing and compelling reasons to impeach every President we've ever had. It's still a waste of time to try it though.
..

[idiom]

Those people had no right to impose their government on us no matter what their intentions were. Their intentions and the document they wrote have no true and rightful authority. I could make up my own constitution (and actually already have) which would be just as valid.

The founders correctly noted that the people of any generation have the absolute power of nullification of the whole or part of any constitution. The failure to use said power implies acceptance or tolerance of the status quo.

[Vanguard101]

Why? Obama is doing more harm to hard working people living in our nation's inner cities than to rich White folk who are making out just fine under Obama.


JWK
Do you really think that's what history will perceive it as? Do you really think the average voter notices this? Think.


Which is clearly worse than not impeaching the first black president and forever being dubbed as racist (which has been going on since before I was paying attention anyway).

The difference between now and impeachment is we can fight the battle now. With impeachment, there is no way minorities, especially blacks will ever look at the right in a decent light ever again

[cindy25]

impeachment is a political exercise, not a legal one. and while impeachment would be easy, conviction by 2/3 of the senate would be impossible. and President Biden would have the same policies. President Boehner would be worse. so while justified, it is an exercise in futility

[johnwk]

:rolleyes:


JWK



Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote





That's ridiculous. Amending the Constitution wouldn't create the consent of the governed. There is no possible way that a law forcing people to buy something they wouldn't have already bought without the law can ever be governing people by their consent. That law passed by a supermajority vote of a bunch of politicians around the country would be every bit as illegitimate as any unconstitutional law passed by a majority vote of Congress.

:rolleyes:


JWK

[johnwk]

Do you really think that's what history will perceive it as? Do you really think the average voter notices this? Think.



The difference between now and impeachment is we can fight the battle now. With impeachment, there is no way minorities, especially blacks will ever look at the right in a decent light ever again


Minorities, especially blacks, are the most hurt by Obama's tyranny!


Obama is using the force of government to tax the wages of our hard working people living in our nation's inner cities and then transferring them to his pals under a green energy money laundering operation!

Let us take a look at the list who have profited off hard working people living in our nation's inner cities who have had their earned wages taken by Obama which are then transferred to his pals running a green energy swindling operation.



• Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants – Bankrupt in October 2011

• Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees — Bankrupt in January 2012 – has since exited bankruptcy

• Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant) — Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt

• Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit — Bankrupt in August 2011

• SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Bankrupt in August 2011

• Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) – Bankrupt in early 2009

• Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009 — Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010

• Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 – Bankrupt in April 2012
Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:

• A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants — Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs

• Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA — Laid off 2/3 of work force

• First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees — Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired

• Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees — Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland

• Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 — Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity

• Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value

• Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees — Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall

• Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012 — ½ work force laid off

• BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012 – loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsource’s solar power purchase would have fallen through.

see:Green Energy’s Bankruptcy Blackout (http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/green-energys-bankruptcy-blackout/)


Also see: 80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors. (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/80-obama-green-jobs-money-goes-obama-donors-green-energy-7-times-more-expensive-oil-and-coal-financial-numbers-are-stagge)


Why do you hate hard working people living in our nation's inner cities who are having their earned wages swindled from them by Obama? Eh?


JWK


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875). [/QUOTE]

[Acala]

Indeed.

There are amendments already that are unconstitutional.

How so?

[jllundqu]

It doesn't matter what the president does. He has obviously done impeachable things... but the PEOPLE don't think so in large numbers. The only way impeachment works is if the PEOPLE (of all stripes) are in large agreement and thus makes impeachment politically palatable. WIth half the braindead obamanauts out there willing to lay on the tracks for him, impeachement is an impossibility, even if the Senate goes to the GOP.

Impeachment is not the way, unfortunately.

[erowe1]

The founders correctly noted that the people of any generation have the absolute power of nullification of the whole or part of any constitution. The failure to use said power implies acceptance or tolerance of the status quo.

They noted that I, as an individual, have that power?

Source?

[TheCount]

Better than the stick up your ass, I'd wager.

Never underestimate the power of prostate massage.

[kcchiefs6465]

How so?
Because they go against the original intent of the Constitution.

Take the 17th Amendment, for instance. The system established was worked out to be states themselves sovereign while delegating certain authorities to the federal government. (for the regulation of trade, that is, to mediate disputes and promote trade within the different states, the establishment of a Navy, etc.) It was to be a federalist system with checks and balances against the power any one entity could wield. Senators being elected by their respective states and representing the state's sovereignty before the Senate was monumental in limiting the extortion of states by the federal government. Eliminating that check against unabridged federal power was treasonous.

I do go back and forth on this and as well am not a Constitutionalist. I suppose it may be more fair to say that while the Amendments were constitutional, they are violating of the Spirit and original intent therein (part of the reason I am not a constitutionalist).

[Acala]

Because they go against the original intent of the Constitution.

Take the 17th Amendment, for instance. The system established was worked out to be states themselves sovereign while delegating certain authorities to the federal government. (for the regulation of trade, that is, to mediate disputes and promote trade within the different states, the establishment of a Navy, etc.) It was to be a federalist system with checks and balances against the power any one entity could wield. Senators being elected by their respective states and representing the state's sovereignty before the Senate was monumental in limiting the extortion of states by the federal government. Eliminating that check against unabridged federal power was treasonous.

I do go back and forth on this and as well am not a Constitutionalist. I suppose it may be more fair to say that while the Amendments were constitutional, they are violating of the Spirit and original intent therein (part of the reason I am not a constitutionalist).

The original intent of the Constitution was that it could be amended without substantive limitation. It plainly says so and the writings of the Framers support the clear language. The amendments might be a mistake (and you have pointed to one of several that are) but they don't violate the law established by the Constitution.

[kcchiefs6465]

The original intent of the Constitution was that it could be amended without substantive limitation. It plainly says so and the writings of the Framers support the clear language. The amendments might be a mistake (and you have pointed to one of several that are) but they don't violate the law established by the Constitution.
Well on its face then, it should be abolished.

If tyrants and a propagandized populace are all that is needed to enact law, at least, with regards to the void-of-any-moral-obligation-to constitutional variety, it really has no place in a civilized society.

If the tyrants in DC actually even gave one shit about it, absent the barest of lip service they preach, they could and would pass Constitutional amendments for a variety of things. Their Amendments would certainly be void of any moral reasoning and would certainly violate many's rights but alas, it may be constitutional, after all.

[puppetmaster]

Daily it seems

[Zippyjuan]

Minorities, especially blacks, are the most hurt by Obama's tyranny!


Obama is using the force of government to tax the wages of our hard working people living in our nation's inner cities and then transferring them to his pals under a green energy money laundering operation!

Let us take a look at the list who have profited off hard working people living in our nation's inner cities who have had their earned wages taken by Obama which are then transferred to his pals running a green energy swindling operation.



• Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants – Bankrupt in October 2011

• Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees — Bankrupt in January 2012 – has since exited bankruptcy

• Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant) — Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt

• Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit — Bankrupt in August 2011

• SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Bankrupt in August 2011

• Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) – Bankrupt in early 2009

• Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009 — Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010

• Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 – Bankrupt in April 2012
Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:

• A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants — Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs

• Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA — Laid off 2/3 of work force

• First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees — Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired

• Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees — Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland

• Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 — Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity

• Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value

• Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees — Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall

• Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012 — ½ work force laid off

• BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012 – loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsource’s solar power purchase would have fallen through.

see:Green Energy’s Bankruptcy Blackout (http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/green-energys-bankruptcy-blackout/)


Also see: 80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors. (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/80-obama-green-jobs-money-goes-obama-donors-green-energy-7-times-more-expensive-oil-and-coal-financial-numbers-are-stagge)


Why do you hate hard working people living in our nation's inner cities who are having their earned wages swindled from them by Obama? Eh?


JWK


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875). [/QUOTE]

Congress writes the budgets and decides who gets how much money. The President only gets to sign or veto the spending bill.

[johnwk]

Congress writes the budgets and decides who gets how much money. The President only gets to sign or veto the spending bill.

What is your point?


JWK

[Acala]

Congress writes the budgets and decides who gets how much money. The President only gets to sign or veto the spending bill.

Not true. The President proposes the budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/federal-budget-process/budgetprocess.pdf

[Todd]

I would argue that just about every president in my lifetime has had sufficient offenses to have been impeached over.

[Legend1104]

I just wish that the Constitution would spell out some of the reasons for using impeachment. That way the Congress could look at this issue and say "Yes. He has committed this action so he must be impeached." Right now it is more like, "Should this action be bad enough to have him impeached?" Too vague.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Congress writes the budgets and decides who gets how much money. The President only gets to sign or veto the spending bill.

Not true. The President proposes the budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/federal-budget-process/budgetprocess.pdf There will be no impeachment when you have 2 criminal gangs running one lawless government. Laws are enforced upon peasants only... what did they waste in 2014 dollar's on clown Clinton's Kabuli theater? ~$1/4 Billion

You're gonna love this one... Obama submits FY2015 Budget, calls for a 10% Increase to the IRS budget. (Additional $1.2 BILLION)
after this:
IRS Spends $100 Million on Pricey Office Furniture, Runs Out of Money
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/irs-spends-100-million-on-pricey-office-furniture-runs-out-of-money/

http://kwout.com/cutout/b/vp/sa/z8p_bor.jpg (http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/budget-in-brief/Documents/Treasury_FY_2015_BIB.pdf)

If you want to read FY2015 US Treasury bullshit ==> http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/budget-in-brief/Documents/Treasury_FY_2015_BIB.pdf

[presence]

I just wish that the Constitution would spell out some of the reasons for using impeachment. That way the Congress could look at this issue and say "Yes. He has committed this action so he must be impeached." Right now it is more like, "Should this action be bad enough to have him impeached?" Too vague.

How about we take a trivia approach?

Who was the last POTUS that did NOT use tax payer money to fund anti government rebels in a far off land?
Who was the last POTUS that did NOT use tax payer money to send arms to a foreign government?
Who was the last POTUS that did NOT send US troops into international waters or foreign lands without congressional declaration of war?

Those three to me are basic litmus test.

[johnwk]

I would argue that just about every president in my lifetime has had sufficient offenses to have been impeached over.


But here, we are talking about a President who regularly ignores the rule of law!

The fact is, not one President’s Administration that I know of attempted to violate the supreme law of our land 13 times! See: Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund)

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions?

Why do so many defend a president who repeatedly ignores and attempts to circumvent the supreme law of our land. Do they really prefer a dictatorial government in which the rule of law is subject to change at the President’s pleasure?

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[Acala]

But here, we are talking about a President who regularly ignores the rule of law!

The fact is, not one President’s Administration that I know of attempted to violate the supreme law of our land 13 times! See: Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund)

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions?

Why do so many defend a president who repeatedly ignores and attempts to circumvent the supreme law of our land. Do they really prefer a dictatorial government in which the rule of law is subject to change at the President’s pleasure?

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


Please give one reason to believe that Biden would be any better.

[erowe1]

But here, we are talking about a President who regularly ignores the rule of law!

The fact is, not one President’s Administration that I know of attempted to violate the supreme law of our land 13 times! See: Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund)

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions?

Why do so many defend a president who repeatedly ignores and attempts to circumvent the supreme law of our land. Do they really prefer a dictatorial government in which the rule of law is subject to change at the President’s pleasure?

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


You defer to the Supreme Court to tell you that Obama did something unconstitutional?

[Ender]

But here, we are talking about a President who regularly ignores the rule of law!

The fact is, not one President’s Administration that I know of attempted to violate the supreme law of our land 13 times! See: Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012 (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund)

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions?

Why do so many defend a president who repeatedly ignores and attempts to circumvent the supreme law of our land. Do they really prefer a dictatorial government in which the rule of law is subject to change at the President’s pleasure?

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


The Constitution was a coup that installed Big Gov. Lincoln sealed it- learn a little real history.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Obama got the Americans killed in Libya... it was Obama's Libyan War, which was reinforced by John Boehner and the NEOCONs voting to continue the Libyan war... of course for; crude oil, natgas, ports, and setting up those future terrorist training/arming/transport camps.

It's all of the Washington DC establishment that ferment; special interest spending, subverting, infiltrating, invading, killing, conquering... on & on. THey're all criminals as far you can see.

[Zippyjuan]

Not true. The President proposes the budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/federal-budget-process/budgetprocess.pdf

Yes, he can propose a budget but Congress has to write it. They don't have to follow any of his proposals if they don't want to. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives- not the White House.

[Acala]

Yes, he can propose a budget but Congress has to write it. They don't have to follow any of his proposals if they don't want to. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives- not the White House.

The President is not simply a passive stamp of approval or veto as you suggested. The executive branch starts the budget process by telling Congress in detail what the budget should be. Congress is not bound to follow the executive's proposed budget, and often makes substantial changes, but the proposed budget is still a highly significant part of the process and has a huge influence on the final budget.

[Zippyjuan]

The President is not simply a passive stamp of approval or veto as you suggested. The executive branch starts the budget process by telling Congress in detail what the budget should be. Congress is not bound to follow the executive's proposed budget, and often makes substantial changes, but the proposed budget is still a highly significant part of the process and has a huge influence on the final budget.

They certainly didn't like this one:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/votes/203134-house-kills-obama-budget-0-xxx


April 09, 2014, 05:26 pm
House kills Obama budget 2-413
By Cristina Marcos

The House on Wednesday handily rejected a GOP budget alternative based on President Obama's 2015 spending blueprint.

It was defeated 2-413, following a pattern seen in recent years in House votes to overwhelmingly reject Obama's budget proposals. Today's vote is just slightly better than the unanimous vote against Obama's budget in 2012.

The two "yes" votes came from Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Jim Moran (D-Va.), who is retiring.

[Acala]

They certainly didn't like this one:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/votes/203134-house-kills-obama-budget-0-xxx

The main reason I think it is important to remember that the President kicks off the budget process is because Republican apologists for Dubya like to blame the drunken-sailor spending spree of his administration on Congress. I like to remind them that Dubya proposed the first $2 trillion budget in US history and then followed that with the first $3 trillion proposed budget.

[presence]

The main reason I think it is important to remember that the President kicks off the budget process is because Republican apologists for Dubya like to blame the drunken-sailor spending spree of his administration on Congress. I like to remind them that Dubya proposed the first $2 trillion budget in US history and then followed that with the first $3 trillion proposed budget.

A Constitutional federal government shouldn't cost over a million dollars:

http://www.acton.org/files/pub/federal_spending.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

How do you come by that figure? Having troubles finding earlier figures (first US budget was 1790) but by 1799 government spending was over $9 million.

[presence]

How do you come by that figure? Having troubles finding earlier figures (first US budget was 1790) but by 1799 government spending was over $9 million.

That's because there generally wasn't a federal budget prior to 1790; the states each handled their own spending.

[Zippyjuan]

How much national security can you get for $1 million? We gotta protect ourselves from those Mexican invaders. Maybe a few "Please Don't Cross the Border" signs every half mile or so. By the time you paint the signs and pay somebody to put them up I think we have blown the entire budget.

[presence]

How much national security can you get for $1 million? We gotta protect ourselves from those Mexican invaders. Maybe a few "Please Don't Cross the Border" signs every half mile or so. By the time you paint the signs and pay somebody to put them up I think we have blown the entire budget.

Day 1: Disband the military send everyone home with an AR-15; divide up 25% of remaining equipment by rank. The other 75% auction off to the private INDIVIDUAL citizens with certain non-export, non-violent-offender stipulations.

Defended.

Next?

Day 2: All federal employees including the POTUS become volunteer positions.

[johnwk]

The Constitution was a coup that installed Big Gov. Lincoln sealed it- learn a little real history.


:rolleyes:

JWK

Impeach Obama and stop his fundamental transformation of America

[erowe1]

:rolleyes:

JWK

Impeach Obama and stop his fundamental transformation of America

He's not fundamentally transforming America. He's keeping it on the same path most previous presidents had it on.

[Ronin Truth]

Don’t Impeach Obama (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/gary-north/dont-impeach-obama/)

Gary North on why it’s a very bad idea.

Impeachment and Envy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/gary-north/dont-impeach-obama/)

By Gary North (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-north/?post_type=article)

GaryNorth.com
(http://www.garynorth.com/)
June 28, 2014

Two Presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. Neither was convicted by the Senate, although Johnson won by only one vote.




It would be a waste of rime to try to impeach Obama. The main case for this would be that Congress would waste a lot of time. There is a good case for that.

There would have to be a legal reason that the voters would accept. Every President violates the Constitution sufficiently often, so that a plausible legal case might be made for Obama’s impeachment. But it would have to be plausible politically. Otherwise, it would backfire: underdog politics. That was what happened to Clinton. He is supposedly worth something like $80 million (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/bill-clinton-net-worth/), due to speaking fees. That’s getting even? Hardly. Meanwhile, Bush II rarely appears in public. He did not get impeached.

The Senate would not vote to convict Obama. The Democrats would see the horrifying threat: President Biden.

If Joe Biden were to become President of the United States, Hillary Clinton would not get the nomination. Pres. Biden would guarantee that there would never be another President Clinton. Mrs. Clinton would fade into a well-deserved obscurity. She would get to spend the rest of her life changing her hairstyles.

I think a Republican could defeat Biden fairly easily. Even if Biden won, he would be less of a threat to our liberties than Hillary Clinton. He has a marvelous ability to put his foot in his mouth. He would become, not so much a bone of contention as a source of amusement. I don’t think he has the stomach for becoming a dictator. There is something flaky about him. Flaky people make rotten dictators. It is why I would have voted for John Kerry in 2004, had I not written in Ron Paul’s name.

I did not want to see Clinton impeached and convicted. This was not because of any sympathy for Clinton. But, in 1998, I did not want to see Al Gore become President. As it turned out, I was wrong. Instead, we got Bush. Bush was worse than Gore ever could have been, because Gore ultimately is wishy-washy. He is a one-trick pony: global warming. He didn’t have the votes to get his agenda through Congress. On the other hand, Bush briefly had something that only Eisenhower had enjoyed ever since Hoover’s administration: a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. Cheney have the deciding vote in the Senate. Bush didn’t have this majority long, but he had it too long. After 2001, the federal deficit and federal political power both expanded dramatically. I could not have known this in 1998. What I did know was that Clinton was a lame-duck President. He had not achieved anything of significance in his first term, and he was unlikely to achieve anything in his second term. He didn’t.

What he achieved was notoriety for the Lewinsky affair. That is his only memorable legacy. That is the only thing he will be remembered for. This is all to the good. So, I was glad to see him impeached by the House, and I was glad to see that he was not convicted by the Senate.

I wanted to see Clinton torn down, but I did not want to see him impeached and convicted. So, I was not envious against him; it was simply a matter of political strategy. I am always happy to see some President whacked on the knuckles by political reality, so that he cannot exercise as much power.

National politics is usually a zero-sum arrangement. The President wins; I lose. When he loses power, I gain a little bit of freedom.

Biden for President! Now, but not in 2017.

It’s a fantasy, of course. But I can always hope.


Read the rest of the article (http://www.garynorth.com/public/12612.cfm)
The Best of Gary North (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-north/)




http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/gary-north/dont-impeach-obama/

[johnwk]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/gary-north/dont-impeach-obama/

Why on earth do you post something that contains pure speculations while overlooking the House was charged with the power of impeachment by our Founders and it was specifically intended by our Founders to be used for the kind of president we now have?

JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Why on earth do you post something that contains pure speculations while overlooking the House was charged with the power of impeachment by our Founders and it was specifically intended by our Founders to be used for the kind of president we now have?

JWK

The founders don't specify what "kind of President" should be or can be impeached. It left that to the legislature and it requires two thirds of them to agree.


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html

It does not specify what qualifies as "treason" or what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are.

[Ronin Truth]

Why on earth do you post something that contains pure speculations while overlooking the House was charged with the power of impeachment by our Founders and it was specifically intended by our Founders to be used for the kind of president we now have?

JWK Probably because the DEMOCRAT controlled Senate will NEVER vote to convict Obama. It's very doubtful that a Republican Senate would either.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Let's face it - someone with the name "Barack Hussein Obama" probably shouldn't be President of the United States of America to begin with. It's like someone named "Nigel Warwick Collinsbroke" being the Emperor of Japan. It really ruins my immersion in this world.

It just shows how stupefied the general public have become. No doubt TPTB had fun with that one. Electing a Muslim president right after allegedly Muslims attacked the country on 9/11. It's like voting in a Japanese president right after Pearl Harbor.

[Zippyjuan]

George W.Bush is a Muslim? (He was not elected but Re-elected right after 9/11- serving as President for seven years after it)

I had no idea!

[Ender]

He's not fundamentally transforming America. He's keeping it on the same path most previous presidents had it on.

Exactly.

O is a neocon with a progressive bi-line; anything he has done was put in place by W.

W should have been impeached for PA I & II.

[Ronin Truth]

How do you come by that figure? Having troubles finding earlier figures (first US budget was 1790) but by 1799 government spending was over $9 million.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html

[Zippyjuan]

nm

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html

Doesn't help but thanks for taking the time finding it. Actual question was in responce to the quote above the chart:


A Constitutional federal government shouldn't cost over a million dollars:

I was trying to see if we ever spend less than a $million.

[TheCount]

the kind of president Which kind is that?

[erowe1]

Why on earth do you post something that contains pure speculations while overlooking the House was charged with the power of impeachment by our Founders and it was specifically intended by our Founders to be used for the kind of president we now have?

JWK

Who are these people you call "the Founders"? And why do you care so much about what they intended?

[Philhelm]

Who are these people you call "the Founders"? And why do you care so much about what they intended?

Imperfect men who were Saints capable of healing the sick with but a touch, compared to the demons from Hell that we have now?