Thread: S.D. Republican Party calls for Obama impeachment

As the old cliché goes there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that the South Dakota Republican Party voted to impeach the Marxist puke Obama. The bad news is that the resolution carried only by 15 votes out of a total of 367. God bless the South Dakota GOP, but even in its fines hour, we see the weakness that has allowed the Marxist Obama to continue his illegal abuses of power.

I have no patience with the timid voices that say impeachment is the wrong thing to do. One delegate a Mr. Wheeler stated, "I believe we should not use the power of impeachment for political purposes; By doing this, we would look petty, like we can't achieve our political goals through the political process." Who is this guy?

“The political process?” Is he referring to the “political process” that allows Obama to totally ignore the Constitutional limitations on Presidential power while the GOP politicians allow him to get away with it? They tell us they are helpless to stop him. So then what they are saying is Obama can violate the Constitution, but the GOP members of congress must strictly obey it. This is crap. The rule of law only works if everybody in authority follows the law. If Obama does not follow the rules, then his opponents are not required to follow them either. Obama has created this Constructional crisis in which only he and his Marxists junta are allowed to ignore the law that everybody else is supposed to obey. We must have a confrontation over this Constitutional crisis. If Obama can make up his own laws, then Congress can also, to stop him. For example, why can the House not impeach Obama and then ignore the Senate and demand that because of the House's impeachment he must resign from Office? After all he has been impeached, has he not? Of course the Senate will become livid but so what? Obama ignores the Senate and House constantly.

But even now the House of Representatives has power it will not use. It can cut off funding for every one of Obama’s favorite laws and bureaucracies; they can demand, that to get the money back, he must stop his abuse of power and prove he is faithfully executing his duties of office (like really deporting illegal aliens and building a border fence. But you can see this does not happen because the majority in the House are RINO Republicans.

South Dakota GOP Passes Resolution Calling for Obama’s Impeachment

by Evan McMurry | 3:52 pm, June 22nd, 2014 334

The South Dakota Republican Party passed a resolution Saturday alleging President Barack Obama has “violated his oath of office in numerous ways” and calling for his impeachment.
The resolution, sponsored by a member who boasted that he had a “thick book on impeachable offenses of the president,” was passed 191-176 at the party’s state convention over the weekend. Obama’s alleged offenses ranged from his claim that people could keep their insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act to new EPA regulations to the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap.

RELATED: GOP Rep.: House ‘Probably’ Has the Votes to Impeach Obama

Alas, the party’s only Representative didn’t seem too into the idea of initiating impeachment proceedings.

“The congresswoman currently believes the best way for Congress to hold the president accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations into the administration’s actions like the ongoing VA scandal, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi, and the recent Taliban prisoner exchange,” a spokesperson for Representative Kristi Noem (R-SD) said.

[h/t Argus Leader]

[Image via Everett Collection / Shutterstock.com]
——
>> Follow Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) on Twitter


http://www.mediaite.com/print/south-...s-impeachment/

South Dakota GOP Votes To Impeach Obama

Author TellMeNow
12 hours ago

Obama has gotten away with a growing number of scandals and misconduct that other Presidents would not have even dreamed of. One Republican group has had more than enough of his antics and is organizing efforts to impeach him. On Saturday, the South Dakota Republican Party passed a resolution to impeach Obama at their convention.
Delegates voted 191-176 in favor of the resolution, which states that the President has, “violated his oath of office in numerous ways”. That is almost an understatement at this point.
The resolution states three clear instances which really have South Dakota Republicans ticked off; namely, the release of five high-ranking Taliban terrorists in exchange for the traitor Bowe Berghdal, the ‘if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance’ lie of the century, and recent EPA regulations on power plants.
Though most clearly support the resolution to impeach Obama, there are some South Dakota residents who disagree. Delegate David Wheeler of Beadle County stated:

“I believe we should not use the power of impeachment for political purposes. By doing this, we would look petty, like we can’t achieve our political goals through the political process.”

South Dakota’s only Representative in the House does not seem very keen to the idea of impeachment. Kristi Noem released a statement via her spokesperson:

“The congresswoman currently believes the best way for Congress to hold the president accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations into the administration’s actions like the ongoing VA scandal, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi, and the recent Taliban prisoner exchange.”

Noem is the only person who could push the resolution through to Congress and if she was doing her job, she would listen to the voices of the people who elected her and take their resolution to impeach Obama seriously.
There is a bigger issue which impedes the process of impeaching President Obama, though. If a bill were introduced by Congress, it would have to pass through the Senate with a two-thirds majority vote and it will be a cold day in Hell before Obama’s cronies in the Senate let that happen.
This isn’t the first group to call for Obama’s impeachment, but let’s cross our fingers that these guys are actually successful in their efforts.

http://tellmenow.com/2014/06/south-d...impeach-obama/

Allen West

Impeachment aside, lawyers now believe there are four reasons Congress would have legal standing to sue and stop this lawless president. http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/4-grou...-boehner-guts/

4 grounds for suing Obama. Does Boehner have the guts?

Written by Allen West on June 23, 2014
Share57 Tweet126 3 Email9 Share275



In 2008 after winning the presidential election, Barack Hussein Obama trotted out to give his victory speech — a speech of defeat for America — and stated something that slid past everyone’s attention: “Chicago is coming to Washington DC.”
The crowd there in Chicago cheered and fools wept with joy. But no one realized exactly what that meant: the thug-style corruption that has defined Chicago politics was coming to the nation’s capitol — and indeed it has.
The Beltway pundits and moderate Republicans refused to see what we all knew, that Barack Hussein Obama was a president who held the US Constitution in contempt. Those of us who recognized and described what was occurring were negatively attacked, but we knew it would be clear to all eventually.
And so I guess we could say better late than never, but based on George F. Will’s recent piece in the Washington Post, he’s come to the realization as well:

“Serious as are the policy disagreements roiling Washington, none is as important as the structural distortion threatening constitutional equilibrium. Institutional derangement driven by unchecked presidential aggrandizement did not begin with Barack Obama, but his offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity and qualitatively different.”

In simple words, Barack Obama does not believe in the fundamental premises of our government, coequal branches, separation of powers, and checks and balances — all emanating from Montesquieu’s writings in “The Spirit of the Laws.”
Some will respond — actually try to defend — by stating all executives use presidential discretion. However, Will points out the difference, “Presidents must exercise some discretion in interpreting laws, must have some latitude in allocating finite resources to the enforcement of laws and must have some freedom to act in the absence of law. Obama, however, has perpetrated more than 40 suspensions of laws. Were presidents the sole judges of the limits of their latitude, they would effectively have plenary power to vitiate the separation of powers, the Founders’ bulwark against despotism.”
Will says that regarding immigration, health care, welfare, education, drug policy and more, Obama has suspended, waived and rewritten laws, including the Affordable Care Act. It required the employer mandate to begin this year. But Obama wrote a new law, giving to companies of a certain size a delay until 2016 and stipulating that other employers must certify they will not drop employees to avoid the mandate. It is here where Will believes there is a potential to take action. He recommends the House of Representatives pursue the course of bringing a lawsuit against Obama and feels there is standing.
David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer, and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University have studied the case law and believe that standing can be obtained conditional on four things:
1. That a majority of one congressional chamber explicitly authorizes a lawsuit.
2. That the lawsuit concern the president’s “benevolent” suspension of an unambiguous provision of law that, by pleasing a private faction, precludes the appearance of a private plaintiff.
3. That Congress cannot administer political self-help by remedying the presidential action by simply repealing the law.
4. And that the injury amounts to nullification of Congress’s power.
Will’s plan would be for a House lawsuit, advocated by Rivkin and Foley, that would unify fractious Republicans while dramatizing Obama’s lawlessness. The House would bring a civil suit seeking a judicial declaration that Obama has violated the separation of powers by effectively nullifying a specific provision of a law, thereby diminishing Congress’s power. Authorization of this lawsuit by the House would give Congress “standing” to sue.
That approach is fine by me, but as a military fella, I do believe in the tactic of the “double envelopment.” I would also pursue impeachment articles based on the unilateral decision to release the Taliban 5, as I previously outlined. The only question I’m quite sure both George Will and I would ask is, does Boehner and — now McCarthy — have what it takes to stand up to a lawless president, a tyrant?

Tags: Barack Obama, impeachment, John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy

http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/4-grou...-boehner-guts/

Originally Posted by HAPPY2BME

"The congresswoman currently believes the best way for Congress to hold the president accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations into the administration's actions like the ongoing VA scandal, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi, and the recent Taliban prisoner exchange," said Brittany Comins, Noem's spokesperson.

And how's THAT working out?!

http://www.alipac.us/f19/charles-kra...4/#post1419543

South Dakota GOP Asks House Rep To Start Obama Impeachment Proceedings

June 24, 2014 by Ben Bullard

SPECIAL

The South Dakota Republican Party voted by a narrow margin over the weekend to ask its single delegate to the House of Representatives, Republican Congresswoman Kristi Noem, to initiate articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama.
By a 191-176 vote, the State party approved a resolution which “calls on our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States,” according to the Sioux Falls-based Argus Leader, because the President has “violated his oath of office in numerous ways.”
The gesture marks the latest instance of impeachment saber-rattling, continuing a conservative trope that has endured throughout Obama’s first 5.5 years in office.
South Dakota’s GOP leaders evidently realize the measure’s impact is, likely, merely symbolic. But their remarks indicate the resolution represents an important demarcation of the party’s collective belief that Obama has flouted the Constitution, brought enduring shame to the institutions of public service at the Federal level, and subverted the intended balance of power between the three branches of government.
According to the Argus Leader, Allen Unruh, the measure’s sponsor, believes the South Dakota GOP will “send a symbolic message that liberty shall be the law of the land” by formally requesting impeachment proceedings.
“If anyone in this room cannot see the horrendous, traitorous scandals run by the Obama administration, I will pray for you,” Larry Klipp, another of the resolution’s supporters, told the party.
But Noem — who has been plenty critical of Obama — isn’t likely to forge ahead with the impeachment idea.
“The Congresswoman currently believes the best way for Congress to hold the President accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations into the Administration’s actions like the ongoing VA scandal, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi, and the recent Taliban prisoner exchange,” a Noem staffer told the newspaper following the impeachment vote.

http://personalliberty.com/south-dak...t-proceedings/