Would this be an impeachable offense?
Of course, that’s merely a rhetorical question. With this particular Congress in place, there is no offense Obama could commit that would result in his impeachment.
And it’s all Bush’s fault, anyway.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
If true, certainly impeachable.
Would this be an impeachable offense?
It very well might be afaic, if you could get Obama (or Bush, for that matter) to put on the record what Kyl alleges.
If a commander-in-chief’s refusal to defend his nation’s borders against large-scale incursions isn’t a high crime and misdemeanor, what is?
The man is a walking and talking impeachable offense. His whole presidency is one big impeachable offense.
A Chief Executive of the United States of America. His entire job, almost, is to ‘execute’ the laws of the United States – to see to it that they are followed.
If a president is a Chief Executive, then his job is to execute the law.//He is not executing the law.//Therrefore, he is not ‘being’ Chief Executive.
He is a big NOT. He is Not doing his job. He is NOT leading America. He is NOT helping America.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again – Obama hates the country he is President of. he hates it. And he hates Americans too. He is not ‘one of us’ and that has zero to do with the color of his skin. That’s how he got elected – purely on skin color.
Serves us right. We settled for appearance and dismissed the glaring character defects.
Is some act of his impeachable? The whole ‘act’ of him (in the classic scholastic sense) is impeachable.
He is what the framers had in mind when they put that clause in there.
Is there any doubt about that? Not in my mind.
He swore to protect and defend this nation. As C-in-C that is his most important job. Not securing our borders is NOT performing his primary job. He is guilty of not performing his duty.
Of course it can be that said G.W. Bush was guilty of the same offense. That does not make it right or defensible. Fat chance that he would be impeached for this by this congress. We are in the “Twilight Zone” folks. Common sense has gone out the window. Up is down and right is left in this Brave New World. November can not come too soon.
An impeachable offense is whatever the house decides it is at the moment – so at the moment, no it is not. In fact it is most likely a feature, not a bug.
Further I suspect it wouldn’t be very popular in the general populace either. It is mostly Politics as Usual, sadly if we outed all that did this type of thing there would be few politicians on office (sadly both because we do not hold them to that standard and because of the massive failure against said standard). People over all voted those who do such things in over those that do not (note, while close, few incumbents have lost primaries so far) so if it wasn’t enough to not vote for them it probably isn’t enough to vote against them.
Wait until the BP spill hits land and then chugs on for weeks longer. Wait until the news *can not* avoid it (it is still at a point where they can’t get much “good” footage even if they wanted too). Wait until a hurricane hits and we have crude oil (and recall that crude is a VERY different beast than what you put in your car or purchase from Wal-Mart – it is *highly* dangerous with large amounts of chemicals like benzine) coating land *miles* inland from the sea. Wait until the truly “hard” questions that will be forced happen. Again, sadly, there isn’t much we can do other than wait – not that I think “wait until” is *good advice*, just that it is the only option right now.
Many of us have thought the Obama administration was a train wreck waiting to happen – its coming. I rather expected him to at least see it, as far as I can tell he is so hyper focused on hurting those he sees as enemies that he can’t even see the train coming, let alone the wreck. Personally, given what they have done so far, I truly fear what this congress and administration will do when they finally note the train and note it is too late for survival.
Remember, years ago Congress allowed the Matricular consualr cards to be used in US banks. They use them to open phone accounts etc, now also. The Mexican government operates 50 or so consulates inside the US handing those cards out to illegal aliens. They even have mobile consulates that go around to “hispanic” events handing them out. All with The governments blessing- in both party. We are being replaced. The Mexican population basically increased by about 10 times in 100 years. 13 million to 130 million give or take counting those in the US. Another century like that and there will be more Mexicans than Chinese.
Traitors in both parties. GW Bush included.
“Consular” not “consualr”
Under the Constitution, the impeachment and removal of the President is by design placed directly in the realm of politics. When Congress is ready to impeach, there are hundreds of crimes to choose from. If Congress is unwilling to impeach, he can and is getting away with anything and everything. That’s what the Birthers don’t get. Removal of the President is not a procedural matter. It starts and ends with politics. Same for Clinton. Same for Nixon.
Bush II didn’t come close to fully enforcing the laws either regarding illegal immigration. There are too many people embedded within the bureaucracies who believe they know better – they probably see themselves on some higher moral plane – and won’t enforce the laws that are already on the books.
Go ahead and change Congress this November, and then get a new NOT Obama president in 2012, without a change in attitude among the entrenched cadre in Federal government and within places like California’s government, we are still going to have a huge in flow of people coming here illegally. And, if comprehensive reform is passed the flow will become a deluge.
The change in attitude plus real enforcement must come before any pathway to citizenship is discussed.
JMS,
I’m sick of people who use terms like “birthers” as some sort of arguement or point.
You’re ridiculous.
Let your points stand on their own merits, or not. Grow up already.
The reality of the situation is the right pretends to be opposed to illegal immigration (i mean, hey, its illegal!) while secretly looking the other way because they don’t want to spend 20 bucks on a banana. That’s why its not an impeachable offense…since everyone does it, like smoking pot. Bush was defacto open borders, obviously.
in return, the left pretends to be for minimum wage laws but agrees to look the other way cause they don’t like 20 dollar bananas either.
so, the pretending is just a platonic noble lie designed to keep the savages in line—basically the right-wing nationalists who the electoral system was designed for and who may start a race war. but also the poor and young who may wake up one day and say “hey, ‘i’d do some day-labor work if it paid well.” This agreement works until you hit a recession, which is a good time for economic populism, and the savages begin to get hip to the scheme.
Cheap goods depend on this cheap labor so illegal immigration ain’t going nowhere and everyone in the know knows it. a coalition of illegal’s, the Mexican elite, US business interests, and US consumer interests, is too strong to break. Fuggetaboutit. The strategy of both left and right is to wait out the recession, make some noise about clamping down (McCain is my favorite here, he’s downright hilarious : http://politifi.com/news/McCains-Danged-Fence-Ad-Mocked-By-Joe-Scarborough-John-Shadegg-Basically-Everybody-VIDEO-646954.html ) to placate the people and one employment catches up to the rest of the numbers everyone will go back to happyland and the whole thing will blow over
If what Kyl says is true, then I have to give Obama credit for candor, because that is exactly the same immigration policy Bush and McCain supported. They just weren’t up front about it.
I am beyond sick and tired of the internationalists from both parties.
How do we impeach average Americans? They are the ones laying the groundwork for our demise by insisting their lives be as comfortable and carefree as possible at the expense of their offspring. Sorry ass self centered deadbeats abound and no politician can fix that.
We have a moral crisis. The political crisis is but a symptom.
No it is not.
“The Supreme Court has made it’s decision, now let it enforce it”, or something to that effect is one of those defining quotes that helps you understand that we have three co-equal branches of the government.
The president, as the “enforcer” of laws, cannot enforce laws that do not exist, but it can, and has, failed to enforce laws that do exist. It’s not a crime for Obama to not do his job, and that’s all that he would be doing if he failed to enforce laws as he saw fit. Instead, that would be a subject of competence and something for which we have ballot boxes.
Manju,
Blah b;lah, blah moral equivalence they’re all the same.
No they aren’t.
Your entire attitude – that whole “i’m a superiuor intellect and moral agent who judges that all these things are the same dreck” – has done huge damage to civilization.
It’s basically barbaric and crude.
Distinctions and differences make all the difference.
It’s been my observation that corrupt people who “get away with it” begin to assume that others are equally as corrupt. Which would explain why Obama may well have spoken those words to Kyl.
Cap’n Rusty,
I think you are right.
The corrupt think everyone is like them.
The moral equivalence crowd does the same thing: Obama is X; but so was Bush because they all are…blah, blah, blah:.
They should say: “Obama is X, and so am I, and I am going to say someone else is that way so I can stay in denial”.
Party-line drone Marju says: “The reality of the situation is the right pretends to be opposed to illegal immigration (i mean, hey, its illegal!) while secretly looking the other way because they don’t want to spend 20 bucks on a banana.” Care to provide some evidence for that, Marju? Did you actually come out the cocoon long enough to talk to anyone on “thr right” to see what they believe, and why? Just wondering.
With this particular Congress in place, there is no offense Obama could commit that would result in his impeachment.
Once upon a time, the standard wisecrack for a popular politician was that he was safe “unless caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy”.
Not even that, huh?
(One wonders what the modern equivalent would be. Perhaps “caught with an underaged picture of a dead girl or a live boy”…)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Heck, we allow them to pick and choose, and so now you want to hold them to it? whatever happened to hold them all to it? oh, yeah, went out in the 60s with the feminists mantra of having to be treated differently to have equal outcomes… and such left inanities as decriminalization (ie, the purposeful not following law as a way to remove law without actually going through the process)
once you allow the cheating, then you are all playing a cheating game where people look at cheating contextually, rather than through an absolute rule applied to all.
cant call for a constitution that is no longer followed except where socially expedient, can you?
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
(The United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4)
The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” is a term of art. The framers used Blackstone’s definition which includes: “The first and principal” high misdemeanor is “mal-administration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment.”
But impeachment addresses political acts not criminal ones per se because the injured party, in this case, is the Constitution. Therefore, the question of whether an admission of the Executive that he refuses to execute a law of the United States, a law which pertains to its borders and the safety of its people, needs to address if such refusal violates the executive’s duty to:
“to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability.
Answering the question that is posed, “Would this be an impeachable offense?” must use the relevant criteria from the Constitution. What Bush or McCain did is not relevant at this point of definition; neither is the opinion of various groups of people, even if they be in the majority.
The President admits he has and is and will subordinate the safety of citizens to a political cause. This is an admission of mal-administration that further constitutes an offense against the Constitution. Policing the border is necessary for the safety of all citizens–certainly of citizens living on or near the border.
It is impeachable.
Why don’t we have guest worker visas?
As for Obama being indifferent to American standards and laws, so what else is new? Watch for a Democratic Congress to start making impeachment sounds against Obama in Sept. in an effort to save their careers.
Encouraging news from Rasmussen, those STRONGLY opposed to Ob are equal to and exceed his total supporters. The scales are falling from the public’s eyes, with extraordinary slowness but falling.
Among the amazing things about Obama is the regularity of his destructive decisions. He seems to pile one despicable act upon another topped off by a display of incompetence on a virtual timetable.
BTW remember early on Obama saying he would rather be a good one term president, he knew last year his time was limited to one term.
Bob,
I have thought for some time that O did nbot really want to “be” President – as in doing the actual job. He wanted to be elected President. He wants to dismantle the “white male capitalist oppressive syustem” (my guess for the fuzzy thoughts running through his muddled head). And then move on to becoming a multi-millionaire invited to the best parties around the world like Bono.
We can only hope the damage is not irreparable.
My main concern though is not Obama. It is that 69m people voted for him.
Best case scenario on that is that it was an opportunity of an era to expiate “white guilt”. Worst case scenario is late Roman Republic disease.
Why don’t we have guest worker visas?
we do… but it depends on what country your from, and its not called a guest worker visa. when they ask you, is your trip business or pleasure. you say pleasure, you don’t work… you say business, you can work.
the problem is that such a system gets abused badly given the contextual situation.
what if the guests, like john Belushi, will not go home?
the OTHER thing is that you might not understand is that the visa thing is also from the country your leaving… 🙂
the US has open exit on visas… we only require that the country your going to lets you in. the US is so nice that we do not fear mass exodus of our brains and key people, so we basically give everyone who wants to go someplace a visa. making exit visas unnecessary.
while other countries, you need an exit visa, AND an entry visa here.
in Casablanca Renault was exchanging sex for exit visas…. but, that didn’t automatically mean that the country you were going to would accept you.
do a search on EXIT visa, and you will find that you need one to leave china, to leave india, etc.
the farms do not let their most productive cattle leave easily
A visa does not generally give a non-citizen any rights, including a right to enter a country or to remain there. The possession of a visa is not in itself a guarantee of entry into the country that issued it, and a visa can be revoked at any time. The visa process merely enables the host country to verify the identity of the visa applicant before the entry of the applicant. Special permits may also be required, such as a residency permit or work permit. A visitor may also be required to undergo and pass security and/or health checks upon arrival at the border.
Visas are associated with the request for permission to enter (or exit) a country, and are thus, for some countries, distinct from actual formal permission for an alien to enter and remain in the country.
Some countries require that their citizens, and sometimes foreign travelers, obtain an exit visa in order to be allowed to leave the country en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_%28document%29
so in many countries, you first get a visa from your destination… if you can… THEN you have to show that to your country,and then they have to decide whether to let you go.
so its a case of, if your from a country in which we automatically accept travel from, and work… then you can come here to do business for the time period…
[green cards are for permanent resident, a person who may never leave and may never become a citizen technically]
and mexico has a departure tax…
that is, if you get a visa to the US
or if your a US citizen
you have to pay to leave…
also this complicates things
Mexican law recognizes dual nationality for Mexicans by birth, meaning those born in Mexico or born abroad to Mexican parents. U.S. citizens who are also Mexican nationals are considered by local authorities to be Mexican.
yes… if your grandparens were mexican your a citizen, and so what does that mean to the arguments?
and Tourists wishing to travel beyond the border zone with their vehicle must obtain a temporary import permit or risk having their vehicle confiscated by Mexican customs officials. At present the only exceptions to the requirement are for travel in the Baja Peninsula and in the state of Sonora, and only for vehicles entering through the Nogales port of entry.
so in effect you drive, you import your car and pay a fee…
Business Travel: Upon arrival in Mexico, business travelers must complete and submit a form (Form FM-N) authorizing the conduct of business, but not employment, for a 30-day period. Travelers entering Mexico for purposes other than tourism or business or for stays of longer than 180 days require a visa and must carry a valid U.S. passport. U.S. citizens planning to work or live in Mexico should apply for the appropriate Mexican visa at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, DC, or at the nearest Mexican consulate in the United States.
america compared to others is very nice.
Today i saw one of the many reasons that southern border needs to be closed. SUV, young ‘hispanic” male driver, Wide Mexican flag draped all the way across the dash in the windshield full width of car. See the display of Mexican colors all the time now. Makes my blood boil. They come from a continuously failed country to the land of plenty and have their loyalty to the P.O.S. country they came from.
Perhaps i shouldnot say “POS” but this thing is a deep struggle for me- and others I know. Balancing love of country with welcoming the stranger-especially when the stranger seems to be taking us for granted and colonizing us.
jon baker, the pro-
invasionimmigration demonstrations a few years ago featured the prominent display of the Mexican flag. It did not go over well with the country at large.Nowadays I see images of Hispanics demonstrating and carrying the American flag. If they’re genuinely willing to transfer their loyalty to the USA, well, I recognize that they de facto were invited here by our powers that be. But the first and overriding priority is to secure the border.
However, the thought has crossed my mind that maybe some of those American flag pictures are staged, or that maybe the MSM is only showing images that fit their narrative.
Since nobody was actually impeached, this threat is purely virtual. Ted Kennedy was able to prolong political career after killing a girl by DUI, so impeachment is not even a credible deterrent.
Mike Mc, I think you read jms wrongly. His point that impeachment is political not procedural is a fair one, and it is true that those who believe Obama does not meet Constitutional requirements for the presidency seem to believe that if they could just get that one big item of proof, that someone, somewhere, somehow, would remove Obama.
Irritable today, brother? Plenty of reason to be, I’ll admit, but we can’t go eating our own.
if they could just get that one big item of proof, that someone, somewhere, somehow, would remove Obama.
actually thats not it. thats the simple idea that people latch on that is used to discredit what purpose is.
first point, rule of law, either we have it or we don’t. if you don’t like the constitutional rules you go through the process of changing and amending the constitution (which retains its mistakes, like prohibition).
at what point did the fed or the state earn the right to ignore laws? what is the purpose of law of they can be ignored by the leadership at will? oh, you stole millions, but your my friend, ignore the law for him.
is that how our legal system is to function? its built on precedence, and so you allow such function, say with things like decriminalization of pot. the whole idea unchallenged or defeated then expands and moves outwards as an example of premise that laws can be selectively enforced (in actuality it was done not for pot, but presumably to save money not debating the removal of laws which have no bearing any more)
Are we a nation of equals before the law, or does the election process negate the rules of that election process by the will of the winner?
with that in mind… and basic common law in mind for contracts and agreements national and international…
can a person who is not a legal agent enter into contractual negotiations and sign agreements for another entity they are not a legal agent of?
so can a person who has not met the criteria for the office be enjoined to make agreements and contracts and force a nation to hold to them?
If such a person orders a soldier into a conflict area and that soldier kills people, is it now murder as it was not from a leader of a recognized state? (recognized has important meaning).
can a person who has not met a legal definition of some appointment, enter into war, have access to state secrets, be able to create signing statements and executive order, and perhaps would follow orders from an outside entity (like the center for American progress) in everything they do?
what your going to find out later is that regardless of what WE do, any international agreement now being signed as a basis of things like missles, nuclear weapons, weapons sales, reductions in arms, conflict resolutions, and all that. Are null and void
they are going to pretend to keep it, and they are going to break it, and if any one finds out they are then going to question the ligitimacy we the people were not able to.
they will just claim that the entity that signed the treaty had no legal right to do so, so the treaty is a nothing, a pieve of paper. they will NOT be kind enough to remind us that its not their job to inform us of treaty negation through our own actions, is it?
so we will reduce our arms, they will increase theirs
we will disarm they will ready for many conflicts at once.
Obama cant handle an oil spill? lets see if he can handle Korea/Korea,Venezuela/Columbia, Palestine/Israel, Pakistan/India, China/Taiwan and a few other things all at once (even if they are not actual land grabs).
tactically, and strategically, there is a lot more going on, and we are not paying attention to the biggest game. where leaders of active countries have realized that obama is out in 2012, and that this may be their last chance to do things.
Chavez is grabbing food… anyone want to know what happens next? the poor who cant be fed will be pressed into service who will then be wasted in conflict so that there are fewer people to have to take care of. (when they are free they take care of themselves, but when the state takes care of you, its in the interest of the state to have less of you to take care of).
the point is that the illegitimate leader is taken out by some process that is internal and in place. thats never the case, as that would require a very scary govt section that would have power to remove leaders.
so the point is that illegitimacy itself unseats a leader.
can a illegitimate president veto a law?
can a illegitimate president issue a executive order?
can a illegitimate president put enemies in jail?
can a illegitimate president start a war to save his own position?
sergey: Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both impeached. Neither was convicted.
Impeach Obama in November! Let that be the motivation to elect a conservative opposition majority in the Senate and House.