When Should Impeachment Be Used?

[Grub]

Impeachment has been tossed about by both sides in the US over the past few Presidents. Clinton was actually impeached for lying under oath, but was not convicted. With Bush, some thought he purposely lied and wanted his impeachment. I do not want to argue the past, but I do want to bring the focus on the role of the President.

When a US President takes office, that person agrees to the oath of "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

With President Obama, his pushing for and signing of the US health care bill is in direct opposition to the US Constitution by mandating that citizens buy a product the government has chosen for you. This is also despite the will of the American people.

By signing this bill that is against the Constitutional foundation we were built on, has President Obama violated this sacred oath he took and instead of preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution, he has actually sought to weaken, modify and dismiss one of the important pillars of our nation.

In this thread, I am interested in the following:
1) For people that believe this bill is indeed constitutional, please support your claim with a citation from the Constitution.
2) If this bill is not supported by the Constitution, do you still support it anyway?
3) If this bill is unconstitutional, has the President really done something impeachable?

I get the feeling that many people, including some Congressmen who voted for this, don't really care about the Constitution and just like the idea of the government putting their hands in health care.

[Anime Daisuki]

Past Presidents and congresses have done much more drastic things. Recall during the reconstruction period, a Republican majority was able to force legislation thru Congress giving African Americans in the South the right to vote. Using their super majority, they were able to amend the Constitution at will. It is a good thing in hindsight, but at that time at least half of America (the South) saw it as the end of their "freedom".

The fact is, every significant expansion of government in the past; such as the various Social Security and Tax Acts; had been deemed unconstitutional by the opposite party.

Ultimately it all boils down to which party holds the majority and what the people want. If the impeachment idea is viable, the Republicans would have started the process already.

[Guy]

1) Article I Section 8 clause i

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..."

XVI Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

It's simply a tax. Nowhere does it say Congress can't create its own criteria for who does and who does not pay the tax.

3) As long as he believed it is not unconstitutional, he has done nothing to break his oath.

[Grub]

Guy0307, a tax for just *not* having health insurance is far beyond the powers of congress. You mention the right of congress to tax, but where in the Constitution does it say that congress has the power to make you buy a product

SPOILER: Click to show

that it will ultimately be the only one selling to you

? You can't find it because it is not there. Anyone calling this just simply a tax is using a cop out. All this is is an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth, an unamerican principle.

Others have also tried to use the commerce clause to support this unconstitutional law, but that regulates interstate commerce. How is going to your neighborhood doctor for a check up interstate commerce?

Furthermore, the 10th amendment limits the power of congress (for taxes or anything else) to only that which was given in the Constitution. Congress does have the right to give taxes, but it does not have the right to demand that all people buy a service they deem fit. This goes beyond the scope of their power.

What if congress gave a tax to anyone weighing over 180 pounds? What if they gave a tax to anyone who didn't eat vegetables with each meal? What if they taxed you if you didn't change your oil every 3,000 miles, etc? The US government is not supposed to be our mother. We were not founded to be a nanny state. Congress does have the right to come up with taxes, but it does not have the right to create a situation that is out of the realm of the power given to them in the Constitution and then tax people for that.

[Guy]

Legally, it doesn't 'demand' anything, only lays the tax on you.

The examples you have given (maybe except the last one) would probably all be ruled as discriminating against certain people, which would probably be ruled illegal/unconstitutional. Otherwise, yes, that would be constitutional. Again, it specifically says in the sixteenth amendment that Congress may lay taxes however it likes.

I am not going to ask you where you came up that it is Unamerican, however, I'd instead ask you to think what is bad with a little distribution of wealth. You know, help the poor guy. I believe someone on this board told me sometime charity is no longer charity when it is forced, but you should still know you are doing the right thing.

There are people out there who would LIVE INSTEAD OF DYING thanks to this legislation. Heck, I'd be more then willing to pay for that.

EDIT: Oh, and please call me Guy.

EDIT II: The Commerce Clause gives Congress a lot more power than you'd think.

In Gonzales v. Raich, a Californian sued the federal government as Feds entered her home and destroyed the [medical] marijuana plants she was growing. Medical marijuana is permitted under California law, however is prohibited under federal law. The Supreme Court decided that as the plants had the potential of entering the interstate market, therefore the federal government has power over them.

Going by precedent, your doctor has the potential to have someone living outside your state coming to them, and therefore could effect interstate commerce.

[Grub]

Again, it specifically says in the sixteenth amendment that Congress may lay taxes however it likes.

No, it doesn't and that a big issue you need to realize. Congress does not have unlimited power to tax. Congress does indeed have limited power and that is how this nation was founded. Please read some quotes I found below from some of our founders James Madison & Thomas Jefferson and then tell me again that congress has unlimited powers to tax.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted." --James Madison (primary author of the Constitution) in a letter to James Robertson

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the specifications which limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare? --James Madison, Federalist #41

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."--James Madison, Speech to Congress, 6 Feb. 1792

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." -- James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"The construction applied... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution... Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385

[Grub]

I'd instead ask you to think what is bad with a little distribution of wealth. You know, help the poor guy. I believe someone on this board told me sometime charity is no longer charity when it is forced, but you should still know you are doing the right thing.

There are people out there who would LIVE INSTEAD OF DYING thanks to this legislation. Heck, I'd be more then willing to pay for that.

It is indeed good to help the unfortunate, help the little guy, etc., but do it on your own or do it through other organizations like churches or groups or clubs. You know a lot of people already give to charitable organizations. If you would be willing to pay to help the little guy then do it on your own, that is actually a really good thing to do and it is too bad that more people don't. Our Constitution limits the power of the federal government, though. It is not the job of the gov't to tell us what to buy, for good or bad. If you want to help people, do that, but it is not the role of gov't to force you to do that.

[Estayland]

Laws are ruled unconstitutional quite often. Recently, part of McCain-Feingold was deemed unconstitutional. Does this warrant impeachment? The Constitution only provides for 2 reasons to be impeached: treason and "high crimes and misdemeanors." Every President and every Congress has passed some law that is later deemed unconstitutional. While I believe healthcare is a gross violation of the constitution, it doesn't warrant impeachment.

Wealth distribution is theft. The "rich" did nothing to deserve their money being taken from them and given to those that didnt work for their money, What incentive does it give for "rich" people to continue to be productive? Without "rich," who would have jobs?

What incentive do "poor" get to better themselves if we continue to give them handouts? What is poor anyway? A regular TV instead of LCD? A 1980s car instead of newer? Basic cable instead of premium channels? The poor in the US get it a heck of a lot better than most people in other countries.

I love answering questions with questions.

[Guy]

Grub, these quotes were all about these two words appearing in the Constitution. It actually has very little to do with revenues.

So if the government shouldn't help the poor guy, why is there progressive taxation? Or are you opposed to that too?

Sorry Grub, in today's world, the government needs to care for everyone. If the guy who earns more than a million dollars a year can't spare a few thousands of dollars to make sure no-one dies for no reason, well I'm sorry, I wouldn't want him in my country.

Grub, how is it bad for you if the Federal Government handles your health insurance? The alternative is a private corporation which is only there for profit and screw all?

SO WHAT IF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO AND SO! Can't you admit they were wrong? That they lived in a different world? They even had slaves for god's sake!

[Grub]

So if the government shouldn't help the poor guy, why is there progressive taxation? Or are you opposed to that too?

I don't know if the gov't would have enough money if we ever went to a flat tax. Just on the fairness of it, I would be for a flat tax. When politician's talk about others paying their "fair share" of taxes it kind of makes me sick because the top 5% of wage earners pay 50+% of the taxes in the US. Is that anywhere close to fair?

Sorry Grub, in today's world, the government needs to care for everyone.

If this is how people think then I shudder when I think of the future of this nation. The government has certain responsibilities, like protecting us from invasion, keeping the roads working, etc., but there are limits to its power. Our government was set up to have limited power. We have become a great nation by adhering to these principles. If we deviate from the constitutional foundations of this republic we will lose our way and it will hasten the end of the United States. We don't have to ignore our successful past. There are other ways to do things rather than trampling on the Constitution.

[Grub]

Also, it is important to note that Guy is not an American or at least isn't writing from the US right now. Feel free to do things in your country any way you like, but it is important for America to stay true to the constitutional foundations it was build upon.

[Guy]

No Grub, I am not American, and I'm pretty sure I made that clear in at least one of the other debates I had. That, however, does not mean I cannot debate US politics, or relate to your situation. We here in Australia also have a Constitution and founders.

Grub, you have made your point. Sticking to the Constitution (which was written 200+ years ago) is more important than doing the morally right thing. The Constitution is what made the US great? Economic growth did. Mind you though, 12 nations have a higher HDI (the UN index of well-being in a country) than the US. Australia is one of them (we're second). Do you know why? Income equality.

[Grub]

Sticking to the Constitution (which was written 200+ years ago) is more important than doing the morally right thing.

So in your eyes it is only morally right to have the government care for you? Those aren't the principles we were founded on. I love Australia, but you guys do your own thing and we'll do things our way. I think the people down there would respectfully say the same thing about us.

[Guy]

Grub, firstly, your way, according to opinion polls, is no longer what the majority of Americans support.

Secondly, an Australian and an American can debate politics. The issue of health care is not a strictly American issue. I am portraying my views and you yours, and please do note that a lot of Americans agree with me.

[The Candy Lane]

Apr 4, 2010 3:56:45 GMT -5 Grub said:

Guy0307, a tax for just *not* having health insurance is far beyond the powers of congress. You mention the right of congress to tax, but where in the Constitution does it say that congress has the power to make you buy a product

SPOILER: Click to show

that it will ultimately be the only one selling to you

? You can't find it because it is not there. Anyone calling this just simply a tax is using a cop out. All this is is an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth, an unamerican principle.

So u think health care is a commodity, and that insurance companies should have the right to drop you?
Health care and the access to it is not a commodity, it should not be 'bought or sold' everyone should have access to it freely.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Ur constitutions foundation is the DI so i'll use that quote. Life and liberty are God given rights, as is the pursuit of happiness. now i understand that u may not be be happy to purchase health insurance, u may not be happy that said insurance company can not drop your coverage, but the government and the constitution are not only supposed to protect corporations and private entities, its main focus is the protection of the populace, the citizens. Seeing as this healthcare bill will save lives, thus protecting the Right of Life, I see no reason to oppose this bill unless u are:
A - Rich enough to buy good coverage/pay w/o it.
B - an owner or investor in a Insurance company
C - not fully understanding of the term "Ur insurance company cant drop you" or "providing coverage for the poor"
D - u have lots of pets (americans spend more on pets then this bill will cost)
E - An every man for himself, hardcore darwinist

What if congress gave a tax to anyone weighing over 180 pounds? What if they gave a tax to anyone who didn't eat vegetables with each meal? What if they taxed you if you didn't change your oil every 3,000 miles, etc? The US government is not supposed to be our mother. We were not founded to be a nanny state. Congress does have the right to come up with taxes, but it does not have the right to create a situation that is out of the realm of the power given to them in the Constitution and then tax people for that.

There not talking about some ridicules tax on fat people. or even more reasonable transfat food tax. its taxes that will actually be spent on u. its will actually benefit u. It will make ur nation better.
As rick mercer put it "What part of everybody gets good health care are u idiots not getting"

[Mutanatia]

(ooh boy! my first debate response! Nobody bite me please )

Okay, three things:
A) A law that, once passed, that is deemed to be unconstitutional (assuming this bill is) can be struck down by the Supreme Court. i know what you're thinking, and let me address this: Yes, there are more liberals that conservatives on the Supreme Court. However, they've already broken with Obama on Campaign Finance Reform, and that's a step in the right directions. It's a system of checks and balances my friend.
B) Supposing that the law is found unconstitutional for a moment. Supreme Court cases ranging all the way back to the first one by John Marshall, to the illegal imprisonment of someone who was rebelling in a Union state, to the most recent Campaign Finance Law (McCain-Feingold) have all be found to be, in some form or another, in violation of the constitution. Using these as precedent for a moment: Were any of those Presidents who were sitting at the time impeached? No. It seems to me that impeachment should be used, if in any case of a law, on the Senate/House/Congress that has written the bill. See, Obama didn't write the bill. He probably would have wanted it even stronger. Congress wrote the bill; if anyone, Congress should legally pay the price. Yes, he signed it. But he doesn't have a "real" choice over how it was worded.
C) To bring up a politician here, let's use Ed Randell. Before I go on, let me mention to you that his is the current governor of Pennsylvania. Now, before you go calling me a hippie-loving Democrat, there has actually been a time when I've agreed with Karl Rove. I apparently am either a REALLY open-minded person, or am a VERY confused independent
Anyway, from my blog, this is what he said:

I agree with Ed Randell (D, Governor of Pennsylvania), on This Week
The commerce clause does, in fact, justify the mandatory requirement for the purchase of health insurance. Having taken a course in constitutional law and on the Supreme Court in college (the teacher was a conservative), the commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The healthcare bill is just that at the core issue: purchasing healthcare effects commerce via interstate venues. Before you get too excited and think that this clause is stupid, consider that the Civil Rights Act was defended via the interstate commerce clause to stop segregation. In fact, even BEFORE he said that, that's the line I was thinking along too. Now, whether that will hold up remains to be seen, but I would consider it to be a legitimate Constitutional argument

A FRIENDLY challenge to Grub and all you Republicans out there:

Yes, the States are suing. But, can you find me one Democrat who is suing? I think that even this is being politicized. Find one (A Democrat who is suing) for me, and I might think there's a bit more truth to what you say

[The Candy Lane]

Apr 4, 2010 3:56:45 GMT -5 Grub said:

Others have also tried to use the commerce clause to support this unconstitutional law, but that regulates interstate commerce. How is going to your neighborhood doctor for a check up interstate commerce?

Doctor checkups are no more a commerce then Health should be a product. Neither should be bought and sold. Both should be for all citizens, neither should exclude the lower class just because there lower class.
The logic that ppl use to say health care should not be government regulated/funded/controlled should be applied to there local fire department. after all, fire protection is just as much a product as health. and dont say 'this is about insurance' cuz its not, the bill is about providing affordable access to health care. its about saving lives.
so tell me how saving lives is unconstitutional or morally wrong?

[Estayland]

Apr 5, 2010 18:57:37 GMT -5 Mutanatia said:

A FRIENDLY challenge to Grub and all you Republicans out there:

Yes, the States are suing. But, can you find me one Democrat who is suing? I think that even this is being politicized. Find one (A Democrat who is suing) for me, and I might think there's a bit more truth to what you say

I love a good challenge.

washingtonindependent.com/80119/twelve-republican-attorneys-general-and-one-democrat-file-lawsuit-against-health-care-reform

[Mutanatia]

Well, well, well. *applauds you* Perhaps there is a bit more to this than being a total partisan divide after all. Well, played sir!

[Klington]

Apr 5, 2010 23:11:56 GMT -5 Mutanatia said:

Well, well, well. *applauds you* Perhaps there is a bit more to this than being a total partisan divide after all. Well, played sir!

Mutanatia. I don't have a problem with liberal ideology. I don't have a problem with conservative ideology. They are flip sides of a coin; both valid, both have concrete existence. I do have a problem with someone forcing viewpoints on other people.

[Mutanatia]

(That wasn't meant to be condescending. Sorry if anyone took it that way >.>)

EDIT: I actually realized that Klington may not have been referencing my last statement as enforcing ideology, so I'll respond. The problem with the whole "not enforcing ideology" on other people is that, if it was done that way, there would be no laws, constructive or otherwise on the book as any law is enforcing some sort of ideology.

[Klington]

Apr 5, 2010 23:31:18 GMT -5 Mutanatia said:

(That wasn't meant to be condescending. Sorry if anyone took it that way >.>)

Not at all. Just explaining my viewpoint on the issue. Do you think it is a partisan issue, or do you not see why other people can't agree on it?

[Klington]

Apr 5, 2010 23:31:18 GMT -5 Mutanatia said:

(That wasn't meant to be condescending. Sorry if anyone took it that way >.>)

EDIT: I actually realized that Klington may not have been referencing my last statement as enforcing ideology, so I'll respond. The problem with the whole "not enforcing ideology" on other people is that, if it was done that way, there would be no laws, constructive or otherwise on the book as any law is enforcing some sort of ideology.

Double post for your edit. I agree. But it works in reverse as well, if we do it constantly we have a tyranny by majority. That, indeed, is a horrible thing.

[Mutanatia]

Agreed. Well, yes, I feel as though it is a partisan issue. However, considering how staunch Democrats were in supporting this (they had to basically do a party line vote, and "Veto"--for lack of a better word--any amendment that crossed their way in the Senate. In fact, it got so bad that one Republican placed an amendment on the floor stating that all Viagra-like drugs not be covered for sex offenders, and the Democrat was all like "This is a diversionary tactic." Personally, I think that was a *very* bad thing to do for something as serious as that), and considering how the Democrats started out with a public option and they kinda-sorta-almost-but-not-quite met the Republicans halfway with the exchange idea (of course, all the Republicans went "Nope, sorry. We like some things in this bill (there were some things if you could believe it ), but the whole thing is bad."). So in conclusion, yes, I fear as though this is a partisan issue. What is surprising, however, is that there is actually a *Democrat* that is suing to get the law overturned. Conservative or not (some so-called Blue Dog Democrats voted for this bill), this is a surprise. That's why I'm sort of thinking that maybe the unconstitutionality itself may be not partisan, but the bill itself most definitely is.

[Grub]

Something else that not many are mentioning about this is the real long term cost of this program. The CBO says that this won't cost people money. If anyone thinks the gov't is going to run a program of this magnitude and keep costs down then you apparently don't know the US gov't. Like other massive programs like Social Security & Medicare, this program is not fiscally responsible. In the end, it is a program we cannot financially support. The support of this program will also have unintended consequences of lowering the other important constitutionally supported things the gov't should be spending money on.

Alans Greenspan said this of the health care bill the other day, "Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told me the probability that the CBO was too rosy in its projections of health care costs is “much higher than we would like”. “You have to ask yourself, ‘What happens if we are wrong?’”, Greenspan said in my exclusive “This Week” interview. The consequences, he ominously warned, “are very severe”. blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/greenspan-on-heath-care-costs-severe-consequences-if-cbo-is-wrong.html

Part of being good stewards of our resources is also spending money in a responsible way. This program will balloon over time and bankrupt the nation. Throwing outt all other arguments, the people who support this bill are being very naive from a financial standpoint. Like Greenspan says, what if those estimates are wrong. Look at the track record the government has on estimating costs and think about what this bill is supposed to do. If you really think about you will realize that financially this bill could be catastrophic.

[OutSiderz]

Yeah, maybe your right........it cost too much to save lives

[Guy]

Apr 6, 2010 0:10:43 GMT -5 OutSiderz said:

Yeah, maybe your right........it cost too much to save lives

No such thing.

[OutSiderz]

agreed.....hence the sarcasm

If the good health of citizens cost to much, big deal.......finally we're spending too much on a good thing

[The Candy Lane]

What but that meens less poor people die! or worse yet, the rich are on the same level as the poor

[OutSiderz]

Believe it or not we are all on the same level at some point.......as frightening as that may seem