The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.
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.
In the book, A History of the American Constitution (1990), written by Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, the Constitutional Conventionwho had deliberated the articles of the Constitution pertaining impeachment led to the final text cited above. In final analysis:
Finally, there were many debates about the exact procedures that should be followed in cases of impeachment. Some delegates mistrusted the Senate, and some the House. Many were worried that neither branch would have enough firmness of purpose to oppose the president. A few were concerned that providing for impeachment would subordinate the president to the legislature. The Convention in fact could not reach agreement on most of the issues arising out of impeachment procedures. The Committee on Detail thus forged its own compromise provisions that appear in the Constitution. Although there were some grumbling, the Committee’s basic ideas were accepted.
The Senate is the body that votes to convict impeachment. Presently, the Democrat Party is the majority and the Republicans serving in the Senate, for the most part, do not possess enough firmness of purpose to oppose the president
. The major reason for this is that the Obama administration has used the race card whenever protests of violations of ethic codes of its members, like Eric Holder
, cried racism when legitimately accused for wrongdoing. While impeachment proceedings have occurred against President Andrew Johnson
in 1868, the Senate was one vote away from conviction. President William Clinton did not get impeached either, despite proof of lying under oath and his unethical actions as President of the United States. Andrew Johnson
was a Democrat, in the days when the Vice President was elected separately. However, despite being a former slave owner, he sided with Lincoln and denounced secession as treason. Becoming president because Lincoln was assassinated, Congress opposed his leniency towards Southerners and Reconstruction
– as Lincoln declared should be in order to heal the nation. This caused resentment in Congress and thus led to impeachment proceedings. Senator Benjamin Wade
(Republican) publicly stood by Johnson in his efforts to justly execute Reconstruction policies and projects; however, Senator Wade cast a vote to convict Johnson because many historians believe it would make him the next President of the United States.
President Barack H. Obama should have already undergone impeachment proceedings. I originally believed it was held off because the Republicans thought their poster boy, Mitt Romney would win the presidential election, the GOP establishment choosing him instead of Ron Paul to stand behind to win. He certainly would have made a better showing at the presidential election debates. It is because he has the Constitution behind him and knowledge of what those that operate our government should be using as their guideline.
First, BH Obama should not have been elected as a senator, much less the president. He was clearly tied with convicted felon Tony Rezko
, voter fraud
, and, a racist anti-US preacher, a former American terrorist (William Ayers
) now a professor at the Chicago University. I did not mention the birth certificate issue because there was not enough evidence. Of course, it was not pursued upon extensively until after he had been president for over two years.
The Democrats do not believe that association marks the character of an individual, unless it is a political opponent.
President Obama cannot sign the UN Small Arms Treaty
without violating the Second Amendment – no matter what he has stated. It is an agreement that means that nations who sign must comply
. It is why it is so important for him and cohorts in Congress to pass an unconstitutional firearm ban bill, but uses the excuse that it is for the safety of our children – as though disarming lawful citizens will permit crime. In one moment, President Obama states his support for the Second Amendment for:
…our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen.
In other words, while ordering 7,000 more “assault” rifles
for members of the Homeland Security agency, he is saying that citizens do not have the right defend themselves with the same firearms because his idea of the Second Amendment is the same attitude tyrants in history made excuses for firearm confiscation – for hunting purposes only. Those same weapons he wants to take away from law-abiding citizens, his Attorney General allowed such weapons to cross the border into Mexico and into the hands of the drug cartel.
Amid the fog surrounding the treaty process, however, one thing seemed clear: an issue that deeply involves American rights and freedoms is back on the table, linked to the lingering problem of how to keep conventional military weapons out of the hands of terrorists and extremists. The State Department itself, on a web page that also lists its “red line” reservations in the negotiations, calls it a “complex but critical issue
.” For many critics, however, the draft version of the treaty is also a mine field of clauses and propositions that mandate a much greater federal role in U.S. gun sales, and potentially tie the U.S. to the gun control agenda of other governments or regimes
“The treaty is drafted as if every nation in the world has centralized control of the arms industry and arms sales, which is not the case here,” said Ted Bromund, a security policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has followed the arms trade treaty process closely, and who believes the U.S. should bail out of the March treaty talks.
… most nations negotiating the treaty—which include Russia, China and Iran—“do not recognize the human right of self-defense” against tyrannical or murderous regimes—the essential basis of the Second Amendment.
Those nations are the worst human rights violators and arms exporters to rogue nations in the world – Why are we siding with them? Why are we trusting them?
Clearly, President Obama is about to sign away our nation’s sovereignty – another impeachable offense.
If the Obama administration and its puppet media states that such a treaty will not affect US laws – they are lying or not fit to hold public office or provide media information to the public.
The treaty will be just like President Obama’s flurry of executive orders – bypassing Congress or enforcing something before Congress approves – another series of issues to be included in an article of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama.
If a miracle occurs and politicians in Washington ever get the nerve to do the right thing and Obama is impeached; it would benefit justice if he then faces criminal charges in a federal court with the objective to put him behind bars.
This president and his administrative officials allowed an ambassador to be endangered by refusing requested additional security; and when under attack, were refused aid. Two Navy seals disobeyed the order to “stand down” and died trying to protect Ambassador Stevens and company. The ambassador was raped and murdered, the body being publicly displayed – an act of war for ambassadors has diplomatic immunity
. An example in history was when diplomats of Japan were in Washington when Pearl Harbor was attacked and we did nothing to them except put them on a plane to return home. That is international law.
Such actions and inactions by the president and his staff are impeachable offenses. Reason for impeachment is clear.
Our best answer to the UN Arms Treaty is to provide them with a notice to vacate US soil and hold their meetings of tyranny elsewhere – and cease funding that inefficient, corrupt world body organization.
Any organization who allows any say by an Islamic fascist like the president of Iran
should not be catered to, much less a member of. Iran funnels more arms to terrorists than any other rogue nation – and they are part of this treaty. As Wayne LaPierre
, NRA, stated
“Iran is well respected at the U.N.,” notes Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who calls the radical Islamic republic a member in good standing of the “club of governments” who pursue international gun control law for their own ends.And most of the killing of civilians in the developing world, he adds, “is done by governments in that club.”
Every congressional member who signs on to vote for Feinstein’s firearm ban should be removed from office. It will be a final warning to all politicians that our Second Amendment reads and means how it is written – not just for “hunting” and “sports” shooting firearms. Citizens should have any weapon a law enforcement officer is allowed to protect their property, lives, and plainly, their rights – against foreign and domestic enemies.
The corporate media’s manipulation and bias needs to be dealt with.
Shootings the media covers is designed in a way to push their cause against the Second Amendment. Sheriffs across our nation
are standing up and saying they are honoring their oaths of office and will not comply with registration, firearm confiscation, or banning of semiautomatic firearms. Obama’s response is to determine if his military leadership is willing to fire upon US citizens, providing a “litmus test
”. This is an important finding. It means that Obama is willing to declare martial law in order to enforce his unconstitutional acts.
Those incidents of mass shooting occurred in a No Guns Zone – shooters knowing no one would be armed. Here are incidents that you will not find being covered by corporate, Democrat-protecting media of citizens protecting themselves:
When the owner of a private farm returned home, he spotted two men in a pick-up truck trespassing on his property. The men had helped themselves to anything of value they could find in various buildings on the property. The owner armed himself with a handgun and confronted the men instructing them to stop, get out of the vehicle and lie on the ground. One man complied while the other got out of the vehicle and acted threateningly toward the homeowner. When the aggressive man reached into the bed of the pick-up, presumably for a weapon, the owner reacted in self-defense and fired. The man was later taken to the hospital and treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Both trespassers face felony charges including breaking and entering, larceny, and conspiracy.
A 35-year-old woman woke around 3:30 a.m. and checked on her husband, who was up late working on his computer. The couple was startled when their home alarm sounded. The woman’s husband checked their surveillance footage on his computer only to discover four masked men working to pry open a window. One of the men carried a rifle. As the woman dialed 911, her husband retrieved his own firearm. The intruders gained entry within minutes. The homeowner crouched behind a sofa and fired. The intruders returned fire before fleeing the home. No one was reportedly injured.
Roger Webster, owner of Webster’s Store and a female customer were standing in front of the store when two men approached and forced them back into the store. Webster and the customer were held at gunpoint and ordered to give up money from the cash register. Webster complied. When the men demanded even more money, Webster motioned as if retrieving more cash, but instead retrieved his handgun from the register and fired several rounds at the armed suspect. Both men fled. Neither Webster nor the customer were harmed.
These are just a few stories that occurs somewhere in the United States but you will never see or hear of it in corporate media news because it, like FBI annual reports, show that lawful armed citizens stop criminals, reduce violent crimes, and prevents death and injuries by exercising their rights of the Second Amendment.
Lawful citizens should not be punished for mentally disturbed people do, and most of all take away the firepower that would save lives and prevent injuries of victims of crimes.
If you are tired of constant threats of transgression against your rights, pick up the phone and tell your state and federal politicians. Contact your local county sheriff and ask if he lives by his oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States, and supports the Second Amendment. Americans must stand up and be counted and stop this continual battle to preserve our rights. Indeed, it is time to regain the rights and liberties we already lost – like property rights. We need constitutionalists to operate our government, not Democrats and Republicans.
The time to act is NOW – more than ever before. I do not want this to escalate into a situation where military personnel must choose whether to obey an unlawful order, against their enlistment oaths, or choose the right path of refusing an unlawful order and not transgressing upon their fellow citizens they are supposed to protect from enemies, both domestic and foreign. The only domestic enemies I see are those now operating our government and those who are allowed to establish Islamic fundamentalist training camps in the United States and allow religious and political doctrine and violent rhetoric against our traditions, our Constitution, and the People of the United States.
Foreign people who think they are above the US immigration laws have invaded our country for decades, or worse, they believe that they rightfully can claim United States real estate as part of Mexico. It happens because both political parties do not ensure that those elected enforce the laws. Since the Constitution clearly states that the president’s duties is to enforce laws legislated and signed by the president – that alone should be an impeachable offense, for it is a clear and present danger to our national security. Technically, because the Mexican government endorses this invasion, the United States should make it clear that any further invasion will be an act of war.
Evil can only triumph if good men do nothing. [Burke]
I believe there is enough good, patriotic constitutionalists left in America to restore our nation back to the constitutional republic as it was founded.