-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul
- Thread starter mandym
- Start date
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I've been saying that for two days. 
preacher4truth
Active Member
Please. Let's impeach him. I'm 100% for it. One more year of him is too much to take. :thumbsup:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
You would support his impeachment for something you consider legal?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Oh, he won't be impeached. Even if he was the Senate would not convict. This was a safe way to ignore the constitution. Too many pragmatic conservatives approve of the result.
preacher4truth
Active Member
preacher4truth
Active Member
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
That doesn't keep me from opposing the unconstitutional process. There was plenty of opportunity to make this legal. They didn't.
Despite the result, the president should be impeached for doing it wrong.
freeatlast
New Member
I've been saying that for two days.
Roger I have a question to reevaluate my position. I am not trying to debate you. I am interested in why you hold the position you hold. I have stated that I felt this was legal because the guy was deemed an enemy combatant since we are at war he is no different then any member of the enemy camp. Why do you feel that the constitution protects someone like this?
How is it any different then when the police kill someone who is on the run even though the person has not been convicted of a crime?
preacher4truth
Active Member
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I'll have to respond tomorrow. Typing on my phone is just to hard for a detailed post. Sorry.
The question remains as to the exception(s) to the fifth amendment contained in the text itself:
The following is/was the basis of the administration's decision to kill him.
There was imminent public danger of harm to Americans by his activities with those who have taken up arms against us as an act of war, there was little or no chance to cature him alive, he had committed verifiable acts of war (strategic and tactical planning) as a foreign agent.
An impeachment would certainly clarify once and for all if there is a prima facie renunciation of citizenship by any individual siding with and planning (whether taking up arms or not) to kill Americans as an act of war by that enemy agent.
But we all know it won't happen.
In addition: At minimum there should have been a judicial review and decision. Was there? Does anyone know?
In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court, per Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the ultimate authority for determining the Constitution’s meaning lay with the judicial branch of government through the power of judicial review. Pursuant to this power, courts are authorized to review laws enacted by government officials and invalidate those that violate the Constitution.
There has never been a situation exactly like this one. In my day traitors could be executed during a time of war on the battle field having sided with the enemy to kill Americans during the heat of a battle.
But just what is the heat of a battle in this case and what constitutes a battle field?
Is sitting in a car planning death and destruction to Americans the heat of the battle?
Having served in the military in an information and intelligence capacity, yes, in all probability they (intelligence community) most certainly heard every word of the conversation.
HankD
Last edited:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Even that exception seems to deal only with those in military service. This certainly needs to be clarified. As it is the president is on thin ice at best.
On the differences.
The police do not have the right to simply shoot a suspect on sight. There must be an attempt to arrest him. Even the criminal runs then he puts himself at risk.
In Anwar's case there was no rush. The president had almost two years to get judicial or legislative backing. There is no doubt he would have got it. He simply usurped their authority. That is the problem here.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Why would be be impeached - you think this was a legal action.
Though I am never in favor of the use of force as a primary means of resolving conflict, this was a legal act by the President.
There are no grounds for impeachment here. (though isn't it ironic how many evangelical/republicans just want anything to use against the President?)
When Congressman Paul says stuff like this he proves more and more why he is incapable of fulfilling the office to which he aspires.
There are no grounds for impeachment here. (though isn't it ironic how many evangelical/republicans just want anything to use against the President?)
When Congressman Paul says stuff like this he proves more and more why he is incapable of fulfilling the office to which he aspires.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I hope that is not referring to me - according to most GOP/Evangelicals on the board I am an Obamanite.
I would be interested to see how a president issuing a death warrant against a US citizen without any legislative or judicial action is legal. There is a process, he ignored it.
