15 Jan 13
Probably not, it's up to the courts to decide whether such an executive power is in conflict with the constitution, not up to some congressman. Even if it is found to be in conflict, the question remains whether that is an impeachable offence. There have been scores of laws all through American history that have been in violation of the constitution, but these have never been grounds for removing the congressman and senators that drafted and voted for them from the legislature.
15 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672Andrew Napolitano in his new book Teddy and Woodrow, sites the Constitution Article 1, Section 1 as follows: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened to impeach Barack Hussein Obama if the latter tries to use Executive Orders to confiscate weapons, saying such provisions would violate not only the Second Amendment but the due process clause.
Is he right?
Congress may not delegate its lawmaking powers to another branch of government. The clear reason is that elected members of Congress are liable to be removed in the next election, whereas bureaucrats are not.
Shortly thereafter Napolitano points out that SCOTUS has generally upheld the authority of regulatory agencies, based on 1928 case J.W. Hampton Jr. and Co v. United States. The Tariff Act of 1922 created a tariff commission, which was upheld.
Whether or not these agencies are truly Constitutional or just the result of progressives in each branch of government at a particular time, it appears that fighting off legislation by bureaucracy is at best a long and difficult fight.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Since Obama is not legit anyway why not do it now? Better yet have the Marines remove him with force.
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened to impeach Barack Hussein Obama if the latter tries to use Executive Orders to confiscate weapons, saying such provisions would violate not only the Second Amendment but the due process clause.
Is he right?
15 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672I don't mean to nit pick here, but Rep. Stockman does not have the power to impeach anyone. He may vote to impeach (if it comes to a vote), but that's all. He'll need lot's of other votes in his corner to actually impeach a President. I'd suggest asking sh76 for the details, he's a pretty smart guy. And no....he's not right. Just because one does not agree with a President, does not give them the right to impeach a President in the majority of cases.
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened to impeach Barack Hussein Obama if the latter tries to use Executive Orders to confiscate weapons, saying such provisions would violate not only the Second Amendment but the due process clause.
Is he right?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672There is no constitutional authority outside the house stopping them from voting to bring impeachment charges against Obama for whatever reasons it deems sufficient. Conviction requires a 2/3 Senate vote, after a trial.
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened to impeach Barack Hussein Obama if the latter tries to use Executive Orders to confiscate weapons, saying such provisions would violate not only the Second Amendment but the due process clause.
Is he right?
15 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672He is a politician posturing. The President has no intention of issuing Executive Orders to confiscate weapons and unless Congressman Stockman is as loony as many of you right wing posters, he knows this.http://news.msn.com/politics/obama-weighing-executive-action-on-guns-1
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened to impeach Barack Hussein Obama if the latter tries to use Executive Orders to confiscate weapons, saying such provisions would violate not only the Second Amendment but the due process clause.
Is he right?
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by JS357This is correct, which means (like the filibuster) there is absolutely nothing to stop them from abusing this function for purely political reasons.
There is no constitutional authority outside the house stopping them from voting to bring impeachment charges against Obama for whatever reasons it deems sufficient. Conviction requires a 2/3 Senate vote, after a trial.
16 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672Why do you torture yourself? Putting aside the Constitutionality of the issue, it should be plain to you that people who attain government power to that degree are untouchable. They can do as they please with the rubber stamp of SCOTUS to give them a certain degree of credibility.
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened to impeach Barack Hussein Obama if the latter tries to use Executive Orders to confiscate weapons, saying such provisions would violate not only the Second Amendment but the due process clause.
Is he right?
It is akin to calls for "W" to be impeached for "lying" to the American people or pointing out the 20 some odd ethics violations of Charley Rankin. In the end, no one gives a damn, it is all merely political posturing.
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHouse Republicans impeaching Obama every day of the week is the only stunt the GOP has yet to incorporate into its clown act. Better late than never, I suppose.
This is correct, which means (like the filibuster) there is absolutely nothing to stop them from abusing this function for purely political reasons.
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by sasquatch672http://www.3news.co.nz/Gun-advocates-bizarre-rant-at-Piers-Morgan/tabid/313/articleID/282495/Default.aspx?ref=video
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened to impeach Barack Hussein Obama if the latter tries to use Executive Orders to confiscate weapons, saying such provisions would violate not only the Second Amendment but the due process clause.
Is he right?
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by bill718The issue at hand here is how far Executive Orders are able to go, and whether Executive Orders are not subject to the Constitution. The Due Process argument is, in my mind, a more compelling argument than a Second Amendment provision.
I don't mean to nit pick here, but Rep. Stockman does not have the power to impeach anyone. He may vote to impeach (if it comes to a vote), but that's all. He'll need lot's of other votes in his corner to actually impeach a President. I'd suggest asking sh76 for the details, he's a pretty smart guy. And no....he's not right. Just because one does not agree ...[text shortened]... President, does not give them the right to impeach a President in the majority of cases.
I think it's certainly an interesting time to be a legal scholar.
16 Jan 13
Originally posted by whodeyHere's your answer:
Why do you torture yourself? Putting aside the Constitutionality of the issue, it should be plain to you that people who attain government power to that degree are untouchable. They can do as they please with the rubber stamp of SCOTUS to give them a certain degree of credibility.
It is akin to calls for "W" to be impeached for "lying" to the American p ...[text shortened]... s of Charley Rankin. In the end, no one gives a damn, it is all merely political posturing.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=VnmnTTL462k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVnmnTTL462k