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.

 

Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Interesting what if:

source


“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”


Can anyone argue with this premise? Seems reasonable to me that what Gingrich says is exactly what would have happened.

IMO it does set a dangerous precedent to have any administration - not just obama's - arbitrarily choose which current laws to support and defend from lawsuits seeking to overturn them.

edit on 2/25/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
With the long list of unconstitutional action from the executive office Barry decides this is where to stand?

I'm still not sure he's constitutionally allowed to be president!



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
If Sarah Palin had declared certain parts of Roe v. Wade unconstitutional and she was President of the United States, I believe the Liberals would be in the streets howling about her violations of the constitution. To Conservatives and Liberals alike, anything can be administered as a divisive tool used to fight for their side, neither can even remotely find the hypocrisy in what they are doing or saying.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
So you mean just like how someone on the "right" wants Obama to be impeached while those on the "left" support him, someone on the left would want Palin to be impeached while those on the "right" support her?


Thanks Captain Obvious, if it wasn't for you saving us by pointing out the obvious, we might have just thought of the obvious and not made a thread about it.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Do you mean overturning Roe v Wade on her command? Er... Pretty sure the Executive wasn't able to repeal precedent's on his/her volition.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by duality90
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Do you mean overturning Roe v Wade on her command? Er... Pretty sure the Executive wasn't able to repeal precedent's on his/her volition.


No, not repeal a law. But apparently a president can - as obama did in this case - direct his justice department not to defend a law that is already on the books from legal challenges. The OP is saying in its "what if" that all hell would break loose if a "president Palin" had done the same thing and decided not to defend Roe v. Wade from conservative's legal challenges and because of that action Roe v. Wade would end up being declared unconstitutional.

And I'm saying it is a dangerous precedent for any president to do such a thing.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Thanks Captain Obvious, if it wasn't for you saving us by pointing out the obvious, we might have just thought of the obvious and not made a thread about it.


Sorry to catch you not reading and not thinking about these subjects all the way through - again.

Try it again. Still, I'm confident you'll eventually get the premise of the OP and my comments about it.


edit on 2/25/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
If Sarah Palin had declared certain parts of Roe v. Wade unconstitutional ...


Again, the president can't declare anything unconstitutional.

What they can do - and obama is doing - is leave a law that was passed by congress and signed by a president undefended so that any judge with their own agenda can throw it out.

See the danger yet????

Recall that all public officials also take an oath of office that says in part that they promise to uphold and defend etc., etc.

Failing to uphold and defend is how this gets to an impeachment question.

edit on 2/25/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
But see, as I interpret this he's just saying "enough" to the endless waves of constitutional challenges that waste time and money and focus us on, let's face it, relatively lower down on the priority list social issues that most agree are already covered by the Constitution and will never be overturned.

What if as a result of freeing up some money and people he reprioritize the DoJ to go after war or Wall Street criminals instead? Then would it be okay? I mean, as everyone keeps running around here shouting, these are times we need to tighten our spending, and when you do this you prioritize!

If Palin were president (shudder) and she made a similar decision, it would mean that she had decided not to defend challenges to Roe v. Wade. That would be the equivalent here. Same principle.

He's not declaring things unconstitutional. He's not inventing laws. I don't believe he's even STOPPING the challenges (though this stuff can go over my head rapidly at times). He's merely putting his faith in SCOTUS and taking a highly educated guess at what their ruling will be so he's no longer willing to waste time and money on DoJ defenses.
edit on 2/25/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Thanks Captain Obvious, if it wasn't for you saving us by pointing out the obvious, we might have just thought of the obvious and not made a thread about it.


Sorry to catch you not reading and not thinking about these subjects all the way through - again.

Try it again. Still, I'm confident you'll eventually get the premise of the OP and my comments about it.


edit on 2/25/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)


This is coming from the person whose accused me of being a socialist and an Obama supporter on several occasions. Before I actually even bother replying to this, I'll be right back as I go buy a metric # ton of salt that I can take with your comments.

*gets his metric #ton of salt*

Okay, back.

I actually get the premise completely, and again I salute to our heroic mr. obvious. If only he wasn't in a coma during the past 10 years, or hell the 20 years prior to that, he may have actually told us something beneficial.

Not only do I get the premise, but I think it's WRONG because Palin would not be impeached. Because if Palin was president there would be a good chance there would be a republican majority with that, and if they held the power they would never call for her impeachment simply for being one of them. No matter what she did. Just like with Obama, the democrats, and the liberals (read; socialists).

The precedent of presidents lying, cheating, breaking oaths, and disobeying the law has already been set in stone. Obama isn't the first, he won't be the last, and none of them will be impeached.

So again, HOLY COW THE PARTY IN POWER IS SUPPORTING THEIR PRESIDENT WHO LEADS THEIR PARTY AND HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS WITHOUT BEING IMPEACHED!

It's like it's 2003 again.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I am quite aware of that fact. I even made a statement on that in particular in another thread.


Once again this shows a President completely out of touch with reality. I thought he taught Constitutional law? Well if that is true then he would know that neither the President nor the Department of Justice have the right to declare something unconstitutional, and neither does the Congress. That decision is left up to the courts, and only the courts, to decide.

Plus is it not hypocritical to declare, in at least his opinion, one issue unconstitutional while at the same time ramming through a piece of legislation already declared unconstitutional by two judges?

Picking and choosing what you want to believe is reality helps no one.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
But see, as I interpret this he's just saying "enough" to the endless waves of constitutional challenges that waste time and money and focus us on, let's face it, relatively lower down on the priority list social issues that most agree are already covered by the Constitution and will never be overturned.


But that begs the question of how you would react if it was a law you favored?


What if as a result of freeing up some money and people he reprioritize the DoJ to go after war or Wall Street criminals instead? Then would it be okay? I mean, as everyone keeps running around here shouting, these are times we need to tighten our spending, and when you do this you prioritize!


Apples and oranges. This is not about going after someone or something. It's about defending a law that was legally enacted. Plus, aren't we already paying the DOJ people. How does assigning them to defend a law cost more?


If Palin were president (shudder) and she made a similar decision, it would mean that she had decided not to defend challenges to Roe v. Wade. That would be the equivalent here. Same principle.


YES! The point of the entire OP.


He's not declaring things unconstitutional. He's not inventing laws. I don't believe he's even STOPPING the challenges (though this stuff can go over my head rapidly at times). He's merely putting his faith in SCOTUS and taking a highly educated guess at what their ruling will be so he's no longer willing to waste time and money on DoJ defenses.
edit on 2/25/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


Obama isn't stopping the challenges, he's giving them a much better chance to succeed.

Thanks for weighing in.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Can anyone argue with this premise?


I don't think the scenarios are all that comparable. The result of Palin's hypothetical actions would lead to further federal restrictions regarding personal choices, while Obama's actions may lead to a possible expansion of peoples' options/choices. In general, people tend to favor being provided with more options, and people tend to resist greater restrictions imposed by the federal government.

So I'd have to say yes, I think Gingrich's premise is flawed.
edit on 2/25/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Marriage itself in federal law is already in many ways unconstitutional, marriage being in the constitution is contradary as well, as it is a religious ceremony practiced mostly by Christians. The idea of it being between a man and a woman is purely religious not to mention that it was made a federal law, putting force over individual states wishing to legalize same sex unions. It is ironic as when the idea of allowing federal gay marriage came about, many conservatives insisted upon states rights, so it is rather hypocritical is it not? This change in tune.

I am well aware Bill clinton passed this law, one of the bad moves of his administration. The law was already delcared unconstitutional in court, so according to the article below:


former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

Gingrich even suggested that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.

www.newsmax.com...

If Palin did move to end the federal law requiring marriage to just be between a man and a woman, I am confident that liberals, who as a majority in favour for same sex marriage, would not call for her impeachment. If she did the opposite, enforcing federal law of marriage over states, there would be people and should be folks from both sides call for action by the courts, and possibly impeachment.

This is what I find interesting in this article:

Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.


Really? dangerous precedent? The day Clinton signed this into law it created precendent. Not only is marriage purely a religious ceremony but the idea of enforcing it between a man and a woman is imposing force upon the states for religious reasons, which is a precedent. This law should never have been signed in.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by centurion1211
Can anyone argue with this premise?


I don't think the scenarios are all that comparable. The result of Palin's hypothetical actions would lead to further federal restrictions regarding personal choices, while Obama's actions may lead to a possible expansion of peoples' options/choices. In general, people tend to favor being provided with more options, and people tend to resist greater restrictions imposed by the federal government.


I think you said it better than me!


How will gays getting married effect me as a person? There will be no effect. Same sexed couples, working class tax paying same sex couples committing to one another has nothing to do with my life, so why should be worried? They are minding their own, so why should I mind their business? There are no real reasons to banning gay marriage, aside from the standard rightwing (gay is infectious) garbage. What's more by removing this law, we are actually putting less government regulation in place, something I am surprised (or maybe now so much) tea partiers are not advocating for.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
What's more by removing this law, we are actually putting less government regulation in place, something I am surprised (or maybe now so much) tea partiers are not advocating for.


Exactly.

While Gingrich's spokesman stressed...

His statements were meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media.

...it actually displays the hypocrisy of the "right". Gingrich claims to promote right wing ideals (such as less federal restrictions/regulations) until it comes to an opportunity to federally oppress a minority group, then he's all for it.
edit on 2/25/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 

All I can say is that the Constitution does a pretty good job as is. In the case of gay marriage, if people would just get over themselves, realize it doesn't affect or hurt them, and let other people live without discriminating against them, we wouldn't be even wasting time on this discussion. I don't think we need anymore laws or acts. A few need some updating, and some, like the Patriot Act, might need to just go away.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I really don't think many of you are really getting the point of this issue.

Instead of just rushing to defend obama's actions because you favor them in this case, I think everyone needs to step back and look at the bigger picture of how it creates another of those infamous slippery slopes that any president could start using in the future.

It's another conservative issue, but here's another what if to help demonstrate:

What if obama decides that his DOJ will no longer defend the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment against legal challenges? Would that lead to a civil war?

For the liberals, what if some future Republican president decides not to defend legal challenges - like those starting to form - to the current broad interpretation of the amendment that says any child born in the U.S. is a citizen? Would that lead to a civil war now that there are already so many "anchor children" here?

See, this OP isn't just about Roe v. Wade. It's about a potential big change in the way the executive branch deals with issues it doesn't agree with - ignore them and hope they die - and whether taking those "inactions" would constitute an impeachable offense for not uholding and defending ...


edit on 2/26/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


So if we skip ahead, Obama would be impeached by the House of Representatives but not
removed by the Senate?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
What if obama decides that his DOJ will no longer defend the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment against legal challenges? Would that lead to a civil war?


Are you to argue that the removal of heterosexual marriage from federal law would cause civil war? Really? That is amazing, and meanwhile we have a what? 50% divorce rate in this country, and yet folks threaten civil war if gays can marry.


Centurion, surely, surely you do not believe or justify civil war over gay marriage because that is just silly. I'm sure there are far more worthy causes you can think of.


For the liberals, what if some future Republican president decides not to defend legal challenges - like those starting to form - to the current broad interpretation of the amendment that says any child born in the U.S. is a citizen? Would that lead to a civil war now that there are already so many "anchor children" here?


You cannot compare gays getting married to the age old constitutional law of children being born in this country, you are comparing apples and oranges to show some kind of a double standard, where there isn't. Gays getting married was not of much concern to founders during those times, neither is it an issue that should effect my life or yours. Children being born here, that is an issue that has impact on lives, an issue that the founders already made clear in the constitution.


See, this OP isn't just about Roe v. Wade. It's about a potential big change in the way the executive branch deals with issues it doesn't agree with


Again, how is gay marriage even an issue? How will it effect your life again? As far as I see it, by ending enforcement of the defense of marriage act, it equals less government and more power over americans to dictate how and with they wish to spend they lives with. I am still amazed you continiously bring this up as an issue, and then you compare it to the citizenship laws.
edit on 26-2-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join