A plan to impeach Obama

Obama has no respect for the constitution. Ever since he was inaugurated he has used every legal loophole he can to get around the limitations placed on his office by the constitution, rather than simply work within them as the founders of this country intended. His presidency has been criminal and he should be impeached. The only two congressmen who would even dare to consider that (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) are gone now. That is why is it time to show the rest of congress that we will not put up with his increasingly unchecked authority anymore.

There are 19 states that allow recall elections of state officials: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisianna, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

All that is needed to initiate a recall election is a petition signed by at least 25% as many people as voted for that official in his previous election. That should not be difficult to achieve unless a congressman or senator won his previous election by a landslide. If everyone who voted against him petitioned for a recall election, then that would generally be easily enough to initiate one.

Most of congress is not even trying to keep Obama in check. Their job is to keep him in check. If they cannot do that, they should be recalled. If they refuse to consider impeaching Obama, they should be recalled. We need to organize a movement to initiate recall elections for every senator and congressman from those 19 states who do not publicly call for his impeachment.

Once recall elections start happening across the country that will make congress understand that we will not put up with them not doing their jobs anymore. That they must follow the constitution and the original intent of its writers, or find a new job.

u mad

.

obama is a criminal.

Praline, where you at to quote this

Good luck.

I like the idea. However, I don't think it will work due to the number of states needed for something like this to succeed. There are other issues as well.

There are already some people working on getting him impeached-

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/16/1455911/trey-radel-impeachment/?mobile=nc

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/texas-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-moves-on-guns/

|
V

I thought a president could not be impeached unless he broke federal law? I didn't think you could do it just because you don't like the guy lol...

Without being racist: Why do most Americans think the Constitution (which was written more than 200 years ago??) is the Holy Grail Bible of Everything? And that it must never be changed or modified to accommodate current situations? I understand it's very important.... but things change and it should be adapted to that change.FelipeInside

You should've blogged this.

This is so inspiring....makes me want to go poopies

Without being racist: Why do most Americans think the Constitution (which was written more than 200 years ago??) is the Holy Grail Bible of Everything? And that it must never be changed or modified to accommodate current situations? I understand it's very important.... but things change and it should be adapted to that change.FelipeInside

The issue with messing with the 2nd Amendment in particular is how it fits into the history of the US and it's formation. From studying history, we can see that countries which have taken away or heavily infringed upon the right to bear arms (while keeping heavily armed police and militaries) have often fallen into police states or outright dictatorships. This is something that the founding fathers of the US were aware of. This is a big part of what has made the US special for such a long time. The founding fathers saw the danger because they experienced it firsthand. There are numerous 20th century examples as well.

The idea is this- Freedom is more important than security, real or imagined. That is one of the cornerstones of the US. If you mess with that, you take away one of the things that made the US a (relatively) free country.

cutedave123321

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Without being racist: Why do most Americans think the Constitution (which was written more than 200 years ago??) is the Holy Grail Bible of Everything? And that it must never be changed or modified to accommodate current situations? I understand it's very important.... but things change and it should be adapted to that change.hartsickdiscipl

The issue with messing with the 2nd Amendment in particular is how it fits into the history of the US and it's formation. From studying history, we can see that countries which have taken away or heavily infringed upon the right to bear arms (while keeping heavily armed police and militaries) have often fallen into police states or outright dictatorships. This is something that the founding fathers of the US were aware of. This is a big part of what has made the US special for such a long time. The founding fathers saw the danger because they experienced it firsthand. There are numerous 20th century examples as well.

The idea is this- Freedom is more important than security, real or imagined. That is one of the cornerstones of the US. If you mess with that, you take away one of the things that made the US a (relatively) free country.

As for the Guns thing:

Having less access (or less easy access) to guns isn't going to make the country totally safe, but in today's day and age, it WILL make it safer. That's common sense and anyone who doesn't think so is deluded.

I live in Australia. Are we totally safe from wackos like that kid that took out the children? Of course not. But having no public access to an assault rifle makes it a lot more difficult for him to kill.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Without being racist: Why do most Americans think the Constitution (which was written more than 200 years ago??) is the Holy Grail Bible of Everything? And that it must never be changed or modified to accommodate current situations? I understand it's very important.... but things change and it should be adapted to that change.FelipeInside

The issue with messing with the 2nd Amendment in particular is how it fits into the history of the US and it's formation. From studying history, we can see that countries which have taken away or heavily infringed upon the right to bear arms (while keeping heavily armed police and militaries) have often fallen into police states or outright dictatorships. This is something that the founding fathers of the US were aware of. This is a big part of what has made the US special for such a long time. The founding fathers saw the danger because they experienced it firsthand. There are numerous 20th century examples as well.

The idea is this- Freedom is more important than security, real or imagined. That is one of the cornerstones of the US. If you mess with that, you take away one of the things that made the US a (relatively) free country.

He didnt have an assault rifle and its near impossible for most people to even get one

while we are at it we need to impeach half of congress...k2theswiss

Mhm...

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The issue with messing with the 2nd Amendment in particular is how it fits into the history of the US and it's formation. From studying history, we can see that countries which have taken away or heavily infringed upon the right to bear arms (while keeping heavily armed police and militaries) have often fallen into police states or outright dictatorships. This is something that the founding fathers of the US were aware of. This is a big part of what has made the US special for such a long time. The founding fathers saw the danger because they experienced it firsthand. There are numerous 20th century examples as well.

The idea is this- Freedom is more important than security, real or imagined. That is one of the cornerstones of the US. If you mess with that, you take away one of the things that made the US a (relatively) free country.

wis3boi

He didnt have an assault rifle and its near impossible for most people to even get one

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] As for the Guns thing: Having less access (or less easy access) to guns isn't going to make the country totally safe, but in today's day and age, it WILL make it safer. That's common sense and anyone who doesn't think so it deluded. I live in Australia. Are we totally safe from wackos like that kid that took out the children? Of course not. But having no public access to an assault rifle makes it a lot more difficult for him to kill.FelipeInside

He didnt have an assault rifle and its near impossible for most people to even get one

Actually it's important to be technical, because our politicians are doing what you just did and trying to form laws based on a failure to use terms correctly. It's really pathetic to watch them argue over 'assault weapons'

I was going to eat my sandwich but now I'm just gonna shove it up my ass.Jebus213

:lol:

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Without being racist: Why do most Americans think the Constitution (which was written more than 200 years ago??) is the Holy Grail Bible of Everything? And that it must never be changed or modified to accommodate current situations? I understand it's very important.... but things change and it should be adapted to that change.FelipeInside

The issue with messing with the 2nd Amendment in particular is how it fits into the history of the US and it's formation. From studying history, we can see that countries which have taken away or heavily infringed upon the right to bear arms (while keeping heavily armed police and militaries) have often fallen into police states or outright dictatorships. This is something that the founding fathers of the US were aware of. This is a big part of what has made the US special for such a long time. The founding fathers saw the danger because they experienced it firsthand. There are numerous 20th century examples as well.

The idea is this- Freedom is more important than security, real or imagined. That is one of the cornerstones of the US. If you mess with that, you take away one of the things that made the US a (relatively) free country.

As for the Guns thing:

Having less access (or less easy access) to guns isn't going to make the country totally safe, but in today's day and age, it WILL make it safer. That's common sense and anyone who doesn't think so is deluded.

I live in Australia. Are we totally safe from wackos like that kid that took out the children? Of course not. But having no public access to an assault rifle makes it a lot more difficult for him to kill.

It's not common sense. What is common sense is that criminals will find ways to hurt people. That has been shown through the increasing violent crime rates in Australia and the UK. People who legally obtain guns aren't doing the damage here. Putting more restrictions on people who do no harm obviously doesn't do much for us.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

He didnt have an assault rifle and its near impossible for most people to even get one

wis3boi

Actually it's important to be technical, because our politicians are doing what you just did and trying to form laws based on a failure to use terms correctly. It's really pathetic to watch them argue over 'assault weapons'

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] As for the Guns thing: Having less access (or less easy access) to guns isn't going to make the country totally safe, but in today's day and age, it WILL make it safer. That's common sense and anyone who doesn't think so it deluded. I live in Australia. Are we totally safe from wackos like that kid that took out the children? Of course not. But having no public access to an assault rifle makes it a lot more difficult for him to kill.FelipeInside

He didnt have an assault rifle and its near impossible for most people to even get one

Obama has no respect for the constitution. Ever since he was inaugurated he has used every legal loophole he can to get around the limitations placed on his office by the constitution, rather than simply work within them as the founders of this country intended.

Jefferson also intended the United States to be a agrarian society.. Should we all become farmers because of his views?

His presidency has been criminal and he should be impeached.

No more than any other recent president..

The only two congressmen who would even dare to consider that (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) are gone now. That is why is it time to show the rest of congress that we will not put up with his increasingly unchecked authority anymore.

There are 19 states that allow recall elections of state officials: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisianna, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

All that is needed to initiate a recall election is a petition signed by at least 25% as many people as voted for that official in his previous election. That should not be difficult to achieve unless a congressman or senator won his previous election by a landslide. If everyone who voted against him petitioned for a recall election, then that would generally be easily enough to initiate one.

Most of congress is not even trying to keep Obama in check.

Yeah ignoring reality like the record level of filibustering and holding things like the debt ceiling hostage.. If anything no congress for decades has had this tight of reins on the president..

Their job is to keep him in check. If they cannot do that, they should be recalled. If they refuse to consider impeaching Obama, they should be recalled. We need to organize a movement to initiate recall elections for every senator and congressman from those 19 states who do not publicly call for his impeachment.

Once recall elections start happening across the country that will make congress understand that we will not put up with them not doing their jobs anymore. That they must follow the constitution and the original intent of its writers, or find a new job.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The issue with messing with the 2nd Amendment in particular is how it fits into the history of the US and it's formation. From studying history, we can see that countries which have taken away or heavily infringed upon the right to bear arms (while keeping heavily armed police and militaries) have often fallen into police states or outright dictatorships. This is something that the founding fathers of the US were aware of. This is a big part of what has made the US special for such a long time. The founding fathers saw the danger because they experienced it firsthand. There are numerous 20th century examples as well.

The idea is this- Freedom is more important than security, real or imagined. That is one of the cornerstones of the US. If you mess with that, you take away one of the things that made the US a (relatively) free country.

hartsickdiscipl

As for the Guns thing:

Having less access (or less easy access) to guns isn't going to make the country totally safe, but in today's day and age, it WILL make it safer. That's common sense and anyone who doesn't think so is deluded.

I live in Australia. Are we totally safe from wackos like that kid that took out the children? Of course not. But having no public access to an assault rifle makes it a lot more difficult for him to kill.

It's not common sense. What is common sense is that criminals will find ways to hurt people. That has been shown through the increasing violent crime rates in Australia and the UK. People who legally obtain guns aren't doing the damage here. Putting more restrictions on people who do no harm obviously doesn't do much for us.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

He didnt have an assault rifle and its near impossible for most people to even get one

Jebus213

This is what I meant before. People like this is why the US has these issues.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] You know what I meant, don't get all technical. Assault Rifle, Gun, Shotgun, whatever..... GUN.FelipeInside

Actually it's important to be technical, because our politicians are doing what you just did and trying to form laws based on a failure to use terms correctly. It's really pathetic to watch them argue over 'assault weapons'

We don't live in a world that simple.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] You know what I meant, don't get all technical. Assault Rifle, Gun, Shotgun, whatever..... GUN.FelipeInside

Actually it's important to be technical, because our politicians are doing what you just did and trying to form laws based on a failure to use terms correctly. It's really pathetic to watch them argue over 'assault weapons'

........... So you seriously think there should be no distinction between a musket and a SAW Machine gun?

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Actually it's important to be technical, because our politicians are doing what you just did and trying to form laws based on a failure to use terms correctly. It's really pathetic to watch them argue over 'assault weapons'

sSubZerOo

........... So you seriously think there should be no distinction between a musket and a SAW Machine gun?

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Actually it's important to be technical, because our politicians are doing what you just did and trying to form laws based on a failure to use terms correctly. It's really pathetic to watch them argue over 'assault weapons'

wis3boi

We don't live in a world that simple.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] A Gun is a Gun. What is pathetic is people discussing what type of guns should be allowed and what shouldn't.sSubZerOo

We don't live in a world that simple.

I think it's time I link this again: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] A Gun is a Gun. What is pathetic is people discussing what type of guns should be allowed and what shouldn't.sSubZerOo

We don't live in a world that simple.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

We don't live in a world that simple.

wis3boi

I think it's time I link this again: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

What does this have anything to do with what I just said?

AHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Laihendi, just syaing, I saw the Hobbitt, it was pretty underwhelming, definitely dissapointed..You were right dood.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

As for the Guns thing:

Having less access (or less easy access) to guns isn't going to make the country totally safe, but in today's day and age, it WILL make it safer. That's common sense and anyone who doesn't think so is deluded.

I live in Australia. Are we totally safe from wackos like that kid that took out the children? Of course not. But having no public access to an assault rifle makes it a lot more difficult for him to kill.

FelipeInside

It's not common sense. What is common sense is that criminals will find ways to hurt people. That has been shown through the increasing violent crime rates in Australia and the UK. People who legally obtain guns aren't doing the damage here. Putting more restrictions on people who do no harm obviously doesn't do much for us.

So ban Alcohol. See what your next problem is and ban that too. Then the next one, and the next one... You see where we end up?

With the number of guns in the US, outlawing certain types will only keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals and potentially a tyrannical government will still have them. No dice.

AHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DroidPhysX