The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Impeachment ...

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,398

    Default Impeachment ...

    You might recall that I have been of the opinion that impeachment would be a waste of time and energy. It would never get past the Senate even if it were to shift Republican, because they need a 2/3 vote to impeach.

    Obama has said that he plans on a significant executive order on immigration by the end of the summer. Some are speculating that might mean giving amnesty to the parents of the beneficiaries of DACA, or parents of anchor babies. Some have thrown around a number of 5 million. That would already be more than the whole amnesty under Reagan. The Hispanic Caucus just wants him to grant amnesty as would have occurred under the Senate bill.

    If he did any of those things, could that be the straw that broke the camel's back? Could Congress really ignore that ... essentially failure to secure the borders? Would Obama risk that so that the Republicans could be demonized as racists for the 2014 (or 2016) elections?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    If he did any of those things, could that be the straw that broke the camel's back? Could Congress really ignore that ... essentially failure to secure the borders? Would Obama risk that so that the Republicans could be demonized as racists for the 2014 (or 2016) elections?
    Maybe not racists but maybe nativists.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    You guys throw impeachment around so much the threat of it loses meaning. That said it would be a far cry from a high crime or misdemeanor. If you really think about it the border would be just as secure as it was before, but just have more people in it. The R's need to define what they want done with immigration. Obviously what we have now is unacceptable and what the D's are proposing is Ludacris, but it seems that the R's don't have a single idea of what they would like to do either.
    Ole and Sven are quietly sitting in a boat fishing, chewing and drinking beer when suddenly Sven says, 'I think I'm gonna divorce my wife - she ain't spoke to me in over 2 months.' Ole sips his beer and says, 'Better think it over...women like that are hard to find.'

  4. #4
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Republicans have been breathing impeachment every since Nixon was impeached. Get over it. That was 40 years ago.

    You have a couple of elections that will be difficult enough to pull the republican party together for. But if the Republicans want to gin up an impeachment, have at it. That will sap the hell out of the GOPper political capital on a fruitless crusade. Hillary's minions will be happier than great jumping quiz show contestants.
    Last edited by zeus3925; 07-27-2014 at 01:00 AM.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,398

    Default

    Sarah Palin is advocating for impeachment, but it has not been (to my knowledge) at the top of the R list. King recently came out in favor of it if Obama does grant amnesty to 5 million illegals ... as Guiterrez says the POTUS promised him.

    My question is whether granting such a huge amnesty would be such a gross violation of existing immigration law that Congress could no longer avoid beginning the process? I don't think the Rs really want to get involved in it as it would be very messy politically. However, there can be a point when the POTUS would truly be endangering rule of law, effectively governing by whimsy and fiat.

    When D members of Congress applauded the POTUS' statement of using executive orders to obviate the necessity for Congress, it should have been chilling to us. It should have been chilling to THEM, since an R POTUS could do the same, and they might no longer be applauding.

    If the lawsuit by the House goes to the SC, and they judge the POTUS behavior unconstitutional, would that nullify those executive orders that failed to duly execute certain laws of Congress?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #6
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Sarah Palin is advocating for impeachment, but it has not been (to my knowledge) at the top of the R list. King recently came out in favor of it if Obama does grant amnesty to 5 million illegals ... as Guiterrez says the POTUS promised him.
    what office does she currently hold ?....its time for SP to exit stage left....

    Stop with the impeachment talk, it would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory during the midterms and again in 2016...I want the D candidate to have to defend the last 8 years and let the country to decide...I do not want BHO to become a martyr and a rallying cause for the D..its a waste of time

    I want to hang BHO and his admin like a lead anchor around the neck of any candidate who supported ACA and every other entitlement program, make them wear it and own it...
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    what office does she currently hold ?....its time for SP to exit stage left....

    Stop with the impeachment talk, it would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory during the midterms and again in 2016...I want the D candidate to have to defend the last 8 years and let the country to decide...I do not want BHO to become a martyr and a rallying cause for the D..its a waste of time

    I want to hang BHO and his admin like a lead anchor around the neck of any candidate who supported ACA and every other entitlement program, make them wear it and own it...
    Great post.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    what office does she currently hold ?....its time for SP to exit stage left....

    Stop with the impeachment talk, it would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory during the midterms and again in 2016...I want the D candidate to have to defend the last 8 years and let the country to decide...I do not want BHO to become a martyr and a rallying cause for the D..its a waste of time

    I want to hang BHO and his admin like a lead anchor around the neck of any candidate who supported ACA and every other entitlement program, make them wear it and own it...
    That would be the pragmatic approach. The question is have the R's become too radicalized to be pragmatic?
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lebanon, OH
    Posts
    843

    Default

    This would be BO wet I have have a dream. Just think of all the destruction, through executive orders, he could do while the media was completely focused on the topic.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,398

    Default

    I am also in agreement that impeachment would be a terrible way to go. I agree that it would provide Ds a great political football for upcoming elections that currently look pretty grim for them.

    Nothing wrong with SP being a spokesperson for conservatives. There are many political figures of both persuasions that do what SP does, though they hold no elected office. I personally think she's too impulsive to be a POTUS or VP, but she obviously does strike a chord with many voters.

    In fact, liberals make a practice of campaigning on buzzwords and sound bites. SP is using those same tactics, I think. it's about time liberal opponents caught onto how liberals create the atmosphere that gets to the low-info voters.

    It may not be such a bad thing to draw attention to the fact that POTUS has acted outside the laws and his Constitutional authority to such a degree that it merits impeachment ... but not actually do the impeachment.

    Truthfully, I'm also waiting for Reid to invoke the nuclear option for other matters in the Senate beyond appointments. God knows the appointments are doing enough damage, but could he extend that beyond just appointments? A nation of 300 million would be at the mercy of 51 people? Surely, the Founders never intended for that to happen (or there would be no need for the House)? What if Reid used the process he used on ACA on other bills passed by the House?

    But what should Congress do if POTUS were to extend amnesty by executive order to many millions of illegals? Most say he is operating within the law with UACs ... however, as I mentioned before, that law was written for UACs that are brought here by force ... not those who come voluntarily. That is carefully being overlooked by almost everyone right now. And there is also the loophole that POTUS could declare all of those UACs (and the adults that are accompanying them) as "refugees" ... and they immediately are "legal" and can collect all social service benefits.

    This kind of "blanket" refugee status was only done, in the past, with Cubans and Viet Namese. This new influx is not quite the same as that.

    Perhaps my OP question was not the right one. Maybe the question should be what options does Congress have if the POTUS' use of executive orders that flout existing law become even more blatant ... and more dangerous to rule of law? When a supporter of D policies like John Hurley, a Constitutional scholar, believes that we are in a Constitutional crisis, it makes me take notice.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •