South Dakota Republican Party Endorses Impeachment Of President Obama
The South Dakota Republican Party has officially endorsed the impeachment of President Obama.
The South Dakota Republican Party has endorsed a resolution calling for President Obama’s impeachment:
The South Dakota Republican Party state convention passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama Saturday.
The resolution says Obama has “violated his oath of office in numerous ways.” It specifically cites the release of five Taliban combatants in a trade for captive U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, Obama’s statement that people could keep insurance companies, and recent EPA regulations on power plants.
“Therefore, be it resolved that the South Dakota Republican Party calls on our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States,” the resolution reads.
len Unruh of Sioux Falls sponsored the resolution.
“I’ve got a thick book on impeachable offenses of the president,” Unruh said, calling on South Dakota to “send a symbolic message that liberty shall be the law of the land.”
Delegate David Wheeler of Beadle County disagreed.
“I believe we should not use the power of impeachment for political purposes,” Wheeler said. “By doing this, we would look petty, like we can’t achieve our political goals through the political process.”
Larry Eliason of Potter County agreed, noting that he opposed the impeachment resolution even though “the only thing (Obama’s) done the last six years that I approve of is when he adopted a pet.”
But Larry Klipp of Butte County, a retired Marine, said matters go beyond mere political disagreements with Obama.
“If anyone in this room cannot see the horrendous, traitorous scandals run by the Obama administration, I will pray for you,” Klipp said.
Delegates voted 191-176 in favor of the resolution. The Pennington County delegation voted 47-9 in favor of the impeachment resolution, and Minnehaha County voted 28-15 in favor.
Rep. Kristi Noem, South Dakota’s lone delegate in the House of Representatives — which has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings — was cool to the resolution.
Noem, who addressed the Republican convention Saturday morning, hours before the resolutions was voted on, doesn’t believe impeachment is the “best way” to deal with Obama.
“The congresswoman currently believes the best way for Congress to hold the president accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations into the administration’s actions like the ongoing VA scandal, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi, and the recent Taliban prisoner exchange,” said Brittany Comins, Noem’s spokesperson.
You can read the text of the resolution here.
There’s no record of any response to the resolution from former South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds, who is the Republican candidate for Senate and widely expected to win the election in November. However, one expects that we’d get the same kind of not-taking-a-position response from him that we got from Noem, mostly because both are motivated by the same desire to not be associated with something like this but at the same time to not cross the party base that supported it.
As I’ve noted before, this whole impeachment idea is one that has lurked in the background of conservative talk radio and blogs since virtually the day that Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office. Indeed, there isn’t an action too insignificant to not merit impeachment to some of these people, and the failed legacy of the Clinton impeachment doesn’t seem to faze them one bit, even when you point out that a Republican controlled Senate still would not have sufficient votes to actually convict Obama on any of the counts that the House might impeach him on. As with the Clinton Impeachment 15 years ago, it would be an utterly pointless political act that would do little but serve to rile up the passions of the Republican base.
The Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, especially people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell who were around for that first disastrous impeachment proceeding, have largely distanced themselves from talk about impeachment, as have even some of the more conservative members of both bodies. As I noted back in May in connection with the formation of the House Select Committee on the Benghazi attacks, though, there seems to be an inexorable movement toward at least the drafting of Articles of Impeachment would seem to be the logical conclusion. On some level, perhaps, all it would take is for prominent conservatives on talk radio and Fox News to start pushing the idea for it to have legs and, indeed, that has already happened with the publication of Faithless Execution: Building the Case For Obama’s Impeachment by National Review’s Andrew McCarthy. To be fair, McCarthy states publicly that he doesn’t believe that Obama will be impeached, or even that it would be politically wise for the Republican Party to pursue such a course of action However, what he as basically done is provide the primer for those who would do exactly that if the political conditions are right.
The interesting question is, will national Republicans continue to follow the strategy typified by people like Congresswoman Noem and the House and Senate leadership teams in ignoring these calls for impeachment but not shooting them down either for fear of annoying the hard right base of the party? Or, will they find themselves inexorably drawn to allow this to take place much like they found themselves forced to follow through with a government shutdown strategy less than a year ago?
There’s no way that Bush would have stood a chance against Gore without the Clinton impeachment legitimizing right-wing grievances. The same goes for whatever GOP candidate will run in 2016. Impeachment won’t work, but it will escalate the crazed idea that there is something extraordinarily partisan about Obama’s presidency.
There’s always been a virulent right wing, but getting a state Party to go along with it is new. This division of the country into an urban wing and a rural wing, with the rural wing completely invested in the BS on talk radio, cannot end well.
Impeachment and another government shut down, a sure way to guarantee the Republican party will follow the Wigs into political oblivion.
Yeah, baby!!!! Let’s go!!!
Impeach…Impeach…Impeach…Impeach…Impeach…
Of course they will…the Party of Stupid does not, cannot, and is proud of it’s inability to learn.
And oh-by-the-way…SCOTUS just said one of the rationals listed for this Impeachment…the EPA regs issued by executive order…is Constitutional.
Yeah, baby!!!! Let’s go!!!
Impeach…Impeach…Impeach…Impeach…Impeach…
@Ron Beasley:
That’s what they want–the destruction of the Republican Party, to be replaced by an extreme social conservative Tea Party. The real fringers, of course, are hoping for a Christian Dominionist government. It’s quite obvious from the things they say and write.
@Modulo Myself:
Fixed that for you.
Sure…Bush was appointed to the Presidency…but Gore made it possible…his problems were of his own making.
I really think you should have broken out the facepalm graphic for this one.
…I mean, what else is Congress going to do? It’s not like they can get anything else meaningfully done?
@Tillman:
Right…this will just be one more thing that they don’t get done…just one more ignominious failure.
“I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.”
This what Republicans want to do when they can not win national elections now. It is also what they want to do when they can not win statewide elections. The MO House began impeachment proceedings against Democratic Gov Jay Nixon but then the Repubs thought better of it and backed down.
I think it’s worth noting how relatively close the vote was (15 votes dividing the two sides). I some respects it makes me feel worse for the more sane (because this really is an issue of political sanity) members of the South Dakota Republican party.
They have met the crazy and now have to realize that the crazy are — at least for the moment — in control.
I wonder how many of them were encouraged to do this by Sarah Palin’s Facebook call for the impeachment of Obama a week or so ago? She did taunt Congress as being “too gutless” to impeach.
If ever there was an impeachable offense…oh wait…I kept my insurance company…so that’s an impeachable offense, why???
@Matt Bernius: If they are sane, why are they hanging around in an insane asylum?
Thank Gaia that a state Democratic party would never do anything so stupid and crazy.
http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/61599:new-mexico-democrats-call-for-bush-impeachment
Eh, mark this one up to the Silly Season and grifters gotta throw some red meat to the lions every now and then otherwise worry about getting eaten themselves.
Rowr!
I agree about using the facepalm photo for this. And yet, that suggests something dumb but sort of laughable. Here we have 191 adults serving in government who are so ignorant and delusional that it’s almost frightening.
I still shake my head that this sort of nonsense goes on RIGHT AFTER the worst president in my lifetime; the one who authorized torture, deceived the country into a war and then botched it, appointed a crony to FEMA who then botched the response to a natural disaster, and of course the list goes on…. Did these people have an impeachment vote over any of those little things?
Well, finally South Dakota Republicans are in-synch with national Republicans.
Impeachment is what Republicans do. Bring it.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Because that’s the way that political parties work.
To @Gavrilo’s point, this is something that both parties do — especially when they are out of power — (of course, Bush deserved to be impeached right?).
@Matt Bernius:
Well…look at the rationales for the Dems at Gavrillos link…and then you tell me if the S. Dakota rationales rise to the same level.
Let’s see…outing a covert operative vs. perfectly constitutional environmental regulations. Hmmmm…..
@C. Clavin:
Or for that matter…lying to the American people to start a war of choice…vs. Clintons Oval Office hummer.
And I give you submission #1 in the wide range of “of course it’s right when we do it” posts that are bound to follow
@C. Clavin
Do I think the Bush Administration was *worse*? Yes.
But I suspect that if I was a Republican, generally speaking, I’d think Obama’s violations were worse.
That’s the point I think is fair to make. Without a doubt, I think the Bush administration was inept and — in the case of Iraq — responsible for far more damage to our nation than anything Obama did. I remain unconvinced that — based on publicly available evidence — anything Bush did rose to an impeachable level.
Now, it’s fair to say that the New Mexicans were sending a political message. But if our side is able to send that message, then we need to extend that same courtesy to the other side. Vice versa, if we’re going to hold the opposite side in contempt for taking extreme action, it’s fair of them to expect us to police our own.
@C. Clavin:
I never thought that the Republican’s impeachment of Clinton was warranted. And without a doubt, “they started it” in that respect. But the time has come to stop making impeachment — or the threat of it — a standard option in the political toolbox.
Embarrassing….for South Dakota.
@Matt Bernius: “But I suspect that if I was a Republican, generally speaking, I’d think Obama’s violations were worse.”
Yes, you would. So what?
@Matt Bernius: “I never thought that the Republican’s impeachment of Clinton was warranted. And without a doubt, “they started it” in that respect. But the time has come to stop making impeachment — or the threat of it — a standard option in the political toolbox. ”
Please note that only one side actually has done this.
@Barry:
Then really, this gets reduced to partisan bickering and, in fact, both sides do it.
Impeached a sitting president — yes. That’s not lost on me. Without a doubt, the Republicans were responsible for the debacle — in 1998.
However, if the point of this post is to say “those crazy republicans, look at them clamoring for impeachment,” then it’s fair to note that the Democrats did the *same thing* during the GW Bush Administration.
Yes, of course, the Republicans actually went through with the entire Clinton thing.
But, I’m prepared to lay money down right now that the current Republicans will *not* impeach Obama before the end of his term.
@Matt Bernius:
Well, c’mon…he did publicly admit to instituting a torture regime.
Again…I encourage Republicans to pursue this impeachment thing with all the vigor those old white guys can muster.
@C. Clavin:
Yes, but Obama did say that you could keep your insurance. Seems like a wash to me. Curse you, both sides!
@Matt Bernius: No, the points are:
1) The GOP is the only party to have done this. They have a track record of listening to their loons; the Democrats have a track record of marginalizing them. Both side do not do it.
2) The offenses of Dubya dwarf the offenses of Clinton plus Obama. Screw your viewpoint.
@Barry:
So was the entire Democratic Party of New Mexico loons in 2006?
I’ll let that one stand on it’s own.
@Gavrilo: You got us. And it went further, Dennis Kucinich and others actually submitted a bill of impeachment to the judiciary committee, where it died. I had forgotten this myself. So, you’ve made Doug happy, you found a both-sides-do-it. However, in fairness to us, the reason we’ve forgotten this is that no one took it seriously at the time, no one expected anything to come of it, and nothing did.
@gVOR08: Yes, Dennis Kucinich, widely known as the local flowerpot.
We used to have a similar fruitcake individual here as Congresscritter in Illinois. Will have to check and see if she’s still around. (I seem to remember she got chucked out in one of our rare periods of common sense.)
@grumpy realist & @gVOR08:
Its one thing to look at the actions of an individual Representative like Kucinich and another to look at the actions of an State delegation. I tend to ignore the “X introduced a bill” stories regardless of party (eg. recently a Democratic NY State Senator – I believe – introduced legislation to allow illegal immigrants to vote in state wide elections – regardless of my feelings on this matter, I’m not going to assume that all Democrats in the State Legislature feel the same way).
However, what’s disturbing about the South Dakota case, and the New Mexico Democrats, is that a majority of the State Party representatives *voted* for this stuff. In New Mexico’s case it had to be above 2/3rd of the representatives.
In both cases that moves us beyond just the one or two voices in the wilderness.
BTW – not I don’t think both sides are equal. But in terms of using impeachment as a routine political weapon, it’s pretty clear that both sides *are* willing to do it. Now, if the Republicans are *stupid* enough to carry this forward, then they deserve what comes next.
There are more than sufficient legal grounds to impeach Obama.
However, there is no political will to do so.
Impeaching Obama would be a political disaster. And he knows it — that’s why he keeps doing shit that are grounds for impeachment. To him, it’s a win-win. Either he gets away with it, or he gets impeached by the House, the Senate acquits him, and he gets a huge bounce.
There are several other ways to check his abuses short of impeachment, and the House is using some of them. If they’re smart enough in the House, they’ll keep it up — and NOT go for impeachment.
Nixon was ready to fight impeachment until enough Republicans saw just how bad things had become and put their duty to the nation above party loyalty. There simply aren’t enough Democrats with that strength of character in Congress today.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
There are no sufficient legal reasons to impeach the president that I am aware of.
But the fact is, the House, if the votes are there, can impeach the president for any reason whatsoever. If by THAT you mean “sufficient legal grounds,” then I agree with you, any reason will do.
@al-Ameda: There are no sufficient legal reasons to impeach the president that I am allowing myself to be aware of.
FTFY.
Get a good deal on those Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses?
Let me just go on the record here and say that impeaching Clinton because he lied abut an extra-marital affair highlights just what a useless bunch of lazy know nothing’s comprise the leadership of the modern Republican Party. And that W should have been impeached for major and real violations of the constitution, not least of which was to make the US into a torture state. This is EXACTLY the remedy we have for reckless out of control presidents and it should have been used.
@MarkedMan: Clinton lied under oath, but that’s OK.
Bush got legal opinions and abided by them, but that’s not OK.
Interesting standards you have there, Markie…
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Unmitigated Bull$hit.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So that’s a legal standard now?
You are the dumbest f ‘er on the planet.
And why was clinton in court in the first place? Could it be because conservatives paid women to attack him? And if you dispute they were paid, maybe you can tell us where Lewinski got rent money for the very expensive Watergate Hotel, where she lived for several years…
If I were in Congress, I wouldn’t see any reason to vote for President Obama’s impeachment. The NLRB appointments meet the level of contempt for the law that I would require for impeachment, but they just weren’t important enough. Some of the president’s unilateral decisions about enforcing laws seem indefensible to me, but I’m not a lawyer. If this IRS scandal proves to have been directed by the president, then yes, but I doubt it will.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
If there actually were “sufficient legal grounds” to impeach the President, the House Republicans would doubtless charge ahead with it. Jenos claims they don’t because it would be a “political disaster” for the Republicans, but it wouldn’t be… if they actually had a valid case against the President. If they had a valid case to make, they could easily get a majority of the country to sympathize with them. But they don’t, they KNOW they don’t, and that’s why they haven’t moved to impeach the President, no matter how loudly their base yelps about it.
@TheoNott:
Yeah…it would absolutely destroy the historic low 16% approval of Congress.
Hiring a tame lawyer to put a rubber stamp on torture? No, that’s not OK. It’s un-American. Being an apologist for it is un-American.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Yes. Just to be absolutely clear: Yes. Clinton’s impeachment was a farce. Bush should have been impeached. And the fact that the Repubs and fellow travelers posit that these two cases are somehow equivalent show the bankruptcy of intellect and morality in that sphere. The modern Repub is only able to evaluate questions of essential import to our country in terms of which “team” it might benefit. Quite simply, they are not leaders, merely fans, rooting for their team. Such fan(attics) always exist of course. The tragedy for our two party system is that such ilk have taken leadership of one of our parties. They have discovered they can block and obstruct and pull things down but of course have no will or mechanism to create anything.
@MarkedMan: He should have been impeached and probably would have but for Pelosi’s repeated promises voiced loudly when she took the gavel to suppress impeachment proceedings against Bush. She kept her word, too. Can you imagine anyone in today’s House majority with the stature and self-confidence to make a similar promise?
@Matt Bernius:
So torture, something we executed several “Nazi’s” and “Japs” for, we can’t even bring ourselves to impeach for? But smoking dipped cigars is head and shoulders above that.
Got it. Right. Both parties do it.
Sorry Matt, I respect you, but you lost it here.
@anjin-san:
Apparently it’s all you have to do now…kill someone? Find a lawyer to say it’s OK…no need for a trial. Think of the money we’ll save on the court system!!!
@CSK:
“Jindal warns of religious rebellion”
@Gavrilo: Err…you do realize the difference between some a party platform, and a vote by the state legislature, right? Yeah, of course you do, you’re just looking for whatever false equivalency you can find.@Gavrilo:@Matt Bernius: But this is not a party sending a political message. This was a vote by the state legislature.Whoops, my mistake. Please ignore (or delete, he asked hopefully) my previous two comments. Misread the OP.
Here’s a charming profile about the Martin family, erstwhile Tea Partiers, on track to make 450K for their efforts.
Read the whole thing, because it’s insane, but here’s the choice paragraph:
Which is why, about 10 miles away, on a highway outside of Jackson, a group of about 30 from the
Kremer was voted off the board in 2009 after joining a second tea party group, the Tea Party Express, and shortly thereafter, the Tea Party Patriots sued her in an intellectual property dispute. That dispute, according to TPP lawyer Deborah Ausburn, ended with Kremer not getting any rights to the name Tea Party Patriots. Then, according to court documents in Cherokee County, Ga., in October 2010, Lee Martin allegedly used a pseudonym to post comments on Facebook, asserting that Kremer’s boyfriend had raped Kremer’s daughter, who was then a minor. He also said that when Kremer found out, she kicked her daughter out of the house. The Kremers denied all claims of an alleged sexual assault.
The comments triggered a series of lawsuits, including three that are pending in which Kremer and her boyfriend deny the alleged sexual assault and accuse Lee Martin and the Tea Party Patriots of libel. (According to court documents, Lee Martin admitted to writing a Facebook post with similar language, but he argued that he believed what he wrote to be true and that his comments were made “in the context of a free-wheeling and gloves-off online debate”; Jenny Beth Martin was dropped from the suits because of a lack of evidence tying her to the episode.)
So in the spirit of ‘free-wheeling and gloves-off online debate’, the culture of right-wingers is such that anything they say is basically the equivalent of saying insane stuff while running their mouth.
And it’s not just professed right-wingers. I won’t link to it, but there’s a charming story on Gawker about a former NSA officer turned academic who happened to text an explicit photo of his anatomy to someone not his wife. It took me a second, but it’s same guy Doug linked to a month or so ago in one of the endless posts about partisanship and both sides doing it and how this guy wrote another column about this amazing discovery. If you go to the NSFW Gawker post and avoid the pic, you’ll find an email in which this guy says his views are “much more right-wing and I much more religious than I ever let on publicly.” You might miss it, given what else he’s saying, but it’s there.
One of the problems with the professed centrists and even-handed police your sides type arguments is that overall, most leftists, right or wrong, police their side to an infinite level better than the right. But the result has made the situation more stark, and because there’s a racket in not calling people liars or insane, the obligation is now being extended even further.
I suspect most folks will interpret this the way I do – impeaching Democratic presidents is becoming a tradition among many Republicans, like eating pumpkin pie at Thanksgiving.
There’s absolutely no reason to do it, but hey, its been a tradition since Clinton, something to do when there’s nothing good on TV.
Is Jindal still crying about his billboard?
@Matt Bernius:
Yes. But you’d be wrong, and you’d be lying to yourself.
There is such a thing as objective reality, you know. It’s not all smoke and mirrors. We do live in an observable universe.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Did you get a good deal on that Obama-Derangement-Syndrome Kool Aid?
@OzarkHillbilly:
AGAIN, LET ME BE CLEAR, I DON’T THINK WHAT CLINTON DID (lying under oath and diddling interns) WERE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. Or rather they did not warrant impeachment.
Next, *yes* I believe we engaged in torture. But at this point we have yet to get a consensus of law makers to agree to that specific point. And without that consensus, I don’t see how/why we would impeach Bush.
I realize that the argument is “it would send a message.” But what if, like Clinton, Bush was acquitted by the Senate? What would be the message then?
This is one of the things that I’m a pragmatist on — I don’t think articles of impeachment should be brought *unless* they *know* the impeachment will be successful.
@Jon Marcus:
I
deletedthem for you. But as a general rule, we try and keep all writings (both blog posts and comments) accessible (unless it’s a double post or a violation of the TOS).And yeah, misreading sucks. I just had one of those last week (and for the record it’s still there).
@ Pinky
What crime did Obama commit?
@Rafer Janders: Exactly. I don’t understand how Matt can equate Obama’s fantasy conspiracies with Bush’s actual actions. Seriously, saying you can keep your insurance and EPA regulations compared with torture and lying us into a stupid war resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands? WTF is wrong with us?
I’m going to engage in a little mind-reading of some of the above commenters, ask them a few questions, and give their answers.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
“Because Bush was waterboarding it!”
What’s black and white and red all over?
“Bush’s dirty, bloody hands!”
How many elephants does it take to change a light bulb?
“The light bulb doesn’t need replacing, Bush lied and said it burned out!”
The question here is, “has Obama done anything that merits impeachment.” The most common answer is to rehash all the ways so many people rationalize their hatred of George W. Bush.
That it serves as an excuse to not actually discuss things Obama has done is, of course, purely coincidental.
@Matt Bernius:
We would have a consensus if confidential information were freely given. The reason we don’t have that consensus is because without that confidential information, many conservative will turn a blind eye toward it. Yet, as in your opinion, everyone agrees that it happened. Now I understand that Bush was not going to just hand over this information during the time he was President. So impeachment was very unlikely to begin with. But hindsight being 20/20, there isn’t any real reason why Bush, Cheney, and their administration should not be held accountable while we have these nut jobs yelling impeach Obama!
The irony of this whole thing is that, upon entering office, the Obama administration pressured the justice department to refrain from any criminal investigations on this matter under the premise that we must look forward not backward. There is no doubt in my mind that upon becoming President Obama was given this confidential information. It was his decision to make whether to prosecute or not. Had he decided to prosecute, all of the information would have been given in court. So President Obama protected the last administration from an obvious offense which demonstrated a respect for the office of President of the United States and conservatives today choose to use that honorable intent as a way to turn a blind eye to what really happened. Obama didn’t say “we will not prosecute because no laws have been broken”. He only said we must move forward.
When you color the entire story with context there is no reason to suspect that as a republican, you’d think Obama’s violations were worse. Not if you are willing to admit your capacity at being an extremist nut job. It is now a known fact that one president withheld information under the guise that we were fighting terrorist while the other’s every action (and even problems he had nothing to do with) were investigated at nauseam. Bottom line is – the Obama administration was never given the benefit of doubt as the last administration was given. Because of that fact, the Obama administration had to become more transparent. Yet, nothing has come up to the level of a consensus to impeach him.
They are wasting South Dakota tax dollars. They show ignorance to what’s best for the majority of their state. It is an un-patriotic act. They should all be replaced, including the one’s that should show leadership but were to coward to step up. Those that did not step up, are not the leaders this country needs. What a pitiful gesture and rude behavior that obviously has consumed their intellectual mind for almost 7 years. What an extreme example of job neglect.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Yeah, yeah, yeah…and all you have to do is get a lawyer to say it’s OK…and you are exonerated of any wrong-doing.
Where did you get your law degree from? Loserville U.? Enrollment: One?
@reid:
First, I’m pretty sure that I’ve said multiple times on this thread that I *don’t* find them equal.
I think also that a lot of liberals are blowing off some of the actions that Obama did that — if you come at them from an outside view — are more significant than “fantasy conspiracies.”
My ultimate point continues to be that (a) that the lower level of both parties have come to threaten impeachment as a political tool (which I think is a bad thing for multiple reasons), and (b) at this point, regardless of who was better/worse, there has yet to be a modern president whose *provable* “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors” yet warrented impeachment.
I leave it to each side to list the reasons why of course I’m wrong and X president (from the opposite party) *obviously* deserved to be impeached.
I’m with Bernius on this one.
@LaMont:
So President Obama protected the last administration from an obvious offense
I don’t think so. I think he protected the CIA and the Pentagon, and any service members down the line, most of whom are still at their jobs, and most of whom were involved in actions sanctioned from above. I think he also wanted to avoid inflaming the people of Iraq and Afghanistan when we were still trying to leave those places, hopefully with functioning governments. His decision not to go after the Bush administration probably saved the lives of no small number of US soldiers. And the alternative would have been what, exactly? Bush and Cheney and the rest wouldn’t have been punished in any way. You can’t impeach a former president. It would have been a huge mess, with lives lost, for, at best, a symbolic gesture that solves nothing and does not deliver justice for anyone.
As for Obama, while he has been far from perfect, has not done anything to merit impeachment, IMO. And if he had, as TheoNott notes above, the American people would support impeachment. A large majority supported Nixon’s impeachment. A large majority opposed Clinton’s.
@Matt Bernius:
I guess I would need to know what you think those are in order to judge.
Also what constitutes an “outside view”. From outer space? From the Daily Caller comments section? From the Indiana Jones (nee, Jenos Idanian) School of Law?
And again…I say impeach him. Go for it.
As Tillman said…it’s not like they are doing anything else anyway.
@C. Clavin: Oh, Cliffy. It’s so cute when you pretend to be intelligent.
Let’s see you defend the legal geniuses who made arguments like:
The War Powers Act doesn’t apply when the president says it doesn’t apply.
The president can decide when Congress is in session or out of session, no matter what Congress itself says.
The president can take a law passed by Congress, signed by himself, and certified by the Supreme Court and rewrite it by fiat, including issuing exemptions and crossing out hard dates, at whim and at his political convenience.
The president can take a law that he signed regarding the handling of Guantanamo detainees and say that it is invalid because he says so.
The president can, on his authority alone, invalidate laws governing illegal immigration and enforcement thereof, and instead impose the rules of a bill that has not passed and is not likely to pass on the nation.
Those are the arguments you’re endorsing, Cliffy. Oh, not openly, because you’re incapable of doing anything positive like argue for something or in defense of something, but that’s the side you’re aligning yourself with.
I won’t bother asking you to defend these, of course. You’re far too mentally limited to do such things. You’ve only one purpose here — to attack. And you’re pathetically bad at that, but it’s the one thing you think you can do.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Every single item on that list is a complete mis-characterization of fact.
If you have to lie to make your point then apparently you don’t have much of a point.
@C. Clavin: Simply yelling “LIE!” doesn’t actually prove any points.
And when it’s you yelling “LIE!,” it actually adds a bit of credibility to the original statement.
But, just for giggles, let’s take just one point for starters: Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB occurred when Congress itself said it wasn’t recessed, but Obama said they were recessed.
I giddily await your response.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Douche-fvck…you seem to think that your lie is a valid point…but anyone calling your lie a lie is out of bounds. Your logic astounds.
As for the NLRB…we will know in a few days what the SCOTUS rules. The case is certainly not what you portray it as. The fact that the Obama Administration asked SCOTUS to rule on the case kinda flies in the face of this being an impeachable offense.
If you have to lie to make your point…then have at it. You are extremely well practiced…but not very good at it considering.
@Pinky:
L O L
In other words, just about anything he does is impeachable. Again, House impeaches, Senate does not convict. Seem familiar? It should, we’ve been there recently.
@C. Clavin: So, your response is “we’ll let the Supreme Court decide?” Funny how you don’t EVER let your own opinions show, just your attacking.
Plus, you’re wrong. The Obama administration did NOT ask the Supreme Court to rule. It started with a company hit with an adverse ruling from the NLRB, who decided to challenge the legality of Obama’s appointments to court. Obama had NO interest in having the Court review the policy, and argued in lower courts that the matter was beyond question.
And I’m pretty sure that “Douche-fvck” qualifies as a violation of the Terms of Service here. What’s the relevant verbiage again? Oh, yes…
I wouldn’t normally bring it up, but quite frankly it was the most significant element of your “resposne.”
Oh, maybe you meant that the Obama administration’s appealing a lower court ruling that the move was illegal counts as “the Obama Administration asked SCOTUS to rule on the case.” That’s a very generous and creative interpretation of the events, and flies in the face of the Obama administration’s arguments that the matter is simply beyond question, but I guess you’re just stupid enough to argue that one.
@mantis:
Your point is taken and believe it or not I agree that the President should not have gone forward with the prosecution. It would have set a precedent for future administrations that would not have gone well at all – let alone the potential impact it could have had on other affairs. What you mentioned is part of the reason why the decision to interrogate in that fashion was a very dumb one. It put us and those serving on our behalf at risk from the very beginning and propagated the already accepted and real notion that the United States were nothing but hypocrites. To a certain extent, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan were inflamed anyway.
But I digress.
The intent was still an honorable one of the President’s behalf. The bigger point that I am arguing is that conservatives have no room, political clout, nor credibility to play the impeach card on so many offenses (or perceived offenses) that just do not measure up to the offenses the last administration made.
@al-Ameda:
I wonder what South Dakota Sen. John Thune thinks of this?
@LaMont: The bigger point that I am arguing is that conservatives have no room, political clout, nor credibility to play the impeach card on so many offenses (or perceived offenses) that just do not measure up to the offenses the last administration made.
So, the Republicans have no right to impeach Obama.
Impeachment is an exclusive power of the House.
The Republicans have a majority of the House, 233-199.
The Constitution requires a “majority of those present and voting” in the House to impeach.
So the only way Obama could be impeached, by your standards, is if every single Republican in the House abstains and 100 Democrats vote yes?
Which means, practically speaking, Obama is unimpeachable.
So much for “checks and balances…”
@C. Clavin:
Are you sure about that?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So, the Republicans have no right to impeach Obama.
No, LaMont did not say that at all. It must be libel! Or maybe a violation of site policies! Report yourself, Hall Monitor Jenos!
@Pinky: Are you sure about that?
Of course he is.
Cliffy’s motto is “never right, but never in doubt.”
@Jenos Idanian #13:
You could take the approach that whenever the house majority is different than the president they have the right to impeach. It could become a ritual, like physically dragging the speaker of the UK House of Commons to his chair.
It might be fun. The new president is sworn in, and then with an elaborate ceremony the House automatically begins impeachment proceeding. Probably makes for good TV.
@ Pinky
One more time:
What crime(s) did Obama commit?
@anjin-san: Violation of the Senate’s right to Advise and Consent regarding appointments. NLRB appointees require Senate approval; Obama declared that the Senate was in recess, in direct conflict with Congress’ own rules regarding what does and does not constitute a recess, and appointed members without proper legal approval.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
That’s not a crime.
It will be fun during the next Republican administration, if the Democrats refuse to hold votes on any appointments, how folks will suddenly change their minds about when the Senate is or is not in recess. However, it’s doubtful the Dems would do that, as they want government to function, whereas Republicans want government to fail, and will take any measures to assure it does.
@ Jenos
A. Do you know what “crime” means?
B. Did you take a high school civics course?
@Joe:
Thune is a mannequin, he’s the ‘Uncle Bernie’ of the Senate, he has no opinion.
@Pinky:
The case is called: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.
Noel Canning is a bottler in Washington State. They lost an NLRB ruling that challenged the legitimacy of the members…they then appealed to the DC Circuit…and that panel went beyond the original question of the Pro-Forma Sessions and to the far broader question of Constitutional Powers…and in the process severely restricted the Executive Branches power. At that point the Government asked the Supreme Court to take the case to settle differing interpretations of the Recess Appointments Clause.
@anjin-san: Do you know what “high crimes and misdemeanors” means? Hint: it’s different from “crime”.
@anjin-san:
See my comment above…He got his J.D. from Loserville U…enrollment, one.
@C. Clavin:
You do yourself and the site a disservice with this kind of response. Let your arguments stand or fall on their own and leave the playground insults on the playground.
@Pinky:
Hint…no one really knows what that means…it’s called a “term of art” or jargon.
The high bar of impeaching in the House and convicting by 2/3rds in the Senate was probably intended to be the check against efforts…like those of Conspiracy Theorists and numbskulls like Jenos…to remove people from office for ludicrous reasons.
@Grewgills:
When it comes to Jenos…and forced to choose…I would still go with douche-fvck.
Trying to reason with anyone who does not come to their opinions through a process of reason is simply a waste of time.
@ Pinky
If the GOP wants to impeach Obama for something like “failure to supervise”, I say have at it.
We all saw how well adventures in impeachment worked for Republicans last time around.
@C. Clavin: And that “kinda flies in the face of this being an impeachable offense” how, then?
@anjin-san: Anjin – Please use the @ function. I’m not following your argument, and it’d be helpful to be able to connect comments to each other.
@Pinky:
How in the wide world of sports does submitting a case to due process constitute a high crime?
Think.
@C. Clavin: Joke, right?
@Pinky:
No…tell me how it rises to an impeachable offense?
@C. Clavin:
Then either don’t engage or engage without the ad hominem. Doing otherwise makes him look better and you worse. When his arguments are facile or based on falsehoods be content to make him look foolish by dismantling his arguments.
@Grewgills:
engage this.
@C. Clavin:
I retreat in awe of your superior debating skills, by all means continue to ignore the terms of the site and make the troll look more reasonable.
@Grewgills:
Tell you what Mr. Hall Monitor…find me an example of the Indiana Jones anagram listening to a substantial argument, responding with reason, and changing his opinion…and I’ll take your advice.
@Grewgills: Can we vote on who the trolls are?
@C. Clavin:
1) I think he intends his name to be a Star Wars reference rather than an Indiana Jones reference. I’m not sure if the Star Wars reference is intended as an Indiana Jones reference, but wouldn’t be surprised if it were, Lucas and all.
2) Your behavior shouldn’t be contingent on his.
3) Your poor behavior is reflecting badly on my side of the argument and that is why I am calling you out on it.
@Pinky:
Sure, why not?
@Pinky:
Sure…right after you explain how the NLRB case constitutes an impeachable offense.
@Grewgills:
Again…you cannot have an argument with someone who does not understand reason.
@C. Clavin:
However if you can show me that Mr. Anagram does, or even has, I”ll comport myself with the proper decorum.
@Grewgills:
For the record, it’s a reference to a alias Han Solo uses in one of the Star Wars novels:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jenos_Idanian
@Grewgills:
I’m not sure if the Star Wars reference is intended as an Indiana Jones reference, but wouldn’t be surprised if it were, Lucas and all.
It is. It’s a pseudonym used by Han Solo in some SW books as well as an anagram of Indiana Jones. As you know, both are played by Harrison Forp (you’re so clever, A.C. Crispin!). Jenos chose it when he abandoned his previous moniker, Jay Tea, erstwhile blogger at Wizbang.
@C. Clavin:
Crickets…..
@C. Clavin: I’m still not going to reply. I’m not obsessive enough that I have to reply to everything on the internet. I’m not obsessive enough…come on, I’m not obsessive enough…
No. I’m not going to do it. “Joke, right?” was enough. Anyone should be able to understand this one. I’m not obsessive enough to reply to everything on the internet.
@Pinky: I’m afraid you’re going to have to make the case that recess appointments somehow rise to the level of impeachable offense, especially since they were made during what is clearly a tactic by the legislative branch to deny the executive the ability to make recess appointments to begin with.
@Tillman: I said specifically, in my first comment on this thread, that I didn’t think it rose to the level of impeachable offense.
Then again, are appointments so trivial? Marbury vs. Madison, Boss Tweed, Johnson’s impeachment, Jackson’s spoils system…I may have to rethink this.
Useful information: “bitch” will get you chastised by our hosts. “Douche-fvck” will not.
As long as the right people are the ones using it, I assume.
But on topic: Obama made illegal appointments (as ruled so far by several courts, and simple common sense). Those appointees issued illegal decisions. So that constitutes an impeachable offense.
Obama signed ObamaCare, which had very specific dates as part of the letter of the law. He has repeatedly declared that regardless of what the law actually says, it will not be enforced until he says so — and that’s right after the next election.
Presidents don’t get to decide when to enforce the laws, especially when those laws have specific dates right in the letter of those laws.
But as I said above, since there aren’t enough Democrats who would put principle above party loyalty, impeachment would not only fail, but strengthen Obama.
So other approaches must be taken to check Obama’s abuses of power.
@C. Clavin:
Sure, but these are multiple people debates, and when personal insults become the norm the standard drops dramatically – just another instance of the tragedy of the commons.
There are plenty of forums out there where people are happy to trade personal insults; I can’t think of any which has particularly interesting discussions.
What do you gain with those personal insults? Most people will gain their own (usually negative) opinion on him based on what he says – the most your insults will do is create sympathy for him and a drop in respect for yourself . Furthermore, he himself probably takes each personal insult as a sign that he’s getting to you (ie score for him).
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Again…you are mis-characterizing every single one of those issues.
If you have to lie to make your point it ain’t much of a point to begin with.
@C. Clavin: Cliffykins, I don’t like repeating myself, and I don’t like it even less when I know it will do no good (because you’re constitutionally incapable of changing or learning), but repeatedly calling something a lie doesn’t make it a lie. No matter how many times you stamp your little footsies and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue. (In your case, that’s an empty threat; “brain damage” is not something you need to fear.)
@george: george, you’re wasting your time. All Cliffy has are insults. I’d estimate that 99% of his comments boil down to “you’re so stupid” or “they’re so stupid,” with nothing of any value or substance to mitigate that. It’s nice of you to try to enlighten him, but it really wasted effort.
If we’re all being honest here, Jenos, you do troll Clavin something fierce. I agree with your choice of targets in general – most of them are trolls in their own right – but you’ve got to wonder if countertrolling is really the best use of your time. As for Clavin, if it were my site I’ve have banned him a long time ago, but (a) it’s not my site, and (b) I might have banned you as well. I stood up for you recently when you accused wr of lying. But there’s the left/right split, and the haloes/horns split, and they’re not the same.
@Pinky: I’ll admit there’s a bit of Puckishness in me, especially when I can so easily send Cliffy into paroxysms of hysteria. And I thank you for agreeing that wr was, as usual, just making crap up; this time, though, it was one quite readily proven false. (I still think the thing that bothered me most was that he was accusing me of supporting Obama on Syria.)
But for you, and george, I’ll give Cliffy a chance to redeem himself. I’ll elaborate on the NLRB mess, and why I think it rises to an impeachable offense.
The Recess Appointments clause is in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:
The original intent of this clause was to reflect that, at the time, there would be long stretches of time when the Senate would not be in session, and this was to keep the federal government from being crippled when vacancies occurred. And this was valid for most of our history.
However, at some point during the 20th Century (it’s debatable just when), both communications and transportation had evolved to the point where such recesses were simply not necessary. Congress could be called back into session in emergencies, and there was a reasonable expectation that at least a quorum of both Houses would show up.
So the “recess appointments” clause became a way for presidents to appoint people to office without having to go through Senate confirmation. This became appealing when the candidates were virtually assured of failing to win confirmation.
During his administration, President George W. Bush used this power several times when he believed that his nominees would be defeated. The case of former UN Ambassador John Bolton is probably the most high-profile example.
This raised the ire of the Democrats in the Senate, so they developed a way to check this power: they refused to formally “recess.” They went away, but a few Senators would remain behind to have pro forma sessions, purely for the reason of being able to say “we weren’t recessed,” so Bush couldn’t appoint his candidates.
(Fun historical fact: Senator Barack Obama participated in these pro forma sessions.)
When President Obama took office, he ran into the same kind of difficulties. And while he had the Senate on his side, the Republicans had the House. And under Congressional rules, neither House can recess without the consent of the other. So the House simply refused to let the Senate recess, blocking the opportunity for Obama to make his appointments.
Obama, however, didn’t recognize that move and decided that the Senate was “in recess” and made his appointments to the NLRB.
On January 4, 2012, Obama appointed three members to the NLRB, citing his authority under the “recess appointments” clause. By the 112th Senate’s official calendar, their first session ran from January 5, 2011 until January 3, 2012, and their second session ran from January 3, 2012 to January 3, 2013.
There, I tried to pose the matter as neutrally as possible, sticking to the facts as best I could and offering no judgments on the merits of individuals or arguments. I invite Cliffy to point out the flaws in my summary, and/or present an argument that Obama’s move was in some way constitutional.
And I’ll admit that I’m being a bit puckish here, too. I am demonstrating that I am more than willing and capable of presenting reasoned, polite arguments, and am anticipating that Cliffy will, once again, fail to even try to do so.
I see it as a no-lose move for me. Either Cliffy is exposed as the bozo I think he is, or he sets a standard for himself that he can be held to in the future.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Three hours, one uptwinkle, two downtwinkles, zero responses.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Yeah, well, I once pretended to throw a tennis ball, and a dog tried to run after it, but the ball was still in my hand. Sure, it was funny, but it only proved that I’m smarter than a dog. 🙂
@Pinky: (Wince) Consider me deflated…