Impeach President Obama

[Dumb Ideologies]

BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE CONSTITUTION MIGHT BE SAD.

It might be a little unfair to discourage people writing their elected officials.

Telling them to impeach the President? No, I think we can discourage that fairly safely without rocking the very foundations of the democratic system.

There's being an engaged citizen and then there's just being a donk.

[United Dependencies]

What I did not mention and I would like to now is that I am in strong support of the Dream Act, but Obama blatantly disregarded the Constitution and determined for himself what was "the right thing to do" and what wasn't. I heard a congressman "When it came to declaring war on Libya, Obama consulted with the UN, NATO, G20 and the Muslim Brotherhood, but it never crossed his mind to consult the United States Congress." Or something like that, I'll have to find.

No he didn't.

He ordered the DoJ(and ICE I think) to handle certain cases in a certain way. All things that he and the department are perfectly allowed to do.

[Alternate Universe 912]

I think impeachment would be political suicide for Republicans at this point. If someone's got something serious on the guy, just put in the political ads and let voters do the dirty work.

[Great Nepal]

Indeed...
There's supreme court. Go there, and demand whatever constitutional rights are being infringed.

The Judiciary is just as lacking in character and integrity of any other branch of the government.
Why would they dare bring one of Obama's policies into question, when within minutes Obama could have them locked up indefinitely, without trial? The NDAA allows this.

No, not really.
That portion was declared unconstitutional and blocked by a federal court in 17 May 2012.

[Wikkiwallana]

President Obama has even admitted that what he did by not enforcing immigration laws is unconstitutional and that he is not given the power to choose which laws are worthy of enforcement.

Wrong.

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

Hey, guess what? The Presidential office, along with most in the nation, comes with a nice little impeachment button that the people can opt for or against each and every November.

It's called "voting".

What is this.. voting? Does it comes with free coffee?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Hey, guess what? The Presidential office, along with most in the nation, comes with a nice little impeachment button that the people can opt for or against each and every November.

It's called "voting".

What is this.. voting? Does it comes with free coffee?

Nope. They don't even give out change.

[Jefferson and Paul]

Why would they dare bring one of Obama's policies into question, when within minutes Obama could have them locked up indefinitely, without trial? The NDAA allows this.

Unfortunately no other aspect of reality allows that, but keep at it; I don't feel that I'm properly trained to deal with a paranoid disorder.

Clearly you have no idea what the NDAA is. Read up, friend: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

[Great Nepal]

Hey, guess what? The Presidential office, along with most in the nation, comes with a nice little impeachment button that the people can opt for or against each and every November.

It's called "voting".

What is this.. voting? Does it comes with free coffee?

Its USA, not Europe: it comes with non-free big mac...

[Ruridova]

CaHK, I still don't know why you say President Obama deserves to be impeached.

[Northwest Slobovia]

What is this.. voting? Does it comes with free coffee?

Nope. They don't even give out change.

But you can get hope.

[Ruridova]

What is this.. voting? Does it comes with free coffee?

Its USA, not Europe: it comes with free big mac.

And a sticker.

[Minoriteeburg]

Really?.........I.....I mean really?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Unfortunately no other aspect of reality allows that, but keep at it; I don't feel that I'm properly trained to deal with a paranoid disorder.

Clearly you have no idea what the NDAA is. Read up, friend: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

OH GOD NO. Now you've linked that there's a house party at yours and all the feds are invited.

[Great Nepal]

Unfortunately no other aspect of reality allows that, but keep at it; I don't feel that I'm properly trained to deal with a paranoid disorder.

Clearly you have no idea what the NDAA is. Read up, friend: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

And, you have no idea that Obama cant have anyone locked up indefinitely.

Its USA, not Europe: it comes with free big mac.

And a sticker.

...for kind donation of $20.

[Katganistan]

The following is a letter I wrote to my congressman.....

And I suppose you want to put Ron Paul in the White House, too, right? YOU DEGENERATE!

OBAMA 2012!!

That's flaming. We don't do that here.
Knock it off.

[Christ and His Kingdom]

For those who don't believe me when I said this "President Obama has even admitted that what he did by not enforcing immigration laws is unconstitutional and that he is not given the power to choose which laws are worthy of enforcement. In a Univision Town Hall interview in March 2011 he said and I quote "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed, and I know that everybody at here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we got three branches of government: Congress passes the law, the Executive Branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws, and then the Judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books, by Congress, that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me to simply through executive order to ignore those congressional mandates, would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

Here is the link to video of him saying that, through executive order, not enforcing U.S. immigration laws would "not conform with my appropriate role as President." A little than a year later he did exactly what he said he was not given the ability to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw

[Wikkiwallana]

I can't believe how many people are being so bashful to the op.

What? I haven't seen one bashful person in this thread.

[Jefferson and Paul]

Clearly you have no idea what the NDAA is. Read up, friend: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

And, you have no idea that Obama cant have anyone locked up indefinitely.

And a sticker.

...for kind donation of $20.

Yes, I realize it was blocked last month, but not by the Supreme Court. Although it's chilling that Obama signed it in the first place.

[Der Landstreicher]

The Judiciary is just as lacking in character and integrity of any other branch of the government.
Why would they dare bring one of Obama's policies into question, when within minutes Obama could have them locked up indefinitely, without trial? The NDAA allows this.

No, not really.
That portion was declared unconstitutional and blocked by a federal court in 17 May 2012.

That's quite recent so I'd cut him a break.

Whether one is able to be locked up indefinitely without trial leads to the larger problem that it seems that it's legal for the president to order the killing of US citizens without trial.

[Ruridova]

I'm still not convinced that this is grounds for impeaching Obama.


Also, if getting Obama out of office is this big of a deal to you? Keep in mind what's happening this November.

[Great Nepal]

Yes, I realize it was blocked last month, but not by the Supreme Court.

Highest court to rule so far has ruled that it is unconstitutional.
No one took matter up to supreme court, because it was pointless.

Although it's chilling that Obama signed it in the first place.

And?
He cant put judges in jail for ruling against him: so if you think constitutional rights are being infringed - USA has supreme court.

[Great Nepal]

No, not really.
That portion was declared unconstitutional and blocked by a federal court in 17 May 2012.

That's quite recent so I'd cut him a break.

Whether one is able to be locked up indefinitely without trial leads to the larger problem that it seems that it's legal for the president to order the killing of US citizens without trial.

I want source for that.

[Wikkiwallana]

Indeed...
There's supreme court. Go there, and demand whatever constitutional rights are being infringed.

The Judiciary is just as lacking in character and integrity of any other branch of the government.
Why would they dare bring one of Obama's policies into question, when within minutes Obama could have them locked up indefinitely, without trial? The NDAA allows this.

No it doesn't. Not even remotely.

[United Dependencies]

Clearly you have no idea what the NDAA is. Read up, friend: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text

And, you have no idea that Obama cant have anyone locked up indefinitely.

no

Don't believe the hype! Especially hysterical analyses that (a) don't consider amendments that were made to the bill (so are outdated), (b) aren't from qualified sources, and/or (c) are just plain wrong.

I am not supportive of this law, but I don't think lying about it or spreading misinformation and/or hysteria is warranted.

1. The NDAA couldn't override the Constitution, even if it tried.

2. The NDAA merely reflects EXISTING LAW and does not do what critics allege! Here is the relevant language:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

...

SEC. 1036. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.

(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) for purposes of section 1031.

(b) Elements of Procedures- The procedures required by this section shall provide for the following in the case of any unprivileged enemy belligerent who will be held in long-term detention under the law of war pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force:

(1) A military judge shall preside at proceedings for the determination of status of an unprivileged enemy belligerent.

(2) An unprivileged enemy belligerent may, at the election of the belligerent, be represented by military counsel at proceedings for the determination of status of the belligerent.

(c) Report on Modification of Procedures- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under this section. The report on any such modification shall be so submitted not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.

(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--

(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives