Just out of curiosity, why has nobody called for impeachment...?


PDA






SilentStalker
January 2, 2013, 01:58 AM
Ok, I am serious here. With all of the gun talk lately, confiscation, whatever you can dream up I have not heard anything about impeachment. Honestly, IMO anyone directly trying to abolish the 2nd amendment becomes an enemy of the Bill of Rights and therefore the Constitution and the US entirely. If you cannot uphold and keep one amendment then what's the point of keeping any of them? Anyone wanting to strike down any of the Constitution should be immediately considered an enemy of the State because that is exactly what they are. Just a thought. Maybe some lawyers on here can tell me why this has not been done or if it is even doable. If this is posted in the wrong forum or just not a good topic please move or delete if need be. However, I think it is something that should be discussed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Just out of curiosity, why has nobody called for impeachment...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fast Frank
January 2, 2013, 02:53 AM
Discuss?

Nothing to discuss. I say do it!

That man's personal agenda has nothing to do with protecting the constitution, and many of the events I've seen recently are treasonous in my eyes.

Throw the bum out!

OptimusPrime
January 2, 2013, 03:24 AM
I'm not a fan of the big O, but I think any talk of impeachment is off the mark. "Treason, Bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are the benchmark for impeachable offenses and frankly he's done none of those that I'm aware of.

2RCO
January 2, 2013, 03:33 AM
I have to agree with Prime.....for now

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 2, 2013, 04:11 AM
I think a certain dead US ambassador would disagree with OptimusPrime.

JRH6856
January 2, 2013, 04:34 AM
Impeachment for breaching the 2nd Amendment? A bit late for that. It was breached a long time ago. The right to keep and bear arms was successfully infringed with NFA 1934). FDR is dead, as are all of the members of Congress who voted for it. Not to mention the Justices who upheld it so they can't be impeached.

Anyone ignoring the 2nd Amendment today is only following established precedent.

chris in va
January 2, 2013, 04:48 AM
They tried with the US citizen status. They haven't come up with anything else concrete enough as an impeachable offense.

highbrow
January 2, 2013, 05:06 AM
Killing 3 American citizens in Yemen at his orders without judicial reveiw, charges, Grand jury, trial or conviction. On HIS say so only. If this does not qualify for HIGH crimes then I don't know what does.What guarantees that this won't happen on American soil.
That should be enough to topple his illegal reign. Impeachment is mandatory.

OptimusPrime
January 2, 2013, 05:38 AM
I think a certain dead US ambassador would disagree with OptimusPrime.
If you're referring to Ambassador Stevens' death, I think the culprit there is the State Department chain of command and not any negligence or willful personal actions by the president.
The OP is asking about impeachment as it relates to the discussions around gun control. To that, I still say "nothing yet".

Yosemite Sam
January 2, 2013, 05:50 AM
Killing 3 American citizens in Yemen at his orders without judicial reveiw, charges, Grand jury, trial or conviction. On HIS say so only. If this does not qualify for HIGH crimes then I don't know what does.What guarantees that this won't happen on American soil.
That should be enough to topple his illegal reign. Impeachment is mandatory.
This seems interesting.
--------

But on the topic of firearms and impeachment, we can't even impeach (haven't yet) Attorney General Eric Holder over the Fast & Furious scandal despite a full House vote to hold him in contempt of Congress. I haven't even head of any news on the criminal and civil proceedings against Eric Holder. If we can't make headway on that, how can we make headway on his boss?

Mp7
January 2, 2013, 05:52 AM
I think George W. gave 10times as many reasons to be impeached ....

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 2, 2013, 06:02 AM
I think George W. gave 10times as many reasons to be impeached ....
Irrelevant.

Deus Machina
January 2, 2013, 07:51 AM
I think there's grounds for it in the way he's been covering for Holder.

Aside from that, it will depend how things go. There's a great chance any control bills will be knocked down in congress. His actions after that happens would decide, in my book.

Slipknot_Slim
January 2, 2013, 09:25 AM
It would require a 2/3 majority of a Senate controlled by the Democrats to impeach the current President of the United States. I frankly don't see that happening, therefore, the House of Representatives passing articles of impeachment would be an exercise in futility. After their performance with the "fiscal cliff" crisis, they don't need to be taking on any more battles that they will ultimately lose.

Hapworth
January 2, 2013, 09:25 AM
Killing 3 American citizens in Yemen at his orders without judicial reveiw, charges, Grand jury, trial or conviction. On HIS say so only. If this does not qualify for HIGH crimes then I don't know what does.What guarantees that this won't happen on American soil.
That should be enough to topple his illegal reign. Impeachment is mandatory.No it's not, and certainly not because of the al-Awlaki kill.

When an American citizen renounces his loyalty to the U.S., goes overseas, joins an organization currently and officially at war with the U.S., and proceeds to work with that organization in making war against the U.S., they make themselves a foreign enemy combatant. Due process ceases applying to that individual; the laws of war do, and the laws of war state the targeted killing of an enemy combatant is legal.

OP raised a Second Amendment related question, and although there's no merit for impeachment there either, let's stay on topic.

vito
January 2, 2013, 09:37 AM
In reality it is the media who decide what is impeachable and what is not. Nixon committed a minor infraction at best, yet because he was a highly disliked REPUBLICAN, the media pounded on him relentlessly and made the Watergate affair into something monumental. In my opinion, Obama has already been guilty of gross actions that would justify impeachment, not the least of which was the unlawful takeover of General Motors, the Fast and Furious scandal, and now the Bengazi murders. But since the news media love him, no matter that he is openly doing his best to transform this nation into something that ignores the Constitution, his infractions are overlooked. The media love of the Democrats extends beyond the President. Can you imagine if a Republican led Senate had not passed a budget in over three years? There would be a daily count in the media, lamenting the fact that the Senate was totally ineffective, with calls for the ouster of Republican leadership. Can you imagine if Fast and Furious had occurred under George Bush; we would be facing daily articles about the Border Patrol agent killed due to the treachery of the President. Former President Clinton was CONVICTED of lying under oath, and impeached for this, but the Senate under Democrat control was so obviously unwilling to oust him from office that a trial was not even held. This clearly was influenced by a media that was dismissive of any and all misconduct by this beloved (by the liberal media) President. Obama enjoys even more support, since it appears that leaders in the media equate not supporting Obama blindly to be proof of being a rascist and therefore unthinkable. So forget about impeaching Obama. He could openly call for ignoring the Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd Amendment and the media and many Americans would happily go along with such dictatorial behavior.

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 2, 2013, 09:51 AM
vito...when you're right you're right.

SaxonPig
January 2, 2013, 09:56 AM
If you mean Obama the president can only be removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors." While it is true that Obama has been ignoring two federal court orders for more than two years, other than that I don't know of any actual laws he has broken that would warrant impeachment.

Apparently destroying the country is not specifically illegal.

alsaqr
January 2, 2013, 09:58 AM
How is Benghazi and the offing of a terrorist named Awlaki related to guns and our right to bear arms? This thread is about petty politics.

herkyguy
January 2, 2013, 10:18 AM
Impeachment....come on now.

at best it's speculation at this point as to what gun ban may or may not be introduced for legislation. I have no doubt the push will continue, but i am not so sure based on some of his recent comments that our president will fall on a sword over this one. his track record is to let others fall on a sword on controversial issues (this is where Benghazi is relevent).

He will continue to make open-ended remarks about blanket support for more gun control, but will intentionally let others in the democratic party make the big push.

we are nowhere near impeachment. and he knows that.

Robert
January 2, 2013, 10:24 AM
Politics are off topic.

If you enjoyed reading about "Just out of curiosity, why has nobody called for impeachment...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!