Senator questions Obama eligibility

[SavageEagle]

The Senate represents we the people. When they do not, we MUST have recourse to stop them from ruining the Country OTHER than waiting 2 years to elect someone else. There MUST be.

 

[dross]

The Senate represents we the people. When they do not, we MUST have recourse to stop them from ruining the Country OTHER than waiting 2 years to elect someone else. There MUST be.

We're a republic, not a democracy. We elect them for a period and they serve until reelected with the exception of certain behavior. Making decisions we don't agree with is not grounds for early removal. It's actually a good thing - think what the Democrats would do with that political opportunity if they had it for decisions they disagreed with.

 

[CarmelHP]

Actually he was born in (at the time) the U.S. Territory of the Panama Canal Zone. Post-Carter people forget that he surrendered actual U.S. Territory down in Panama when he gave up the canal and PCZ.

Keep in mind that John McCain was NOT born in the United States, either. He was born on a military base in Panama.

-J-

 

[SavageEagle]

We're a republic, not a democracy. We elect them for a period and they serve until reelected with the exception of certain behavior. Making decisions we don't agree with is not grounds for early removal. It's actually a good thing - think what the Democrats would do with that political opportunity if they had it for decisions they disagreed with.

We're not talking about decisions we don't agree with. We're talking not only decisions 2/3rds of the COUNTRY protested very vocally, but also decisions that were borderline Treason. If they would have been war-related decisions (which, in a way it's almost war on the economy) it would qualify. But what recourse do we have, other than elections, to stop elected officials from violating their oath of office? If they violate that, there must be some penalties, right????

This is all such BS. We The People should have the right to toss out Politicians who refuse to represent their constituents. It just pisses me off to no friggin end.

Amendments for special elections? Why???? Why would we trust the same bastards who we are trying to impeach to create a law for special elections???? Impeach them and hold special elections a few days later. Is that REALLY that hard? They passed an $800billion bailout within a couple weeks, I'd think that knowing they would be impeached it wouldn't be difficult to gear up for special elections....

 

[dross]

We're not talking about decisions we don't agree with. We're talking not only decisions 2/3rds of the COUNTRY protested very vocally, but also decisions that were borderline Treason. If they would have been war-related decisions (which, in a way it's almost war on the economy) it would qualify. But what recourse do we have, other than elections, to stop elected officials from violating their oath of office? If they violate that, there must be some penalties, right????

This is all such BS. We The People should have the right to toss out Politicians who refuse to represent their constituents. It just pisses me off to no friggin end.

Amendments for special elections? Why???? Why would we trust the same bastards who we are trying to impeach to create a law for special elections???? Impeach them and hold special elections a few days later. Is that REALLY that hard? They passed an $800billion bailout within a couple weeks, I'd think that knowing they would be impeached it wouldn't be difficult to gear up for special elections....

I don't know you well enough to know if you're just fired up over this issue - which is understandable - or if you're just unreasonable in general.

While I might agree with you about what they've done, you can't throw out the process every time you dislike what the process produces. You and I think they're ruining the country, but much of the country supports them. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional. I'd love to see them throw out the "stimulus" bill as unconstitutional, which in my view it is. Remember, though, that many people felt that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, and I disagreed.

There is no absolute authority. Our government shares its powers amongst the three branches. This is inefficient but it protects us to some degree. There is no magic button you push when SavageEagle decides that it's obvious there's a constitutional violation, and I"m glad there's not.

It doesn't matter what the "people" think after they've elected someone. The people's role is in the election process. If they blew it, they get another chance in two years. I don't want things decided by the whim of the people, the people flow like the wind. Thats' why we have representatives. The people elected these folks, knowing their inclinations. I knew what they would do when elected, you knew what they would do, but lots of our citizens elected them anyway. Now they get their chance.

It sounds like you want to be dictator.

 

[SavageEagle]

LOL no, I'm just pissed off at this whole thing. I'm not unreasonable, I just don't understand why we have to sit and suffer through tyranny. Well, borderline tyranny anyway. I'd rather not be dictator as I like and value my life!

I wouldn't say that the Country knew what they were doing when electing these fools to office. Clearly the people voting for obama expected a free house, car, job, drugs, money, etc. Also, when it came to the Reps, they promised much and didn't deliver. So I wouldn't say we knew what we were doing and what these elected idiots would do once in office.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ryan,

While I agree that some recourse other than "vote again in a couple of years" would be a good thing, our Constitutional form of government does not provide for one.

Carmel pointed out the part of Ar. I that defines what happens in an impeachment proceeding. He also pointed out that the House, once thought of as the Peoples' House, has sole jurisdiction and authority to impeach. Note that that does not say "...to impeach the President". If there is any impeachment, the House must do it. If an impeachment is to be tried, the Senate, under oath, must try it as the jury, and the Chief Justice presides, which could cause a bit of a problem-what if the CJ is the one who is impeached? If the Speaker of the House has been accused of some crime, it would take an enormous effort to impeach him/her, simply because the Speaker sets the agenda, and if s/he does not wish it heard, I'm not sure how it would happen. I suppose there are procedures for censure, but again, that is the job of the Congress, not of the people. Our sole part of the process is the ballot box. Our sole role in court is that of juror, if not plaintiff or defendant.

I know that's frustrating you. It's frustrating a whole bunch of us. We can work within the system and throw the bastards out just like we did in 1996, or we can take a much more violent approach.

I don't think I need to say that I do not counsel that action. Regardless, I am saying it explicitly: I do not counsel violent action against the government of the United States.

I should note that in 1996, history was made: It was the first time a sitting Speaker of the House was voted out of office.

It is theoretically possible to vote out the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate, every two years. Evan Bayh's term is up in 2010. Dick Lugar's is up in 2012. We could, in theory, have an entirely new federal representation within the next four years, but no sooner.

I predict that, dependant upon how badly Obama screws the pooch, Bayh may lose in 2010. Lugar could possibly be ousted in 2012, riding Obama's coattails right out of office, but that's a bit tough to call. They're opposite parties, at least on paper, and the coattail effect is normally reserved for those political hangers-on. Will the elections of 2010 and 2012 happen? I don't know, nor do I know if they will be fair, rather than rigged, elections. All I know is that that's our next chance to do something. Rather than be upset about what you think should be, I'd recommend focusing on what is and what you can do about it.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[SavageEagle]

*sigh*

Ok, so barring sitting on our ass, writing letters no one reads, and waiting for elections while they quietly destroy America, there is basiclly nothing we can do. Right?

I wish I lived in the country. Then I could walk outside and scream at the top of my lungs, curse to all beat hell, and throw rocks as far as my arm would allow. (not seriously, kinda...)

Seriously though, I think I need a drink. A nice, tall, strong, drink.

 

[jedi]

That's the thing - it's entirely up to the House to impeach or not. The recourse for us is to vote them out the next time they're up for election. No special elections, who would schedule them? That would take an amendment anyway.

This is the point of elections. We are supposed to elect people who will follow the Constitution. When they don't, we can vote them out. That's how the system works.

That's why I started my comments in this thread saying I don't think in the current climate that he would be removed even if evidence came forward that he wasn't born on U.S. soil.

This is why elections are so important. It's why the gerrymandering in the House districts is so counter to our representation. Most House seats are not even a question - they'll go strong in one party or the other. Some really nasty stuff is about to happen with the 2010 census, and the redistricting to follow. The Dems play hardball, and the Republicans play softball, and it's costing us now.

Yes and No dross.
Yes we could wait until 2010 to vote a new portion of Congress. Or as one of the other post shows THE STATES (NH, Montana, and Texas are leading the way) can give THE FED notice that they are taking back their power. In essences THE STATES dissolves THE FED which would mean that either THE STATES govern themseleves or would suspect that THE STATES gather and form a new FED (aka start over). Off course if the STATES do take back their power and the FED does not want to release it we end up with a posisble civil war. The most likely path is the 2010 election in which the nation will "rebalance" the house by making it more RED. If the economy continues to slide (as it will) then by 2010 the people will revolk at the polls. If the REPs are smart they will be able to begin to blame BO and the DEM congress (in control for at least 4 to 5 years by that point) on the state of the economy and all the neo-maxrist issues that are going on.

 

[HICKMAN]

*sigh*
Ok, so barring sitting on our ass, writing letters no one reads, and waiting for elections while they quietly destroy America, there is basiclly nothing we can do. Right?

I hear ya, but the time to get fired up was a couple of years ago. What we have to do now is make sure everyone you know who thinks like you is registered to vote and hits the polls.

With all the campaigning and blogging I've done over the last couple of years, my own damn brother and sister in law weren't registered to vote. This is the time you find every blue-dog union Democrat and Independant voter and start talking to them about why Congress is hurting our country.

We just doubled our national debt with this spending bill, and now big O says he's going to cut it in half? How do you think he's going to do that? Higher taxes and gutting the military come to mind.

 

[SavageEagle]

Yea, I hear ya. It's hard to shove a size 11 steel toe boot in someones ass if they wont get off the couch though. I can't seem to convince anyone about obamatard although I can convince people that carrying a gun isn't as dangerous as they think. Go figure that one out.

Gut the Military? *coughclintoncough* Nah, he wouldn't do it....
Higher taxes? Why would he do that? we don't have any money! And half the Country will be on welfare anyway, so where's it gonna come from? Oh wait, he pisses silver streams and shits gold bricks.

 

[jedi]

SE you are pushing the wrong thing. yes BO has some blame in the new spedning but with the "popular" view on him right now it's pointless to try and push that front. However it's congress that is really at fault. They are the ones writing and spenidng this money. It's congress that you need to promote as needed a make over (a complete make over). The 2010 is ripe for Congress to go back to red.

 

[SavageEagle]

SE you are pushing the wrong thing. yes BO has some blame in the new spedning but with the "popular" view on him right now it's pointless to try and push that front. However it's congress that is really at fault. They are the ones writing and spenidng this money. It's congress that you need to promote as needed a make over (a complete make over). The 2010 is ripe for Congress to go back to red.

Oh I ain't gonna disagree with that. I could go on and on about Congress, I was just commenting on the other post. Congress bears the blame for the last 70 years of BS that's been going on if not longer. THe Prez is only one man. Congress is hundreds.

 

[CarmelHP]

Not a problem:

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

..., and the Chief Justice presides, which could cause a bit of a problem-what if the CJ is the one who is impeached?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not a problem:

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

Thanks, Carmel. I think it was late when I typed that. No excuse. I just had a "duh" moment.

Appreciate the repeat.

Have a nice night.

Blessings,
Bill