How has Obama not been indicted or impeached by now?

I'm going to be honest and say that I have a positive bias toward Obama since he's a Democrat and not a crazed Republican. However, after considering a few actions which his administration has taken, I've come to wonder why he hasn't been indicted or impeached by now. His administration has violated the Constitution numerous times, in the most heinous manner on each occasion. For example, the Fifth Amendment states the following:

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.United States Constitution

Take specific note of the portion that is in bold font (i.e. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). When President Obama's administration sanctioned theassassinationof Anwar Al-Awlaki, it violated this Constitutional clause. Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen, was assinated without due process; he was never indicted or tried for any of the supposed crimes he was assinated for. Hence, he was deprived of life without due process of law, which is an egregious violation of the Constitution. How has the Obama Administration been allowed to do this? Can't the Supreme Court step in? How about the Attorney General? Oh, wait, he was nominated by the President himself. Talk about conflict of interest. :roll:

Cenk Uygur talks about the assasination here.

Another example of Obama's violation of the Constitution was his sanctioning of U.S. Military involvement in Libya. He never got Congressional approval.

So, considering these examples, how has he not been indicted? WTF is happening to the U.S.? Doesn't anyone have any respect for the Constitution?

hes a nice dude, bro jus chillll sit back with me and bump some drakee while we sip on some patron. dont worry about it be happychad_daddy

I know that you're joking, but what's your honest opinion on this.

You have to be a citizen to enjoy those rights.

People think that he's is a nice guy because you can sense that from him, so they wouldn't expect him to do these things which makes him the perfect pupper first of all, second of all they have no idea he's doing these things, because bro they chillin with some paatron

You have to be a citizen to enjoy those rights.

TopTierHustler

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. He was born in the U.S..

Because he hasn't done anything impeachable or criminal.

Dude, are you serious? He's one guy. One guy can'y run everything or change anything. The entire US government has to come together, or we will be in the same mess, term after term. The hate Obama gets does not make any sense.

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]He's the greatest President of all time Dy_WarriorsXoXo

Truth, O'Godma truly parted the seas and brought forth a new era of prosperity and peace.

I love him

Yea we are screwed.

He's the greatest President of all time Bucked20

You're joking right?

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]He's the greatest President of all time hydr0_32

You're joking right?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

You have to be a citizen to enjoy those rights.

King-Kai

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. He was born in the U.S..

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]You might want to reread your own quote of the 5th amendment... "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"King-Kai

I admit that the U.S. is currently in a war against Al-Quada, but aside from being a propagandist, Awlaki was never proven to be an actual member of Al-Quada.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]You might want to reread your own quote of the 5th amendment... "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"spazzx625

I admit that the U.S. is currently in a war against Al-Quada, but aside from being a propagandist, Awlaki was never proven to be an actual member of Al-Quada.

That doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="hydr0_32"]

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]He's the greatest President of all time Bucked20

You're joking right?

Whatever your smoking can i have some?

[QUOTE="Bucked20"][QUOTE="hydr0_32"]

You're joking right?

hydr0_32

Whatever your smoking can i have some?

Despite this, I'm gonna' vote for him anyway. A Republican would be far worse.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="King-Kai"]

I admit that the U.S. is currently in a war against Al-Quada, but aside from being a propagandist, Awlaki was never proven to be an actual member of Al-Quada.

King-Kai

That doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="hydr0_32"]

[QUOTE="Bucked20"] Why would I joke about The GodBucked20

Whatever your smoking can i have some?

:lol:

[QUOTE="Shmiity"]

Dude, are you serious? He's one guy. One guy can'y run everything or change anything. The entire US government has to come together, or we will be in the same mess, term after term. The hate Obama gets does not make any sense.

Dy_WarriorsXoXo

Dude, like where were you during the Bush administration. I got alot of **** for defending him at times.

I have never met someone tell me that they hate President Obama . I certainly do not hate the man nor do I hate President Bush as I have met neither personally.

I can understand why people might be upset with President Obama for sure though.

Im not sure if you are defending me or not... my whole deal is: It's one guy. One guy can not do everything or anything. It takes a group f*ck up, and group effort to run a country. No reason to dump on Obama. If anything, he speaks well, and has a pretty even temperment. Better then the 3 clowns running against him

[QUOTE="Bucked20"][QUOTE="hydr0_32"]

Whatever your smoking can i have some?

hydr0_32

:lol:

It was a bad call. I give you that. As much as I dont like terrorists, the govt. circumvented due process on this guy. Assasinating your citizens sets a bad precedent.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] ...And he doesn't need to be "proven" to be. If you think Obama is the only president that has done something like this you are mistaken and/or incredibly naive.spazzx625

That doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.

He ordered the assasination of a U.S. Citizen who was never proven to be an actual member of the faction the U.S. is currently at war with. His adminitration claims to have secret evidence which justifies the assasiantion, but have not revealed it. We're supposed to just believe them? That's absurd; they could be lying.

MDAA signed in to law allows this i believe?

MDAA signed in to law allows this i believe?

wellbigd

Something that is unconstitutional cannot be signed into law.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="King-Kai"]

That doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.

King-Kai

He ordered the assasination of a U.S. Citizen who was never proven to be an actual member of the faction the U.S. is currently at war with. His adminitration claims to have secret evidence which justifies the assasiantion, but have not revealed it. We're supposed to just believe them? That's absurd; they could be lying.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] As I already pointed out...No, it's not.spazzx625

He ordered the assasination of a U.S. Citizen who was never proven to be an actual member of the faction the U.S. is currently at war with. His adminitration claims to have secret evidence which justifies the assasiantion, but have not revealed it. We're supposed to just believe them? That's absurd; they could be lying.

There's no hope for you. You're an...Obama Drone.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="King-Kai"]

He ordered the assasination of a U.S. Citizen who was never proven to be an actual member of the faction the U.S. is currently at war with. His adminitration claims to have secret evidence which justifies the assasiantion, but have not revealed it. We're supposed to just believe them? That's absurd; they could be lying.

King-Kai

There's no hope for you. You're an...Obama Drone.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="King-Kai"]

That doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.

King-Kai

He ordered the assasination of a U.S. Citizen who was never proven to be an actual member of the faction the U.S. is currently at war with. His adminitration claims to have secret evidence which justifies the assasiantion, but have not revealed it. We're supposed to just believe them? That's absurd; they could be lying.

It was a bad call. I give you that. As much as I dont like terrorists, the govt. circumvented due process on this guy. Assasinating your citizens sets a bad precedent.

sonicare

How is it any different than, say, declaring someone "wanted dead or alive"? And for that matter the government has deported citizens before (and long before ether Bush or Obama were born), so these kinds of precdents aren't exactly new.

Politics.

The Democrats won't impeach one of their own over some small, war-related incident. While the GOP would certainly love to attempt to boot the guy, they kinda have to hate terrorists, etc. Basically this leaves Paul, Kucinich and perhaps a few others as the only people who consider the idea.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="King-Kai"]

That doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.

King-Kai

He ordered the assasination of a U.S. Citizen who was never proven to be an actual member of the faction the U.S. is currently at war with. His adminitration claims to have secret evidence which justifies the assasiantion, but have not revealed it. We're supposed to just believe them? That's absurd; they could be lying.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Your own quote

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] As I already pointed out...No, it's not.stanleycup98

He ordered the assasination of a U.S. Citizen who was never proven to be an actual member of the faction the U.S. is currently at war with. His adminitration claims to have secret evidence which justifies the assasiantion, but have not revealed it. We're supposed to just believe them? That's absurd; they could be lying.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Your own quote

As I said before, Al-Awlaki was never proven to be an actual member of Al-Quada; he was only proven to be a propagandist. Hence, the portion of the 5th Amendment that you bolded is irrelevant.

As I said before, Al-Awlaki was never proven to be an actual member of Al-Quada; he was only proven to be a propagandist. Hence, the portion of the 5th Amendment that you bolded is irrelevant.King-Kai

Membership in Al-Qaeda aside, he was a propagandist who was spreading violent rhetoric against the US, so I'd say that could be construed to be a public danger.

Don't be naive. Every administration pushes the envelope on occassion. If they didn't, then you probablywouldn't want them as your leaders.