Log In | Register
King isn’t the first Republican to suggest that Obama should be impeached over the debt crisis.
Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said earlier this month it would be “an impeachable offense” for Obama to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval.
Steve King on default: Obama could be impeached
Seeded on Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:21 PM EDT
Article Source: Politico
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (20)
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said Monday that President Barack Obama “would be impeached” if the nation falls into default.
That's a really helpful comment to throw out. /sarcasm/
- 12 votes
#1 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:24 PM EDTMakes perfect sense.
1) Don't send a bill to the President.
2) Impeach the President for not signing it.
- 11 votes
#3 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:37 PM EDTMakes perfect sense.
1) Don't send a bill to the President.
2) Impeach the President for not signing it.
It makes sense in today's GOP, aka Bizarro World.
- 8 votes
I like the following scenario:
1. GOP fails to pass debt limit extension.
2. Obama declares that because of the 14th amendment the debt limit is unconstitutional and thus the government will proceed as congress directs in spending / borrowing.
3. GOP goes berserk.
4. WH goes to SCOTUS for ruling.
5. House teabaggers vote to impeach.
6. Senate does NOTHING.
7. 2012 elections happen and not a single Republican gets elected to dog catcher in America because we are so sick of their insane bull@!$%#.
8. SCOTUS rules the president was right all along.
- 10 votes
#4 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:16 PM EDTThis scenario sounds like the precurser to a dictatorship. I don't know the acronym SCOTUS but hearing anyone elevate a single person to a level of ALL KNOWING is personally disturbing. Hate to say it but scenario's like this remind me of Germany decades ago.
8. SCOTUS rules the president was right all along.
I really don't see how the president could do anything other than just honor the country's financial obligations if the debt ceiling isn't raised. I think the debt ceiling is legal and constitutional as long as it can be observed without defaulting. But if the president is put in the position of having to choose whether to default, observe the debt ceiling, or ignore the debt ceiling and borrow anyway, then borrowing anyway is what the constitution says he must do.
- 3 votes
#5 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:36 PM EDTI think the debt ceiling is legal and constitutional as long as it can be observed without defaulting.
So you would like a debt ceiling that really isn't a debt ceiling?
If you think the President has the constitutional authority to ignore the ceiling (which I think he does), there's really no reason the ceiling should be there at all.
- 5 votes
Scotus will say he was right but provide grounds for impeachment anyway. The Congress will run impeach ment hearings that will make the whitewater fiasco look like a traffic ticket.
- 4 votes
If you think the President has the constitutional authority to ignore the ceiling (which I think he does), there's really no reason the ceiling should be there at all.
Maybe so, but I think you could still have a legal debt ceiling that the executive branch must observe, as long as it can be observed without defaulting. For example, suppose the debt ceiling was set at 18 trillion now, and for some crazy reason the president said "I am going to run up our debt to 20 trillion, even though we can meet our financial obligations without doing that, but I think it would be a good idea because . . " In that case, it would be unconstitutional for the president to not observe the debt ceiling. Just a thought.
- 2 votes
I keep wondering...
How come there is a debt ceiling but no spending ceiling? Since you have to spend to create the debt, and you want to reduce the debt, it seems to me you would nip it in the bud right where you authorize the spending!
- 4 votes
How come there is a debt ceiling but no spending ceiling?
Probably in case there is some state emergency (wars, states of emergency, ect.) that requires us to increase spending above a certain ceiling.
- 6 votes
Tim Scott, the guy who said he knows about international finance because he raised a family...
- 2 votes
#6 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:46 PM EDTTake a look at the responsibilities of the President
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2
Find were it says he is responsible for the spending habits of the Congress of the past 40 years (democrats and republicans).
- 5 votes
#7 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:46 PM EDTWhen the U.S. Constitution states that we will pay our bills, I have a hard time understanding how the right wing Republican freshman or anyone else actually could say he was responsible when he has had republicans walk out of every committee that has been set up to deal with this problem.
- 8 votes
#8 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:42 PM EDTDamned if you and damned if you don't.
Why don't these people just admit publicly that they hate black people and they hate the fact that the majority elected a black President.
From 2000 to 2008, the republicans had NO problem raising the debt limit so they could pay for wars, tax cuts for to the rich and other wasteful spending. Now we have a Democrat President and a Democrat controlled Senate. From May, 2011 until now, the republicans have REFUSED to raise the debt limit and pass a budget.
- 8 votes
#9 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:03 PM EDTApparently, Rep. King doesn't get the it's Congress' responsibility to raise the debt celing...
- 4 votes
#10 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:18 PM EDTSadly, Steve King is just one of many lunatics it seems the American people have entrusted their national interests to. It's not the most outrageous or ridiculous comment or claim he's made about the President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King#Remarks_about_Barack_Obama
- 4 votes
#11 - Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:35 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
