Over reach of power

[Traveler]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the president abused his power by making appointments to government department heads when congress was not in session.   Some may argue that this was a mistake but there are two very interesting factors.  First: that the ruling was unanimous – there was not even a single descending opinion.  Second: that the president is a fully trained, knowledgeable and certified constitutional lawyer.

 

Should the president of the USA be removed from office for deliberate abuse and over reach of presidential powers?  For not exercising properly the oath of his office?

[Backroads]

I'm no Obama fan, but I'm also not sure on what the law says in this regard.  Certainly some punishment is merited, but is being removed office overkill?

 

My personal political beliefs aside, I'm more interested in what the law decrees in this situation.

[jerome1232]

I wouldn't call for it unless he clearly used this to steer congressional votes. I already think the house should bring charges for failing to notify congress of a prisoner exchange. If you are going to bring a charge, might as well grab all the possible charges you can.

[Palerider]

I am not a Obama fan at all.....having said that if he were removed my big fear is Biden is a clown and would assume role as President. I will take the current guy any day.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I'm also for making executive orders for Presidents unConstitutional.  This President has tried to use executive orders to go around passing laws through Congress.  I am against any President doing this.  It is too much power and upsets the checks and balances that should exist through all branches of the Federal goverment.

 

Now another question is the following: are there too many people who will side with Obama in the Senate despite all the abuse of power to prevent impeachment proceedings against him?

[Still_Small_Voice]

-

[yjacket]

My exposure into politics leaves me very soured.  It is extremely corrupt and the President is no exception.  I would argue that while there are lots of things that should be done, nothing will actually be done.  

 

The Imperial Presidency . . . each President pushes the boundaries of what can be done a little bit more and more and more.  I think Obama should probably be impeached but not just for this but for starting undeclared wars, killing an American citizen without due process, authorizing deep data collection and spying on the American people, etc.  But of course, I could say a lot of similar things about the previous President too.

 

Our current system of checks and balances is rather trimmed down from what it used to be.  The current checks and balances is one Federal branch checks another Federal branch . . . which is good for internal checks but that is like the right hand checking the left hand, there is no external check (i.e. another person).  

 

The Founders recognized that and originally made provisions for States to check the Federal government.  States were to have the ultimate say by their power to remove themselves from the Federal government put in place.  Before the Civil War there were multiple succession movements in the Northern States to succeed from the Union.  But the ability of a state or multiple states to succeed is gone and probably won't be a real possibility for another 50-100 years.

 

And until power returns to the State level to check the Federal level, there isn't much that will be done.

 

As for current impeachment . . . regardless of which Team the vast majority of congresscritters are for enabling a larger more expansive government.  The only reason any big government politician would vote for impeachment is if they felt their political life's were at risk.  And while the Tea Party is doing some damage, IMHO it's not nearly enough.

 

To be perfectly honest, things haven't gotten bad enough for real change.  Another hard recession in the next year or two and it could be interesting.

[MarginOfError]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the president abused his power by making appointments to government department heads when congress was not in session.   Some may argue that this was a mistake but there are two very interesting factors.  First: that the ruling was unanimous – there was not even a single descending opinion.  Second: that the president is a fully trained, knowledgeable and certified constitutional lawyer.

 

It's worth noting that the Senate felt like there was some merit to interpreting the Constitution the way that Obama did.  It was for that exact reason that they called in the pro-forma sessions every three days.  So if you're going to oust President Obama for applying an ill-formed interpretation of the Constitution, you better oust the Senate leaderships as well (not that I'm opposed to that)

[Just_A_Guy]

Don't we have better things to do with our (I use "our" loosely) House majority than to impeach a lame-duck president who holds the Senate in his pocket?  Even if the Senate convicted, the best-case-scenario would involve his succession by a VP who would be more of the same.

 

Besides--impeach him, and you create a martyr for the race-baiters.  Let him finish out his turn, and the left will be forced to confront his political legacy on its own terms.

[Traveler]

I am a little surprised with many in the forum and also elected officials in our government.  We are talking about more than just an abuse of power but a conspiracy within the government that involves a lot more than just a president.  This conspiracy involves many other elected officials and appointed officials as well as government employees. 

 

I am most surprised with the so what attitude that seems to be expressed.  My point is that a free people (citizens of a free nation) that respect and honor their responsibilities will not let this or any other abuse of power become standard operations for elected leaders.