Event Calendar
July 2014
(view month)
* * 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 * *
<< (add event) >>

User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 24


Advanced Search

Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

Impeach the President?

by: Rob Kailey

Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 15:44:04 PM MST

Hi, my name is Rob Kailey, and I am an addict.  Less than 2 weeks after telling myself that I was done with the website FireDogLake, I am about to post a link to that website.  (The "pay for membership and Jane's manicures" model of blogging I find truly repugnant.) However, being an addict, I read a diary over there this afternoon which peaked my interest a great deal.

David Swanson pens a diary titled "Is Obama Even Worse Than Bush?"  Provocative, no?  Like an addict, I clicked the link expecting to find another PUMA-Freeper mash of debilitating disappointment.  That part is actually in the comments.  But David's post is indeed provocative, and actually worth a read.  What he lays out is a case for the impeachment of President Obama.  I don't agree with much of it, but it's absolutely worth your time to read it.  So go do that.

Here's his deal.  He argues that the Unitary Executive has become extra-legal, beyond the law, and that those powers once accepted will never be given up.  I agree.  Here's where I show that not only am I an addict blogger, I'm a bad blogger.  I don't meticulously catalog of tag my posts, and I have no index file of my comments.  So, please trust me on this, and hopefully some of the longer term members will validate.  Back in late 2007, early 2008, when I was arguing even at this site with right-wingers, there was great concern on my part about Chimpy's power grabs.  In the debate about FISA renewal, I continually asked our rightward compatriots "Do you really want Barack, John or Hillary to have those powers?"

That's really what it boils down to.  Powers granted become the norm, and are used and not given up.  I had hope (is that trademarked?) that Obama would actually give up some of that Executive power.  I had none that Clinton would, and I wrote as much at the time, born out by Secretary Clinton's actions over the last several weeks.  And now we see the truth of it; No President will give up power once attained.  That isn't surprising.  It also isn't cause for a freak out.  It is what it is.

So, Swanson's call for impeachment actually has teeth.  The President has and is using powers that under scrutiny could be illegal.  I was attracted to his argument because he posts about the position and the situation, not the man.  That is important to keep in mind.  Ultimately, I disagree with him based on some assumptions he makes concerning motivation (a true failure of the Professional Left), and the message that such conveys to the American people. Swanson calls for a "true" democratic republic.  I concur.  Swanson's argument relies on claims that the President is much of a figurehead, our defacto King, much as the founders saw the position.  Again, I concur.  But if that's the case, then impeaching the President won't fix what's broken in our representation.  The Presidential office is taking power from somewhere, and that would be Congress.  So fixing things?  That would involve fixing Congress.  Yes?  It could well be argued, and has on the blogs, that it would also involve fixing our media, our social structures and most of all, our economy.  Impeaching the President would assist none of those efforts, and in fact would hinder them all.

The racial issue still hangs out there.  Many Americans are asking why so much bitterness is spewed at our black President, and many Americans are asking for impeachment because we have a black President.  As much as Swanson wants to remove 'the man' from 'the office', you really can't.  An impeachment is not taking back power for the branch which should hold such.  It is taking away the position of a man, who, to date, is still well favored.

Still, I find that diary intriguing, and present it to you folks here.  What do you think?    

Rob Kailey :: Impeach the President?
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Impeach the black dude! (0.00 / 0)
He's black in color only.  Hell, I'M blacker than he is!


Rob you would do well to tune into War is a Lie website (0.00 / 0)

 i endorse David Swanson for President and Cynthia McKinney for VP. its to bad i didn't hear any more from you RE comments on the Tester/*banking*/war/lumber/Tool in yesterday's LitW...still time!

  i posted to Swanson's Excellent comprehensive coherent article on War is a Lie - if Swanson is new to you - now's the time to get to know him.
  i've worked with him personally in DC on Anti-torture campaigns - incl marches and lay-ins at the so called Dept of Justice/joke/ Holder is a PUNK.

   The fact that you found reason to endorse David's article means there is hope for you. Welcome Aboard.

"Left" and "liberal" are mutually exclusive terms. If you are a "liberal" you can't be Left. "Liberal" means you want a kinder gentler capitalism. "Left" means you are anti-capitalist.

I've read other postings of his at FDL (0.00 / 0)
To be honest, I was never much more inspired to look into the man.  I would like to read his book "War is Lie".

[ Parent ]
As some that was very vocal about impeaching King Bush (0.00 / 0)
I have to say that the article linked was somewhat of an eye opener (especially in light of the Fed Raids earlier this week on Medical Marijuana site in Montana). I did not realise much of what the author contends was actually happening (the media has been well controlled). Sadly much of his contentions actually check out.

While I am not so sure I would go as far as calling for Obama's impeachment, I am VERY concerned about the situation as it stands. As unrest in the country grows (and only someone living under a rock beleives that it is not growing), Federal Authorian power grabs - especially in the Presidency - are troubling. Thanks, Bro, for linking to this article.

I hate to say it (0.00 / 0)

But I agree with you.

The Presidents powers are defined in the Constitution, and no matter who's in the office those powers have been too expanded.

HOWEVER, accepting excessive, handed-down powers isn't a high crime, or misdemeanor.

How about accepting appointed powers? (0.00 / 0)
Like Bush's 5-4 appointment by the SCOTUS to the POTUS?

Which begs the question: can you "impeach" a president who wasn't duly elected, but was appointed?

Or on the contrary, if you could prove that the SCOTUS was corrupt in its appointment of Bush, could you have nullified his first term?

And on a separate, but not so unrelated issue, we no longer have a government whose foundation rests on three pillars: legislative, executive, judicial. The advancement of extra-constitutional rights for corporate individual rights & free market ideology, and their domination of campaign financing effectively has rendered corporations the fourth pillar of government complete with an opaque veto mechanism (withholding campaign contributions and/or contributing to an opponent, or buying tons of media). And their only form of accountability is to their shareholders if publicly held, or to their owners (likely themselves, à la Koch Bros.) if not.

[ Parent ]
Actually, (0.00 / 0)
I would argue that we haven't had a democratic government SINCE WWII.  The corporate takeover that Ike warned us about was IN EFFECT at the time of his warning, and he knew it.  Kennedy tried to undo much of what Ike warned, but was immediately killed.  And the Corporate/CIA complex has been running the show since.

At the state level, we been able to effect things, but at the national, forget it.  And now, they're comin' for all the marbles.  There's a REASON that the Koch brothers are in the lead.  Think about it.  The shadow government of the John Birch Society is now our legitimate government.  It's a monarcy, with our own royal family. Next up, Jeb. Or an equivelant.

It's not conspiracy theory, just fact, and easily descernible of one takes the time.  If you haven't read JFK and the Unspeakable, please do.  It's a good place to start.  This has been a long time coming.  The criminals won.

[ Parent ]
Actually - (0.00 / 0)

After all was said and done, GWB won the election, and that was after independent recounts.

Of course - the libs said that more people went to the polls "intending" to vote for Al Gore - ha ha

[ Parent ]
Independent recounts? (0.00 / 0)
All except for the recount in Florida which was shut down. As it was Bush lost the popular vote by more than a half million votes. And a real recount in FLorida could have given the state to Gore.

How easily you rewrite history. WHy don't you go and read up on what Gore v. Bush was all about. Then reread your statement above and see if it makes any sense. Because you obviously don't know what you're talking about... again.

[ Parent ]
And, (0.00 / 0)
love the thugs that the GOP flew in to shut'em down.  Unfortunately, our form of gov is SO easily manipulated that it's pathetic.  The corpors know this well, and they KNOW that a few well-placed dollars or thugs can easily determine outcomes. They have it down to a science.  Simply look at the front groups formed by folks such as the Kocks.  Hell, they can even defy the entire freakin' scientific community!  The gullability of the American public precludes a working democracy.  They can even go so far as to create a groups of morons (teabbagers) who actually cheer their own demise!  Now that's pretty amazing.

[ Parent ]
Supreme Court (0.00 / 0)
There is no need for thugs when Scalia and his crowd are on your side.

[ Parent ]
I hope you're right Horst - (0.00 / 0)

Because Obamacare will be in front of them soon -

I certainly hope that they are on Americas side.

[ Parent ]
As usual, the facts are not with you (0.00 / 0)
I should start charging you for fact checking.

From the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll for March

In a more stepped back look at the ACA's future, the public again turns in a mixed verdict. Overall, 21 percent support leaving the law as is and another 30 percent even support expanding it. In contrast, 21 percent would repeal the law and not return to the subject of health reform, while 18 percent would repeal the law but then replace it with a Republican alternative.

51% of those polled want to see the ACA retained or expanded (I think you may refer to this as "America's side"  as opposed) to 39% wanting to see it repealed and./or replaced with a republican alternative.

And funny that some repealers want to see the ACA replaced with a republican alternative. The ACA already is a republican derived framework--including the mandate, à la RomneyCare and DoleCare. Baucus and his insurance industry authors really shined on this private-market  republican bill.

I think this blog should automatically tag Coobs' comments with a disclaimer about his lack of veracity. I get tired of having to clean up his messes.

[ Parent ]
An admirable fact-check (0.00 / 0)
But here Eric's instincts might be right - Americans may well lose the health care advances that most of them support.  ACA passed; therefore, the 39% wanting its repeal are united in one immediate political goal.  I fear I can't say the same about the 51% - the thirty percent wanting to see it expanded will not turn out to support candidates that will maintain it, and the 21 percent of maintainers may well abandon a candidate favored by the largest group of those who would expand the ACA.  

[ Parent ]
by now pw- everyone knows aca was written by HCI industry for HCI (0.00 / 0)
what's to support? aca is simply more profits for the companies who have turned america's health care insurance industry into the most heinously greedy, intrusive, and needlessly inefficient health care delivery system in the world.

it did nothing to get these slimeballs from interfering with patients and their doctors. essentially, the entire bill was window dressing to keep us from really reforming health care in this country.

and the most graveling to montanans- to our infinite shame and embarrassment, our senior senator max baucus, prevented any chance of real reform by following the playbook of the health insurance lobbyists to the letter. it was a sham and from the beginning.  

[ Parent ]

Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

Bookmark and Share

Purely Hypothetical, of course, but - The best candidate for the Republicans for US Senate is:
Corey Stapleton
Dennis Rehberg
Marc Racicot
Champ Edmunds
Steve Daines
Harris Himes
Kreyton Kerns


Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox