I thought I already answered the question. "Ignoring the Constitution" is not an indictable offense. Neither is "acting like a dictator." In order to be impeached, a chief exec must commit an unlawful act, a crime. Sorry, but one cannot simply throw out generalities from Fox News or Donald Trump's website as a basis for impeachment. I hope this helps.

I thought I already answered the question. "Ignoring the Constitution" is not an indictable offense. Neither is "acting like a dictator." In order to be impeached, a chief exec must commit an unlawful act, a crime. Sorry, but one cannot simply throw out generalities from Fox News or Donald Trump's website as a basis for impeachment. I hope this helps.

 

Ignoring the constitution as the president actually is an indictable offense since you swear to uphold it on your very first day.

I thought I already answered the question. "Ignoring the Constitution" is not an indictable offense. Neither is "acting like a dictator." In order to be impeached, a chief exec must commit an unlawful act, a crime. Sorry, but one cannot simply throw out generalities from Fox News or Donald Trump's website as a basis for impeachment. I hope this helps.

 

I was not talking about impeachment. Nice try.

 

I asked if you condoned a POTUS, from either party, ignoring the Constitution and acting like a dictator. That is the question I asked and you still have not answered.

Ignoring the constitution as the president actually is an indictable offense since you swear to uphold it on your very first day.

You're wrong. It's like someone ignoring a red light. I can ignore red lights all I want, but I'll never be charged with a crime until I commit an unlawful act, i.e., running a red light. So what unlawful act has President Obama committed? Be specific. Remember, we need to focus on substance, not style.

 

If the Republicans were smart, they'd let sleeping dogs lie in hopes of continued low Democrat turnout heading into the 2016 election, but I'd put the odds at 50-50 that some GOP firebrand will introduce articles of impeachment in the House.

You're wrong. It's like someone ignoring a red light. I can ignore red lights all I want, but I'll never be charged with a crime until I commit an unlawful act, i.e., running a red light. So what unlawful act has President Obama committed? Be specific. Remember, we need to focus on substance, not style.

 

If the Republicans were smart, they'd let sleeping dogs lie in hopes of continued low Democrat turnout heading into the 2016 election, but I'd put the odds at 50-50 that some GOP firebrand will introduce articles of impeachment in the House.

 

I never said or pointed to anything to this point that Obama has done.

 

My point was more general statement for the office of president. When you swear to uphold the constitution I think willful disregard to the oath is a reason to be removed from office.

 

That statement isn't an indictment on Obama or specific events.

I never said or pointed to anything to this point that Obama has done.

 

My point was more general statement for the office of president. When you swear to uphold the constitution I think willful disregard to the oath is a reason to be removed from office.

 

That statement isn't an indictment on Obama or specific events.

 

As I mentioned earlier, my knowledge of the use of EO is limited. What are the restrictions/limits on the use of EO? I'm willing to didiscuss the questions, but I'm not sure what the full scope of EO is, and what tests it must meet to be legitimately applied.

As I mentioned earlier' date=' my knowledge of the use of EO is limited. What are the restrictions/limits on the use of EO? I'm willing to didiscuss the questions, but I'm not sure what the full scope of EO is, and what tests it must meet to be legitimately applied.[/quote']

 

Their common use is to deal with undefined and/or emergency circumstances.

 

Using EO to 'create law' is not what it is intended for.

 

As with recess appointments the courts should not allow what is being discussed to happen. The Supreme Court has ruled against recess appointments done by this administration.

 

There are other legal actions that fall short of impeachment. Impeachment is red herring.

Edited November 10, 201411 yr by Bluegrasscard
add and fix

Their common use is to deal with undefined and/or emergency circumstances. Using EO to 'create law' is not what it is intended for. .

 

Under Bush, what were the emergency circumstances for him using EO's in banning embryonic stem cell research and also one to limit earmarks? Or the one dealing with pay for federal contractors?

Under Bush, what were the emergency circumstances for him using EO's in banning embryonic stem cell research and also one to limit earmarks? Or the one dealing with pay for federal contractors?

 

Last time I looked at the Constitution embryonic stem cell research was not defined anywhere. Hence an EO fits the description I posted. Spending of monies is also a executive branch action. Not spending monies to meet budgets is a valid and required action of the executive branch in normal operations. Congress passes budgets normally It is the executive branch that spends the budget. I assume ignoring earmarks is not against against any law or constitutional clause - hence an EO to ensure the government followed this policy does not seem in conflict with the Constitution or laws. The executive branch determines pay. So long as it is above the law on minimum wage then this policy would be a valid EO - again to ensure the executive branch followed what the executive (President) has instructed.

 

All of these examples are valid examples were an EO was issued that impacted duties and responsibilities of the executive branch. Executive Orders are ORDERS from the President to the EXECUTIVE branch.

 

At issue is an EO that grants any type of citizenship to aliens that would be in direct conflict with the Constitution that specifically indicates its Congresses responsibility to define the naturalization laws. Congress first did this in 1790 with the first naturalization Act. The second was in 1795. Many other naturalization acts that update the laws of naturalization have been passed over the years. It is these laws that govern naturalization. Should the President issue an EO indicating he will not follow these laws, modify them or create new rules that are in conflict with current naturalization laws then you would an Executive Order not directed to the executive branch but one over turning legally passed laws and directly taking power from Congress is the expressly designed for Congress in the People's Constitution of United States.

well . I guess that takes care of that . LOL at the dems who are falling into insanity .

Obama is also disarming border patrol agents ahead of his decree... No doubt he expects another flood of illegals crossing the border to take advantage of our system and he welcomes that..

Republicans are going to use their constitutional power of the purse to stop an unconstitutional move if Obama attempts this. I'm going to love hearing people try and paint Republicans in a bad light for using a legal power.

Under Bush, what were the emergency circumstances for him using EO's in banning embryonic stem cell research and also one to limit earmarks? Or the one dealing with pay for federal contractors?

 

Do you equate embryonic stem cell research to the immigration problem? Federal contractor pay?

Do you equate embryonic stem cell research to the immigration problem? Federal contractor pay?

I thought he just said "emergency circumstances". But something needs to be done on immigration reform, and both sides need to sit down and get something done!

 

For the record, I am against embryonic stem cell research.

Thursday 8 p.m.

 

Supposedly major networks not carrying live.

 

Maybe it will be on the trey.