The Tea Party has helped the House, but hurt the Senate and the presidency for the GOP. They can do quite well in local races, but fail nationally. That explains a goodly amount of fringe candidates in the House, some of whom may talk of impeachment.
But I think the leadership learned its lesson during the Clinton years. And, of course, the Senate wouldn’t convict unless it was something really serious.
Funnily enough, I think that the killing by drone of American citizens without trial or due process is blatantly unconstitutional and would be reasonable grounds for impeachment. If I thought that the Republicans would actually take that up on those grounds, and rigidly enforce a policy of not killing American citizens without trial afterwards, I could almost vote for them. But drone strikes are about the only thing Obama’s doing that the Republicans like.
At least they get kudos for not being hypocritical like the GOP during the Clinton years, who were screaming “wag the dog” every time Clinton wanted to get serious about fighting terrorism or crimes against humanity, only to turn around and wave the flag themselves a couple years down the line. Of course there are conservative libertarian-types who oppose Obama on drone strikes, but no mainstream GOP politicians that I know of (except maybe for the stray concern troll or two.)
appleciders, has it ever been the practice of the US or any other nation, in any war, to ascertain the citizenship status of enemy combatants before engaging them? When you’re in a war, you shoot at the folks shooting at you, even if (as is likely) some of them turn out to be your own citizens. Yes, this is a bad situation, but it’s just yet another reason why you don’t want to start wars if at all avoidable.
Apologies for highjack…but…how? Once Congress authorizes the use of force, what constitutional objection is left? I hate to be one of those who says, “Cite?” but a reference to the specific Article and Section would help: I don’t think there is any.
There are no reasonable claims of treason or bribery which only leaves the nebulous “high crimes and misdemeanors” upon which to attempt to make a claim for impeachment.
President Andrew Johnson was impeached and the Senate fell one vote short of removing him. His "crime"was violating a law regulating presidential power to remove an office holder who was appointed by a previous president with Senate confirmation from office without advise and consent of the Senate. A similar law was later found to be unconstitutional.
Obama did appoint, via recess appointment, persons to positions which otherwise would have required advice and consent of the Senate. The administration argued that the pro-forma sessions the Senate was holding did not amount to the Senate being in session.
However in order to recess the Senate for more than three days there is a constitutional requirement for the Senate to notify the House and receive consent. The House did not consent to Senate recess. Obama proceeded to make appointments anyway.
That is probably the most straightforward argument of a Constitutional violation warranting impeachment. The Senate would not convict. Republicans may feel that, the precedent having been established, this would be an extremely useful option for a future Republican presidency to fill positions requiring such Senate confirmation.
Given that a previous presidential impeachment flowed from issues over advise and consent of the Senate then there would arguably be precedent to support such an impeachment in this case.
You seem to forget that there are still a significant number of people still in the House and Senate who have, in the not-too-distant past, demonstrated their willingness to do it anyway, despite there being no “legitimate grounds”. The assessments of their character and judgment you see here are based on their own *demonstrated *character and judgment. And there is far, far more factual basis, including up to the present day, than that one example to basis those assessments upon.
The question, other than the one about your memory, that is, would be why you continue to support them.
Wesley, impeachment has nothing whatever to do with the legal system despite some common terminology, in fact, the Constitution explicitly separates them. You only heard that linkage in reference to the last time the GOP did something that stupid and damaging as part of a way to justify it in the public eye. It even worked to some extent.
Our current civilian terrorist drone strike campaign is shady, legally that’s probably their best bet. Though it makes Republican congressmen look like they want the terrorists to win to their constituents, so…
I’m certainly not calling for soldiers in combat to check anyone’s papers before shooting at them. I’m also not claiming that Anwar Al-Awlaki, or anyone like him, doesn’t represent a legitimate military target. However, I’m not convinced that this overrides the Constitutional necessity to a fair hearing, and I don’t think that a military decision that someone needs killing constitutes due process. Don’t get me wrong-- the drone strike was probably a good idea. But there’s no judicial oversight, and outside of a declared war, there needs to be some judicial oversight.
I trust Barack Obama to make reasonable decisions about this, to use this power carefully and moderately. I most certainly do not trust Sarah Palin to do so. And in 2017, it’s more likely that Sarah Palin or someone like her will be in that seat than Barack Obama.
If you’re talking about Clinton, there were legitimate grounds. He lied under oath. POTUS can’t be allowed to do that. He also got his law license in Arknasas suspended, and he got disbarred in SCOTUS for it.
Oh, please; that didn’t stop Bush II from lying to Congress without any attempt to punish him; or lots of other people for that matter. The crusade against Clinton was a purely political affair; the fact that they had to go after such trivial issues just shows that by politician standards Clinton was practically a saint. If they’d done the same with Bush they certainly wouldn’t have needed to did into his sex life.
I think you can make a much better case for impeachment if a President lies to congress during a State of The Union address. Put aside for the moment the question of whether Bush or any other president lied, but the SOTU address is constitutionally required, and if the President lies during it then he is fundamentally not complying with his constitutional duties.
Those “legitimate grounds” happened because your party specifically started a witch hunt on him. There would have been no perjury if they hadn’t already been looking for something to use to impeach him in the first place.
And the Senate decided against conviction, which, seeing as the perjury admittedly happened, means they didn’t think it was something that should have gotten the president removed from office. Why do you trust the House, who specifically started an investigation to try and find something to get the guy impeached, over the Senate?
Sure, the guy committed perjury, but it was not over an issue of governmental interest. There was no legitimate reason to remove him from office for lying about an affair.