Finally A Texan Speaks Out, Impeachment!

[cjh]

Being a Kenyan/ Socialist/ Fascist/ Moslem of course.

He should be impeached based on the actions that right wingers think he might take.

excuse me while i go search for vette's thread demanding bush's impeachment for denying hamdi's constitutional due process rights: "'We have long since made it clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens,' O'Connor wrote." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595074199/No-blank-check-for-Bush.html?pg=all

 

[Adre]

So it looks like the RWCJ has decided on its favorite topic for the next for years. How many impeachment threads do you think we'll get from the wingnuts?

 

[cjh]

So it looks like the RWCJ has decided on its favorite topic for the next for years. How many impeachment threads do you think we'll get from the wingnuts?

well, now that vette has decided to up his game to match miles and busybody, i'd say we're in for several years of eyenumbing GB first pages.

 

[koalabear]

well, now that vette has decided to up his game to match miles and busybody, i'd say we're in for several years of eyenumbing GB first pages.

Shaddup pereg!

 

[zipman]

for what, specifically, should he be impeached?

Being a democrat. Apparently that's all you need these days.

 

[RjThoughts]

And show where, in the Constitution, more specifically, in the Second Amendment, that guns are to be uses against tyrants and tyranny

 

[islandman]

And show where, in the Constitution, more specifically, in the Second Amendment, that guns are to be uses against tyrants and tyranny

What do you think the Constitution is, a love letter to King George?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RjThoughts]

What do you think the Constitution is, a love letter to King George?

Confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.

We had already been free from England BEFORE the Constitutional Convention was even conveined. I asked for the words tyranny in the Second Amendment, something "gun owners" have been saying is the reason they can keep, should be able to keep their killing machines.

Many of them have thought the words spoken by the Founders AFTER the Constitution are IN it, as well as words from the Declaration.

 

[islandman]

Confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.

We had already been free from England BEFORE the Constitutional Convention was even conveined. I asked for the words tyranny in the Second Amendment, something "gun owners" have been saying is the reason they can keep, should be able to keep their killing machines.

Many of them have thought the words spoken by the Founders AFTER the Constitution are IN it, as well as words from the Declaration.

Fair point. However, the Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. Its not as thought they had forgotten about England when they codified it.

 

[MeeMie]

"GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control"

As well he should be ...

Any argument about what Obama said, or didn't say, is a moot point.

 

[Sean]

"GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control"

As well he should be ...

Any argument about what Obama said, or didn't say, is a moot point.

"SeanH threatens massive shooting spree if unicorns land on Mars next week!"

 

[RjThoughts]

Fair point. However, the Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. Its not as thought they had forgotten about England when they codified it.

It wasn't just England. Though allies, the US feared France, plus Spain had territories close.

 

[cjh]

You might try searching out my posts suggesting impeachment for Bush for not taking care to see that the laws on immigration are faithfully executed.

that makes my point just as well.

the executive branch has reasonable discretion in choosing the way in which it interprets and applies law. not absolute, of course. but reasonable. and it has discretion in figuring out how to use limited resources. they call those policy decisions, and those usually do not amount to impeachable offenses.

additionally, sometimes the executive branch disagrees with the legislative branch (and with citizens) as to what is constitutional--or not. we have a court system that permits those aggrieved to challenge the executive branch's decision. sometimes the courts conclude that the executive branch exceeded the constitution's limits. reaching a conclusion that is ultimately rejected by the courts is usually not impeachable either.

 

[LadyVer]

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Responding to reports that President Obama is considering signing as many as nineteen executive orders on gun control, Republicans in Congress unleashed a blistering attack on him today, accusing Mr. Obama of “cynically and systematically using his position as President to lead the country.”

Spearheading the offensive was Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), who charged the President with the “wanton exploitation of powers that are legally granted to him under the U.S. Constitution.”

Calling him the “Law Professor-in-Chief,” Rep. Stockman accused Mr. Obama of “manipulating a little-known section of the Constitution,” Article II, which outlines the power of the President.

“President Obama looks down the list of all of the powers that are legally his and he’s like a kid in a candy store,” Rep. Stockman said. “It’s nauseating.”

The Texas congressman said that if Mr. Obama persists in executing the office of the Presidency as defined by the Constitution, he could face “impeachment and/or deportation.”

Noting that the President has not yet signed the executive orders on gun control, Rep. Stockman said that he hoped his stern words would serve as a wake-up call to Mr. Obama: “Mr. President, there’s still time for you to get in line. But if you continue to fulfill the duties of President of the United States that are expressly permitted in the Constitution, you are playing with fire.”

Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...-president-to-lead-country.html#ixzz2I4skovFV

 

[RobDownSouth]

Iggy is your friend.

But vetty, it's so much fun watching you use that vaunted Marine Corps Honor of yours to avoid taking personal responsibility for your positions and actions!!

"Waaaah! Quit picking on me! I never said that! I never commented on that! I only posted a link to it! Mommmmmmy!"

You're such a pink panties sissybitch.

 

[unregistered]

 

[LadyVer]

Vette, one might think you were jealous. There's just too many tea party texans who actually think they have special wisdom from God to act like an ignorant ass.

 

[RobDownSouth]

"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," he said.

Wow...breathtakingly ignorant.

 

[cjh]

it worked well for george wallace and for ross barnett.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Grim testimony as to why we need a third party to oppose the neo-statists in the now defunct Repuplican Party.

It still controls the HoR and about half the state governorships and legislatures, it ain't defunct. And any third party to the GOP's right would be defunct before it started. What's the last news you heard of the Constitution Party or the America First Party?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Texans can be a little ornery.

http://2ndamendmentright.org/2012/04/30/5386/


From a guy in Austin , Texas :

My neighbor is a “lefty” of sorts (Obama bumper stickers, gung-ho socialized medicine, “guns should be banned”, etc.). So this past spring I put this sign up in my yard after one of his anti-gun rants at a neighborhood cocktail party. The sign wasn’t up more than an hour before he called the police and wanted them to make me take down the sign. Fortunately, the officer politely informed him that it was not their job to take such action without a court order and that he had to file a complaint “downtown” first, which would be reviewed by the city attorney to see if it violated any city, county, or state ordinances, which if there was a violation a court order would be sent to the offending party (me) to “remove the sign in seven days.”

After several weeks he was informed that the sign was legal and there was nothing the city could do, which obviously made him madder. I tried to smooth things over by inviting him to go shooting with me and my friends at the hunt club but that seemed to make him even more angry. I am at a loss how to reconcile our long relationship (notice I did not say friendship), any suggestions would be welcome.

The lefty should counter with an even bigger yard-sign that says, "IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, HOW WILL WE SHOOT THE CAPITALISTS?!"

But, I dunno -- that much mindfuck would be a traffic hazard to Texans; drivers-by doing doubletakes and heads exploding would cause too many accidents.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why? The Supremacy Clause cover acts of Congress and enabling executive orders. Does it cover executive orders not authorized by Congressional action or written to enable implementation of regulations not duly authorized by Congressional legislation? What about executive orders that can be construed as infringing on the Second Amendment?

"Gun control via executive order" is a Fox News paranoia screed designed to whip low-information demographic into a frothy rage. It's a non-starter.

I was referring to the quote in the article you linked to (and appear to be back-pedaling from now, which is becoming the norm for you nowadays) that states "which would make any federal laws that may be passed by Congress...."

This is a textbook case of a Supremacy Clause violation. Even so-called "strict constructionists" Scalia and Thomas would laugh that right out of court. Any attempt to usurp the Constitution's supremacy clause would be tossed out by an 8-1 margin by the Supreme Court (Alito's judicial activism transcends the Constitution).