A Republican congressman has told a left-leaning blog that if there is collective support, he would favor the impeachment of Barack Obama over his decision to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. "The president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama," Gingrich said. "The president swore an oath on the Bible to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed, not to decide which laws are and which are not constitutional." Gen. Curry who served in Vietnam and commanded the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground during his long military career, suggested Congress should simply hand Obama an ultimatum. Gen. Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said, "We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro (aka President Barack Hussein Obama) ⦠based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution." Former congressman and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath to defend the United States against enemies "foreign and domestic," they need to file impeachment charges against Obama. Floyd Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, said, "The Obama presidency is a disease. ⦠Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment clause of the Constitution) is the cure. And it's Obama's hatred of America that makes it absolutely imperative that we take action now. "Barack Hussein Obama is not some do-gooder that has had his plans go astray," Brown added. "He is not a person of good will just trying his best to make America go the right direction. He is not. Barack Hussein Obama is a liar that absolutely knows what he's doing to the United States of America. He has a plan. He has an agenda. This man knows exactly where he's taking us. "Barack Obama is a very dangerous man," said Brown. "Over the last two years, we have been watching the slow progression of what I call a bloodless coup." Read more: 1st call for impeachment by member of Congress http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=270077#ixzz1FVL9jyB8
So , when is this impeachment going to happen ? does ps/pr stand for please note/ im a prick...? i'm asking..
from what i gather, the President can choose to not enforce an act he deems is unconstitutional. jefferson did it.
Presidents have many times acted upon their own take of the Constitution. That's wrong.... that's why we have a Supreme Court.
i cannot say for sure either way. i understand why we have the supreme court (good luck getting obama removed by them). but i think a constitutional lawyer would know better.
This is a tricky area of constitutional law. It is also drenched in hypocrisy. Can we imagine the outcry from liberals if Bush had said that he was not going to enforce the Civil Rights laws because he regarded them as unconstitutional? This situation with Obama is somewhat unusual because we are dealing with a law that was duly enacted and signed into law by a previous president, Bill Clinton ironically. It's not like he is dealing with a rogue court decision, like Bush encountered over gitmo detainees. I argued at the time he would be justified in ignoring that decision because it was a clear infringement on powers granted exclusively to the Executive Branch as well as being clearly wrong as a matter of law. This situation is also different from the one facing President Nixon, when he "impounded" appropriated funds. He refused to spend funds on programs enacted by congress, over his veto as I recall. This refusal was characterized as lawless and was one of the proposed articles of impeachment against him. What Obama is doing is arguably worse than what Nixon did. Obama is not just refusing to spend funds appropriated by a law, he is treating the law itself as a nullity. Plus, it is a law that was singed by a previous democrat president. If he can get away with this, what's to stop him from failing to enforce other laws, for example the one preventing Black Panthers from threatening people at a polling place? Oh wait, he already has done that. The Constitution in its sublime wisdom provides a remedy. Congress can initiate impeachment proceedings. Or, it can defund targeted departments of government to gain leverage. For example, it could cut half the DOJ's funding, which would have the additional benefit of getting a bunch of parasitic government lawyers off peoples' backs. Or, it could cut White House funds used to ferry the Obamas' personal trainer back and forth from Chicago several times a week. Or it could ignore it, which is what the timid republicans in charge of the House will likely do. Turf not contested tends to become turf lost.
Unfortunately you are making the assumption that a lawyer that knows the law is ethical and will thus obey it. However the reality is that (s)he that knows the law is more likely to know how far they can violate it and how to cover up the violation (CYA).
Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has an agenda, and it does not include "defending and upholding the US Constitution"... in spite of his sworn oath to do exactly that.
+1. Impeach for failure to pursue the case against the Black Panthers who intimidated voters in Philly.