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

[SMOKE 1,426]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_of_Office_Act_%281867%29

The Tenure of Office Act restricted the President to suspend an officer while the Senate was not in sessionat that time, Congress sat during a relatively small portion of the year. If, when the Senate reconvened, it declined to ratify the removal, the President would be required to reinstate the official.[2]

In August 1867, with the Senate out of session, Johnson made his move against Stanton, suspending him pending the next session of the Senate. However, when the Senate convened on January 4, 1868, it refused to ratify the removal by a vote of 35-16. Notwithstanding the vote, President Johnson attempted to appoint a new Secretary of War. Proceedings began within days, leading to Johnson's impeachment, the first impeachment of a United States President. After a three-month trial, Johnson avoided removal from office by the Senate by a single vote. Stanton resigned in May 1868.

It was actually unclear whether Johnson had violated the Tenure of Office Act. The act's phrasing was murky, and it was not clear whether his removal of Stanton (a holdover from the Lincoln administration whom Johnson had not appointed) violated the Act. While the Act, by its terms, applied to current office holders, it also limited the protection offered to Cabinet members to one month after a new president took office.

[UncleBeer 244]

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

Again with "yours". Don't pretend to know me, Skeezix.

[UncleBeer 244]

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."

I do wish you could learn to post civilly.

If you'd like to learn about what the Framers meant regarding impeachment, why not consult Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers:

A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

Like breaking the oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the land. So: not nearly what you hoped it meant.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I do wish you could learn to post civilly.

If you'd like to learn about what the Framers meant regarding impeachment, why not consult Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers:

Like breaking the oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the land. So: not nearly what you hoped it meant.

I'm sure you were quite vocal about the Patriot Act too. Talk about going against the Constitution.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I'm sure you were quite vocal about the Patriot Act too. Talk about going against the Constitution.

Some people were so vocal on this site back when Obama was elected, they claimed they would quit working and suck on the gov't teet.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Some people were so vocal on this site back when Obama was elected, they claimed they would quit working and suck on the gov't teet.

For real?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_of_Office_Act_%281867%29

The Tenure of Office Act restricted the President to suspend an officer while the Senate was not in sessionat that time, Congress sat during a relatively small portion of the year. If, when the Senate reconvened, it declined to ratify the removal, the President would be required to reinstate the official.[2]

In August 1867, with the Senate out of session, Johnson made his move against Stanton, suspending him pending the next session of the Senate. However, when the Senate convened on January 4, 1868, it refused to ratify the removal by a vote of 35-16. Notwithstanding the vote, President Johnson attempted to appoint a new Secretary of War. Proceedings began within days, leading to Johnson's impeachment, the first impeachment of a United States President. After a three-month trial, Johnson avoided removal from office by the Senate by a single vote. Stanton resigned in May 1868.

It was actually unclear whether Johnson had violated the Tenure of Office Act. The act's phrasing was murky, and it was not clear whether his removal of Stanton (a holdover from the Lincoln administration whom Johnson had not appointed) violated the Act. While the Act, by its terms, applied to current office holders, it also limited the protection offered to Cabinet members to one month after a new president took office.

So the "high crime" is violating a law that he may not have actually violated in the first place. Low bar for a high crime, don't you think?

[UncleBeer 244]

I'm sure you were quite vocal about the Patriot Act too.

I'm sure you've no idea what you're talking about. Again: you make goofy assumptions.

Some people were so vocal on this site back when Obama was elected, they claimed they would quit working and suck on the gov't teet.

What's a "teet"?

[Teddy B 17,252]

For real?

One poster in particular carried on like a two year old about it. It was quite pathetic.

I'm sure you've no idea what you're talking about. Again: you make goofy assumptions.

What's a "teet"?

It's what a Vermont cab driver uses to make it through the long cold lonely nights.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I do wish you could learn to post civilly.

If you'd like to learn about what the Framers meant regarding impeachment, why not consult Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers:

Like breaking the oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the land. So: not nearly what you hoped it meant.

So that means that you think Obama would deserve to be impeached? That's fair enough. Republicans should do that then instead of pulling this sissy show nonsense of suing the President knowing that that "lawsuit" will never go anywhere anyways.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I'm sure you were quite vocal about the Patriot Act too. Talk about going against the Constitution.

I was and am. Our precious liberties were under attack then and even more so now. You can't be for what Bush did and against what Obama is doing and vice-versa

So that means that you think Obama would deserve to be impeached? That's fair enough. Republicans should do that then instead of pulling this sissy show nonsense of suing the President knowing that that "lawsuit" will never go anywhere anyways.

No.. but the Supreme court needs to rule on his over reach of executive powers.

[GandD 5,966]

What's a "teet"?

[SMOKE 1,426]

So the "high crime" is violating a law that he may not have actually violated in the first place. Low bar for a high crime, don't you think?

you asked. you were answered.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

you asked. you were answered.

Okay, so then this is one more confirmation that Boehner isn't moving on impeachment not because the threshold for that is too high but solely for political reasons. Which then also confirms that this sissy "lawsuit" to nowhere is nothing but red meat for the crazies in the Republican Party.

No.. but the Supreme court needs to rule on his over reach of executive powers.

If you think that Boehner's political stunt will get the SCOTUS to rule on that, you will be disappointed.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Okay, so then this is one more confirmation that Boehner isn't moving on impeachment not because the threshold for that is too high but solely for political reasons. Which then also confirms that this sissy "lawsuit" to nowhere is nothing but red meat for the crazies in the Republican Party.

no one but democrats are talking impeachment. why? because they have nothing to run on & they're trying to scare their base of idiots into donating money to save dear leader's hide. If 0bama commits an impeachable offense, then the republicans will start talking about it.