Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a public servant, on the public payroll, obligated to perform to his oath to the state constitution, abandons his obligation, hides in another state and impairs the operation of government, is that not grounds for immediate impeachment for dereliction of duty to his home state?
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I'd love to see Republicans try to impeach Obama. Between the threats to shut down the government and impeach the President, it looks like history is repeating itself circa 1995/1996, and Republicans didn't look too good by the time it was over. Clinton was easily reelected.
Art 2, Sec 1, USCON: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Art 2, Sec 1, USCON: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
(Executive power = the power to execute, enforce, impose the laws enacted by Congress)
If the president ceases to enforce the laws enacted by Congress, then he has violated his oath of office, in my opinion, from reading the text of the USCON.
Of course, we also have a Congress that enacts laws it has not read, so it might be foolish to enforce obedience on a president who makes oaths to a constitution that he deems is a 'charter of negative liberties'.
"Ever since George Washington, presidents have exercised their own judgment in assessing the constitutionality of federal laws, and have not simply deferred to the courts or to Congress.
...
But if the courts haven’t yet ruled on the issue, nothing prevents the president or Congress from making a considered independent judgment that the statute is nonetheless unconstitutional and acting accordingly.
Thus, if the president genuinely believes that DOMA or any other federal statute is unconstitutional, he has at least a prima facie duty not to defend it in court, and possibly a duty not to take actions to enforce it either, as part of his exercise of prosecutorial discretion (a traditional executive power). "
Hell, didn't President Bush do signing statements all the time when he signed bills into law saying that he wouldn't comply? And if i'm not mistaken, that practice hasn't stopped under the Obama administration.
That's exactly why i used to tell Republicans to stop cheering for a runaway exec branch. They loved it back then, but for some dumb reason, they didn't think about the next (democratic) president abusing the same power. And of course, they didn't listen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
