Can Obama be impeached for knowingly breaching the Constitution?

Obama Appointments Ruled Unconstitutional

I have seen people talking about the implications of having to replace his appointments. But I think the bigger question is, is this an impeachable offense. Now that this story is running all over the news, there is no hiding it. I am wondering if the Supreme Court backs the Court of Appeals, then is it impeachable.

Do to the fact that Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, we know that he knowingly did something Unconstitutional.

The Constitution provides that the President "...shall be removed from Office in Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

So I ask you, where does this go? Is this an impeachable offense if the Supreme Court backs the court of appeal?

reply to post by K_OS


You can impeach a guy for getting head. Breaching the constitution...maybe not I hope so.

reply to post by XLR8R


And even if he was impeached he wouldn't lose his job. Whats the point?

The thing about impeachment is that there must be a Congress willing to do so. If they vote to do so, it will happen, otherwise it will not. Should this matter be brought to a vote? I don't know. I suppose that the checks and balances system worked in this case, as there was an arm of one of the branches of government that chose to override the president. This is supposed to happen, and it has not been happening enough. It did not happen nearly enough with Bush, and he should have been impeached, and it is happening all over again with Obama. I can understand that Obama was put into a very bad situation created by Bush, and while he has done some to bring home troops, the military conflicts still seem to be at the forefront of the agenda. I do not think this offense is impeachable personally, but it is not up to me.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by K_OS

 

You can impeach a guy for getting head. Breaching the constitution...maybe not

I hope so.

edit on 25-1-2013 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)

he lied to congress about getting "lewinskis" under oath.

reply to post by Juggernog


Obama swore to uphold the constitution. He broke his oath. More than once.

Yes.. he should be. But.... we all know that he won't be.

reply to post by K_OS

Is this an impeachable offense if the Supreme Court backs the court of appeal?

YES…I'm sure it's an impeachable offense but is that what we really want? It likely wouldn't lead to a removal from office and if it did....well, we'll have another problem.

They planned ahead for this scenario, which is why Biden was on the ticket again. Who in the hell would want to see President JOE in the oval office?

I believe Obummer can be impeached.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted

As far as I am concerned, anyone acting against the Constitution for the United States can be considered a terrorist! Yea, the new enemy of the state! Obummer is without question, working against the state if he is working against the Constitution thus making him a TERRORIST!

The Constitution is basically a contract agreed upon by the several states to form a union (constitutional republic). The entirety of the Federal government has breached that contract many times over, thus nullifying any authority via contract over the several states. We do not need to secede from the Fed, but merely choose to ignore them entirely.

All that need be done is continue business as usual as the several states until such time as the original government for the United States, governed by the founding documents as intended, is re-established. The current Federal government has only the power that we the people consent to. We need to run each of our states as though nothing has changed. Our state leaders must organize on the side of it's people against the "rogue" Federal government!

Originally posted by ajay59
The Constitution is basically a contract agreed upon by the several states to form a union (constitutional republic). The entirety of the Federal government has breached that contract many times over, thus nullifying any authority via contract over the several states. We do not need to secede from the Fed, but merely choose to ignore them entirely.

Al that need be done is continue business as usual as the several states until such time as the original government for the United States, governed by the founding documents as intended, is re-established. The current Federal government has only the power that we the people consent to. We need to run each of our states as though nothing has changed. Our state leaders must organize on the side of it's people against the "rogue" Federal government!

Part of that agreement between the states included the federal government's authority to make treaties (article 6 of the Constitution) and that treaties are Supreme Law.

Okay, so the federal government signed a treaty called the UN Peace Treaty:

Treaties and Conventions: The principal sources of statutory international law are international treaties and conventions. Treaties are commonly defined as legally binding, written agreements concluded between states. Conventions are treaties entered into by many states that, once ratified, become binding legal obligations on all signatory states. www.usdiplomacy.org...

Layer upon layer upon layer of legal obligations. The Fed is really the least of our problems at this point in time, the highest government officials in America have for over 70 years taken orders from somebody much higher on the food chain than "we the people". And its all constitutional.

States (and people) cannot ignore the federal government as long as the feds can withhold worker's tax payments from payroll checks and divvy it back to only those states that "comply" with UN/US dictates. The states would never agree to being cut off from their funding. I wish ignoring them was enough.

reply to post by frazzle

Treaties and Conventions: The principal sources of statutory international law are international treaties and conventions. Treaties are commonly defined as legally binding, written agreements concluded between states. Conventions are treaties entered into by many states that, once ratified, become binding legal obligations on all signatory states. www.usdiplomacy.org...

This means nadda if they had already breached the contract that bound the rest of nation together!

States (and people) cannot ignore the federal government as long as the feds can withhold worker's tax payments from payroll checks and divvy it back to only those states that "comply" with UN/US dictates. The states would never agree to being cut off from their funding.

Again, the states do not have to participate! If your pay is not taxed for Federal taxes the Fed gets ZILCH! Where does the Federal government get their money? The people who live in the STATES!



The Federal government exists ONLY because we allow it to exist!

reply to post by K_OS


First response correct. You can "impeach" a President for practically any reason. Being "impeached" is simply like being "charged" and doesn't mean "removed from office"...Clinton was "impeached"...but not removed from office...the impeachment was unsuccessful.

That said...When Pres. Obama issued these appointments he had a team of constitutional lawyers issue an opinion that this was in fact "constitutional". It wasn't done without some backing. So while a lower court has ruled one way...the Supreme court will ultimately decide.

If the supreme court decides one way or another...it still would be a stretch for someone to prove that he "willfully disregarded" the constitution...as even a good number of constitutional scholars thought what he did was OK.

The GOP had employed a gimick of having someone gavel in and out of session each day, despite no one being there...and thus claimed they were "in session" during the whole holiday.

Meh..The Supreme court ruled a few cases of Pres. Bush's antics as unconstitutional...no impeachment...just an "over-rule"..

I agree the government we have only exists because we allow it. We've allowed a lot of # for hundreds of years and too many people still think they're darned lucky to get all that #. You don't need to convince me, convince them. Nobody listens to me anyway.

Many STATES have no income tax, but the feds always get their share. I'd like to see that reversed but good luck with getting it done. Well, personally I'd prefer the states to start issuing their own currencies. If breaking the rules is good for the goose, its good for the gander.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by K_OS

 

You can impeach a guy for getting head. Breaching the constitution...maybe not

I hope so.

edit on 25-1-2013 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)

No. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Getting a BJ isn't a "crime". Perjury is.

According to Right Wingers...Obama being Obama is an Impeachable offense.

I wonder how many people know how the entire impeacment process works though...here is a hint...Obama is going no where while Dems control the Senate.

The House can impeach him a million times, and nothing will happen.

So please, keep going with your impeachment fantasies.

Can I ask in what way he has actually breached the constitution?

I'm generally curious, from everything I have seen and read, the changes he proposed were fully within what he is legally entitled to do under the constitutions........

I'm not having a go at the OP, I genuinely can't see what the problem is here, so I'm looking for an answer.

reply to post by woogleuk

I'm generally curious, from everything I have seen and read, the changes he proposed were fully within what he is legally entitled to do under the constitutions.......

The courts disagree and thats all that matters.

Originally posted by woogleuk
Can I ask in what way he has actually breached the constitution?

I'm generally curious, from everything I have seen and read, the changes he proposed were fully within what he is legally entitled to do under the constitutions........

I'm not having a go at the OP, I genuinely can't see what the problem is here, so I'm looking for an answer.

Four words. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


He purged all right...badoom tsss! But seriously, I get that he lied under oath, but some have done way worst and didn't even get a slap on the wrist.