|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Feb 5, 2014 14:14:57 GMT
downtrend.com/brian-carey/krauthammer-a-republican-president-would-be-impeached-if-he-did-the-things-obama-did/?utm_source=OutbrainCharles Krauthammer appeared on the Special Report All Star Panel tonight to discuss the President’s threat, from his State Of The Union Speech, to use executive orders if Congress doesn’t pass laws in accordance with his vision. “You can have executive orders that implement already existing laws,” Krauthammer said. “What Obama has done, in the DREAM Act… essentially, he passed a law by executive order that the Congress had rejected, wouldn’t pass.” “That is unbelievably unconstitutional,” he continued. “It’s as if a Republican ran and said, ‘I don’t like the capital gains tax.’ Congress rejects an abolition of that tax, and then he orders the IRS not to collect it. People would be up in arms and would be impeaching.” “He’s done that over and over again on immigration, drug laws, climate change, and of course, on ObamaCare which he has unilaterally altered lawlessly at least 15 times,” he said Video in Link.
|
|
|
|
Post by RTF Squared on Feb 5, 2014 21:43:32 GMT
I agree that he has completed a list of impeachable offenses, but I don't feel a Republican would be impeached where he hasn't. Bush II committed many offenses against the American people and the world and saw no repercussions. Sure, what he said in the SOTU is downright dictatorial, but I have to respect the "fuck you, I'll do what I want" transparency vs. previous administrations. I personally feel Bush did as he pleased in the same fashion at America's expense, but was much better at lying and convincing Congress and the populace it was the right thing to do. Clinton made it sound like a humanitarian mission to sell our country to China. Obama's at least making it clear he doesn't care what anybody else thinks in his country and knows he will remain unpunished.
The house impeached Clinton over a blowjob and making a really strong pass at a subordinate on party lines. The senate didn't remove him on party lines. I'm not super knowledgeable on Clinton's reign as premier to really pick him apart too much more, but I would say Bush did much worse and Obama doubly so. The fact no president in my lifetime has seen punishment for the actions they commit is due to the broken party system. There will never be enough of a majority in the senate either way to remove a president from office as long as the term "party line" continues to have relevance in the American vocabulary.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Feb 8, 2014 17:23:23 GMT
Krauthammer is a fucking loon. You have to go back to Grover Cleveland to find a President who has issued FEWER executive orders than Obama, and Presidents have been issuing Executive Orders since George Washington. Hater's gonna hate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Feb 9, 2014 1:48:10 GMT
You have to go back to Grover Cleveland to find a President who has issued FEWER executive orders than Obama, and Presidents have been issuing Executive Orders since George Washington. Maybe so, but he certainly threatens it alot and its all on issues that should be in the hands of Congress. Not one mans. |
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Aug 15, 2014 21:58:22 GMT
The house impeached Clinton over a blowjob and making a really strong pass at a subordinate on party lines. Actually, no. He was impeached for perjury. He lied under oath when questioned about the blowjob. I was not and am not a fan of his in any shape, form, or fashion. I'm certainly not going to make excuses for him. He deserved to be impeached for perjury, and he should have been found guilty of the charge or perjury and removed from office on those grounds....not for receiving a blowjob (or his questionable taste in what constitutes a cigar holder). Instead of lying under oath about his extra-marital affairs, he should have exercised his 4th 5th Amendment* right and refused to answer the question. Had he done so, as much as I thought him a dirt-bag I would have seen no legitimate grounds to impeach him over that particular event. On the subject of Executive Orders, I seem to have missed the memo wherein the Chief Executive's Orders to members of the Executive Branch (which is what Executive Orders are), are lawfully or legally binding on anyone outside those members of the Executive Branch. Not saying that alphabet agency folks won't try to shovel fecal matter against incoming seawater when their boss tells them to do so, but that doesn't mean it's legal. |
|
