House Resolution 198: Defining Impeachable High Crimes and Misdemeanors

a reply to: Boadicea

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Boadicea

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yeah, pretty much!

I am just so weary of being played, it's what I expect now. I've given these critters the benefit of the doubt too many times to do otherwise.

a reply to: Ahabstar

While you are correct about Congress and taxes what people don't understand is Congress can delegate its authority. In this case the IRS was created by law / authorized by Congress.

Its one of the reasons Congress has oversight committee's.

a reply to: Boadicea

Correct - if he violated any laws.

Like I said in order to impeach a President they have to commit a high crime or misdemeanor. In those instances its defined by Congress. Just because Congress says he committed a high crime or misdemeanor and impeaches him does not mean he actually violated a criminal statute.

In the case of impeachment they look at the Presidents actions.

originally posted by: dawnstar
can we just take that list of items and use it for all living past and present officials of public office and if they are found guilty throw them in jail??

seems to me that bush and gang were just as guilty as obama in many areas!

Nope.. That pesky no "ex-post facto" section in the Constitution prevents it (article 1 Section 9).

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Could be that they're just intentionally creating loopholes by drawing a map to follow so you can avoid impeachment. I can't see Obama being impeached. Not because he shouldn't be but because they would have little to gain and the media would tear them apart for it.

Loopholes?

The way impeachment works now is defined by Congress. This law actually defines it to an extent. This actually looks like it tightens up the definition instead of leaving it as open and undefined.

If I had to guess by defining it they could be trying to calculate any legal challenges that could arise from it.

a reply to: links234

You raise some good points.. Could it be possible that while some of the items are directed at Obama, that there is also the possibility the others are directed at previous presidents, like Bush, to prevent some of what he did?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: links234

It sounds to me like this House Resolution is, basically, admitting that everything Obama and his administration has done thus far has been completely legal.

That may very well be. I'm not sure. If it's already a "high crime," then they don't need this resolution to impeach for same, so it's all fluff... and if it is not already a "high crime," then yes, they are basically admitting he's done nothing illegal or impeachable.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, previous presidents have also committed one or more of these "high crimes" and were not impeached, setting a precent for the presidents who follow to commit the same "high crimes." So I suppose it's possible that this is not fluff, and is an earnest effort to reset the bar so to speak. But that would require giving those congress critters a whole lot of credit that I'm not ready to give them!

An alternative viewpoint for you: The president has had a lot of power since 9/11 when Bush enacted special war time powers and took power away from the other branches moving it to the executive. Could this now be a power grab by Congress where they're trying to gain the ability to throw out any current or future uncooperative president? Most presidents want to be a King while most Congress's want the president to be a puppet. Did we move too far towards king and this is now an over correction?

a reply to: Aazadan

I know you didn't ask me -

it is a possibility..

However I don't think its a power grab and I don't think its designed to be able to remove the President if Congress doesn't like what he/she is doing. Based on the items in the law it looks as if congress is stating that intentionally ignoring functions granted to the Congress by the Constitution is going to come to an end.

The other reason I don't think its a power grab is because the law would apply to any President, regardless of political party.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: links234
You raise some good points.. Could it be possible that while some of the items are directed at Obama, that there is also the possibility the others are directed at previous presidents, like Bush, to prevent some of what he did?

Possible, but unlikely. The rate at which the word 'unconstitutional' gets thrown around with regards to Obama is obscenely high. Just listen to an hour of Limbaugh, Cunningham or Hannity. This resolution plays right into what they're talking about on a regular, daily basis.

That list that they've come up with seems to have things that both the republican and democratic administrations have done in the past.
how many wars in the past weren't started based on lies told to us by our elected officials? Shouldn't lying to bring us into a wars that cost us so dearly in both funds and lives be considered high crimes and misdemeanors by any person with common sense? And yet, maybe I am wrong but I don't believe there have ever been a president that was actually impeached?
Nixon came close but the crime he committed was more a crime against the opposing party than it was the american people. And well I imagine that both parties have rules of engagements that they have agreed upon and bugging the opposing party was something that neither party wanted to become the norm! And well the only other president that came close was Clinton and that one was really probably more for entertainment purposes and diversion.

so well, I would venture to agree with those who say this is just grandstanding on the part of the republican party since neither party will ever use it unless a sitting president does something so outrageous that it enrages the populace to the point where they have the pitchforks along with the tar and feathers and are marching on the capital building as well as the white house! Since well both parties know that someday in the near future they will be holding the power and will want to do the same danged thing while in office themselves.

a reply to: links234

That will happen when you try to rule by executive order while trying to illegally bypass Congress at every turn.

originally posted by: Aazadan

An alternative viewpoint for you: The president has had a lot of power since 9/11 when Bush enacted special war time powers and took power away from the other branches moving it to the executive. Could this now be a power grab by Congress where they're trying to gain the ability to throw out any current or future uncooperative president? Most presidents want to be a King while most Congress's want the president to be a puppet. Did we move too far towards king and this is now an over correction?

I like your analogy of king and puppet.

I'm not sure I can call it a power grab in the normal sense, since Congress already has the power to impeach. But it did occur to me that maybe it's a sort of power grab within Congress itself to tell the "establishment" critters that have allowed Obama so much/too much latitude (depending on how one looks at it) that they're taking the power back. In other words, this may be telling McConnell and Boehner that they've gone too far as well.

originally posted by: dawnstar

And yet, maybe I am wrong but I don't believe there have ever been a president that was actually impeached?
Nixon came close but the crime he committed was more a crime against the opposing party than it was the american people. And well I imagine that both parties have rules of engagements that they have agreed upon and bugging the opposing party was something that neither party wanted to become the norm! And well the only other president that came close was Clinton and that one was really probably more for entertainment purposes and diversion.

I agree with all you said...

Except, technically, Clinton was impeached, just not removed from office. If I remember correctly, once charges of impeachment are voted up in the House, one is "impeached." There is then a trial in the Senate, conducted by representatives from the House, and the Senate then votes to convict or not based on the evidence presented. In Clinton's case, the impeachment charges were brought and he was convicted in the Senate... but the Senate chose to not remove him from office. So I believe Andrew Johnson is the only president who has ever been impeached, convicted and removed from office (after the end of the Civil War). I believe impeachment charges against Andrew Jackson were raised but voted down, so it never went to Senate for trial.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

Correct - if he violated any laws.

Thank you for that -- and for sharing all the insight you've shared. I came with more questions than answers, and I appreciate the knowledge!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: links234

That will happen when you try to rule by executive order while trying to illegally bypass Congress at every turn.

Yet the myth persists! We've kind of already established that this resolution tacitly admits that nothing Obama has done, thus far, has been illegal. Right there, in that quote, 'trying to illegally bypass congress' shows that it's a pervasive lie that's been peddled by the GOP and the conservative establishment for so long that even when faced with the truth, the lie is accepted as fact and congress must pass a resolution to declare that it's illegal.

What you should really be arguing, instead of saying 'Obama illegally/unconstitutionally bypasses congress' is saying that 'what Obama is doing isn't illegal, but it should be.'

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: links234

That will happen when you try to rule by executive order while trying to illegally bypass Congress at every turn.

Yet the myth persists! We've kind of already established that this resolution tacitly admits that nothing Obama has done, thus far, has been illegal. Right there, in that quote, 'trying to illegally bypass congress' shows that it's a pervasive lie that's been peddled by the GOP and the conservative establishment for so long that even when faced with the truth, the lie is accepted as fact and congress must pass a resolution to declare that it's illegal.

I don't think it's really a myth. If I'm understanding everything correctly, what constitutes a "high" crime for a "high" official is not necessarily a crime for the rest of us. So, for example, since we have no delegated powers under the Constituion, so we cannot "bypass Congress," it is not a crime under the criminal code; it may however be a "high" crime according to Congress under articles of impeachment. Therefore, an impeached president would not be subject to criminal prosecution after being impeached and removed from office.

On the other hand, if the president killed the Speaker of the House in cold blood -- a crime for all of us -- he would be subject to both impeachment as a "high" crime by a "high" official, and then subject to criminal prosecution under the criminal code.

What you should really be arguing, instead of saying 'Obama illegally/unconstitutionally bypasses congress' is saying that 'what Obama is doing isn't illegal, but it should be.'

That may be exactly what they are trying to do, and if so, I would say it's meant to address the slippery slope started by Bush (Patriot Act and NDAA and DHS, etc.) and ramped up by Obama. And if so, it's most likely another battle in the civil war between the old guard critters and the new guard critters so to speak. And perhaps on both sides of the aisle...

a reply to: links234

and yet the courts have already struck down several Obama actions as unconstitutional..

Fast and furious documents....

IRS documents...

Deciding to tell congress they are out of session in order to appoint labor relations board...

etc etc..

Not lies nor a myth..

Just actions taken by Obama that were illegal / unconstitutional.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I really only remember the NLRB ruling, which...to me, was a joke. That's part of ideology though. I don't know about the others you're referring to. So I'm wrong, Obama has overreached that one time. I can admit that.

a reply to: links234
I was not trying to play the game of gotcha with you so if it came across that way my apologies.

Obama was trying to get his people onto the NLRB and was not successful. When the bulk of Congress went on their extended leaves some lawmakers remained behind. Those individuals would gavel the Senate into session each day, ask for new business, would get no responses, and would then gavel the session closed.

Obama decided he could adjourn the Senate on his own, which he did, and he appointed his nominees to the NLRB via recess appointments. He was taken to court, where the court stated his actions were unconstitutional. It also meant the nlrb rulings during this time were null and void.

* - NLRB Recess Appointments Ruled Unconstitutional By Virginia Appeals Court

* - Court releases 'Fast and Furious' info withheld by Obama

Obama has used executives orders to change laws -
* - He used EO's to change Obamacare.
* - He used EO's to change Immigration laws (in which the government lawyer got caught lying to the Federal judge as is possibly going to face sanctions.

etc etc etc...