I thought it was only like two or three or something like that. I don't see what it would hurt just filing for Impeachment in Congress now, at least he would have that against him.

I agree.

If President Obama openly violated a federal law that he himself signed, then I am in favor of him being impeached by the House.

Yet, if he were impeached by the House, he would still remain in office unless a majority of the Senate were to vote to remove him from office.

The is what happened to President Clinton.
He was impeached, but he was not convicted.

It still tarnished him and his legacy. He also lost his license to practice law for a certain amount of years and can never practice in front of the Supreme Court. I am guessing the same would happen to Barry (all though it's not like he ever used his law license anyways).

We are in agreement. Cheers!

Clinton was IMPEACHED by Congress,then TRIED by the Senate,but the necessary Majority to CONVICT him didn't materialize!
He was IMPEACHED regardless what you are saying about!
Congress Impeaches,and Senate Tries and Convicts!

The Congress' Articles of Impeachment are being used in the Senate to conduct the Trial of the Official!

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.

I don't know where you get your Info from,but it is so erroneous,it brings Tears even to this Auslander's Eyes!

Section. 4.
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.

The Federalist Papers, number 65, by Hamilton
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968

IMPEACHMENT. A criminal proceeding against a public officer, before a quasi political court, instituted by a written accusation called "articles of impeachment;" for example, a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States to the senate of the United States against an officer.

Articles of impeachment. The formal written allegation of the causes for an impeachment, answering the same purpose as an indictment in an
ordinary criminal proceeding.

From the New York Times, December 20, 1998:

The is what happened to President Clinton.
He was impeached, but he was not convicted.

I've come to realize that the biggest problem anywhere in the world is that people's perceptions of reality are compulsively filtered through the screening mesh of what they want, and do not want, to be true. - Travis Walton

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
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.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
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 Punishmnet, according to Law.

First we start with a constitution, the constitution of these united States not some other country. In that constitution we have Article 2, Section 4

LOL I just had to come and get a look at the craziness that ensues each time the president does anything...

It is quite amusing.

Now Bush did this same thing and released like 500 detainees. And he did the signing thing 150 times in his presidency.

But I know none of that matters because he wasn't a black man doing it.

Carry on with the futile craziness...LOL

We are talking about the violation of a federal law that was enacted after Obama became POTUS.

Plus, this talk about impeachment has nothing to do with Obama's race/ethnicity/skin color.

If a Republican POTUS were to do the same thing - that is, openly violate a federal law that he himself signed - then I would still say the same thing about impeachment.

No, but being impeached by Congress is a big embarrassment, I believe it has only happened two or three times in history. After 2014 elections we might have enough in the Senate to vote for impeachment.

Also there are quite a few Dems who are not happy with Obama over this as well. Either they are trying to save their own a$$e$ in 2014 or they are truly pissed, they might get enough. It should be tried.

Except that isn't accurate though...right? I mean you do know that what you just said isn't accurate...?????

Under the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by Obama late last year, the administration gained some added flexibility in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, but was required to notify Congress 30 days in advance...

... CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin disagreed, saying Obama "clearly broke the law" even if he can provide a legal justification for what he did. The bottom line, to Toobin, was that the law calls for 30 days' notice and Obama didn't do it."

The House does the impeachment. The Senate does the conviction.

President Clinton was impeached but not convicted.

You really should take reading comprehension courses, especially when reading 18th century writings. I know that would be asking a lot as it seems even modern writings pose an issue. So let's take this down to a 3rd grade level.

First off, Article II deals strictly with the executive department, no other. And Section 4 deals with deals with the removal from office of the Executive.

First who: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States....

Second the action, what: "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment"

Third, why:

"removed from Office on Impeachment", period. Not removed from office not impeached. Now why would they be eligible for impeachment, for treason, bribery, or other high crimes, and let's throw in misdemeanors also (boy adding the last one for misdemeanors was one heck of an argument) but the actual removal needed conviction, the impeachment.

Now that but defines impeachment but that is in Article II, the powers and other odd and ends of the executive, those that can be impeached

The House does the impeachment. The Senate does the conviction.

President Clinton was impeached but not convicted.

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives. A deficiency in the first, would be fatal to the accused; in the last, dangerous to the public tranquillity. The hazard in both these respects, could only be avoided, if at all, by rendering that tribunal more numerous than would consist with a reasonable attention to economy. The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding.

Whether or not President Obama's violation of a federal law is an impeachable offense is debatable. I can't say for certain that it is, but if it is, then what?

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.
[/quotes]

Even standard dictionaries got that one right:

mis�de�mean�or, n.
1. A misdeed.
2. Law A criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and generally punishable by a fine, a jail term of up to a year, or both.

So just what would your debate position be? Would you debate be beyond a single word? Duh!

Next I guess that you are going to claim that judges can be impeached.

Alcee Lamar Hastings (born September 5, 1936) is the U.S. Representative for Florida's 20th congressional district, serving in Congress since 1993. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He served as a Judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida from 1979 until his impeachment and removal from that post in 1989, and is one of only eight federal officials in American history to be impeached and removed from office.

Except that isn't accurate though...right? I mean you do know that what you just said isn't accurate...?????