Patriot Mobile

Lt Gov Dewhurst calls for impeachment of Obama!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • just jk

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2011
    2,626
    21
    dee eff dub
    I do not believe he will be removed from office...not a chance. But one impeacheable offense I can think of off the top of my head is using drones to kill American Citizens without a trial. He has done it at least twice.

    i understand your sentiment, and i dont necessarily disagree (not sure i agree either) but thats a legal issue that hasn't been fully decided on in the courts

    we're at war and the rules are different.....i have mixed feelings on the issue and honestly, i'd be a hypocrite if i wanted to impeach him for killing a treasonous American citizen taking up arms against our country
    DK Firearms
     

    mosin

    Active Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 21, 2013
    876
    21
    Laredo
    thats a legal issue that hasn't been fully decided on in the courts

    The 6th amendment is pretty clear on it. Unless the person is actively firing on US troops or hacking a defense system a missile up the ass from miles away is clearly a violation. Rules aren't different when we are at war, and if the "target" ain't worth risking military lives to try to retrieve then he wasn't a big enough threat to deserve a missile and no trial.

    US citizens are a favored class under the constitution, being at war or voicing an opposing opinion doesn't change that.
     

    just jk

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2011
    2,626
    21
    dee eff dub
    The 6th amendment is pretty clear on it. Unless the person is actively firing on US troops or hacking a defense system a missile up the ass from miles away is clearly a violation. Rules aren't different when we are at war, and if the "target" ain't worth risking military lives to try to retrieve then he wasn't a big enough threat to deserve a missile and no trial.

    US citizens are a favored class under the constitution, being at war or voicing an opposing opinion doesn't change that.

    all of the amendments are clear - but there are COUNTLESS SCOTUS decisions on each one of them "clarifying" the intent of the law

    you can't over simplify an act by a president - read the constitution and just come to the conclusion that "he violated the law"

    it's SO much more complex than that......i assure that an army of lawyers have poured over the law before the rules of engagement were set in black and white

    it's a losing argument
     

    cbigclarke

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 24, 2009
    21,007
    96
    cypress
    SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to clarify anything.

    Its really not that complicated. The constitution says what it says. Not what they want it to say. But its firewall had been broken through over 100 years ago. I really don't expect anybody to follow it now

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
     

    breakingcontact

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Oct 16, 2012
    18,298
    31
    Indianapolis
    Ive been trying to explain to liberals i know...that now that Congress can compel you to buy something or be fined, think what the next Republican President will be able to force you to buy or be fined for not buying. Great path for tyranny the same way Bush expanded the powers of the office then the current occupant of the White House has more power to use against us.
     
    Top Bottom