It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impeachment yes or no and why?(why not..)

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Ok this post is not directed at anyone in this thread, but most people in this country have no idea what Impeachment or to impeach the president even means.

Impeachment of the president is nothing more than the legal process of bringing charges against an elected official, in this case the president. It has no guarantee that the individual being impeached will in fact be removed from office, But is one step in that direction.

Most of the time when someone is asked what impeachment means they automaticaly think of it as the removal of that individual and the next in line takeing the spot.

This post is not ment to be a smart@ss post or anything of that sort, but I just thought that it may help clear up some missunderstandings on the whole issue.




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Choiseul

Originally posted by Seiko
On what exact charges?

I couldn't seem to find an exact charge in your post.


Ah .. see I am still naive. I would think if a president is not doing a good job that you would have the ability to impeach him... not just because he did something obviously illegal.... If that is the main case for impeachment then that was my misunderstanding and I apologize.


So, you lost a fair election and don't like the President's policies, so you want to remove him from office prior to his constitutionally proscribed term? Presidents are impeached for breaking the law, not because you don't like health care reform. Get a grip. What's the point of having elections in which the person with the most votes winning if the voters whose candidate lost can simply nullify the election of the candidate they don't like?

[edit on 12-12-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Where was all this impeachment talk 8 years ago when we were decaying into this sh*thole that we now face or the reagan administration who sold us out to corporations, or wilson who signed america over to federal reserve.

Obama has not done anything yet worth impeaching, he has done alot of good and he has done bad, we all do , we're human yin-yang is always gonna be in the equation. If he was allowed to do what his original plans were, we'd be in alot better position, but trying to comprise with 2 evils(rep, dems) never turns out good.

Everyone seems frustrated at him but they don't know exactly why all i hear is a bunch of spoon fed answers that the mass media give out. almost everyone on here agrees the mass media crooked and yet STILL listen to every word they spit out. I've heard people bug out at the fact that he's trying to have government pay for college, like it's a bad thing, when in fact student loans is one of the main causes of debt.

have any of ya'll asked why they are gearing so much hate towards him, a man who doing what he said and starting some change, we cant depend on him alone to do it. I mean he is already starting to work towards a better health care system, better education towards the sciences, I'm not about to list a bunch of one sided facts aimed towards my views but im just saying he has done alot of good that people are overshadowing with blind rage now towards the way america is now. He has done some wrong things and dumb decisions, but not to the extremities that most people now a days are portraying.

I feel lie all this is going to lead us into a blind civil war where we lash out at the wrong powers that be.

what we really need is either a whole reform where new policies, congressman, politicians come in, out with the old in with new. But we as a people have to actually examine the facts not just vote for random names just of a (R) or (D) after their name. either that or revert back to the original policies set up by our forefathers.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Choiseul
 


Impeachment?? no. You can't impeach the guy for lying to the public...yet.
Think about it, the last president we tried to impeach was on record for having committed a felony while president. AND we still didn't impeach him.
Ain't gonna happen.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by The Baby Seal Club
 


To my knowledge the last president that we tried to impeach was Clinton, for perjury. Lying to everyone including the people while under oath, and yes he was impeached. No articles of impeacment were brought up for Bush that I remember.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
NO!
What the hell would that accomplish. They might as well be clones all of them.
The only affect that will have, is it will allow you and thousands like you to remain ni ni.
In the belief that your vote makes a difference, the electoral process hasn't been corrupted from hell to breakfest, even as Washington was taking the oath on his masonic bible and America is a country, not a corporation.

pack up your signs and go home.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Choiseul
 


Pent up frustration? You are dealing with personal problems...you need medical help my friend. Please take it asap.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Choiseul
 


If you wish to impeach someone then simply impeach Bush. He is afterall the one who took your country to war and dragged other countries along for the ride. Impeach Bush for taking you to war without a truthful cause.

Can a former president be impeached? I'm afraid my knowledge of the American legal system is limited in this area.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Choiseul

All in all, I believe Obama should be impeached. The administration that follows him should be banished





I believe obama should be removed, along with most of congress. Problem is, the corruption is now so deep that these criminals are covering for each other -- even across the different branches of government.

The founding fathers never envisioned corruption taking root to this extent. As far as I can tell, they never created a method where the government could be removed directly by the people.

So ..... this "government" has now made peaceful change impossible. Guess what's coming next?







[edit on 12-12-2009 by praxis]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by vip867
 


Actually that's what I meant. Maybe I should've written it better lol.

Clinton was guilty of perjury as president and yet he wasn't removed from office. I don't think Obama is going anywhere just because he's broken a few (or a lot of) campaign promises.

When the truth comes out about the Bush admin. they probably won't bother with charges. They'll just string him, Cheney, and gang up right there...Texas style.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by The Baby Seal Club
 


I must admit that i find it odd when politians don't abide by their policies. I can only assume two possible reasons.

1. They never intended for their outcomes to be a reality

2. They honestly thought they could do what they said but with the information that becomes available with government they realised they could not implement their policies.

I think a law should be introduced, not just in the USA but in every country. If a party cannot implement the policies that they campaign on then they should be imprisoned. This would eliminate stupid party policies as they would be to scared to create a policyu they cannot follow through.

It would create a system of honest politicians.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
usgovinfo.about.com...

It's the last thing you would ever think could happen to an American President. Since 1841, over one-third of all American Presidents have either died in office, became disabled, or resigned. However, no American President has ever been forced from office due to impeachment.
In fact, only four times in our history, has Congress held serious discussions of impeachment:
• Andrew Johnson was actually impeached when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by one vote and remained in office.

The Impeachment Process
In the House of Representatives
• The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
• The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
• Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
• The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
• Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
In the Senate
• The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.
• The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
• A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
• The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
• The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
• The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
• The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.


• Email
• Print
• US Government Info
• Government 101
• Grants & Assistance
• Take Part

Free US Government Info Newsletter! Sign Up
• Discuss in my Forum
Impeachment: The Unthinkable Process
By Robert Longley, About.com Guide
See More About:
• presidential impeachment
• president of the united states
• role of congress in impeachment
• u.s. constitution
Sponsored Links
Music City AuctionAntiques/Advertising/Historic Political/Music/Sports/Collectibleswww.musiccityauction.net
PEO vs. In-House HRBenefits of Inhouse vs. Outsourcing Get a free e-book and consultation.www.GoCentripetal.com
Us Presidents at Bing™Sort Presidents by Party, Terms Served, & More. Try Visual Search!www.Bing.com/VisualSearch
Government Ads
American President Analytic Hierarchy Process Obama Elected President AHP Process Cabinet Depth Fridge
It's the last thing you would ever think could happen to an American President. Since 1841, over one-third of all American Presidents have either died in office, became disabled, or resigned. However, no American President has ever been forced from office due to impeachment.
In fact, only four times in our history, has Congress held serious discussions of impeachment:
• Andrew Johnson was actually impeached when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by one vote and remained in office.
• Congress introduced a resolution to impeach John Tyler over state's rights issues, but the resolution failed.
• Congress was debating his impeachment over the Watergate break-in when President Richard Nixon resigned.
• William J. Clinton was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relationship to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was eventually acquitted by the Senate.
The Impeachment Process
In the House of Representatives
• The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
• The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
• Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
• The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
• Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
In the Senate
• The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.
• The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
• A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
• The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
• The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
• The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
• The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.
Impeachable Offenses
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:
• Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
• Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
• Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.


With all that said impeachment is out, but we as citizens can organize to fire them all. More to follow on that and how we can accomplish this, as almost all current members of congress are criminals under the law an in breaking there sworn oath to up hold the constitution and be bound under the laws of such constitution.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
freesyncracy.com...

Congressional Pink Slip Reality
Posted by Larry Andreen on October 2, 2009 • Leave a Comment
0 tweets tweet
Millions of “pink slips” are currently being sent to Congress members at this time, to make them aware that many of the people of America are not happy with their actions. The pink slips are threats that inform them that out of control spending, and loss of individual rights are not acceptable. This certainly it will have some impact on the so-called elected officials, but what will it really accomplish?
What makes you believe Congress actually works for you in the first place? Is it because you have been told they do, or is it fact? You may be surprised when the truth is told.
The actual fact is, Congress members technically do not work for you, nor do most of them work to protect your natural God-given rights. However there are a few exceptions, who support the latter. So I maintain that the current pink slips will only be marginally effective; except that if enough Americans wake up to the reality of the election process, some of these officials may, in fact, lose their jobs. You see, the media elects most of them, and majority of the people follow their lead. But unfortunately un-electing Congress members will not fundamentally change the way Congress actually works, until the people learn their standing in law.
To be totally factual, we must look at the United States Government as a business… a very large international corporate one. This business was originally established as a private corporation in 1871 as the “District of Columbia”, under the District of Columbia Organic Act. We might call it Corp. U.S. for clarity. It was hired by the people to manage the business affairs of the national government, and was supposed to provide a service to our government, not to actually be government, or control the people.
Unfortunately, because the schools, the media, Congress, the Executive Branch, the Courts, and numerous other agencies have joined this corporation, we are continuously being indoctrinated into the socialist way of life. We are lead to believe that elected representatives actually work for the natural people, but we are still subject to the whims of this mere private corporation that we all work for. However Corp. U.S. is, in fact, not our government at all, but an imposter that has fooled the people of this country for 138 years.


Read the rest at the link at top of page.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
So if you think of the pink slips being sent to Congress, as grievances to the union leaders, you will be much more accurate. But what clout do these Congressional workers have, when their bosses also threaten their jobs? Their bosses can simply say to them; “You keep doing what you’re doing, because remember, you work for us, and we’ll take care of the public opinion… as we own the media. We can sway public opinion any way we wish. You just keep doing what you’re doing, and you’ll be fine. But if you step out of line, we’ll either expose you for something you’ve done, or you’ll never get support for re-election.”


Do you see the irony? We have been duped… and so have the lawmakers. Oftentimes even they believe they are providing a service to the people… a clear case of brainwashing. They are led to believe that their employer (Corp. U.S.) knows what is best for the “workers”, and it is their responsibility to vote for what they perceive is best for those union workers (as dictated by their employer), under the socialist agenda of their so-called democracy. Let’s face it, we’re really talking fascism.


Does that make sense to you?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Here is the actual dialog of one such pink slip warning. It sure can’t hurt to let them know we’re on to them:



NOTICE

TERMINATION OF REPRESENTATION

Dear (Congress member);

We, the people of the United States, acting upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution do hereby notify you that we no longer support a Congress that:

Fails to openly and honestly debate legislation.

Passes bills without reading them.

Creates trillions in national debt.

Enslaves us and our children to endless taxation.

Stands idly by while federal czars take ownership control over American industry, wiping out personal property, and destroying jobs and innocent lives.

Passes cap and trade bills that will raise taxes, energy costs and cripple industries.

Threatens our right to life and the liberty to maintain our health care as we choose.

Places party politics over principle to the destruction of the rule of law.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that your authority comes solely from the consent of the governed. Therefore, be advised – WE NO LONGER CONSENT TO YOUR ACTIONS AND WE WILL NO LONGER BE SILENT!

We hereby withdraw all support from you and every member of this Congress, either House or Senate, until such time as you prove your commitment to the principles of the Declaration and the US Constitution.

IT’S TIME TO PACK UP AND COME HOME.

Signed:



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Choiseul
 


That's why they have elections...really.

Impeachment is reserved for high crimes, and assorted criminal activity. None of which President Obama, much as I dislike his policies, has done.

In three years, you'll be able to vote him out of office, should the majority of Americans so desire...

Midterm elections are next year...in those you can, if you are so minded, help to derail his plans.

Impeachment? No grounds for it.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


December Rain.. thanks for sticking to the topic... i feel so much better now, you addressed my deep anguish and I should now be medicated... ... i have a lot of words on my mind but... you would be a waste of my time.


Hmmm... Now I think i should have made this more generalized in the topic heading... sounded good at the time though but it wasn't exactly what I was wanting to bloody "debate".



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Impeaching any of our CFR sponsored presidents wouldn't necessarily solve the problem for it goes much deeper than that. This word of "Impeachment" and the inherent process is more of the illusion of Freedom of Choice at work.
It is analogous to only pulling the top of a weed and not pulling the root. Because if you don't remove the root then it's just going to grow right back.

Which is exactly what we've had year after year for practically the last two centuries.

I just recently pointed out this in the left right paradigm thread, a quote from Andrew Jackson, all of 173 years ago.

Andrew Jackson said in 1836 “If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system – there would be a revolution before morning”.

This is the ROOT of the problem. Obama and all of these CFR sponsored presidents are simply the puppets and/or the fall guys.

The real controllers of our economy, the FED, who also fund and profit on all of our wars, are the ones that need to be weeded out.

Exactly as Andrew Jackson had said...."You are a den of thieves vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."

Which is Jackson's quote after he'd removed the US Govts money from the from the Rothschild controlled, Second Bank of the United States and instead deposits them into banks directed by democratic bankers.

And as they say..."The rest is History".



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Impeachment? I would say that until there is evidence to support the removal of a sitting president and his cabinet and most of congress needs to be shown. Though some of the antics of the US congress, should give all of us pause to think about the next time we go to vote. This problem has been brewing for a long time. If you watch what all is going on, they are ramming alot of bills, and these are not small documents through congress to get passed before the christmas break, and 2010 is an election year for alot of reps and Senators. And what is reall interesting is if you look at when alot of this stuff is suppose to take effect, it will be just before the elections.
But I am digressing. Lets just say you do manage to impeach Obama, then what would happen is that Biden would become President of the United States and Pelosi would become Vice President. And so now you have the same old politics in office, just a different face.
Right now I am hoping that all of the incumbents are removed in the next election and that more independents are elected to fill those seats, that way you would end up with real change, owing nothing to either politcal party and we starting seeing a real representation of the people.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Seiko
 


Violating the constitution. He is not serving in America's best interest and is not defending her like he should. Neither is the Congress, or Justice department, or Supreme Court, etc. They should all be evicted.

But just him proposing to spend trillion of more dollars on top of the trillions the government has already spent and propose it to "create jobs" and "save the nation" is absolute lunacy.

The problem is that the whole nation is governed by this lunacy so a common sense case such as that would never be heard. We are living in Bizzaro World.


Thats fun. What provision of the constitution has he violated. I really am curious. Not defending the constitution- from what?
Oh, even if you don't agree with the bail out (I do not agree with it), it is still constitutional under the spending powers and commerce clause. And before you go quoting text or claiming some formalistic interpretation, remember we are a common law country with the shortest written constitution in the world. So, yeah, you cant really use strict interpretation of the text. I don't make the rules, I just study them. see also, South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987) .




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join