4
   

Lets Get Clear About Obama and The Constitution

 
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 10:26 am
Various conservative groups are spreading rumors and making statements about
Obama, what he will do and what they will do to him.

1.Impeachment.According to the Constitution, the President may only be impeached for"treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

That means he can only be impeached if he commits a crime. He cannot be impeached just because someone does not like his policies.

2.Changing the Constitution. According to the Constitution, amending it requires a vote of 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Obama cannot do it by himself.
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 07:12 pm
@JoeBruno,
Sounds good. Now explain Bill Clinton to me re his Impeachment.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2015 09:17 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Sounds good. Now explain Bill Clinton to me re his Impeachment.


Lying to congress under oath is a crime. See the high crimes section.
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 03:43 am
@McGentrix,
The Senate did not agree with you.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 07:58 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

The Senate did not agree with you.


Well, you mean half of the Senate didn't agree with me. Mostly the Democratic half that unanimously voted not guilty. Imagine that.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:03 am
@McGentrix,
Article One, Section Three, next to last paragraph of that section, of the United States constitution:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. (emphasis added--of course)

Imagine that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:15 am
I do this all the time, i forget: it occurs to me that you may be misinformed. The Republicans were in the majority in the Senate of the 106th Congress--55 to 45. It was not until the 2000 election that the Democrats caught up, and it was split 50-50. So, if it had been a matter of a simple majority, with people voting along party lines, he would have been convicted.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:28 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
The perjury charge failed with 45 senators (all Republican) voting "guilty" and 55 senators (45 Democrats and 10 Republicans) voting "not guilty". The obstruction of justice charge failed with 50 senators (all Republican) voting "guilty" and 50 senators (45 Democrats and 5 Republicans) voting "not guilty".
Source
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 08:31 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Thanks Boss--i was too lazy to go look that up. But i knew it took a 2/3 majority vote, and i knew the Republicans were in the majority--which was enough to go on.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 10:33 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I do this all the time, i forget: it occurs to me that you may be misinformed. The Republicans were in the majority in the Senate of the 106th Congress--55 to 45. It was not until the 2000 election that the Democrats caught up, and it was split 50-50. So, if it had been a matter of a simple majority, with people voting along party lines, he would have been convicted.


What was it I was misinformed about? What in my statement would lead you to believe that I was misinformed about anything, boss? Quit making these strawmen.

I didn't say jack **** about a majority, I didn't say jack **** about anything other than EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT SENATOR VOTED NOT GUILTY. Which part of that did I get wrong, chief?
This is the second time today you've reacted wrongly to something I have written. How about actually reading my words?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 05:35 pm
@McGentrix,
I did read your words. You said the Democratic half. The Democrats did not have half the seats in the Senate, Chief.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2015 05:36 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Well, you mean half of the Senate didn't agree with me. Mostly the Democratic half that unanimously voted not guilty. Imagine that.


This is what you wrote. Where's the straw man you're babbling about?
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2015 12:01 am
@McGentrix,
"IF" he lied it was to the FBI about a personal matter.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2015 12:26 am
@RABEL222,
It was a party for all the folks who like to root out sin and like to believe they are without sin.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2015 08:46 pm
@glitterbag,
Who in the political arena is without sin?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Dec, 2015 12:26 pm
@RABEL222,
My how you guys like to rewrite history when it comes to old Bill. They had Lewinsky lie about their affair under oath when she filed an affidavit in the Jennifer Flowers lawsuit. They offered her a job position if she lied. Clinton was caught and was impeached. He wanted her to lie so that they couldn't establish a pattern of Clinton being a cheater. It was indeed a personal affair until Clinton and his cronies started to use the office of the President to hide his affair and offer her a job to lie. That is where it all falls apart.

You should check out the time line CNN has:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/

RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2015 12:23 am
@Baldimo,
Well Baldy, one thing the house did with its persecution of Clinton was getting him reelected to a second term so blather on. Not all the people are so easily taken in by lies. How come all the lies you post are 10 or 15 years old?
JoeBruno
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 02:59 pm
@RABEL222,
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for Perjury,l which means lying under oath. The Republicans in the house did not initate these charges. They were first leveled at Clinton by a judge in Arkansas.She alleged that Clinton lied under oath when he testified in a lawsuit filed against him for
Sexual Harrassment by Paula Jones. Jones alleged that Clinton tried to seduce her in a hotel room.

Interestingly, Clinton never contested the Arkansas charges. After he left the White House, he made a deal with the Arkansas Bar Association to surrender his law license for 5 years in exchange for their failure to prosecute him.
0 Replies
 
JoeBruno
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 03:02 pm
@RABEL222,
No. It was as a witness in court in Arkansas while he was being sued for Sexual Harrassment by Paula Jones.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Dec, 2015 12:22 pm
@RABEL222,
Your history is wrong again. None of the impeachment proceedings started until after the 1996 election. The only lies being told here are by you and your revisionist playmates.

Quote:
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998. He was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[1]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_and_acquittal_of_Bill_Clinton
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Lets Get Clear About Obama and The Constitution
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/13/2020 at 02:50:43