Should he? Yes.
Will he? No.
Why should he be? For the same reason every president in the past 50 years should have been, extreme violations against the constitution, wars based on false pretenses, extra-judicial killings.
As a referendum on the changing roles of the presidency, I'm okay with this. As the deranged anti-Obama obsession of the right, no. The trouble is, impeaching one president over the actions of several of them isn't going to have the intended effect. The fact remains that Obama hasn't done anything particularly different than his predecessors, and if we weren't going to impeach Bush over lying in order to start a war, there's not a whole lot we're going to impeach anyone over.
All that said, the lack of specific examples and constitutional analysis to justify any instances of accusing Obama of violating the constitution amuse me greatly.
Nixon should have faced full impeachment and trial.
He would have had he not resigned. That's why he resigned. The charges against Clinton were nothing more than a political power grab, and Johnson faced impeachment for opposing an unconstitutional law. Nixon would have been the only legitimate impeachment of a president the US has seen, and would have been the only one to actually convict.
The 2012 Republican Party Platform is this: Prove that Obama is bad. The End. That isn't anything close to what Preibus envisioned for the Party.
They want to believe so badly. That their nonsense isn't actually true doesn't even register.
4 men die in a terrorist attack that could have been avoided if someone was at the helm. Not bad enough but Clinton and Obama lie about it and say it was caused by a video.......If that is not grounds for impeachment I don' know what is my left wing friend.
Benghazi is basically the free square in Partisan Republican Nonsense Bingo.
That's just not true. In fact the GOP is very involved and on point at the local level. That's why they rule the People's House and more than a few state legisltures. The federal is getting closer to ruling the entire nation with an iron fist, but they're not there yet.
And yet the people they're governing are suffering. They are very involved. They're involved in making sure that hungry people stay hungry, sick people stay sick, and gay people remain second class citizens.
I really have mixed emotions over this......I think Obama deserved to be impeached for all his violations of the Constitution but then you look at what with take his place and that scares the hell out of you.
As above, please provide examples of things that actually violate the constitution. No, the tenth amendment does not allow states to override the federal government. That's another square on the Bingo board.
Perssonally I have never been poor
No part of me is surprised by this. Never experiencing the plight of those who are struggling in this country seems to be one of the main requirements for holding right wing views. You got lucky but can't see it as anything besides your own amazing talents, so everyone else who isn't as lucky must be inferior in some way.
How about housing, cars, booze, dope? should we buy that for them to because is exactly what is happening with unemployment compensation..
What makes you think that people who can't afford food or healthcare can afford housing or transportation? Also booze and dope are extremely cheap compared to everything else listed here except perhaps food, but that goes out the window if there are kids involved. As someone who has never been poor, it doesn't surprise me that you don't really know how much things cost.
Then I would say very few Americans have ever been poor. The US government defines it differently.
I very vividly remember finding out I was poor in 1993. My parents always told me that we were middle class. I never questioned it. My president Bill Clinton told me that middle class was defined as families earning between $70,000 and $200,000 per year. Boy did that change my world view. I have my suspicions it changed the way a lot of Americans viewed their lot in life.
And more. "The problem doesn't affect me, so there must not be a problem." Were you one of those 50 million people without healthcare? No? Then there is a problem even if it didn't affect you.
For those who want to impeach Obama - did you want to impeach G.W. Bush too?
A lot of people who now reject Bush were pretty supportive of him at the time.
Their were plenty of reasons to impeach Clinton but they could never kick him out of office because of the lap dog democrat Senate.
Such as?
If Richard Clarke says that no such offer happened, then no such offer happened. He is one of the foremost minds in the entire counterterrorism field and has more integrity than most people ever do.
I see liberal revisionist history is at work. We are now at 4,000 deaths and because G.W. Bush stuck with Clinton's failed terrorist policies that Al Qaeda wasn't a national security issue but a law enforcement issue and it's now Bush's fault ignoring the findings of the 9-11 Commission.
Almost no one actually thinks that Bush could have prevented 9/11. That his responses to it were to start an illegal war for false reasons and push for legislation that stripped people of their 4th amendments rights, those he is blamed for.
And what was Barack Obama's response to that ? He threw a long time ally who protected Israels southern flank under the bus.
In four years Obama has turned the entire Middle East and North Africa into a complete basket case. Frickin outstanding.
Obama isn't responsible to Israel. He is not tasked with protecting Israel's interests. He is tasked with protecting America's interests. Learn the difference. But I do like how you think that Obama is somehow causing a whole bunch of revolutions and civil wars in other countries. It's pretty funny.
by not following the constitution.
changing the healthcare law, only congress can change, delay law.
by not enforcing all federal laws...........the constitution states ...the president "shall".......it does not say "may"
Wow! An actual answer. Not, you know, a good answer. But at least an answer. Okay, let's dig in. Please define "executive power" and explain why the things you say the president has done (please give sufficient details as to what those things are) do not fall under that definition. Please ensure that this definition also does not call for any previous president with an R next to his name to have similarly violated his duties. Also ensure that this definition allows Thomas Jefferson to make the Louisiana Purchase and not leave that power to congress.
--------------
In summation, no, there is no instance of the president actually committing any crimes to warrant removal from office.