John Dean: Why President Obama Could Easily Be Impeached Over the Debt Ceiling

[Drunken Irishman]

This is a good article by John Dean that pretty much shows the Republicans could be setting it up to impeach Obama if he raises the debt ceiling on his own or doesn't raise it at all - so, a damned if you do, damned if you don't prospect.

Chilling.

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/01/11/why-president-obama-could-easily-be-impeached-over-the-debt-ceiling-if-congress-fails-to-raise-it

Buchanan and Dorf do not really address the issue of impeachment. Yet there is no question that President Obama would be operating outside the law, which clearly could subject him to impeachment for simply carrying out his constitutional duties, which most likely would be to try to avert a financial catastrophe. Moreover, the President would be violating the duties of his office if he failed to act, and simply did nothing.

There’s no question in my mind, particularly after witnessing at close hand what happened to former President Bill Clinton, when the radical conservative Republicans in the House impeached him. Republicans who are foolish enough to decline to raise the debt ceiling would have no problem proceeding to impeach President Obama in order to divert attention from the disaster they would create. These are people who want to destroy the federal government. Former President Gerald Ford, when serving as Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, observed that the House of Representatives can impeach a ham sandwich, just for being a ham sandwich. In short, impeachable offenses are whatever a majority of the House of Representatives declares them to be.

You really can't trust these assholes.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Democrats have a comfortable majority in the Senate, no successful impeachment will be happening.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. They can successfully impeach in the House. They won't remove him from office, tho.

I think it's not about removing him from office - just scoring political points with their crazy base. It was the same thing that motivated the Republicans in the 90s, albeit maybe with a bit more hope since they controlled the Senate back then.

[karynnj]

22. I don't think so - I would guess there are enough Republican congressmen

from "old money" districts - like Rodney Frelinghusyen, who would know that this is political suicide for the Republican party and who kind of like the status quo financial world.

They did control the Senate then - by almost the same amount that we control it now - but you need 67 votes to kick a President out.

As much as lying under oath over an affair was not high crimes, it was something that many people were disgusted by - here, I think more people are disgusted with the Republican tactics.

[groundloop]

23. And it would be a hell of a sideshow for a few months... which is what they'd want

I all too well remember the 3 ring circus when the repubs went after Clinton. That was all that was on the news, it was a huge diversion for them. Given the chance today they'd do it again in a heartbeat.

[rbixby]

54. I think you're right....anything to keep Obama from trying to advance his agenda is their goal NT

[PoliticAverse]

72. Do you think it would improve their standing in the Congress in the 2014 elections ? n/t

[starroute]

78. But when they went after Clinton, there was sex involved

Fine points of constitutional law do not make for much of a media circus.

[jerseyjack]

19. Wrong: There could be a successful impeachment but not a conviction.

[PoliticAverse]

71. If the Republicans don't remove him from office they can hardly call it 'successful'.

Unless you think the Impeachment of Clinton was a Republican success.

[stevenleser]

115. It was a massive Republican success. It made the 2000 election close enough for idiot boy to steal

And it hobbled An extremely popular President from carrying out his agenda, to include going after al Qaeda as much as he wanted, and prevented the passing the aviation security bill that Al Gore championed, two things that greatly contributed to the success of 9-11, without which idiot boy is a failed one term and stolen president.

[pnwmom]

44. You mean no CONVICTION will be coming. But Clinton was impeached by the House

even though there was a Democratic Senate majority, and so could Obama.

[DonCoquixote]

51. It depends

There are enough Blue Dogs who sense that they are being edged out who might happily play this as a football.

[kenfrequed]

80. Far fewer

There are far fewer than before and the ones that are there would be stupid to try to use this as a stunt to side with their utterly intractable friends across the aisle. This isn't the 90's and there are no political points to be scored or moral scolds to attempt to appease.

[Sherman A1]

2. Don't think so

first it would never get that far, second there is that whole Senate part of the process and third if one and two are completely wrong (which they are not) they end up with Joe Biden and lose everything in 2014 and beyond.

[SemperEadem]

9. I agree

2014 is too close and the country is in no mood for this... the last election made that clear.

They're going to lose anyway, but engaging in this will mean the anhiliation of their party by their own hands.. the thugs may be stupid, but they're not that stupid.

[tclambert]

13. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.

George W. Bush served a second term. Something like 60 million voted for him (give or take a Diebold machine or two), despite having seen how he performed during his first term.

Every time I've said to myself, "Surely no one can be THAT stupid," a story in the news within a week will have me saying, "Well, I stand corrected."

[Texin]

49. Absolutely. And there's no arguing with stupid.

That said, IMO one of the greatest driving factors in the impeachment of Clinton was that it was three ring, political sex sideshow for months leading up to it that gave it the momentum to embolden the rethugs back then. The old "did he or didn't he" swirling around in the media and the sanctimonious, hypocritical attitudes about sex that fueled the discussion gave it power. This type of contrived and conflated controversy is the red meat of the right wing politicians and their bible-thumping halleluiah chorus. In the end, though, the public was largely disgusted with the highjacking of the political process for seemingly a year or more by the rethugs. Clinton may have been tarnished personally by this, but it was the rethugs in congress that received the backlash from the public who perceived it as the political sideshow and abuse of power that it was.

The debt ceiling debate is something altogether different IMO. I think the rethugs journey down that path very much at their own peril in today's environment. If they refuse to act - effectively tying Obama's hands to his sides - and leave him with the singular responsibility of acting to prevent the nation's default and the consequent effects, the majority of the public will have absoultey no mercy on the GOP going foward. This type of time-wasting bullshit will end end with the rethugs wiping shit off their own faces.

[davidpdx]

103. I agree

And in fact stated before the election if Obama won this was going to be a highly possible move by the Rs. I know people hate the metaphors on here, but it's like playing football against a shitty QB. You can read where he's going to throw and pick him off every time.

[progressoid]

28. Nor are they organized enough.

One day they are pissed at Bohner. They next day, they re-elect him as house leader.

[The Wizard]

88. To be honest

Cantor posed a serious threat to Boner's Speakers position. They realized if they split the Speaker vote Pelosi would have been Speaker again.

[SemperEadem]

110. and that, my friends, is the text book definition of "insanity"

doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Congress is truly an asylum.

[rbixby]

56. I hope this wouldn't happen

I think the smart way to handle this, should it come to the president being in this lose-lose dilemma would be to make the supreme court rule on the 14th amendment. I'm not sure if there's any legal precedent on this yet, but they'd be stupid to say that the debts of the country shall be questioned. Even though they are majority conservative, I think that interpreting this any way other than exactly what it says in the constitution would be pretty much off the table. A ruling saying that our debts shall be called into question would fuck everyone in the private sector, and I don't think even Scalia is stupid enough to call for that.

[shawn703]

90. They'd be happier with Biden, even if it costs them in the future

They would have successfully removed the black man from office, which to a lot of these people is the most important thing.

[Rectangle]

4. That could backfire on the GOP bigtime! The American people are in no mood

for their crazy witch-hunts.

[BlueStreak]

41. Or better yet, Obama should just go through the government shutdown ordeal.

He wins on every level by doing that.

1) It reinforces the public opinion that Republicans are irresponsible radicals

2) It will further divide the GOP because at least a few of them remember Gingrich

3) Obama will end up with his clean debt increase and no chance the teabaggers will try that stunt throughout the rest of his term

4) Americans will be reminded/educated about all the things government does for them.

And if McConnell and Boehner do go forward on that basis, maybe we should be talking about impeaching THEM.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. And for good measure ...

every Democratic out-let and every agency that receives federal dollars should send out a notice spelling out just what the cuts the gop want would mean for their clients.

[BlueStreak]

104. Yes, and the Republicans at the feeding trough would be all over their Congressman

[pacalo]

5. I have a feeling that Obama's WH counsel would have already considered this scenario

& could be advising him accordingly.

Wall Street is the reason the Republicans will agree to raise the debt ceiling:

Clearly, failure by the Republicans to raise the debt ceiling would be a wrenching headache for President Obama. But in the long term, it could bring an end to the radical conservatism of the contemporary Republican Party, because Wall Street, and other GOP money sources, will have suffered so deeply from such foolishness that I am confident these people will cut them off forever.

[LiberalFighter]

39. If the House goes the route of impeachment it will be time to move my money

into safer places for my 401k.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. Like ...

under your pillow?

[LiberalFighter]

84. You might.

I've got safer places that earns more than a bank does.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Do tell?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. It's Congress' job to raise the debt ceiling

If Congress fails to send him a bill to sign, how is he to blame? Also, President Obama should not be forced to, as a matter of principle, negotiate with people threatening to allow the country to default.

[Kablooie]

21. So? The Republicans don't care about what's right or legal or moral.

They have completely abandoned common sense, common decency and sanity.
Our country is being torn apart by insane fanatics.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. I agree

President Obama and the Dems should make the Republicans own this mess if this is what they are bound and determined to do IMHO. Trying the "14th Option" or the "Coin" option would not only be constitutionally risky and pave way for more distractions (i.e. impeachment hearings) but it would IMHO take the Republicans "off the hook" for their behavior and it might not even resolve the "crisis" if the markets see that there's a dispute. Republicans whom maintain that President Obama has made businesses "uncertain" ain't see nothing yet if they decide that they want to try to force the government into default/shutdown.

BTW just curious: Did Republicans ever refuse to raise the debt ceiling while Clinton was POTUS? I know about the shutdowns over the budget but I don't recall hearing about the debt ceiling until Obama became POTUS.

[Kablooie]

48. It was never an issue until last year. The need to pay our bills has always been self evident.

[UCmeNdc]

7. The GOP is crazy enough to play these types of games

[freedom fighter jh]

14. Yeah, they've pretty much shown that . . .

. . . by the way they've been handling the crisis so far. See "Debt Ceiling Disaster – Crazy or Criminal?" at http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/

[Scuba]

8. "These are people who want to destroy the federal government. "

Bingo!

[pnwmom]

45. Yup. n/t

[NWHarkness]

10. That would backfire badly

If the House impeached Obama for unilaterally raising the debt ceiling, when the Senate acquitted him, it would establish a clear precedent that he had been within his powers to take the actions he did, and the whole debt ceiling debacle would be settled once and for all on the President's terms.

[still_one]

38. The last time they played this game, the republicans lost big time, and caved. I suspect there are

enough republicans in the new Congress to not be dictated by the tea party elements since the new election

[rickyhall]

11. Just give the radicals enough rope...

[still_one]

12. let them. The Senate will NEVER convict, and it will just be a waste of time, while the repukes

become even more unpopular

[FleetwoodMac]

15. While it's true that the Senate will never go along with that nonsense,

It could still be a bad, and very distracting PR war for the President.

[still_one]

35. What is worse is letting them play this hostage garbage. It only has to be done in the 11th hour

when it is clear that the repukes are playing games with bills that have already been spent

At that time all the President has to do is outline exactly what is occurring. Hold a special press conference and explain in clear terms to the people what is happening, and how the republicans are playing games with the full faith and credit of the U.S. He has the bully pulpit, he isn't running for reelection, and obviously the repukes learned nothing from the last election if they play this game.

The risk is far greater to not raise the debt ceiling.

I have no doubt the vast majority of people will support the president on this. The 20% crazies that are in control of the republican party will lose even more credibility.

In addition, the media is only giving voice to those crazies in the republican party. There might be enough republican votes to actually prevent impeachment from proceeding, so it doesn't even go to the Senate. In fact, there might be enough republican votes to allow the debt ceiling to be raised along with the Democrats. If that happened it would put an end to the tea party(george wallace reincarnates) to sleep once and for all

I am not too concerned if the President uses the 14th amendment. The public will support us on this, like they did the last time.

[DCBob]

52. +1

you got it.

[Recursion]

16. I love the smell of unfounded speculation in the morning

Is it just me, or does Dean's hair catch on fire pretty easily lately?

[FleetwoodMac]

17. ... auctioning off federal lands or selling corporate naming rights to national monuments?

This part, at least to me, sounds like a reasonable bargaining chip.

"We take a similarly dim view of the possibility that the Administration is contemplating other “outside-of-the-box” options, like auctioning off federal lands or selling corporate naming rights to national monuments. Again, if such a bizarre contingency plan existed, one would expect some indication of it from the Administration."

At worst, I could live with a Berkshire Hathaway Agate Fossil Beds National Monument or a Ford Buck Island Reef National Monument ten-year sponsorship deal.

Any Constitutional scholar on the board that can review the constitutionality of this idea?

[karynnj]

24. Auctioning off federal lands is a horrible idea

but the naming rights for a period of time is both off putting AND interesting. Off putting as it seems so wrong to label our natural treasures with corporate names. Interesting because if the money is enough, we lose nothing (except dignity) and might have money needed for things like social welfare programs.

[FleetwoodMac]

27. Right?

Not only that, the President will play with a 53 card deck during the debt ceiling negotiations!

[chazunit]

92. Terrible Idea

In my opinion. It was bad enough visiting national parks and monuments during W with funding cut for services and corporate confiscation of operations and even seeing his picture hanging in the visitor centers of the very places that he was trying so hard to destroy!

Yeah, so give me the poulan weedeater bryce canyon and the anita bryant cedar breaks.........

Idea makes me wanna puke!

[FleetwoodMac]

94. So that's maybe?

[Demo_Chris]

18. This would be politically suicidal

[Joe Bacon]

20. Not when the GOP has a lock on the house via gerrymandering!

The districts are so gerrymandered that the GOP will have a lock on the house till 2022 and the threat of primary challengers from the right will keep them in line to vote to impeach.

[still_one]

36. That is true, however, they lost some seats to Democrats, and their are about 20 republicans that

might be convinced to do the responsible thing. The last time they played this game, they lost, and the public let them know, which is why THEY CAVED, and raised the debt ceiling

[NYC Liberal]

25. Let them go for it. Impeaching two Democratic presidents in a row will really expose them.

People were completely against impeachment the first time. This time, it will be a joke.

[no_hypocrisy]

26. Unaddressed issue in the original Buchanon-Dorf article and Dean's:

By presenting the President with untenable options that could threaten the economy and democracy of this country by its proposed budget with spending increases for military and spending cuts for social programs and "entitlements", and leaving him in a position to be at least tried in the Senate via impeachment, the House (which originates the federal spending) would be upsurping the power of the Executive Branch. Separation of Powers. The President would not have a "check" on the power of the Legislative Branch if he had to rubberstamp whatever either or both Houses passed and would be penalized as a consequence if he didn't approve their folly. And this pattern would enable any republican majority to dismantle any program it loathes and build up the military.

My theory is if the President would be impeached, his best defense would be Separation of Powers.

[John2]

29. I bought this

scenario up before this column came out and I have no doubt the rightwing nuts in the Republican House would try to impeach President Obama just like the nuts did to President Clinton. The only other Institution that would judge President Obama's actions unConstitution would be the rightwing Supreme Court.

It happened with President Clinton but he was saved by the Senate. Go back to 1860 with President Lincoln when he had the conservative Democrats and another rightwing Supreme Court under Taney. President Lincoln took action against Taney, because he had his Party behind him and the electoral will to act on slavery. That was what the South wasd afraid Lincoln's election would do and many in the South began trumpeting seccession.


President Obama like President Lincoln wants to compromise with obstructionists but they want listen because they put their interests ahead of the country. President Obama won an Election not based on cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan and Barrack Obama\Joe Biden all ran away from cutting those programs and sweared to protect them to the Electorate.

Now they get into office and want to change their tune as if the Electorate was Deaf. The Electorate was not dumb, deaf or illiterate as the Press like to to lecture down to them. We who elected this man know exactly what we voted for. We know what spending cuts we voted for also to bring down that Debt. Mitch McConnell and the House Republicans are mistaken if they don't think the Electorate voted to raise revenues by raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting loop holes for the wealthy and corporations. They are also mistaken if the Electorate didn't vote to end the Wars in Afghanistan and to draw down the military. Respect the Electorate. Everything was decided in that Election. The President is the only Politician that ran on a Nationwide platform as the Constitution inhibits. Congress only represents their Districts which has been rigged by gerrymandering which also should be UnConstitutional. Now they are trying to rig the National Election.

Screw the Republican House and what ever court they get to decide for them. The Constitution is only worth its grain of salt if the Electorate approves of it. Let the House Republicans impeach at their own peril but the Electorate that gave this President power backs him. He might get impeached but he will never be convicted. The Republicans time will come in 2014. They can keep disrespecting us.

[caseymoz]

30. A stupid, dead end move.

First problem: they need two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict and remove Obama from office. It's not going to happen. Even the stupidest Republican who flunked fractions in grade school knows it's not going to happen.

Second problem: President Joe Biden.

Third problem: After ruining the economy and trying this maneuver, safe Republican seats will no longer be safe.

Remember up until 1930, the African American vote was also "safe" for Republicans.

[tavalon]

31. Hard to remember that John Dean was a Republican who ended up taking down Nixon

I just thought the postscript should be there.

[yodermon]

33. "Moreover, the President would be violating the duties of his office if he failed to act, and simply

did nothing"?? This doesn't compute. What would he have violated? Debt Ceiling is a Congressional act.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. 14th Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Validity_of_public_debt

Obama will have three alternatives, all unconstitutional, based on an NPR interview I heard this weekend.

[still_one]

37. Well if NPR says it, I guess it must be so, just like Gabby Gifford was killed, the ACA was ruled

unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and chuck hagel will not be secretary of defense.

[yodermon]

40. how does "doing nothing" cause the PRESIDENT to violate the 14th amendment?

The Debt Ceiling itself is a de facto "questioning" of the "validity" of the public Debt.

If Obama says "yep, well, we reached the debt ceiling, too bad, can't spend any more money" would House republicans impeach him for that???

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Because he has a responibility to pay the debt.

I'm not disagreeing that it's absurd. I'm just pointing out that it's absurd.

The Republicans can vote to impeach for any reason whatsoever. And they're crazy, so they might.

[CrispyQ]

43. The Hunting of the President: Part II

A stunt like this might split the repub party. The sane ones may finally realize that the low approval rating Congress has is largely due to the obstructionism of the repubs, which is largely due to the spoiled brat baggers unwillingness to compromise on anything.

[davidpdx]

102. Sounds like a title for a book

If they do it the subtitle could be "insanity and teabaggary at its finest"

[CrispyQ]

112. Good work!

I was at a loss for a good subtitle.

[davidpdx]

113. Just make sure to remit my part of the profits

LOL

[brooklynite]

46. So, let them...

they won't have 2/3 vote to convict, in themind of the public, the President will be "acquitted", adding legitimacy to whatever policy he's implemented, and the Republicans will be tarred again.

[RomneyLies]

47. That was always "Plan B" should Obama win a second term.

It's been in their hip pocket since day 1.

[brooklynite]

66. Um, I assume you can provide some evidence...

...other than just "we all know it"...

[RomneyLies]

73. Unlike Pelosi, Boehner never took impeachment off the table

and in fact, threatened to impeach today:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/impeach-obama-guns-steve-stockman.php?ref=fpa

[brooklynite]

74. No-he-did-not

Re-read the article, an extreme Tea Party Congressman threatened to. Nothing in the article suggest Boehner is willing to go along.

There's enough to complain about with the House GOP. Making things up isn't necessary.

[RomneyLies]

75. I misworded my response

and should have stated a member of the GOP has threatened impeachment as recently as today.

Mea culpa

[elleng]

50. Interesting story, lousy headline.

'Former President Gerald Ford, when serving as Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, observed that the House of Representatives can impeach a ham sandwich, just for being a ham sandwich.'

Thanks

[Enrique]

53. impeached by a Congress with a 9% approval rating

that could only help Obama and the Democrats.

[bluestateguy]

55. OK. So the House impeaches him. Then what?

You need 2/3 in the Senate, and they only have 45 votes. I'll be generous and give them Manchin, Pryor and Landrieu. They are still 19 votes short.

I'm not sure I see the point here.

[DCBob]

57. I really dont think the President cares if they try to impeach him or not.

The bigger issue is the debt ceiling and he is not going to let the GOP create a national and/or global crisis. He will find a way to get around them if they dont cooperate.

[aquart]

58. Worked so well with Bill Clinton, why not do it again?

And we thought we'd lose seats in 2014.

[humbled_opinion]

59. The teabaggers will argue with you

that the truly treasonous ones are those that are not advocating ideas that will put the country on a sustainable path. The debt trajectory puts an end to the U.S. economy in approx 15 years in other words if things remain the same with no revenue increases and no cuts to spending than the point that the economy is unrecoverable is when it tops 2 times GDP so around 30 Trillion currently debt on track to be over 22 trillion in 4 years.

Who is right? I don't know but I do know this is an opportunity to talk about alternative revenue streams that won't hurt the lower middleclass and the poor and that is what I expect Democrats to do

[Lil Missy]

60. Obama's popularity would soar if they started impeachment proceedings.

Bill Clinton's popularity got better and better while they tried to impeach him. Same would happen with Obama.

Hopefully Obama can come up with a way to give these fanatics a big smackdown.

[marble falls]

61. Then we need to look as hard at impeachment as we do the fillibuster.

[bucolic_frolic]

62. Impeachment is a Political Act

And requires the support of the people every bit as much as other laws.

Republicans will destroy themselves politically and severely damage their
party if they impeach President Obama because it will be seen by the
public as just another example, and an extreme one, of GOP Obstructionism.

Bring it on, Tea Party. Bring it on!

[ieoeja]

63. I imagine they would take it to court instead.

If the Supreme Court ruled in the President's favor, as I believe they would in this case, then I doubt they would impeach a President over action that was just ruled constitutional.

I believe the USSC would support the President's position in this case because Roberts is a Pro-Wealthy Conservative far more than he is a Conservative Republican. Supreme Court justices tend to be more loyal to ideology than to Party. Bush v Gore is a major exception for the Court.

[JoePhilly]

64. Let them do it. Last gasp of the Whig party.

[CBHagman]

65. At this point there's not a single ruse or tactic the GOP wouldn't use, but...

...if they did choose to use impeachment, they will come off smelling like a garbage scow.

[DallasNE]

67. Reading The History On The Debt Ceiling Is Interesting

The original debt ceiling was very specific and limited the amount of certain class of bonds know as Liberty (war) Bonds that the federal government could issue as we entered World War I and was set at $45 billion. The limit was nearly double what the then current debt was. That ceiling was high enough to last for the next 22 years. In 1939 FDR got Congress to amend the law and give him flexibility following Hitler's invasion of Poland and the need for military spending including things like Lend-Lease and since then it has applied to all public debt rather than a specific class of debt. Since 2001 the debt ceiling has needed to be increased on an almost annual basis. This is clearly not the intent of either the 1917 or 1939 laws that govern the debt ceiling.

The debt ceiling law in many ways reminds me of voter ID laws in that neither addresses the underlying problem they seek to fix. With voter ID they attempt to purge people that have been improperly registered. The proper remedy, to the extent that there is a problem, would be to tighten up the registeration process so people are not improperly registered. The way to control spending is not after the fact with a measure that says you can't pay the bill for the spending that just occurred but during the appropriation process where you actually obligate the government to spend the money. Both are nothing more than political grandstanding but with dire consequences that result from that grandstanding. The foolishness must end and end now.

[Dawson Leery]

68. If they vote to impeach prior to the 2014 mid-terms, the house could

swing back to the Democrats.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Because that shit worked out so well for them, last time.

They really want to drag the country through that crap again? Of course they do.

In which case, I think it's entirely conceivable that we retake the House in 2014.

[CrispyQ]

117. Some of them are already

practicing glib soundbites in front of their mirrors, to imaginary news hosts & pundits.

The mood of the country is very different than it was in the 90s. The stupidity that fell from their mouths last election shows that they are not in touch at all. I agree, it's entirely conceivable that we retake the House in 2014 if they do this.

[onenote]

70. Theoretically possible: Yes. "Easily" accomplished. Not by a long shot.

Sure, its theoretically possible that the repubs in the House could try to impeach President Obama over his handling of the debt ceiling issue or for some other equally silly reason. But anyone who suggests that Obama could be "easily" impeached is smoking some serious dope. Indeed, not only would it be anything but easy to overcome what almost certainly would be a tidal wave of public outrage over the attempt, its almost certain that the House repubs won't even try it for that very reason. Will someone introduce an impeachment resolution? Wouldn't be a surprise -- plenty of them were introduced against chimpy. But after its referred to a subcommittee will it ever see the light of day? Unlikely and even if there was a hearing, the odds are that it would never be brought to the House floor for a vote.

Just because something is possible doesn't mean its easy to do or will be done.

[Odin2005]

95. Welcome to DU, enjoy your short stay.

[samsingh]

77. impeaching in the house means nothing if the Senate does not also impeach

but its shows the world the sobs that repugs continue to be (we know they are).

[DreamGypsy]

79. With the current House, the President could be easily impeached...

...for farting in the shower.

From Wikipedia:

In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

<snip>

The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. ...

To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. ...

But, being slightly reasonable about the current state of political affairs, I agree with the respondents who think there are still a few Republican representatives who do not consider their Oath of Office to be completely disposable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. Before I read the comments to this OP ...

I have to say, John, writing "I hope the gop doesn't read this", pretty much assures that every goper, and their idiot base will read it and not fully understanding it, will be everywhere saying, "We're gonna impeach President Obama, Dean said that some smart guys said we could."

[Gman]

85. Go for it

They made Clinton a martyr by doing the same thing. Dems even picked up seats in the 98 election. This time it'll cause a wave that will take over COngress by the Dems.

[abelenkpe]

86. If they try that it will just remind everyone that

we need to vote them out in 2014 and they will hopefully lose the house. Actually pretty disappointed dems didn't make bigger gains in the house last election as anyone could see republicans were going to continue to try blocking any and everything the administration attempted.

[ThoughtCriminal]

89. Prediction

If they do, not only do they lose control of the House in 2014, they lose close to 1/3 of the seats they currently hold.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

91. If they can do it, they'll impeach him for the crime of not being a Republican

This may become standard for any Democratic president who faces a GOP HOuse.

Hey, remember when Pelosi took impeachment off the table for Bush's crimes? That was brilliant.

[madinmaryland]

93. So the repubs would choose to impeach to POTUS and yet will not deal with the impending financial

crisis.

Talk about a gift served to Democrats on a silver platter!!

[YOHABLO]

96. I would say, let them go ahead and do it. Let's see their party drown in the bathtub.

[jmowreader]

97. President Obama could easily be impeached for anything, but the Republicans would be fools to try it

If they tried to impeach the president they would lose in the Senate if they didn't lose first in the House.

Their first problem: getting Boehner to go along with that travesty.
Their second problem: There are at least 18 Republicans who were in Congress the last time they tried impeaching a president over bullshit, that remember how it came out, and won't put the nation through it again.
Their third problem: the Republicans don't even have a majority in the Senate much less the 67 seats they need to get rid of the president if an impeachment makes it that far
And the most important problem: If they tried it and lost, the Republicans have no say in anything for the next four years. Obama will rule the same way Bush did, through executive orders and signing statements. And in 2014, the voters will send enough of them packing to give the president a majority in both houses.

[Gore1FL]

98. 3 points

1> It would be political suicide to impeach Obama. This would mean that the GOP used the power of impeachment for political purposes every time a Democratic president was re-elected to a second term since Roosevelt. Granted, only two have.

2> Congress cannot pass contradictory laws and then attempt to impeach the president for not following one of them.

3> It is unconstitutional not to pay our debts. (See Amendment 14.)

They aren't going to try it. It likely wouldn't make it through the house. It would never make it through the senate.

[blkmusclmachine]

99. Tell GOP to go get bent/come back when they win the election.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

100. Recall/impeach congressmen

[onenote]

118. One problem with that idea

The Constitution.

[graham4anything]

101. Reminding people of the way they treated Bill, will just make it that much easier for Hillary45

President Obama is perhaps the best President at knowing constitutional law that there ever has been (and one reason I believe Hillary45 will nominate him for the US Supreme Court in 2018 after a years rest after the end of his second term.

BTW-John Dean was an American traitor. What gave him the right to become a talking head?
Because he talked?
Didn't stop him from being an American traitor in the first place, did it?
Yet he makes a fortune from that day forward bloviating.

[Hosnon]

105. It is always constitutional for the President to perform his constitutional obligations,

even when a law conflicts.

The law would simply be unconstitutional pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

[alp227]

106. Gee whiz, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, drone strikes...

and the biggest issue worth impeachment according to the 'cons = THE DEBT CEILING...when the Republicons' alternative would be even WORSE????

Ruck Fepublicans.

[freshwest]

107. This is fricking horrible. The nightmare never ends with these bastards.

[ballaratocker]

108. You just now what the Freepers will be saying if the try it.

The last two Demonrat party presidents have been impeached! It's time to bring honor back to the White House (or something).

[DFW]

109. The House impeaches, the Senate tries and either acquits or convicts (and even then only if by 2/3)

I.E., no conviction or removal from offce, as with Clinton.

What's different this time is that Bonehead is definitely NOT behind a move to impeach. Clinton was impeached during Gingrich's lame duck period between the election of 1998 and Gingrich's resignation in January, 1999. If Bonehead wants to work with Obama at all during the next two years, he will not look favorably upon a House Judiciary Committee voting to impeach, and will do his best not to let any impeachment resolution come to the House floor.

Bonehead knows that he is only Speaker due to Republican gerrymandering, and that the majority of the voters preferred Democrats in the last election. He also probably remembers the failed Wisconsin governor recall. Even if the voters dislike the man in office (and where they disliked Walker, they don't dislike Obama), they are reluctant to remove a duly elected official. There are probably few in the House less interested in an impeachment guaranteed to fail than Bonehead. Besides, if they were to go ahead with it, the next Republican president to face a Democratic House would NOT find impeachment "off the table" next time.

[catbyte]

111. If they do that, the Republican Party is dead.

They can't do that to 2 Democratic presidents in a row and expect to get away with it, not with the way the electorate is shaping up to be. Although, they seem hell bent on destruction, so it wouldn't surprise me if they tried.

[CrispyQ]

114. The right wingers where my husband works talked impeachment all day yesterday.

If they don't impeach him on the debt ceiling they will impeach him if he does any executive action on gun control.

They got their talking points in order!

[onenote]

119. Obama is NOT going to be impeached for the debt ceiling, for executive action on gun control

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

or for anything else.

Will someone introduce a bill to start an impeachment proceeding against Obama? Probably if not certainly. Its not that unusual. Henry Gonzalez introduced a couple of impeachment resolutions against GWHBush and Dennis Kucinich led the way in introducing impeachment resolutions against W. They went nowhere, which is where an impeachment resolution against Obama will go. It will die in Committee, just like those other resolutions. Heck, crazy as can be Bob Barr introduced an impeachment resolution against Clinton months before anyone had even heard of Monica Lewinsky. It went nowhere as even the repub leadership wasn't prepared to move it forward. It was only after they had the cover of the supposed "independent" Starr report that they began impeachment proceedings. T

Introducing an impeachment resolution is a good tactic for fundraising by the tea party types, but its never going to amount to anything.

[Beacool]

116. Why not?

If they could impeach Bill Clinton over lying about several incidents of oral sex among consenting adults, they can impeach anybody.

[onenote]

120. In theory any Congress could impeach any President. Big deal.

If the repubs were so gung ho to impeach President Obama, why didn't any of them introduce a resolution of impeachment after the 2010 elections when they were at the peak of their power and Obama was reeling in the polls?

Will someone introduce an impeachment resolution against President Obama? Probably so. Its not that unusual. Will it go anywhere other than to a quiet burial in committee? Highly unlikely.

[McCamy Taylor]

121. The press would not cover it. It isn't sex. So, the GOP won't do it, since it would only be theater,

the Senate being in Democratic Control.

Or, to put it another way, Obama can't BUY publicity like the positive pr he would get if the House GOP tried to crucify him for attempting to save the US economy.

[Stuart G]

122. I respect Dean's opinion very much...K and R.nt

[libodem]

123. Turn the tables on 'em

Impeach them for sedition.

[onenote]

124. How do you propose that be done

given (1) that the repubs have a majority in the Hous; (2) there is a very significant constitutional issue as to whether members of Congress can be impeached; and (3) it would be next impossible to prove that any of the repub members of the House and Senate have committed the crime of "sedition" as that crime exists within Constitutional boundaries.

[libodem]

125. I don't know

I think it takes a petition, cuz ya just can't impeach them. I'm sick of them being there simplely to disrupt and stall the peoples' business. They are there to obstruct and throw sand in the gears. That should be enough to bounce those shitheads out.

[onenote]

126. If a sufficient number of voters agree, they can be bounced out in two years

Unfortunately, due to gerrymandering, that's next to impossible for most members.

[libodem]

127. I know

A girl can dream, can't she?