U.S. Representative Walter Jones, R-NC, claims Republicans must fulfill their constitutional duties by impeaching Obama due to immigration.
Wikipedia states that Walter Jones, Jr. (born February 10, 1943) is the U.S. Representative for North Carolina’s 3rd congressional district, serving since 1995.
House Republicans seem convinced that executive action on immigration (or anything else) must be illegal. According to the New Republic, both Presidents Reagan and Bush took executive action on immigration (as Obama wants to). The Atlantic’s David Frum wrote about Reagan’s executive actions on immigration. “Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose,” Frum writes. “Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife.
“Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies.”
In other words, it would be unfair if Reagan and Bush deported children and spouses of newly-legalized immigrants. In fact, Bush’s executive action was called the “family fairness” program.
It begs the question, “Why can’t President Obama do what Reagan and Bush did?”
David Pakman video.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a bloc of Republican lawmakers is seeking to use must-pass spending legislation in the final weeks of the year to place limits on President Barack Obama’s ability to loosen immigration rules.
This could threaten to split the party in Congress.
AZCentral reports that President Obama’s plans to reveal a 10-part immigration reform plan via executive order as early as next week may trump a move by Republicans shut down the government in order to stop him.
However, some Republicans are pushing for Congress to make a move before Mr. Obama does. More than 50 House lawmakers have signed a letter saying that language barring the president from acting alone should be attached to legislation needed to keep the government operating after Dec. 11, when its current funding expires.
Other Republicans, including GOP leaders, are wary of forcing a budget showdown with the president over the issue, saying voters are eager for politicians to work together.
So is a new shutdown looming?
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who is poised to become Senate majority leader in January, has said flatly that there will be no government shutdown like the one in 2013 that was politically harmful to his party.
The result is that barely a week after their broad election victories, party leaders will have to decide whether to override conservatives’ demands in favor of a more pragmatic approach.
At issue is whether some of the 11 million people who are in the U.S. illegally should be allowed to live and work openly, and whether Mr. Obama has the authority to allow that without legislation.
It is unclear why the President wouldn’t have the authority, as executive orders are part of the authority legally provided to every president.
Immigration advocates say there is legal precedent and a humanitarian imperative for Mr. Obama to act.
Republicans say he is in danger of exceeding his authority.
GOP leaders made clear in the days after the election that they wanted to set their own agenda when they control of both chambers next year without any lingering fights about spending for the current fiscal year.
The leaders also want to look for other ways to push back against the president’s moves on immigration, said a senior Senate GOP aide. Over the past year, there has been open and defiant talk of impeachment by members of the Republican party.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R., Ky.) said it would be unrealistic to expect the president would sign a spending bill that included immigration language.
“I don’t want a shutdown,” he said. “You should not take a hostage that you can’t shoot.”
Some Republicans argue that if they cannot move a spending bill for the rest of the fiscal year with the immigration language attached, they should pass a short-term funding measure and revisit the matter early next year.
Mr. Obama’s legal rationale is likely to be that it would be impossible to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants, so those with deep ties to the U.S. should be allowed to live and work openly in the country.
There seems to be a movement from some corners of the Republican party to call for the impeachment of the president.
Most Democrats, of course, would find the idea unfounded and unjustified.
The South Dakota Republican party has called for it, former representative Allen West (FL) has called for it, and Representative Steve Stockman, R-Texas, reportedly gave all House members copies of the book “Impeachable Offenses: The Case For Removing Barack Obama From Office” by Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott.
Representative Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), claims that there just may be enough votes in the House to impeach President Obama. (It is not clear where he gets his numbers.)
So, let’s take a look at how impeachment works. How does it work? What hurdles have to be crossed?
Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. However, impeachment is just one of two stages towards removal from office.
Impeachment is only a legal statement of charges, similar to an indictment.
Impeachment proceedings may be commenced by a member of the House of Representatives on his or her own initiative. This is done either by presenting a list of the charges under oath or by asking for referral to a Judiciary committee.
The Judiciary Committee begins a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment and would bring it to a vote.
The house must pass at least one article of impeachment with a simple majority.
The second stage towards removal from office is the trial. The Senate has the sole power to try an impeachment, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. That would be 67 votes.
The trial is not actually a criminal trial. It is simply a trial for removal from office.
So, the situation becomes clear regarding an Obama impeachment. The Republicans do have a majority in the House, so an impeachment may be possible. The vote to actually have him removed from office would then go to the Senate, and must be passed by a 2/3 vote.
Currently, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, so removal from office would be unlikely.
Of course, things could change after the mid-term election.
It is also not clear that Republicans have a “legal basis” for impeachment. However, the “legal basis” for impeachment is quite vague.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
An attempt to convict the president on charges of Bribery would be unlikely. Treason may be more likely than Bribery.
“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is more likely, as the definition is vague. It was once defined by Gerald Ford as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
There are general guidelines, but it is generally up to the House of Representatives to decide what is a high crime and misdemeanor and what isn’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/02/232163/time-to-impeach-obama.html#storylink=cpy http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm
https://www.boundless.com/political-science/congress/the-oversight-function/impeachment/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/02/232163/time-to-impeach-obama.html
OK, Fine. 