House Resolution 198: Defining Impeachable High Crimes and Misdemeanors

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
No, no, no...leave the Constitution alone....it's PERFECT the way it is. Take one look at the 2nd Amendment and you know it's true.

Then again, if we are going to tinker with the constitution, then the 2nd is up for discussion too, right? Or do we just favor changing the parts we don't like?

Every part of the constitution should always be up for debate.

Treating it as some immutable perfect document is the type of reverence reserved for holy books. The constitution was written by flawed humans of differing perspectives. They were wrong on some things, and incapable of seeing others.

That's why the constitution includes a process to amend it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
No, no, no...leave the Constitution alone....it's PERFECT the way it is. Take one look at the 2nd Amendment and you know it's true.

Then again, if we are going to tinker with the constitution, then the 2nd is up for discussion too, right? Or do we just favor changing the parts we don't like?

Every part of the constitution should always be up for debate.

Of course it should be; but the article referenced in the OP is discussing congress subverting amendment process by passing a bill. What I said in the post that you replied to was thick with sarcasm; although, I suspect that you know this by now if you continued reading a few post down from my original.

a reply to: Boadicea

For impeachment the definition of "High crimes and Misdemeanors" is defined by Congress per the Constitution. Hence the confusion people have when they look at it solely from a criminal aspect.

Impeachment is not a criminal / civil action. Its present as a checks and balance = if Congress impeaches the president, and then finds him guilty of the charges issued by congress, the president is removed from office, where criminal charges could then be brought.

This bill defines / explains what they consider impeachable offenses.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Is this just a coversation or are they actually cocking the gun?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Xcathdra

Is this just a coversation or are they actually cocking the gun?

I think it is.. The talk of impeachment has been increasing and the more actions Obama takes that bypass the law, congress and the constitution the faster it will occur.

I think Obama is not understanding that he does not represent the US people, but the US as a country. Congress is the branch who represent the people. By ignoring Congress he is ignoring the people.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I think it is.. The talk of impeachment has been increasing and the more actions Obama takes that bypass the law, congress and the constitution the faster it will occur.

I think Obama is not understanding that he does not represent the US people, but the US as a country. Congress is the branch who represent the people. By ignoring Congress he is ignoring the people.

They'll never impeach Obama. If they impeach Obama they'll lose 2016, and probably 2018 too.

a reply to: Aazadan

If the impeachment is based on valid issues then I think it could occur.

a reply to: Aazadan

If Rand runs THEY would HAVE it,if Jeb runs you would be quite correct.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Impeachment is not a criminal / civil action. Its present as a checks and balance = if Congress impeaches the president, and then finds him guilty of the charges issued by congress, the president is removed from office, where criminal charges could then be brought.

Hmmm... so if this resolution passed, and Obama was impeached upon one or more of these charges, he would be subject to criminal charges after impeachment? Who would be the charging law enforcement agency? Federal marshals? D.C. police? Or would it have to be a binding resolution? Am I reading too much into your words?

I'm not especially keen on imprisoning presidents -- impeached or otherwise -- for what many would consider political reasons...

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I think Obama is not understanding that he does not represent the US people, but the US as a country. Congress is the branch who represent the people. By ignoring Congress he is ignoring the people.

I like the way you phrased that. It's very true. Of course, too often Congress doesn't seem to understand they represent the people either -- not the president and not their party.

And, like so many people have complained, Obama does not understand that his job is to execute the laws Congress passes (as our representatives), NOT the laws he wants to enforce -- whether real or imagined.

can we just take that list of items and use it for all living past and present officials of public office and if they are found guilty throw them in jail??

seems to me that bush and gang were just as guilty as obama in many areas!

Is there a statute of limitations? Can we still go after Bush and Cheney, too? How about a threefer?

Very bad move on the part of the republicans. The party is separated and will need independent democrat voters to win a presidential election. I saw on Brietbart where Rubio is toast. Any republican candidate will have to support DACA.

Could be that they're just intentionally creating loopholes by drawing a map to follow so you can avoid impeachment. I can't see Obama being impeached. Not because he shouldn't be but because they would have little to gain and the media would tear them apart for it.

Very interesting. And I am no Obama fan but I have to point something out here.

If Obama is directly responsible for actions within the IRS to the point of impeachment then we have a problem. Only Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. It would make the IRS, employer payroll deductions and the penalties (garnishment/seizures/etc) performed unconstitutional. Talk about some "wealth redistribution" when Uncle Sam has to pay restitution to everyone affected.

That is some serious generational wealth there for the past 80 some years. Be sure to ask for US minted coins instead of those questionable Federal Reserve Notes, since they might be next under the bus.

originally posted by: dawnstar
can we just take that list of items and use it for all living past and present officials of public office and if they are found guilty throw them in jail??

It's a good question -- I hope someone else can answer. My best guess is that it depends on whether these are already established crimes in the strictest legal sense; or are simply "high" crimes applying only to "high officials." If the former, than I don't think this bill matters one way or another -- they were and are codified as crimes. But if the latter, then they would apply only to sitting presidents, and the only punishment would be impeachment, so it would be too late for previous presidents.

seems to me that bush and gang were just as guilty as obama in many areas!

Could be. But again, it goes back to the legal repercussions available. If they are actual codified crimes, then yes, I would assume they would be subject to prosecution after leaving office for as long as the statute of limitations is in effect. In which case, why were they not prosecuted execpt for political expediency by the Democrats? Perhaps because they did not want to set a precedent that would impact them as well?

originally posted by: MOMof3
Is there a statute of limitations? Can we still go after Bush and Cheney, too? How about a threefer?

It's a good question -- but I don't know, so I hope someone else can and will answer. If so, it begs the question, why didn't the Democrats go after Bush and Cheney? The only reason I can think of is because they didn't want to set any precedents that they had to live up to as well.

Very bad move on the part of the republicans.

Maybe. Maybe not. It will score points with many voters -- how many is the question. As a non-binding resolution, it really doesn't mean anything if no one is forced to respect it. It could be played several ways. I'm still not sure it's not simply for show -- just a pretend effort to say, "Hey! Look! We're doing something!"

The party is separated and will need independent democrat voters to win a presidential election.

Actually, both parties will need independents to win any election. Both parties are bleeding voters. There are now more Independent and third party voters than either Republican or Democrat. If we have a Bush v Clinton election, I predict we will see even more partisan refugees so to speak. In that case, all bets are off.

Any republican candidate will have to support DACA.

Haha! Not at all. Not just for political reasons, but legal reasons as well. Even if they say "yes," the court is saying "no."

originally posted by: Ahabstar

If Obama is directly responsible for actions within the IRS to the point of impeachment then we have a problem. Only Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. It would make the IRS, employer payroll deductions and the penalties (garnishment/seizures/etc) performed unconstitutional. Talk about some "wealth redistribution" when Uncle Sam has to pay restitution to everyone affected.

Interesting perspective. There are those who believe that taxes are already illegal and that the (16th? or 17th?) amendment was never rightfully ratified as it is.

a reply to: Boadicea

It sounds to me like this House Resolution is, basically, admitting that everything Obama and his administration has done thus far has been completely legal. Contrary to what you'll hear nightly on Fox News and the AM talk radio stations.

The whole thing is written, specifically, with regards to Obama. Everything he's been accused of the past 6 years. I absolutely do not support the House GOP in this regard but even I can see what they're getting at:

(1) initiating war without express congressional authorization;

Libyan air strikes.

(2) killing American citizens in the United States or abroad who are not then engaged in active hostilities against the United States without due process (unless the killing was necessary to prevent imminent serious physical danger to third parties);

Drone strikes in Yemen.

(3) failing to superintend subordinates guilty of chronic constitutional abuses;

Really broad swipe at the IRS and, possibly, Fast and Furious.

(4) spending appropriated funds in violation of conditions imposed for expenditure;

Construed in such a way that this applies, specifically, to Obamacare.

(5) intentionally lying to Congress to obtain an authorization for war;

Whoa...hold on, Bush?? Nice attempt at bipartisanship, congress should be doing their own research rather than taking the word of the executive anyway.

(6) failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of nonenforcement;

Executive orders that the GOP doesn't like (raising the minimum wage, Dreamers, etc.)

(7) substituting executive agreements for treaties;

The Iran deal, they're just so upset that an international agreement between multiple nations doesn't require their input.

(8) intentionally lying under oath to a Federal judge or grand jury;

Because Lois Lerner 'lied.'

(9) misusing Federal agencies to advance a partisan political agenda;

Again, the IRS. Obviously, it was all Obama demanding they go after the Tea Party organizations.

(10) refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents or testimony issued for a legitimate legislative purpose; and

Again, IRS with a little bit of DOJ thrown in.

(11) issuing Executive orders or Presidential memoranda that infringe upon or circumvent the constitutional powers of Congress.

This one is pretty blatant, EO's.

So, again, everything Obama has done has been completely legal. This is pandering to the GOP base at every level and making all of their accusations legitimate.

(12) Lying to the American people and/or their representatives.
(13) The intentional use of government agencies in order to damage or harm any person or organization for the purpose of political gain.
(14) Don't be a prick.

a reply to: links234

It sounds to me like this House Resolution is, basically, admitting that everything Obama and his administration has done thus far has been completely legal.

That may very well be. I'm not sure. If it's already a "high crime," then they don't need this resolution to impeach for same, so it's all fluff... and if it is not already a "high crime," then yes, they are basically admitting he's done nothing illegal or impeachable.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, previous presidents have also committed one or more of these "high crimes" and were not impeached, setting a precent for the presidents who follow to commit the same "high crimes." So I suppose it's possible that this is not fluff, and is an earnest effort to reset the bar so to speak. But that would require giving those congress critters a whole lot of credit that I'm not ready to give them!