Obama Impeached: Seriously, what WOULD it take?

Barack Hussein Obama has brought our once great, mighty, fruitful country, and has literally destroyed it and brought it to its knees. My question is why is/has impeachment not been a serious solution here? Now, before I go any further, I know, I know, because that is who TPTB want him as their puppet. Im sorry, that line of thinking is just not going to cut it any more. So what actually DOES it take for impeachment?

There have been several impeachment proceedings initiated since the adoption of the Constitution, principally against judges in the lower federal courts. The most important impeachments were those brought against United States Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, against President Andrew Johnson in 1867, and against President William Jefferson Clinton in 1999. None of these three resulted in removal from office, and all three stand for the principle that impeachment should not be perceived as a device simply to remove a political opponent. In that regard, the caution of the Framers has been fulfilled.

I mean, we have impeached before:

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the presidency following Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865, was impeached because of his failure to follow procedures specified in federal legislation (passed over his veto) that prohibited the firing of Cabinet officials without the permission of Congress. The legislation, known as the Tenure of Office Act, was arguably unconstitutional because it compromised the independence of the executive. Nevertheless, the radical Republicans, who then controlled Congress and who recoiled at President Johnson's active hostility to their plans to protect the newly freed slaves, sought to keep the sympathetic members of Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet in office. When Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, the gauntlet was thrown down, and impeachment was voted by the House. Though just as political as the Chase impeachment proceedings, there was some support for the Tenure of Office Act (Alexander Hamilton, writing in the The Federalist No. 77, had suggested that the consent of the Senate would be necessary "to displace as well as to appoint" officials). As it turned out, the conviction of Johnson failed in the Senate by only one vote.

Hell, people were calling for one of the BEST US presidents to be impeached for a stained blue dress.

The administration of President William Jefferson Clinton was beset by assorted scandals, many of which resulted in the appointment of special federal prosecutors, and several of which resulted in the convictions of lesser officials. One of the special prosecutors, Kenneth Starr, recommended to the Congress in 1998 that it consider evidence that the President had obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses, lied to a grand jury, and sought to conceal evidence in connection with a civil proceeding brought against him involving claims of sexual harassment. President Clinton denied the charges, but the Arkansas federal judge who presided in that civil proceeding eventually cited and fined Clinton for contempt based on his untruthful testimony.

A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.

So, I guess my point is, what is it going to take to get Obama out of office? I mean, it is actually a little too late, the country is a shell of what it used to be, and now we have viruses like ebola coming to America after 38 years!!! This man has taken us into now THREE wars/military offenses ALL without the needed approval of congress. He has let our borders be overrun with illegal immigrants, carrying who knows what kind of diseases with them. He has fired how many high ranking generals in the military, and lost 6 of his 8 cabinet members in his 6 years in office.
So, what is your opinion ATS? Should this guy be impeached? If so, WHAT in the hell needs to be done for anybody to take at least a look at this? And to all you Obama supporters that will come in firing, I have ONE challenge for you..Name ONE positive thing that this president has accomplished.

www.heritage.org...#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment

Well, we couldn't get Bush Jr. out of office, or Clinton.

Why do we elect people into the office of President that we all end up hating? Isn't there someone out there that can do a reasonably good job and both sides of the political spectrum can respect?

It's like cell phones. How many people here like their cell phone carrier, lets see a raise of hands?

*crickets chirping*

Yet we still continue to pay our cell phone bills for service that should be better but isn't.

I guess my answer is simple. I have thought from day one, that he was put into this position with the sole purpose of bringing this country down. The dissolving of America MUST be done in order for the One World Government to happen. Everything that has happened under his presidency has been planned, and TPTB just needed a fall guy, and I seriously believe that fall guy was Obama. He clearly does not know what in the hell he is even doing. He needs a teleprompter just to address the media. I believe that the reason they "placed" a black man in office to oversee this destruction of the US, was because he would be able to get away with MUCH more than any other person in office, because he/supporters can just play the race card.

Both the House and Senate need to vote on impeachment proceedings, that's what it takes.

Also, a list of laws broken helps (and probably actual laws and not constitutional interpretations) because you need congress to believe enough in prosecution to vote yes and you need to prove more than 'he hates america' or 'he ignored the constitution'. You are probably going to have to find broken laws otherwise the constitutional lawyers will just argue over the meaning of the constitution rather than trying to convict the president...

P.S. - Clinton was impeached, he just was not convicted.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, we couldn't get Bush Jr. out of office, or Clinton.

Why do we elect people into the office of President that we all end up hating? Isn't there someone out there that can do a reasonably good job and both sides of the political spectrum can respect?

It's like cell phones. How many people here like their cell phone carrier, lets see a raise of hands?

*crickets chirping*

Yet we still continue to pay our cell phone bills for service that should be better but isn't.

I actually have just simply switched cell carriers a few times. That seemed to do the trick. It really is just not a good comparison.

originally posted by: Elton
Both the House and Senate need to vote on impeachment proceedings, that's what it takes.

Also, a list of laws broken helps (and probably actual laws and not constitutional interpretations) because you need congress to believe enough in prosecution to vote yes and you need to prove more than 'he hates america' or 'he ignored the constitution'. You are probably going to have to find broken laws otherwise the constitutional lawyers will just argue over the meaning of the constitution rather than trying to convict the president...

P.S. - Clinton was impeached, he just was not convicted.

This says they did not get the need votes for impeachment I think:

A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.

The House impeaches with a simply 50%+1 majority vote.

The Senate vote for removal needs to be 2/3.

67 sends 'em to Heaven.

A strong case is necessary.

But if TPTB want him "IN", he stays "IN".

originally posted by: Elton
Both the House and Senate need to vote on impeachment proceedings, that's what it takes.

Also, a list of laws broken helps (and probably actual laws and not constitutional interpretations) because you need congress to believe enough in prosecution to vote yes and you need to prove more than 'he hates america' or 'he ignored the constitution'. You are probably going to have to find broken laws otherwise the constitutional lawyers will just argue over the meaning of the constitution rather than trying to convict the president...

P.S. - Clinton was impeached, he just was not convicted.

So was he impeached, just not convicted of charges? If so, how the hell does that make sense? You would think one would need a conviction of some sort to impeach.

a reply to: thesmokingman

I always said the same thing. Everytime someone criticizes him it's racism. The race card is one of the most destructive ideas in the history of humanity. For a half black, half white man he pulls it out quite often.

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Elton
Both the House and Senate need to vote on impeachment proceedings, that's what it takes.

Also, a list of laws broken helps (and probably actual laws and not constitutional interpretations) because you need congress to believe enough in prosecution to vote yes and you need to prove more than 'he hates america' or 'he ignored the constitution'. You are probably going to have to find broken laws otherwise the constitutional lawyers will just argue over the meaning of the constitution rather than trying to convict the president...

P.S. - Clinton was impeached, he just was not convicted.

This says they did not get the need votes for impeachment I think:

A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.

Elton has it right. The House can Impeach but nobody is removed without a hearing before the Chief Justice and 2/3 of the Senate convicting.

a reply to: thesmokingman

I believe to impeach is to bring charges against and have a formal trial/hearing. If charges are confirmed, then they're thrown out.

Clinton got off as usual. Bush would've too. I know Obama's a puppet like the rest but even I'm hoping they impeach him.

originally posted by: howmuch4another

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Elton
Both the House and Senate need to vote on impeachment proceedings, that's what it takes.

Also, a list of laws broken helps (and probably actual laws and not constitutional interpretations) because you need congress to believe enough in prosecution to vote yes and you need to prove more than 'he hates america' or 'he ignored the constitution'. You are probably going to have to find broken laws otherwise the constitutional lawyers will just argue over the meaning of the constitution rather than trying to convict the president...

P.S. - Clinton was impeached, he just was not convicted.

This says they did not get the need votes for impeachment I think:

A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.

Elton has it right. The House can Impeach but nobody is removed without a hearing before the Chief Justice and 2/3 of the Senate convicting.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. So, how do we get the wheels a turning on that? I mean, his first impeachable offense was 3 years ago going into Libya without the approval of congress. Its only been downhill from there. Is there a petition needed, or, what needs to happen?

how about a lot of shiiting and vomitting,,,,


i mean the Ebola Scare might go REDBull,, u know sprout wings,,,,

originally posted by: thesmokingman
So was he impeached, just not convicted of charges? If so, how the hell does that make sense? You would think one would need a conviction of some sort to impeach.

Because impeachment is the name of the process (in which an official is accused of unlawful activity.)

Lots of people think it means removing someone from office, that's only one of the outcomes and not the name of the actual process.

I have agree with you, Mr. Obama has ran this country into the ground. I have rarely seen him do anything, except Pass things without approval from anyone he is supposed to get it from. And golf.

I thought about this today, maybe he knows something is going down, and all of the excessive spending, and everything else, is just because he knows, and doesn't really care.

I didn't think he should've ever got into office. I actually got let go from a job, because I made the comment....

"The first black man to be president, and he got the worlds most wanted.......we're screwed."

This guy was for Obama, he was also from Illinois. I want to go ask him how all the hope and change is working for him.

originally posted by: BobAthome
how about a lot of shiiting and vomitting,,,,


i mean the Ebola Scare might go REDBull,, u know sprout wings,,,,

It already has my friend, we will be able to tell in about another 2 weeks I think.

a reply to: BobAthome

Well Ebola might be the straw.

But he did promise first rate Health Care for everyone,,,lets see how it works, in practice, for Ebola Deputy strain,,
thats if the Deputy, tests Positive or not.

50/50 at this point.

originally posted by: Elton

originally posted by: thesmokingman
So was he impeached, just not convicted of charges? If so, how the hell does that make sense? You would think one would need a conviction of some sort to impeach.

Because impeachment is the name of the process (in which an official is accused of unlawful activity.)

Lots of people think it means removing someone from office, that's only one of the outcomes and not the name of the actual process.

For Clinton Impeachment was the result of a failed attempt at Censure. If congress Censures a President it is a formal and public rebuke of an act. If they can't get that they aren't likely to get the votes to remove.

a reply to: thesmokingman

You may be misjudging who is in control of the USG.
There is a shadow government that has taken over. They likely enacted the protocol when they took out JFK. He went off script. Way off.

Nixon was on script until he got arrogant about his power. He was offered a deal he couldn't refuse and resigned.

I would say POTUS is currently on script. Wars are churning away and corporations are getting stronger.
He's not going anywhere. Serving his masters while maintaining the near 50/50 partisan split. The key is the 50/50 split. They couldn't pull it all off without that. I bet you've noticed the near perfect 50/50 split of the population. Right?

It's by design.

a reply to: thesmokingman

Two things you missed:
1. Last year's ATS threads "The Obama Deception" by Alex Jones.
2."I want to transform America" - Mission Statement of BHO.