Barack Hussein Obama's Willfull Violation of the U.S. Constitution: Impeach him?

[Black Cloud]

I talked to a friend in Serbia and there is strong support for Libya there.

Certain elements of the population there are pining for what they mistakenly look back upon as the good old days. Americans are doing that too; I was listening to a guy explain it to his wife the other day. Apparently the communists have subverted the constitution and Obama is a puppet thrall tool of the Illuminati and Michelle is sending signals with her outfits, but I didn't hear that part because we had to leave.

 

[Dave]

Certain elements of the population there are pining for what they mistakenly look back upon as the good old days. Americans are doing that too; I was listening to a guy explain it to his wife the other day. Apparently the communists have subverted the constitution and Obama is a puppet thrall tool of the Illuminati and Michelle is sending signals with her outfits, but I didn't hear that part because we had to leave.

I googled "michelle obama sending messages with clothing" and found this subject is well documented. Thanks for that. Her "China red" dress, with one bare shoulder seems to indicate a willingness to allow China to ravish the US. That's hot! (okay, it's not, but I wanted to say that.)

I'm told that Libya was one of the countries that did not recognize the embargo and so Serbs feel loyalty. Also, there is a far right element there that is pro-Libya for reasons I don't yet understand. This idea of the good old days is probably the connection though.

 

[Buzzetta]

Well, of course I believe that Ford pardoned Nixon for other reasons than the good of the country. I did read the speech just now. Let's forget who wrote that and why and whether it's true or not and take it as fact. Do you agree with the concept, that it would do more damage to the country, and that a President could not get a fair trial? Or is this more like a historical perspective?

Honestly, this is something I have problems faulting Obama on morally, because the establishment of the no-fly zone does seem to he a humanitarian effort to protect innocent people from mass murderer with an army at his disposal. But, it's really a problem that he's doing something he called unconstitutional when Bush did it.

I talked to a friend in Serbia and there is strong support for Libya there.

From a historical and present day perspective I do not believe that a president could receive a fair trial. As it is from a historical perspective we can see that Andrew Johnson was almost impeached for political reasons (but saved by one vote in his defense so that the motion would not reach the required 2/3 to remove him from office).

I have few things to say and I will be a little bit "all over the place" so please give me some leeway when you read the answer.

As far as putting a President on trial, that is a question that can be split as to what the 'crime' is that we are talking about. For example if we are talking about a trial where the President is charged with shooting his wife or stealing a car or a drunken assault and fistfight in the west wing where the secretary of agriculture is pummeled with a marble bust of Washington then we are talking about a trial that reflects on the personal. We are talking about a trial that judges the rights and wrongs of the man and not the President as an institution. I believe that the President as a man should and would be held accountable.

I have different answer though where it concerns the office of President as an institution. I believe that putting a President on trial for actions that he took as president concerning areas of the expansion of executive power are very tricky waters to tread. It is not a question of legality but a political question over constitutional interpretation, political ideology and the necessity of the time period. In retrospect we may fault FDR for committing unconstitutional acts with his banking holiday or the creation of some of his programs. (The TVA comes to mind.) However, FDR defines it best in his inaugural address where he asks Congress to allow the office of President to assume a more powerful role. FDR literally says

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

And Congress let him have it. Did FDR commit unconstitutional acts. Many would say 'yes.' Would we put him on trial today? Who knows? Today we celebrate his actions and history ranks him highly as an effective President.

Schlesinger v. Holtzman tried to challenge the power of the President to wage war without the consent of Congress. However the courts found that it was not a constitutional issue but a political one. Basically saying that Obama is defending the nation as he sees fit. Bush defended the nation's interests as he saw fit and every President before them all the way back to Washington utilized the military as they saw fit.

I do not believe that Nixon would have ever received a fair trial and this belief is the exception to the other's that I have concerning putting a President on trial. The view of Nixon (at least to me) is shaped by the time period. The turbulence of the 1960's and early 70's would have never allowed the most visible figure of national authority to receive a fair trial.

I have a lot of things going on right now so I will check back and answer or expand on anything you bring up but give me a couple of days. I am not ignoring but otherwise sidetracked.

 

[Buzzetta]

Looking at it calmly it's probably true that no president could receive a fair trial. The major issue seems to be whether or not the nation is in imminent danger when the President goes to war without the approval of Congress. Although the Iraq invasion was sold to the public based on a confusing series of associations between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein (it's beside the point for the argument whether these were true, false, or deliberately manufactured) there was a long leadup to it. It was obvious that it was going to happen, in my opinion. Again, that doesn't matter. The issue is that Saddam Hussein was seen as an imminent if indirect threat to the US. The difference is that Libya is not a threat to the US and was not presented that way.

It's not that simple though because we also have obligations as a member of the United Nations which I wasn't considering.

On a practical level I don't understand what the military action is accomplishing as Gaddafi is using clusterbombs on civilians. Apparently he's trying to murder the entire opposition in a genocidal bid to stay in power. So I don't know how we can have this controversial and divisive action that most of us agree is for a good cause, and then not even being able to stop the killing.

I wonder what impeaching Obama would do to the stock market?

The Obama administration will not come forth and say how the situation in Libya is a threat to the United States but one need only to look at the price of gas. It is currently over $4 a gallon here. The administration has determined that a stable Libya is essential to the economic growth of the United States. A stable Libya is in the interests of the United States. This is not a criticism but a shrug of, "It is what it is." Under that idea, President Obama is utilizing the military to protect the interests of the US. Obama may not be presenting it this way as to distance himself from comparisons to Bush and Iraq. "Both nations are middle eastern oil rich nations that were experiencing internal conflict and oppression towards its people." That is what the media will probably say.

The current military engagement are steering clear of another peacekeeping mission / ground war. Obama does not want to enter the 2012 elections with three theaters of operations when he pledged to scale back while running for office during the 2008 elections.

As far as Obama and the stock market I found some records regarding the Stock Market during the impeachment of Clinton. The best that I can figure is that the Stock Market experienced a decline during the actual trial but experienced substantial growth in the long term during the Clinton Administration. However I do not believe that anything would have caused economic decline during this time period no matter who was leading the country as this is the timeframe associated with the dot com boom.

 

[Dave]

Let's simplify it to two issues. One is that there is the issue about whether the danger is imminent to the standards regarding the president and congress. The second issue is whether we have an obligation as a member of the UN. I believe it's resolution 1973 that does call on us to prevent the sort of action against civilians that has happened in Lybia.

If the reason is about oil, it's debatable if that is imminent. You probably know off the top of your head and I don't have time to look all this up, but is that an original part of the Constitution about imminent danger or something added later? At one extreme that phrase would mean that a country had launched a war on us suddenly and there's no time to go to Congress. That's what I'd think of as imminent.

 

[stephk817]

Perhaps the Obamites who turned SoLow virtually into an Elect Obama (& Worship Him Too!) campaign web site are understandably quiet nowadays.

That is why I quit posting here.

 

[Buzzetta]

Let's simplify it to two issues. One is that there is the issue about whether the danger is imminent to the standards regarding the president and congress. The second issue is whether we have an obligation as a member of the UN. I believe it's resolution 1973 that does call on us to prevent the sort of action against civilians that has happened in Lybia.

If the reason is about oil, it's debatable if that is imminent. You probably know off the top of your head and I don't have time to look all this up, but is that an original part of the Constitution about imminent danger or something added later? At one extreme that phrase would mean that a country had launched a war on us suddenly and there's no time to go to Congress. That's what I'd think of as imminent.

Been a few days so I forgot everything I wanted to say.

The debate is not what we say it is but what the sitting President decides and whether or not enough members of Congress either offer support or are unwilling to impeach. Why did Lincoln get away with suspending habeas corpus? Because anyone that would have impeached him already left the union and was supporting the Confederacy. The same is true for Andrew Jackson and a few other Presidents that committed legally impeachable acts.

The only mention of imminent danger that comes to my immediate mind concern two parts:

States may not attack another nation or take arms against a hostile foreign entity unless the state itself is attacked by that entity and is placed in imminent danger.

Schenck v The United States 1919 and Brandenburg v Ohio 1969 - majority decision in Shenck declares that Constitutional rights are not absolute and are to be balanced in accordance to the situation. This is where Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes coins the phrase that a citizen does not have the constitutional right / protection to hell "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire is present. The Court decided that speech could be limited or restricted when it placed others in a clear and present danger. This was later overruled to a less vague scenario under Brandenburg v Ohio where the Court narrowed such limitations on speech to situations that created "imminent lawless action."

In today's world, after precedents set forth by former Presidents, Democrat, Republican, Whig, Federalist and so on, a President merely has to say that such actions are what the President believes is in the best interest of National Security and for the most part it can be done.


By the way... have you seen Colin Quinn's History of the World?

 

[Theo]

I don't know that it serves any purpose to discuss this insanely awful prez, Obama, anymore. Everywhere you go, pretty much everyone agrees that he's the worst piece of shit this country has ever had to suffer through. Even black people in America are aghast at how awful he is, and that's despite big pressure within the black American community to not say anything bad about Obama. While I feel vindicated, I also feel sad. I also wonder what Obama's real agenda is, since we now know he told nothing but lies all through his campaign. Literally every f***ing thing he said in his campaign was a lie! It's pretty laughable.

Hope and change is what they said. And those f***ing idiots are currently destroying my country.

Hopefully we'll have some REAL change REAL SOON.

 

[Dave]

Been a few days so I forgot everything I wanted to say.

The debate is not what we say it is but what the sitting President decides and whether or not enough members of Congress either offer support or are unwilling to impeach. Why did Lincoln get away with suspending habeas corpus? Because anyone that would have impeached him already left the union and was supporting the Confederacy. The same is true for Andrew Jackson and a few other Presidents that committed legally impeachable acts.

The only mention of imminent danger that comes to my immediate mind concern two parts:

States may not attack another nation or take arms against a hostile foreign entity unless the state itself is attacked by that entity and is placed in imminent danger.

Schenck v The United States 1919 and Brandenburg v Ohio 1969 - majority decision in Shenck declares that Constitutional rights are not absolute and are to be balanced in accordance to the situation. This is where Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes coins the phrase that a citizen does not have the constitutional right / protection to hell "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire is present. The Court decided that speech could be limited or restricted when it placed others in a clear and present danger. This was later overruled to a less vague scenario under Brandenburg v Ohio where the Court narrowed such limitations on speech to situations that created "imminent lawless action."

In today's world, after precedents set forth by former Presidents, Democrat, Republican, Whig, Federalist and so on, a President merely has to say that such actions are what the President believes is in the best interest of National Security and for the most part it can be done.


By the way... have you seen Colin Quinn's History of the World?

I have not. I used to watch his talkshow a long time ago.

I appreciate the reply. I understand that you're saying that the definition of imminent danger is not open to debate.

 

[Happy Maudlin]

Hopefully we'll have some REAL change REAL SOON.

I hope the same...

 

[troubleluvsme]

 

[Dave]

Wow. See this is what makes the Tea Party and anyone who has a valid gripe about Obama look like a racist. Not only that but it's really stupid because to renig is to back out on a deal, and voting for Obama and then switching to some clown with a mop on his head would be closer to any sort of accurate definition, assuming you considered a vote some sort of contract or partnership.

 

[Buzzetta]

When it comes to voting you have to realize that two major things:

1 - Unless they are seeking a second term, your candidate is running on their ideals without having an understanding as to what it involves to be President. Senator Barack Obama had a great deal of ideas that he honestly believed would benefit the nation. President Barack Obama, as former VP Dick Cheney stated, found out quite quickly why previous administrations did what they did (not just the Bush Administration) and has altered his ideals in order to run the nation as a sitting President. The third President of our nation, Thomas Jefferson, saw this firsthand. Jefferson was elected on an anti-federalist platform evoking images of the Monarchy and played upon the fears of the people that true democracy could never be achieved so long as the Federal Government continued to hold the power that it did. Jefferson realized the bind he put himself in while campaigning once elected when forced to make an independent decision regarding the Louisiana Purchase. Americans today forget that there was a large segment of the population that was disgusted by Jefferson's actions. Nowhere in the Constitution did it clearly outline a method that made Jefferson's acquisition constitutional. The closest that Jefferson came was that his legal team cited the ability for a President to negotiate treaty with another nation and they classified the $15,000,0000 purchase as one of these treaties. The United States was only able to pay for $3 million and paid for the rest in promissory notes basically placing the nation in debt to France. There were groups of Americans that pointed their finger at Jefferson and pointed out that if Hamilton had been elected in 1800 and followed the same course of action that Jefferson would be leading the charge in declaring Hamilton's actions as unconstitutional. Jefferson ate some crow and swallowed his pride because he knew that the Louisiana Purchase was too good of a deal to pass up. President's put aside their campaign promises sometimes once they become President because they do what they feel is best for the nation as each situation arises.


2 - Supreme Court Nominations are what a voter should be looking at. What is the Constitution? It is whatever the current Supreme Court interprets it to be. The basic argument held in the dissent in Plessy v Fergusson is part of the foundation of the majority decision in Brown. The Court reverses it's decisions or clarifies itself in a different manner whenever a new member is appointed to the bench. A President has the ability to appoint members to the Supreme Court and those justices make their voices heard for sometimes more than twenty five years. In the next election take a look at the upcoming President and form an opinion on certain Constitutional Issues. That President's influence will be felt on the bench by how many Justices the President is able to appoint. Something to keep in mind.

 

[Dave]

Your second point is definitely something to consider. Your first point definitely sounds well-reasoned but it really has problems for me. It says that we live in a top secret spy world where we can't know what's really happening. I recall comments of Cheney's regarding the same topic and I found it kind of ominous. The reason is that, like we talked about in the Libya thread, there are going to be decisions that are made on behalf of the people based upon Intelligence that the President is now aware of.

This is the same Intelligence that supplied those photographs that Colin Powell showed us all on television that were used as one more excuse to attack Iraq. Whatever you feel about that decision, however you feel about how it played out, we went to war over faulty intelligence. And some things don't change when you find out new facts, like your amenability to torture.

Maybe there are things we don't know. Sounds conspiratorial.

 

[Buzzetta]

I don't know, I guess it depends on what you view as necessary disclosure. I am not someone that believes that the average citizen has a right to, let alone needs to, be aware of every action the US Government takes. To those that do they neglect the fact that other nations do not always play nicely with others and would utilize these actions to the best of their advantage. Sure, one could say, "Imagine if every nation gave full disclosure about everything that their respective governments were engaged in." That sounds nice but it would never work. A few years after WWI (Originally titled The Great War until the studios realized the cash cow that sequels would bring.) nations pledged to demilitarize and governments around the world signed off on the Kellogg Briand Pact. This was a pact that outlawed war. No seriously, it made war illegal. That did nothing to prevent the Germans from invading France or Poland nearly a decade later.

To me, full disclosure leaves your nation with it's pants always down. There has to be some confidentiality regarding the inner workings and events of what goes on in DC. As it is I already believe that the United States already allows more information to be accessed and reported on than almost any nation in the world in proportion to its influence and global power. The trick is finding a balance.

 

[MindlessRuffian]

I missed Theo.

 

[troubleluvsme]

I missed Theo.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

Eleven consecutive posts without prompting or response. That has to be a new record. One wonders, since it's clearly capable of entertaining itself, why must the rest of us suffer?

 

[Deleted member 1074]

Eleven consecutive posts without prompting or response. That has to be a new record. One wonders, since it's clearly capable of entertaining itself, why must the rest of us suffer?

You could easily end your 'suffering' by not viewing his threads...