Repubs: We lose, we impeach Obama

[Shroom Man 777]

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal is under fire after asking Republican House members to pray for President Barack Obama’s death. O’Neal made the request via an email he forwarded to GOP colleagues in the House. In an email sent in December, O’Neal asked his fellow Republicans to pray Psalm 109, which contains the following lines:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.


The email has become the subject of a mini-media frenzy. Numerous major news outlets began reporting the details surrounding the disturbing prayer request on Friday.

The relevant verse from Psalm 109 is considered a prayer for vengeance, a prayer for the death of a leader. The most damning part of the prayer is lines 7-12:


'When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.'


Think Progress reports that O’Neal forwarded the prayer with his own message:


“At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”


News of the email is a sad commentary on Republican politics in Kansas. In addition, the email prayer request indicates an astonishing disregard and disrespect for the office of the presidency. For a government official to pray for the death of President Obama, and encourage other government officials to do the same, is not only morally reprehensible, it is also treason.

Hopeful Prayers Conquer All

[Eframepilot]

on what grounds? he's not driving the car off the cliff fast enough for mr. norquist (satan, ok Howard Jarvis is Satan to me as a person who whent through Calfiornia schools, Norquist is just Jarvis on a national level kinda like Randites hate the concept of Kant, and society as a whole)

Norquist and the Republicans think that taxation is theft. If Obama doesn't extend the Bush tax cuts, he'll be guilty of stealing billions from American taxpayers.

Also, they could impeach him for PWB.

[Baffalo]

[quote="[url=http://m.examiner.com/democrat-in-natio ... ma-s-death]

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

Hopeful Prayers Conquer All [/quote]

I don't know what the hell is going on out there in Kansas, but they need to chill out. Forcing schools to teach Creationism, Jesus camps, and now praying for the death of the President just because he's a Democrat? I'm starting to wonder if this isn't just a cry for attention from a state whose sole export is wheat and boredom.

[Simon_Jester]

See? Political and ideological.

The big rural belt along the Great Plains tends to... ferment in its own juices politically. It's so dispersed, with its inhabitants so isolated from any communities of people who aren't just like themselves, that you get really loopy extremists getting elected there.

And if you can find people willing to vote for crazy, there will always be someone willing to provide it.

[LaCroix]

"High crimes" had a specific meaning at the time: crimes against the state. It's in the same sentence as treason and bribery because they are examples of the more general concept they are getting at there. A high misdemeanor is the same kind of thing, too.

The author of that sentence wanted it to be more flexible for creative crimes other than treason and bribery, but those are the two big, representative crimes in there.

Am I the only one getting the irony that one of the stated things that would enable you to get rid of a President are daily business for a Congressman?

[Simon_Jester]

Treason isn't, because the US defines treason very narrowly.

Bribery is a separate issue- legally, what Congressmen do for their campaign dollars isn't bribery, which is mostly because we've fucked up our campaign finance system.

In the 1800s, campaign expenses existed but were within the means of a reasonably wealthy private citizen, so "bribery" took an entirely different form: it meant people actually giving government officials money to stick under their mattress in exchange for favors. Now, the money all goes to the campaign and as a rule the politician never sees a dime of it in their own bank accounts- or if they do, they may wind up running into an embezzlement scandal.

We still need to fix campaign finance, but it's not the case that Congress is breaking laws it would impeach a president for violating.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I'm pretty sure Congress can't impeach the president for, say, breaking and entering a private residence like a common crook.

Either I'm missing something or that just can't be right. Are there existing laws on the books that would remove him from office? He couldn't possibly carry out his term from his cell, that's... aside from all the other objections, just plain silly.

[LaCroix]

I'm pretty sure Congress can't impeach the president for, say, breaking and entering a private residence like a common crook.

Either I'm missing something or that just can't be right. Are there existing laws on the books that would remove him from office? He couldn't possibly carry out his term from his cell, that's... aside from all the other objections, just plain silly.

Two words:
Sovereign Immunity

[Elfdart]

Good point. I just assumed the goal in impeaching him would be to get him removed from office. I hadn't thought in terms of bogging him down in the impeachment process being the goal.

That's part of it, but it's mostly a way for Norquist to remind Republican House members that he has their balls in his purse. Making them jump through hoops like debt default and impeachment is his way of extracting loyalty oaths from them.

[The Cooler King]

That's part of it, but it's mostly a way for Norquist to remind Republican House members that he has their balls in his purse. Making them jump through hoops like debt default and impeachment is his way of extracting loyalty oaths from them.

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but what the hell did Nordquist do to get their balls? How has he gotten this much leverage? I'm honestly curious... even if I feel like taking a shower every time I see the man.

[Block]

That's part of it, but it's mostly a way for Norquist to remind Republican House members that he has their balls in his purse. Making them jump through hoops like debt default and impeachment is his way of extracting loyalty oaths from them.

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but what the hell did Nordquist do to get their balls? How has he gotten this much leverage? I'm honestly curious... even if I feel like taking a shower every time I see the man.

Republican candidates are strongly encouraged to sign an anti-tax pledge or Norqvuist and his friends spend a shitload of money to make sure you don't get elected. If you sign the pledge and violate it, they spend even more money to make sure you don't get re-elected.

[Beowulf]

I'm pretty sure Congress can't impeach the president for, say, breaking and entering a private residence like a common crook.

Either I'm missing something or that just can't be right. Are there existing laws on the books that would remove him from office? He couldn't possibly carry out his term from his cell, that's... aside from all the other objections, just plain silly.

Two words:
Sovereign Immunity

How does that possibly apply to the arrest of a sitting president for breaking and entering? Sovereign immunity just keeps the US government from being sued except for narrowly defined reasons. It doesn't protect officeholders from being sued, or arrested (in fact, that's why you'll see lawsuits of the form of Doe vs. Holder et al).

[Mr Bean]

How does that possibly apply to the arrest of a sitting president for breaking and entering? Sovereign immunity just keeps the US government from being sued except for narrowly defined reasons. It doesn't protect officeholders from being sued, or arrested (in fact, that's why you'll see lawsuits of the form of Doe vs. Holder et al).

George W Bush was granted immunity from prosecution due to being a sitting President by several courts for War on Terror charges, most sighted Sovereign Immunity or similar statues saying our head of state was immune from direct action until first removed from that office via impeachment.

[Baffalo]

How does that possibly apply to the arrest of a sitting president for breaking and entering? Sovereign immunity just keeps the US government from being sued except for narrowly defined reasons. It doesn't protect officeholders from being sued, or arrested (in fact, that's why you'll see lawsuits of the form of Doe vs. Holder et al).

George W Bush was granted immunity from prosecution due to being a sitting President by several courts for War on Terror charges, most sighted Sovereign Immunity or similar statues saying our head of state was immune from direct action until first removed from that office via impeachment.

I believe that, as the sitting President, he acts as both Head of the Executive and Head of State. Therefor, he is the state for most situations. It's not the same as, say, Louis XIV, whose body was considered divine authority from God to rule the country as he saw fit, but for the purposes of running the country, he can be considered the direct embodiment of the state. From what I understand also, the Supreme Court has the right to review any case it wishes, and if it chooses not to review the case, they don't do it. How it works on the state level I'm not sure, but I believe it works on a similar process.