'Stop Hatin' All the Time' : Obama Slams GOP Lawsuit Vote

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

i hear the new trend is donning a foil fedora

OMGOMGOMG I love you, grrrrl.

[GandD 5,966]

Hipsters.......

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

right. ted cruz, koch bros, and committee for justice. i read all three. i don't know what you think these links prove.

His point of view. Nothing beyond that really but it's good enough for him.

The fact is that there is a procedure prescribed for dealing with a President that breaks the law. It's called impeachment. Boehner running to the courts instead is a cheap (for him and his party, at least, for us taxpayers not so much) political move - and a cowardly sissy move at that. He knows that initiating impeachment procedures will cost him and his crazy faction politically. That's why they don't do it. Americans oppose that somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 1. He also knows that starting a "lawsuit" (which he knows right now will lead nowhere) will provide the chunk of red meat the crazies of the Republican base are hungry for (just look around here for proof of that). That's what this "lawsuit" is all about - riling up the crazies. And judging by this discussion board, it is working.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

His point of view. Nothing beyond that really but it's good enough for him.

The fact is that there is a procedure prescribed for dealing with a President that breaks the law. It's called impeachment. Boehner running to the courts instead is a cheap (for him and his party, at least, for us taxpayers not so much) political move - and a cowardly sissy move at that. He knows that initiating impeachment procedures will cost him and his crazy faction politically. That's why they don't do it. Americans oppose that somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 1. He also knows that starting a "lawsuit" (which he knows right now will lead nowhere) will provide the chunk of red meat the crazies of the Republican base are hungry for (just look around here for proof of that). That's what this "lawsuit" is all about - riling up the crazies. And judging by this discussion board, it is working.

Impeachment is for a crime. What he has done is overstep his executive powers

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Impeachment is for a crime. What he has done is overstep his executive powers

Now an immigrant has to teach the born and raised American on the grounds for impeachment? Talk about a bad education system around here.

"The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 also rested on allegations that he had exceeded the power of his office and had failed to repect the prerogatives of Congress."

Isn't that what Boehner's sissy "lawsuit" is supposedly about - that the President is exceeding the power of his office and stepping on Congress' toes?

[decocker 7,198]

OMGOMGOMG I love you, grrrrl.

feeling's mutual

Hipsters.......

jelly?

His point of view. Nothing beyond that really but it's good enough for him.

The fact is that there is a procedure prescribed for dealing with a President that breaks the law. It's called impeachment. Boehner running to the courts instead is a cheap (for him and his party, at least, for us taxpayers not so much) political move - and a cowardly sissy move at that. He knows that initiating impeachment procedures will cost him and his crazy faction politically. That's why they don't do it. Americans oppose that somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 1. He also knows that starting a "lawsuit" (which he knows right now will lead nowhere) will provide the chunk of red meat the crazies of the Republican base are hungry for (just look around here for proof of that). That's what this "lawsuit" is all about - riling up the crazies. And judging by this discussion board, it is working.

i agree completely.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Now an immigrant has to teach the born and raised American on the grounds for impeachment? Talk about a bad education system around here.

"The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 also rested on allegations that he had exceeded the power of his office and had failed to repect the prerogatives of Congress."

Isn't that what Boehner's sissy "lawsuit" is supposedly about - that the President is exceeding the power of his office and stepping on Congress' toes?

also rested ROFL this is like 7 is less than 5 or no man made lakes isn't it

why don't you tell me what the Constitution says. I know you liberalnistas despise it but ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson

Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868, in the U.S. House of Representatives on eleven articles of impeachment detailing his "high crimes and misdemeanors",[1] in accordance with Article Two of the United States Constitution.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

also rested ROFL this is like 7 is less than 5 or no man made lakes isn't it

why don't you tell me what the Constitution says. I know you liberalnistas despise it but ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson

Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868, in the U.S. House of Representatives on eleven articles of impeachment detailing his "high crimes and misdemeanors",[1] in accordance with Article Two of the United States Constitution.

Misdemeanors, eh? Some crimes. What he was actually impeached for (from my source):

The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 also rested on allegations that he had exceeded the power of his office and had failed to repect the prerogatives of Congress. The Johnson impeachment grew out of a bitter partisan struggle over the implementation of Reconstruction in the South following the Civil War. Johnson was charged with violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which purported to take away the President's authority to remove members of his own cabinet and specifically provided that violation would be a "high misdemeanor," as well as a crime. Believing the Act unconstitutional, Johnson removed Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and was impeached three days later.

Nine articles of impeachment were originally voted against Johnson, all dealing with his removal of Stanton and the appointment of a successor without the advice and consent of the Senate. The first article, for example, charged that President Johnson, unmindful of the high duties of this office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, order in writing the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War.⁸⁸

Two more articles were adopted by the House the following day. Article Ten charged that Johnson, "unmindful of the high duties of his office, and the dignity and proprieties thereof," had made inflammatory speeches that attempted to ridicule and disgrace the Congress.⁸⁹

Article Eleven charged him with attempts to prevent the execution of the Tenure of Office Act, an Army appropriations act, and a Reconstruction act designed by Congress "for the more efficient government of the rebel States." On its face, this article involved statutory violations, but it also reflected the underlying challenge to all of Johnson's postwar policies.

The removal of Stanton was more a catalyst for the impeachment than a fundamental cause.⁹⁰ The issue between the President and Congress was which of them should have the constitutional-- and ultimately even the military-- power to make and enforce Reconstruction policy in the South. The Johnson impeachment, like the British impeachments of great ministers, involved issues of state going to the heart of the constitutional division of executive and legislative power.

Now from your own source, the 11 articles of impeachment were:

1. Dismissing Edwin Stanton from office after the Senate had voted not to concur with his dismissal and had ordered him reinstated.
2. Appointing Thomas Secretary of War ad interim despite the lack of vacancy in the office, since the dismissal of Stanton had been invalid.
3. Appointing Thomas without the required advice and consent of the Senate.
4. Conspiring, with Thomas and "other persons to the House of Representatives unknown," to unlawfully prevent Stanton from continuing in office.
5. Conspiring to unlawfully curtail faithful execution of the Tenure of Office Act.
6. Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War."
7. Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" with specific intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
8. Issuing to Thomas the authority of the office of Secretary of War with unlawful intent to "control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War."
9. Issuing to Major General William H. Emory orders with unlawful intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
10. Making three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.

The eleventh article was a summation of the first ten.

Would you kindly point out the "high crimes" here?

[JohnR! 5,495]

+1000!!!

You hit this one out of the ballpark!!! Constitutional Law is a beach and you get extra kudos for attempting to enlighten others!

Misdemeanors, eh? Some crimes. What he was actually impeached for (from my source):

The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 also rested on allegations that he had exceeded the power of his office and had failed to repect the prerogatives of Congress. The Johnson impeachment grew out of a bitter partisan struggle over the implementation of Reconstruction in the South following the Civil War. Johnson was charged with violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which purported to take away the President's authority to remove members of his own cabinet and specifically provided that violation would be a "high misdemeanor," as well as a crime. Believing the Act unconstitutional, Johnson removed Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and was impeached three days later.

Nine articles of impeachment were originally voted against Johnson, all dealing with his removal of Stanton and the appointment of a successor without the advice and consent of the Senate. The first article, for example, charged that President Johnson, unmindful of the high duties of this office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, order in writing the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War.⁸⁸

Two more articles were adopted by the House the following day. Article Ten charged that Johnson, "unmindful of the high duties of his office, and the dignity and proprieties thereof," had made inflammatory speeches that attempted to ridicule and disgrace the Congress.⁸⁹

Article Eleven charged him with attempts to prevent the execution of the Tenure of Office Act, an Army appropriations act, and a Reconstruction act designed by Congress "for the more efficient government of the rebel States." On its face, this article involved statutory violations, but it also reflected the underlying challenge to all of Johnson's postwar policies.

The removal of Stanton was more a catalyst for the impeachment than a fundamental cause.⁹⁰ The issue between the President and Congress was which of them should have the constitutional-- and ultimately even the military-- power to make and enforce Reconstruction policy in the South. The Johnson impeachment, like the British impeachments of great ministers, involved issues of state going to the heart of the constitutional division of executive and legislative power.

Now from your own source, the 11 articles of impeachment were:

Would you kindly point out the "high crimes" here?

Edited July 31, 2014 by JohnR!

[UncleBeer 244]

Be warned y'all. Posts were apparently removed from this thread for no other reason than because the mod didn't like the wording. I guess this is in the 'invisible ascii text' portion of ToS.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Misdemeanors, eh? Some crimes. What he was actually impeached for (from my source):

The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 also rested on allegations that he had exceeded the power of his office and had failed to repect the prerogatives of Congress. The Johnson impeachment grew out of a bitter partisan struggle over the implementation of Reconstruction in the South following the Civil War. Johnson was charged with violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which purported to take away the President's authority to remove members of his own cabinet and specifically provided that violation would be a "high misdemeanor," as well as a crime. Believing the Act unconstitutional, Johnson removed Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and was impeached three days later.

Nine articles of impeachment were originally voted against Johnson, all dealing with his removal of Stanton and the appointment of a successor without the advice and consent of the Senate. The first article, for example, charged that President Johnson, unmindful of the high duties of this office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, order in writing the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War.⁸⁸

Two more articles were adopted by the House the following day. Article Ten charged that Johnson, "unmindful of the high duties of his office, and the dignity and proprieties thereof," had made inflammatory speeches that attempted to ridicule and disgrace the Congress.⁸⁹

Article Eleven charged him with attempts to prevent the execution of the Tenure of Office Act, an Army appropriations act, and a Reconstruction act designed by Congress "for the more efficient government of the rebel States." On its face, this article involved statutory violations, but it also reflected the underlying challenge to all of Johnson's postwar policies.

The removal of Stanton was more a catalyst for the impeachment than a fundamental cause.⁹⁰ The issue between the President and Congress was which of them should have the constitutional-- and ultimately even the military-- power to make and enforce Reconstruction policy in the South. The Johnson impeachment, like the British impeachments of great ministers, involved issues of state going to the heart of the constitutional division of executive and legislative power.

Now from your own source, the 11 articles of impeachment were:

Would you kindly point out the "high crimes" here?

your kidding right. It was Bush's fault or Reagan's for sure

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

your kidding right. It was Bush's fault or Reagan's for sure

How did you manage to read that out of what I posted? I gotta come up with a letter for the totally off the mark replies of yours. They're so so common, they deserve a letter.

W: W T F?

[UncleBeer 244]

This is way up there with the "Guam capsizing" Congresscritter, but this is from perennial Congress loon Sheila Jackson Lee:

We Never Tried To Impeach Bush, Says Democratic Lawmaker Who Co-Sponsored Bush Impeachment Bill

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Hey, it's not the Republicans breaking all the laws. Here's your reality check v a l e r i e .

The Republican's suck. Both parties suck. Your Libertarian party sucks.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The Republican's suck. Both parties suck. Your Libertarian party sucks.