Congress Initiates President Obama’s Impeachment

[happyg]

While many have speculated over the potential of impeaching Pres. Barack Obama, several members of Congress have finally filed.

A resolution written by Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC) claims Obama should be impeached for his defiance against the Constitution. The congressman officially stated the purpose of initiating the impeachment process was to “bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.”

The most recent and notable Constitutional defiance included a range of offenses regarding the Affordable Care Act. The president has changed the language of the law as well as, processes of implementation without the consent of Congress.

Rice wrote, “President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President.  However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents.”

So far, the impeachment proceedings have garnered support from 29 members of Congress.

Here is a list of those supporting Pres. Obama’s impeachment: Bachmann (MN), Bridenstine (OK), Chaffetz (UT), J. Duncan (SC), DeSantis (FL), Franks (AZ), Gowdy (SC), Harris (MD), Lamborn (CO), LaMalfa (CA), Marino (PA), McClintock (CA), Meadows (NC), Nunnelee (MS), Pittenger (NC), Posey (FL), Tom Price (GA), Ribble (WI), Salmon (AZ), Sanford (SC), Schweikert (AZ), Stewart (UT), Stockman (TX), Walberg (MI), Weber (TX), Wenstrup (OH), Williams (TX), Joe Wilson (SC), and Yoho (FL).

http://americanoverlook.com/congress-initiates-president-obamas-impeachment/107389

[Oceander]

The congressman officially stated the purpose of initiating the impeachment process was to “bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.”

If by that he means to sue Obama in court, then that suit will fail, period.  To put it quite simply, members of Congress do not have the requisite standing necessary to sue the president for diminshing the role of the legislative branch by, for example, implementing presidential initiatives by executive order.  See, e.g., Chenoweth v. Clinton, 181 F.3d 112 (D.C.Cir. 1999)(members of Congress lacked standing to challenge implementation of American Heritage Rivers Initiative by executive order because claimed injury - denying them their proper role in the legislative process and diminishing their power as members of Congress - not sufficiently concrete).

They have but one choice available to them to punish the president in these circumstances:  commence formal impeachment proceedings against him.  This they can do by either presenting to the House a list of charges against the president under oath, or requesting that the matter be referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.  Articles of Impeachment, if any, would come from that committee.

Anything else is just a waste of time and resources (paid for by taxpayers), and a stupid way to give the democrats an inflammatory issue to distract the American people from the ongoing Obamacare disaster.  Of course, at present if these members of Congress were to actually attempt to start formal impeachment proceedings, that would be a flagrantly stupid way of giving the democrats the ultimate in distractions from Obamacare.

[truth_seeker]

Impeachment would be a distraction, as Oceander states.

[Fishrrman]

A waste of time.

The Senate would never vote to convict him, regardless of the charges. I don't care if he was found with a dead girl or a live boy (don't tell this to Reggie).

Dat wud be racis' !!

[Formerly Once-Ler]

If by that he means to sue Obama in court, then that suit will fail, period.  To put it quite simply, members of Congress do not have the requisite standing necessary to sue the president for diminshing the role of the legislative branch by, for example, implementing presidential initiatives by executive order.  See, e.g., Chenoweth v. Clinton, 181 F.3d 112 (D.C.Cir. 1999)(members of Congress lacked standing to challenge implementation of American Heritage Rivers Initiative by executive order because claimed injury - denying them their proper role in the legislative process and diminishing their power as members of Congress - not sufficiently concrete).

They have but one choice available to them to punish the president in these circumstances:  commence formal impeachment proceedings against him.  This they can do by either presenting to the House a list of charges against the president under oath, or requesting that the matter be referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.  Articles of Impeachment, if any, would come from that committee.

Anything else is just a waste of time and resources (paid for by taxpayers), and a stupid way to give the democrats an inflammatory issue to distract the American people from the ongoing Obamacare disaster.  Of course, at present if these members of Congress were to actually attempt to start formal impeachment proceedings, that would be a flagrantly stupid way of giving the democrats the ultimate in distractions from Obamacare.

On this we agree.  Your argument is unimpeachable, but to play devils advocate...

It is my ferverent wish that Obama be impeached before he retires to the golf courses of the world.  Unfortunately I can't support that action without the support of a majority of American voters.  Now is not the time and there likely never will be a time, but that time could come.  As Obamacare continues to fail Obama could drop to Nixon levels of support.  His support with moderates has plummeted and it looks like he is even losing some of his base. 

From my perspective it may make some sense to run a trial balloon, gather intel while testing public support and develop an effective strategy when the time is right.  But how to do that without damaging the GOP brand.  If only it could be blamed on some "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" as WI GOP Congressman Sean Duffy might say.

Ah nevermind, I cant find a silver lining here.  This is another conservative disaster with no upside.

Rice wrote, “President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President.  However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents.”

Actually every time Obama created law it was because he had to...for fear of the voters.  The delays were demanded by the people and Obama had to act against the interests of Obamacare's long term goals.  Obamacare can't work without the mandates and now all anybody will see is costs going up, and people losing coverage, and insurance companies going under.  There are no success stories the rats can tell, so their one out is to blame Obamacare's failure on the GOP.  Cue the conservatives.  They want to impeach the President for trying to fix his mess?  The mess they demanded he fix? 

Expunge these loose cannons from the party now. 

Just kidding, but at least get Senator Burr out to respond.

My last observation is someone had to have run this by Boehner already.  It's 29 Congressmen.  His "lost all credibility"..."pushing our members places they dont want to be" may have been preemptive to this and not a December 12th reaction to the October shutdown.