[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Raises Impeachment Specter... (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 2/25/2011 12:39:32 PM EDT
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455Gingrich: Obama Sparks 'Constitutional Crisis,' Raises Impeachment SpecterIn an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law. Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a "President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996. |
|
"Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.” From the article. |
|
Quoted:
Much as I like Newt, he's talking out his ass on this one. This is a serious policy difference not high crimes and misdemeanors. usurping the realm of the judiciary in a blatant manner turns our entire system of government on its head. The repercussions of this are immeasurable if this is allowed to stand. Policy differences....please. |
|
Quoted:
Much as I like Newt, he's talking out his ass on this one. This is a serious policy difference not high crimes and misdemeanors. I cant stand newt but in this case he is right. Obama is going against his oath and IMO that is impeachable. I doubt it will happen though. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Much as I like Newt, he's talking out his ass on this one. This is a serious policy difference not high crimes and misdemeanors. usurping the realm of the judiciary in a blatant manner turns our entire system of government on its head. The repercussions of this are immeasurable if this is allowed to stand. Policy differences....please. Read some of the history of President Andrew Jackson and get back to me. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Much as I like Newt, he's talking out his ass on this one. This is a serious policy difference not high crimes and misdemeanors. usurping the realm of the judiciary in a blatant manner turns our entire system of government on its head. The repercussions of this are immeasurable if this is allowed to stand. Policy differences....please. Obama: "Separation of Powers ? How does it work ?" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Much as I like Newt, he's talking out his ass on this one. This is a serious policy difference not high crimes and misdemeanors. usurping the realm of the judiciary in a blatant manner turns our entire system of government on its head. The repercussions of this are immeasurable if this is allowed to stand. Policy differences....please. Read some of the history of President Andrew Jackson and get back to me. It is irrelevant. This is unconstitutional. |
| If Obammy wants it gone all he has to do is to get a gay rights group to challenge it and tell the AGs office to do a piss poor job of defending it. Considering how much politicians like to game the system you would think he would have already had this in the works. |
|
Might be what he's wanting. House starts impeachment proceedings, media reports that "gay-bashing" Republicans are busy trying to remove The Messiah while the government is shutting down, states are going bankrupt, mid-East is falling apart etc.
Might be best to focus on budget and deficit cutting right now and continue to hold his feet to the fire rather than go off on a tangent that, while certainly with merit IMHO, would be made out to look like a distraction. |
|
I thought it was the supreme court that got to decide the constitutionality of laws/acts and not the President?
If Obongo and Holdme can pick and choose which laws he is obligated to enforce then that leaves the door open for a future President to not enforce the civil rights laws at their discretion (or anything else). How would he and his liberal supporters like that! Anyway, as far as I can see he will have broken his oath and can be impeached. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Much as I like Newt, he's talking out his ass on this one. This is a serious policy difference not high crimes and misdemeanors. usurping the realm of the judiciary in a blatant manner turns our entire system of government on its head. The repercussions of this are immeasurable if this is allowed to stand. Policy differences....please. Read some of the history of President Andrew Jackson and get back to me. You might ask the Cherokee people how they feel about ole Andy Jackson. He ordered their forced removal after the Supreme Court said he couldn't. That being said I'd love for someone to find an impeachable offence against BHO that would hold up. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You guys obviously don't understand the 3 branches of Government: House, Senate, and President. No need for the judiciary. I thought the 3 branches were reid/pelosi/obama.  LOL, I am pretty sure he was referring to upchuck shumers gaff. There's now 4 branches, Frank |
|
Quoted: Seriously, WE need leadership with a pair of these......http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455Gingrich: Obama Sparks 'Constitutional Crisis,' Raises Impeachment SpecterIn an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law. Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a "President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.  ....not one 'Leader' in Washington has them.  A Leaderless Nation Trembles with this realization  ...and 'WE the People' keep hoping Their Good-Intentions work out. |
|
Quoted: The President doesn't get to pick and choose what is Constitutional. That is the job of the Supreme Court. He is SUPPOSED to "support and defend it" no matter what. Obama is way out of his lane, he needs to be smacked back down. and boys and girls, here is why arizona will win with 1070  |
|
Quoted:
EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAR is the operative clause there. Thank you for pointing that out. Some people are just catching on? Besides his unresolved birthplace, have they ever released his tax return? Is it because they are unsure of which one of the several social security numbers he's used in the past? Lots of people have caught on. But not the ones that count.
|
|
The last thing we want to do is hamstring the Executive's prerogative in enforcing the law.
Do we really want every law fully enforced all the time? Sure, I hate Obongo as much as the next guy (around here anyways) but sometimes you need to be careful of what you ask for. Congress writes the law as they see fit Executive enforces the law as it sees fit Judicial interprets the law as it sees fit (and hopefully in accordance with the Constitution). Start upsetting that applecart (i.e. Judicial telling Executive how to enforce the law) and we're in a world of hurt. I'm much more concerned about Executive enforcing laws that don't exist that selectively deciding which laws get the attention. Executive does that too much and Legislative smacks 'em on the ass, with Judicial backing them up. |
|
Newt is right about the knucklehead in chief ignoring his duties. Unfortunately, getting Congress mired in an impeachment over the enforcement of a law that has no meaningful effect on 95% of the American people when the economy and the monetary system are in serious danger would be political suicide.
How well did impeaching Clinton work out for the Republicans? Like it or not, the news media would spin the story into "Crazed Bible-thumpers attack President Sunshine for not hating gay people." Also, all of the polling about acceptance of gay marriage points to a strong generational divide. Most people under 50 either like gay marriage or are indifferent to it. Most people over 60 hate gay marriage. Guess which group has more likely voters? If the Republicans want to return to minority status, then they really need to spend a lot of time and effort on impeaching Obama for not enforcing DOMA. They will prove that they were lying when they ran on platforms focusing on fiscal responsibility and opposition to Obamacare. They will be no different from the Bush era Republican majorities that did nothing to fix social security, did nothing to repeal any gun laws, but wasted lots of time and political capital on idiotic stunts like flag-burning and DOMA laws. |
|
I'm pretty sure that: 1) The executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws 2) The legislative branch is charged with writing the laws 3) The judicial branch is charged with interpreting the laws. This is the separation of powers as defined in the Constitution. Constitutional violations, which is a violation of the oath of office, is a high crime. (In the context of high crimes and misdemeanors, it refers to the type of crime, not the severity) This does rise to the level of an impeachable act. But it is one of those going to go nowhere things, given today's social climate. Quoted: Much as I like Newt, he's talking out his ass on this one. This is a serious policy difference not high crimes and misdemeanors. |
|
Quoted:
And people wonder why Sara Palin is political kryptonite. Well, if Obama keeps it up with the Amateur Hour performance, you can say Congratultions President Luthor in a year and a half. And how does the fact that Obama is a junior league adolescent and a piss-poor President who fails at respect for his oath of office make Palin look anything but better? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I bet you there would be riots in the streets of most bigger cities if they impeached the kenyan.  And how is this bad? The bad thing about impeachment is President Biden. And, yes, what Obama did is unconstitutional as it usurps congress having passed a bill into law. What good is congress if every bill they pass is allowed to be enforced at the presidents discretion. It turns our form of government upside down.
|