It still hasn't been made clear why Obama is negotiating anything. Is this impeachable?

[BernieSandersIsGod]

If congress doesn't pay the debt, you should be able to impeach those that vote "no." I know Obama did it, and that was wrong too.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Huh? Members of Congress can't be impeached....

...they can be removed by a 2/3rds vote their peers, or by us at the next election?

[KittyWampus]

2. They can by Bernie Sanders, since Sanders is god. He can do anything.

[dennis4868]

7. right....If Sanders was....

ptresident back in December he would have gotten the repubs to agree to let the Bush tax cuts expite and get the repubs to agree to a 5 trillion dollar stimulus....Obama sucks...Bernie is god and can ignore the congress....hahaha!

[treestar]

17. A real progressive can convince Republicans

to turn into progressives! Because Republicans are so reasonable! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

13. ROFL

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. Sweet tea meet keyboard!

:spray:

[BernieSandersIsGod]

3. That sounds like impeachment. That's the problem with the system. You have congress to basically

police the POTUS. But congress is left to police themselves.

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Congress was *designed* to be top dog, and the branch of last resort.

Congress can impeach and remove a president -- but he can't dissolve Congress and call for new elections.
Congress can impeach and remove Supreme Court justices -- but Marshall had to basically magick judicial review into existence in Marbury v. Madison.

We have no monarchs here, save the People, and their representatives.

[David Gill]

10. Wouldn't it be nice?

Imagine if Obama had the option of calling for new elections? Just seven months into the new Congress, the tea party has lost the support of the American people.

[RickFromMN]

19. How true. The President has limited powers, given by the Constitution.

Otherwise, it depends on the law passed by Congress, and signed by the President.
The President's check on Congress is the veto, and to a lesser extent the bully pulpit.
The President has to stop the legislation before it becomes law.

I watched an explanation from one of the former Presidents on this very subject.
If the law is "general", open to interpretation, the President has lots of latitude.
If the law is "strict", with little ambiguity, the President can, at best,
go to the Supreme Court claiming the law is unconstitutional.

When I was in China, a person I was working with, didn't understand our form of government.
He knew there were three branches, but little else.

I tried to explain our form of government using the Constitution as a blueprint.

Article I gave all power to Congress.

Article II created the Executive Branch, with the veto, to check the power of Congress.

Article III created the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution.
It was only, with time, did the Supreme Court claim the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

I told him, Congress has the power of the purse, and with that it can fund or de-fund anything.
Congress has the power of impeachment, and can remove anyone in the Executive Branch,
from the President on down, to anyone in the Judicial Branch, including the Supreme Court Justices.

A united Congress cannot be stopped. A United Congress is a dangerous thing.
One branch of Congress can, and many times will, stop the actions of the other branch of Congress.

I know we have two branches of Congress to please the small and large states.
The effect of having two branches is to slow down the actions of Congress.
The Presidential veto and the Supreme Court review slows down the actions of Congress.

The Constitution was written to give all power to Congress, and then check its power.

Congress can, unless the item is specifically spelled out by the Constitution,
take back any power it gives the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch.

And now we have a bunch of people, in Congress, intent on wrecking our economy. Heaven help us.

[LiberalFighter]

20. Which is why Congress is Article I of the Constitution and not the President

[Tx4obama]

4. To impeach means 'to bring forth criminal charges'.

There has to be a 'criminal charge' in order 'to impeach' the president.
Obama has NOT committed a criminal act.

[jenmito]

5. 1. What are you talking about? 2. Obama voted "no" knowing there were enough votes for it to

pass.

[BernieSandersIsGod]

9. Well he should say that. NT

[jenmito]

11. Gibbs said it back in January:

Gibbs: Senator Obama Only Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 Because He Knew It Would Pass Anyway

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/gibbs-senator-obama-only-voted-against-raising-debt-ceiling-in-2006-because-he-knew-it-would-pass-an.html

[Leontius]

16. Then maybe that should have been a sign.

[jenmito]

18. A sign meaning what?

[dennis4868]

8. if you know anything....

you know that in the past raising the debt ceiling was a SYMBOLIC vote...now we have a dem in the WH and the repub will hold him accountable for the repubs sepnding binges in the 2000s....

[craigmatic]

12. Being stupid or having poor judgement isn't a high crime or misdemeanor.

[babylonsister]

14. ffs. Give it a rest. Please. And unrec on g.p's. Ugh. nt