• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense' [W:406]

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense' | The Weekly Standard

Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News tonight that amnesty via executive order is an "impeachable offense."


Watch his comments to Megyn Kelly:




"Look, I believe it is an impeachable offense," Krauthammer told Kelly.

"If the circumstances were different, if we were at the beginning of a presidency, if we hadn't had years when the Congress has been supine and unresponsive at other grabs of their authority by the executive--like Obama unilaterally changing Obamacare after it was passed about 30 times with no response from the Congress--the same as Obama essentially re-writing some of the drug laws.


Will Congress try to impeach a President for using executive power to make sweeping immigration law changes, and is it warranted?
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Watch his comments to Megyn Kelly:






Will Congress try to impeach a President for using executive power to make sweeping immigration law changes, and is it warranted?



I haven't seen the video - at work - and haven't really been following the issue outside of knowing it exists.

First off what crime is being alleged? Presidents get impeached for breaking the law. Testing the bounds of presidential authority or putting forth an unconstitutional order are not crimes. So the whole impeachment things sounds like political talk and not something that's legal reality.

What is Obama claiming as legal authority for granting amnesty?
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I guess in practice an "impeachable offense" is whatever the House of Representatives says it is.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

When I think of partisan hack I think of Krauthammer.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Impeachment requires an actual crime or an act directly in conflict with the president's duty to work for the good of the nation and the American people. Arguably going beyond his authority in order to actually do some governing when congress won't is hardly either of those. Congress is welcome to attempt to rein in presidential power via legislation or constitutional amendment, but it would have to apply to the office itself, not just this president that they don't like.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

When I think of partisan hack I think of Krauthammer.

Republicans need to get off the impeachment wagon and get on to things that matter.

Impeachment is not going to happen. For 1 thing, in a couple of years, BarryO will be gone. It would take nearly that long to carry out any results of impeachment. For another, neither Boehnor or McConnell has the cojonese to do it.

Better to cut Obama off at the knees. Deny funding, tie illegal actions up in court. Then get on with putting things right.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Talk of impeachment at this point is largely premature. Lets see what he ACTUALLY proposes.

If it literally grants anyone here illegally the ability to naturalize, then yes it's arguably an impeachable offense and given such a flagrant act at a time where the american voting base just sent forth a stout repudiation of the President and where it would be CLEARLY against the implied will of Congress I'd almost actually be able to get on board with such.

If it simply allows them the ability to stay in the country legally for a few years then its likely not an impeachable offense and attempting to do such would just be a waste of time and the tax payers money.

Right now we have no clue what he'll ACTUALLY do, so speculating on it is kind of worthless.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I wish the Republicans would get off all the crazy stuff and come up with a viable, not crazy candidate, I never want to vote Democrat again. Problem is the Republicans are at least and bad, and crazy to boot.
Republicans need to get off the impeachment wagon and get on to things that matter.

Impeachment is not going to happen. For 1 thing, in a couple of years, BarryO will be gone. It would take nearly that long to carry out any results of impeachment. For another, neither Boehnor or McConnell has the cojonese to do it.

Better to cut Obama off at the knees. Deny funding, tie illegal actions up in court. Then get on with putting things right.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Impeachment requires an actual crime or an act directly in conflict with the president's duty to work for the good of the nation and the American people. Arguably going beyond his authority in order to actually do some governing when congress won't is hardly either of those. Congress is welcome to attempt to rein in presidential power via legislation or constitutional amendment, but it would have to apply to the office itself, not just this president that they don't like.

If there is existing law that in some way prevents whatever action will take place, even if passed in anticipation of the President's actions, it will fit in quite nicely with previous impeachment proceedings.

Impeachment has always been partisan politics personified. There hasn't been a single case where the main cause for such proceedings was because of a focus on the illegalities of the President. Each one was primarily driven by partisan animus.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I haven't seen the video - at work - and haven't really been following the issue outside of knowing it exists.

First off what crime is being alleged? Presidents get impeached for breaking the law. Testing the bounds of presidential authority or putting forth an unconstitutional order are not crimes. So the whole impeachment things sounds like political talk and not something that's legal reality.

What is Obama claiming as legal authority for granting amnesty?

Agreed.

This type of issue has been discussed several times before; Presidents issue EO's all the time and as long as the context of the EO is within the bounds of standing law (in this case, INA law), there's really nothing anyone in Congress can do about it. Will such an EO on immigration brush up against Art. 2, Section 3, clause 5 of the constitution where questionable use of executive powers is concerned? Maybe, but doubtful.

Let's not forget that any EO issued is first and foremost directed to a specific department (or departments) within the President's Cabinet. As such, he can direct his Administration to carry out certain provisions of the law (or laws) as necessary for "good order and discipline" as it were, and as deemed fit for the "general welfare" of the republic.

As long as he adheres to the law as opposed to making law (which will be the argument pundits will try to make), there's really nothing Congress can do short of putting forth a bill that effectively changes the law that either goes counter to the EO issued or absorbs the policy directive issued in the EO.

You could say an EO issued on immigration policy at this point would be more like a power play as opposed to a power grab.
 
Last edited:
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

When I think of partisan hack I think of Krauthammer.

When I think of Krauthammer I think of an incredibly intelligent and educated human being.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Impeachment requires an actual crime or an act directly in conflict with the president's duty to work for the good of the nation and the American people. Arguably going beyond his authority in order to actually do some governing when congress won't is hardly either of those. Congress is welcome to attempt to rein in presidential power via legislation or constitutional amendment, but it would have to apply to the office itself, not just this president that they don't like.

Like "I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN"? Or when you break the law of the land (read that the U.S. Constitution).
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Agreed.

This type of issue has been discussed several times before; Presidents issue EO's all the time and as long as the context of the EO is within the bounds of standing law (in this case, INA law), there's really nothing anyone in Congress can do about it. Will such an EO on immigration brush up against Art. 2, Section 3, clause 5 of the constitution where questionable use of executive powers is concerned? Maybe, but doubtful.

Let's not forget that any EO issued is first and foremost directed to a specific department (or departments) within the President's Cabinet. As such, he can direct his Administration to carry out certain provisions of the law (or laws) as necessary for "good order and discipline" as it were, and as deemed fit for the "general welfare" of the republic.

As long as he adheres to the law as opposed to making law (which will be the argument pundits will try to make), there's really nothing Congress can do short of putting forth a bill that effectively changes the law that either goes counter to the EO issued or absorbs the policy directive issued in the EO.

You could say an EO issued on immigration policy at this point would be more like a power play as opposed to a power grab.

Adding a statute of limitations to law is changing that law. To say that X is still a crime but that those committing X before 2007 are no longer subject to being charged with X now is illegal. That creates future immunity rather than merely granting amnesty for past acts.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Talk of impeachment at this point is largely premature. Lets see what he ACTUALLY proposes.

If it literally grants anyone here illegally the ability to naturalize, then yes it's arguably an impeachable offense and given such a flagrant act at a time where the american voting base just sent forth a stout repudiation of the President and where it would be CLEARLY against the implied will of Congress I'd almost actually be able to get on board with such.

If it simply allows them the ability to stay in the country legally for a few years then its likely not an impeachable offense and attempting to do such would just be a waste of time and the tax payers money.

Right now we have no clue what he'll ACTUALLY do, so speculating on it is kind of worthless.

We also have no clue what the Republican House will do, if ever--especially since Cantor was voted out for at least trying with baby steps.
We do know that VP Biden asked Speaker Boehner last Friday how long he would need and was cut off angrily by the President.

We also know the House adjourned July 31st without acting and this was a successful election strategy.
We saw Obama's message about acting uniformly last summer not work.

As Iowa Gov. Branstad said before the election, Obama's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Obama wasn't going to change people who voted against him anyway with executive action before the election.

I would surmise that his White House team simply wasn't organized enough to put together something coherent on EA,
especially with everything else on its plate like Ebola and ISIL for starters.

By hanging his Latino American base out to dry with no EA, they didn't come out to vote for Democrats and cost Senators like Udall their election .
 
Last edited:
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Watch his comments to Megyn Kelly:







Will Congress try to impeach a President for using executive power to make sweeping immigration law changes, and is it warranted?




With all due respect to this once Pulitzer prize winning journalist, he's lost his mind.

He give emotional reasons as to why this amnesty is "impeachable" offense, but makes no reference to any form of "high crime" or "misdemeanors" stated in the United States Constitution.

And, based on recent history, Nixon and Clinton, talk of it on this issue is absurd. The constitution gives the president full power over pardons, unquestioningly so that Ford's pardon of Nixon BEFORE being charged, was not even challenged.


This feeds right into the mistake Republicans always make, stupid, irrational claims tending toward extremism.

If they want to attack this, the only way is through the courts, where a pardon for an on-going crime is questionable
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

When I think of Krauthammer I think of an incredibly intelligent and educated human being.

And one of the best tentacles of the GOP octopus working at FOX with Rove.
Democrats have no answer to this superior messaging war from FOX right now which helped cost them the election .
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Watch his comments to Megyn Kelly:



Will Congress try to impeach a President for using executive power to make sweeping immigration law changes, and is it warranted?


Neocons have been/are/will be impeach obsessed. It never stops with them.

Krauthammer represents some of the worst of what America is today. He reminds me of a little dog that sits on the porch and yaps day and night and never shuts up. Doesn't do anything, but yap, yap, yap.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I guess in practice an "impeachable offense" is whatever the House of Representatives says it is.

That's pretty much it. The impeachment process in the Constitution has more in common with a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system than it does with a criminal trial. The people don't need any justification at all for electing a person President, and they don't need much more for removing him before his term is up. "High crimes or misdemeanors" are largely whatever the House wants to make them. There's some reason to believe the phrase was purposely chosen because it did not have any specific, widely recognized meaning.

Whether this man has committed enough offenses is about the last consideration in deciding whether to impeach him. Andy McCarthy, an accomplished former federal prosecutor, has written a book which categorizes the many serious abuses of power and violations of the Constitution Mr. Obama has engaged in. There are so many that only a fraction of them would be enough to make up a bill of impeachment. This may well be the most lawless administration in our history--Mr. Nixon's pales in comparison.

Mr. Obama is no longer very popular. Still, the biggest problem with impeachment is making the case persuasively enough that most people agree it was a fair thing to do. If there's not enough political support, people are likely to see the targeted President as the victim of a hatchet job, and take their revenge on his persecutors at the polls. In the House, there is already far more than the simple majority needed to impeach. McCarthy argues that what's more important is support in the Senate.

The two-thirds Senate majority needed to convict and remove an impeached President has never been achieved, although Andrew Johnson survived by only a single vote. Even so, the closer to 67 votes there are, the more Congress seems to be speaking with one voice, and the greater political cover for a vote in the House to impeach. That makes the size of the recent Republican gain important. It now stands at eight, and if a Republican is elected in Louisiana next month, it will be nine. That is bigger than even the most optimistic Republicans expected, and it makes impeachment more plausible than before.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I understand the fascination on the left for Congress to enter into impeachment proceedings against Obama. Nothing but total amnesia and/or a failed impeachment will save Obama from being one of the worst Presidents ever to hold the office. Imagine the utter dread on the left realizing that history will portray George W. Bush as a stronger, more competent President than the left's messiah - must be incredibly depressing.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

Krauthammer represents some of the worst of what America is today. He reminds me of a little dog that sits on the porch and yaps day and night and never shuts up. Doesn't do anything, but yap, yap, yap.

Funny you mention that. That same image often comes to mind when I hear leftist dim bulbs yammering.
 
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

With all due respect to this once Pulitzer prize winning journalist, he's lost his mind.

He give emotional reasons as to why this amnesty is "impeachable" offense, but makes no reference to any form of "high crime" or "misdemeanors" stated in the United States Constitution.

And, based on recent history, Nixon and Clinton, talk of it on this issue is absurd. The constitution gives the president full power over pardons, unquestioningly so that Ford's pardon of Nixon BEFORE being charged, was not even challenged.


This feeds right into the mistake Republicans always make, stupid, irrational claims tending toward extremism.

If they want to attack this, the only way is through the courts, where a pardon for an on-going crime is questionable



I haven't seen the video - at work - and haven't really been following the issue outside of knowing it exists.

First off what crime is being alleged? Presidents get impeached for breaking the law. Testing the bounds of presidential authority or putting forth an unconstitutional order are not crimes. So the whole impeachment things sounds like political talk and not something that's legal reality.

What is Obama claiming as legal authority for granting amnesty?


I have to agree with Zyphlin that it will depend on how far he uses executive orders to change the current rules on immigration. He's telling the House that if they don't pass something of significance before 2015, he will. It's not realistic to round up and ship 11+ million people back over the border.
 
Last edited:
Re: Krauthammer: 'Impeachable Offense'

I understand the fascination on the left for Congress to enter into impeachment proceedings against Obama. Nothing but total amnesia and/or a failed impeachment will save Obama from being one of the worst Presidents ever to hold the office. Imagine the utter dread on the left realizing that history will portray George W. Bush as a stronger, more competent President than the left's messiah - must be incredibly depressing.


He already is considered the worst president in modern times....

I keep asking this question without a proper reply, name one thing Obama has done that has succeeded, united the country, actually improved a majority of lives or brought peace to any corner of the globe.

Bush united a people like no president since the war after the greatest assault on the nation in history, he had support from both sides of the aisle and he pulled together not one but two coalitions of leading nations, the Afghanistan campaign being the most impressive since 1942.

On that score, who are Americas friends today, willing to show up with anything more than token forces. Clearly the rest of the world has little faith in Obama
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom