Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Discussion

Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points.

  1. What precisely are you alleging are Obama's crimes against the constitution which make the usual constitutional measures (election, impeachment) not strong enough? You mention "Justification of the invasion, conduct of the war, treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillence, etc.," but these, as you say, are unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration which Obama has continued despite their unconstitutionality. As you rightly point out about Wikipedia, it's hypocritical to say that Bush was deserving of impeachment for these but Obama is not. But of course, that also means that the reverse is also true, is it not?
  2. "I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system...Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not. The military will not be running America. The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." Two questions about this. First of all, removal of the president by the military is, by definition, a military coup. Or else, where are you reading in the constitution that the military has the power to remove their commander-in-chief? Second, how is advocating a forceful overthrow of the president not sedition?
  3. "As others have mentioned, we will survive Obama's presidency. But the millions of people who put this man in power will be a drain on liberty and Democracy for years to come." I don't understand this statement. Obama was democratically elected. Last November, Republicans in large numbers were democratically elected to the house, and may, if turning out in large enough numbers next November, vote Obama out of office. That's the essence of what you're calling Democracy. Are you really saying that the majority of voters who elected Obama are a drain on democracy? It seems logical to me that the democratic process is alive and well. JDWpianist 10:47, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for your interest JDWpianist. You make some valid aurguments that break my points down sensibly, let me try and clarify.
1) The Wikipedia page is just meaningless. A page with the same bullet points with Obama would, in my opinion, would be meaningless as well. My point, Obama is deserving of such criticism but is protected by the mobocracy. I don't believe those points are against the Constitution but are in fact legitimate criticisms. I believe Obama can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. Obama's crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. His actions in Libya, without as much as a single American consulted, has in fact given our blood and treasure to the UN without permission. His willful open border policy has left the nation vulnerable. The list goes on and on, see Obama doublespeak and Barack Obama's unlawful acts.
2) I knew I would be called out on this one. Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact.
3) Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. These same people ignore his crimes and are in agreement with soft tyranny of changing America into a socialist state. The breaking of an oath is serious but not to people who will do anything for an election win. These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping Obama in power is their priority. The election of 2008 was fraud ridden. These leeches of the state are an army of anti-Americans that won't disappear with a new leader. Did fraud equal the six million vote threshold of victory? This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. Obama lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. Impeachment will never work, that means Obama can do what he wishes without fear of removal. When he loses in 2012, and he will lose, there is not an ounce of trust left for Obama. He can start a war with Israel after November 2012 and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.
I am just offering my opinions of course, right or wrong, you be the judge. Thanks for reading and you Obama apologists, thanks for criticizing. Hopefully this page helps grow Conservapedia!!! --Jpatt 19:12, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
You've made it quite clear why you believe that Obama is an awful president, that he's broken the law, conducted unwarranted military actions, and that he's taking the country off a cliff financially, points on which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but if I may offer a critical observation of your analysis, I haven't seen so far that you've made a convincing case for why a military coup is the only way. You have to imagine that whatever you may believe about the crimes of the Obama administration, you'd have to convince not only most of the public (whom you seem to mistrust), but more importantly the entire military that you are correct. The way I see it, there are two questions left, one depending on the other.
  1. The first question, which you've hinted at an answer for is, can a removal of the president by the army ever be construed as a constitutionally-justified action? You do say that "the military can relieve commanders," but this seems to me quite dubious, as I've never heard the argument put forth that a high-ranking member of the armed forces can be relieved by a lower-ranking member; that's technically known as mutiny or sedition, I believe. This is of course not to say that sedition or mutiny is never justified. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that you advocate taking extra-constitutional measures to preserve the constitution from a president you see as destroying it. Would you characterize it this way? This is however a black-or-white question; either something is allowed by the constitution or it is not. Let's call a spade a spade: if you really think that Obama's crimes endanger the constitution, you are indeed advocating extra-constitutional overthrow for pious reasons, and should be unflinching about it. That leads to the second, more philosophical question:
  2. What exactly is the line at which a president's actions become so heinous as to warrant going outside the constitutional protocol to remove them? It would seem to me that most people would set that bar very high, military members included. My personal standard would be if the president took unprecedented actions to destroy the checks and balances set up by the constitution. There is an honest case to be made that in the past 50 years the power of the other two branches has slowly eroded -- Obama surely did not begin the Imperial Presidency, as I often hear it called -- but I'm talking about steps such as immediately dissolving the Congress, dismissing the supreme court, declaring martial law without cause. Things which unambiguously consolidate all of the power in the president's chair. It's fair to argue that Obama has gone far beyond what the reasonable person would consider a justified use of presidential power, and even far beyond presidents before him who were perceived this way, but you have to remember that you've got a lot of convincing to do if this were ever to become reality.
I can perhaps put the question to you this way. How would you go about convincing the most skeptical general that an act of sedition is morally justified? How would you convince the public? What would you do about the portion of the public which as opposed to your plan? JDWpianist 11:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

It's NOT?

Per JPatt's reply above:"It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders.". I refer you, sir, to Article two, Section two of the document

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...

If sir isn't able to parse out the plain English of the Constitution's text, per se, why should a reader be persuaded by his interpretation of said document, let alone by going further, to negate the thing in order to save the republic? DevonJ 12:52, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

The discussion was not in regards to IF the constitution says the prez is commander-n-chief but if the constitution says the prez can be removed. Snarkyness will not win you friends here. --Jpatt 15:06, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
Ah, I see you point now. It's not a very clear sentence, written, as it is, in the passive tense.
Yes, barring the Constitutional process of impeachment to remove a sitting President, everything else would be extra-constitutional, (and probably illegal).
As for winning friends here, I'll gladly be the enemy of a self-professed seditionist. DevonJ 19:55, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
Stand by your man Obama, lol. Next you'll tell me you didn't vote for him. --Jpatt 20:25, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
What are you talking about? I'm not defending Obama, I'm questioning you both on your inability to write a coherent sentence and (more importantly) the cavalier way you jettison conservative principles in order to get your own way now.
Your psychic abilities are fair-to-middling: No, I did not vote for Obama in 2008. I won't be voting for him in 2012 either.
I won't be voting at all until primary season of 2014, which is when I will reach the age of majority. DevonJ 13:41, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
Again I was right, you didn't vote for Obama. My contradictory conservative principles, this coming from a liberal. Oh please tell me how you're not a liberal as well. I noticed how great you are with sentence formation and pointing out others faults but funny, no articles can be attributed to you. Maybe you should just troll along, know it all. --Jpatt 14:03, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
Point taken: I should be more productive, soon. I am neither liberal nor conservative (at this point) since I don't really follow politics as such. DevonJ 18:54, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

'The military removes Obama ... the constitution stays in place'

I have grave doubts about your thinking here. There is no provision in the US constitution for forcible removal of a president by the military. Once an action that is in breach of the constitution is taken and accepted the constitution no longer governs the country. Instead, it will become a case of "whoever the military wants" governs the country. This is not a step I can recommend for any country to take, having seen first hand the breakdown in civil law that was the result of the military coup in Fiji.

I strongly urge you to consider the long term implications of a move to forcibly remove a president from office. The US consitution has survived over two hundred years, but will not survive what you are advocating. --DamianJohn 19:23, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

I have concerns that the Constitution is already in trouble thanks to Obama. --Jpatt 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

If the military removed Obama forcibly, that would be a coup d'etat in every sense of the word. Such an action should not be tolerated. The only legal acts which are authorized to remove Obama - and any other president - are Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, provided he has committed those offenses requiring impeachment; or a voting out of office by the general public during a normal election process. Karajou 14:16, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

I can agree with that statement Karajou. What if Obama decides to no longer follow the Constitution, like he did with DOMA? I bet he would say it's old document no longer relative to today. We could expect impeachment hearings but the socialist Democrats would agree with him and impeachment would fail. At what point does he cross the line? When will America say enough is enough, he's killing the country every chance he gets? It's between Barack and a hard place.--Jpatt 14:40, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
If he refuses to follow the Constitution, then I would agree that is grounds for impeachment. Karajou 15:24, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Why??

Apart from the issue of having a military coup in America, the problem with this essay in my opinion is that it doesn't present reasons why Obama should be impeached. The current reasoning appears to be that he has continued Bush's policies. Without specific examples of things Obama has done to warrant removal from office, this essay is just an anti-Obama rant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenDylan (talk)

Remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ TonyB 21:34, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
Unless you live in la la land with your TV tuned to the liberal media, I don't have to go into description of what Obama has done that deserve his removal. In fact, I am curious to see the accomplishments Obama will campaign on. Yes, it is a rant. Yes, it is only an opinion.--Jpatt 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

A dose of reality

The plain facts are Obama will continue to be Commander in Chief & President for the next one and a half years -- barring 20 Democratic Sernators turning on him. Even then, the GOP House got burned last time on this and has no compuntion to tile public opinion again. Also note, Michelle Obama did not serve on the House Judiciary Committee as Hillary did, so there's no notion of payback for promoting oneself by stepping on somebody elses neck.

What is more frightening, IMHO, more than Obama's inexperiece and imcompetence, is ths slavish and cultic mentality of his devotees (an ever shrinking minority, thank God). For that cause alone he needs to be defeatd and rejected at the polls as the false messiah his follows set him up to be. Worshipping a man, and pinning all one's hopes on a man, or looking to a man for salvation, is a grievious sin for any nation in God's site. The dustbin of history is littered with nations that have been led captive for this sin. Obama is not the first and only incompetent pretender to occupy the office. But seriously, we as a nation have more important things to worry about than the fate of one man's career, or the fate of the Demoicratic Party. We have much more important concerns, in spite of thier reluctance to address these problems. Let's get on with the business of being citizens. The nation will survive. The people will survive. We're here for the long haul. Incompetent idiots are but only for a moment. Rob Smith 22:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree Rob. As I mentioned in the essay "Fat chance, I know." He will make it to the 2012 elections without removal, there is no doubt about it. America is held captive because whatever he says or does, he fears no repercussions to losing his job outside of an election. --Jpatt 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

I don't mean to be impolite, but isn't this kind of ridiculous? I have no love for Obama; as a strict libertarian, I disagree with him on almost everything, social and fiscal. But this is a democracy. And it is a democracy even when your candidate loses. If you really believe this, you will have to go into more detail than "Oh, you know how he's destroying the Constitution, I don't need to say any more". You talk about him like he is an iron-fisted dictator, but was Caligula ever hampered because he couldn't reach cloture in the Senate?

I looked over your article Barack Obama's unlawful acts, and for such a grievous call to action, you seem to have done painfully little research. For instance, you say the Obama bailout of AIG violated the Constitution - yet, with casual retrospection, everyone should know that the AIG bailout happened in Sept. 2008, under President Bush. If this was truly a terrible violation of the Constitution, why not argue for trying President Bush in a military tribunal? If you think he is really destroying the Constitution, you should be able to provide a list of incontrovertible, non-interpretable offenses.

I hate to rant, but it pains me to see someone so willing to throw away democracy at a whim. In Nov. 2012, vote for the Republican candidate; this is how our systems, has always worked, and will always work. But until Obama starts disbanding the Congress or executing judges, I think suggesting an Africa-style military coup is profoundly absurd. EricAlstrom 21:42, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Boy Wonder, are you saying I am wrong? Well I guess there is a first for everything. I wear profoundly absurd as a badge of honor. There is always Hope for a Change of leadership before it's too late. --Jpatt 23:41, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

An idea that is taking shape

I just read a NewsMax article on a military coup over Obama. However, the page was taken down but saved for all by the liberals at TPM. [1] --Jpatt 21:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, Media Matters has piece on it from Sept 2009. [2] Rob Smith 21:59, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
Here's one from 2011 that lays out Constitutional conditions. [3] --Jpatt 23:37, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools