Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment

Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment

www.newsmax.com

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law could lead to a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Gingrich is correct. The President can not simply decide that he will choose not to enforce a law. Clinton signed the defense of marriage act (a law that I don't happen to agree with) and now Obama is telling his AG not to enforce it.

This is a troubling trend, especially with respect to the Justice Department. They file suit against Arizona for their immigration law, while at the same time refusing to enforce federal immigration law, they decide not to pursue electioneering law with respect to the Black Panther thugs who were clearly intimidating voters.

I did not think the American voters thought they were electing a king in 2008

www.newsmax.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Well if he's really not followed law by doing this, you can be the republicans will be all over it.

So let's see what happens.

It's usually the opposing party in congress that gets impeachment going.

Waaa, waaa, waaa. And there would also be calls calling the calls for impeachment ludicrous. So what's the real point here?

The Obama administration said Wednesday that it will no longer defend the federal law that bans the recognition of same-sex marriage because it considers the legislation unconstitutional, a sudden and rare reversal.

He didn't choose to enforce or not enforce or create or not create some illusory law or not law. He simply said, I ain't wasting anymore of anyone's time on this BS. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that's the gist of it. And for this he probably should be applauded, not impeached, because it is total divisive, time and money wasting BS. Waste of time and money. Got it? Why should his administration have to be distracted and defend defend defend wave after wave of these BS case challenges?

In contrast, I just loved this comment...

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Boehner.

How dare HE be divisive...see WE are focused on the right things. WE are not the ones challenging the gay marriage BS and wasting anyone's time. HE is the bad one for saying ENOUGH. They're all so full of BS and spin it's a wonder they can walk straight.

Damned either way.

Previous thread already exists here

reply to post by ~Lucidity


What if he decided to not waste any more time on abortion or murder or any other LAWS on the book?? You Obama lemmings are pathetic.

reply to post by HoldTheBeans

First off, I didn't vote for Obama. Second, he said they were going to stop DEFENDING the challenges. What's that mean to you? Please tell me so I know how to proceed with you from here.

Oh, and I'd feel the same way about any waste of time cases in today's political climate. I think some people just need to get over it, accept some things they might not be in love with, and move on to more pressing issues.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

He didn't choose to enforce or not enforce or create or not create some illusory law or not law. He simply said, I ain't wasting anymore of anyone's time on this BS.

Try going to my previous thread on this, I believe it explains the issue better than here.

And then try thinking outside the box a little. You may be OK with these actions now because it invloves a law you might not be in favor of, but the OP seeks to have people turn it around and imagine how they would feel if what Gingrich says is true.

reply to post by centurion1211

Newt was my elevator debating buddy for a year, so I'm going to be politically "mad" about anything he says.

Lemme find your thread.

If this is an impeachable offense, then what's holding the conservatives back? They've been salivating over the notion of getting Obama out of office before he ever took the oath, so...get on with it.

Originally posted by dolphinfan

I did not think the American voters thought they were electing a king in 2008

They elected the only real choice they had from the two (only two) they had to choose from.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
If this is an impeachable offense, then what's holding the conservatives back? They've been salivating over the notion of getting Obama out of office before he ever took the oath, so...get on with it.

Yes, exactly, what I thought and basically said also.

2nd

WHY do people concern themselves with small fries? With all that is wrong with this country, this is the focus of attention? You guys can't see the masque being performed?

reply to post by dolphinfan


Wow, I just love debating in hypothetical threads. A very big [size=20]If in thread title that means there are no wrong answers.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
This is a troubling trend...

What troubles me more is that a political party is so hell bent on demonizing those who don't subscribe to their narrow myopic religious views. They want to impose their own bigoted bias in order to prevent a union between two human beings to express the same love and commitment that they themselves enjoy because those individuals happen to have a different sexual orientation.

As far as Obama's actions or lack thereof I'll simply paraphrase Mark Twain:
Obama is exhibiting the calm confidence of a Christian holding four aces.

Now back to the fantasy..........