Impeach Obama

Originally posted by sasquatch672
No, there's no good reason to impeach Obama over his executive orders. As executive orders go, they were particularly limp-wristed.

OK army parachuter, how did you take over sasquatches account.

Originally posted by normbenign
" With only five legitimate nuclear states"

Perhaps I don't understand "legitimate". US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, Isreal, and S.Africa which has disassembled its arsenal.

I was referring to the theoretical arrangement in the non-proliferation treaty - not the actual situation.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I'm not picking on Iran particularly, this applies to India, Pakistan, Israel (probably), and North Korea. Cuba have been at loggerheads with the U.S. for years and still signed the treaty. The point of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that there would be only 5 nuclear weapons states chosen on the basis that they already had them. Non-nuclear states couldn't be attacked by a nuclear weapon state since one of the other four would intervene. Mutually Assured Destruction prevents the nuclear weapons states from using atomic weapons against each other. This only works if there are a small number nuclear weapons states with large enough arsenals that they can't feasibly be rendered unable to retaliate after a first strike by one of the others. If lots of countries have small arsenals then they become first strike victim candidates as it is possible to win a nuclear war provided you can eliminate your enemies arsenal before they can retaliate. So the risks of someone actually using them goes up the more states have them, since most won't all be able to afford large enough arsenals to guarantee a retaliation if attacked.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Probably. The case of Mordechai Vanunu is more convincing. If they didn't have weapons then it seems a lot of effort to go to to maintain a deception.

From the point of view of defence this thing is probably more practical (and fairly impressive):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21307208

Originally posted by whodey
So basically whatever law Obama does not like all he has to do is pass an EO not to enforce the law? YOu are OK with this?

I think the remedy is to seek a court order mandating that the law be enforced. If he ignores court orders, then we can discuss impeachment. Until then, he's merely picking which laws to enforce and how to enforce them with the executive branch; discretion every President has taken advantage of. We may not like the decision, but it's hardly an impeachable offense.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not picking on Iran particularly, this applies to India, Pakistan, Israel (probably), and North Korea. Cuba have been at loggerheads with the U.S. for years and still signed the treaty. The point of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that there would be only 5 nuclear weapons states chosen on the basis that they already had them. Non-nuclear states ...[text shortened]... st won't all be able to afford large enough arsenals to guarantee a retaliation if attacked.

The greater danger, IMHO is not a nuclear state with long range missiles delivering a first strike, but a non nation (Terrorist element) detonating a small nuke in a big city, or in the atmosphere to create an EMP which could disable everything electronic in a massive area, like the entire US, or Europe.

I believe Pakistan is probably the most dangerous nuclear power, with the advance weapons, the crazy extremists and political instability, and likely connections to networking terrorists.

Treaties in history haven't been worth the paper they were written on.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
The problem is the Republican window lickers aren't just Texas Republicans, but many Republican elected officials who have called for impeachment, secession, are staunch birthers, etc.

It doesn't bother me that there are people who are that epically stupid on this forum. It bothers me that those types of dumb s***'s are actually in government.

There are epically stupid people everywhere, and of every political persuasion. Government tends to draw stupid people like crap draws flies.

Originally posted by sh76
I think the remedy is to seek a court order mandating that the law be enforced. If he ignores court orders, then we can discuss impeachment. Until then, he's merely picking which laws to enforce and how to enforce them with the executive branch; discretion every President has taken advantage of. We may not like the decision, but it's hardly an impeachable offense.

It is also a political issues and impediments in at least a couple of ways. First, EOs can be undone by the next President. Unlike a king, the term is only 4 years. Second, upopular EOs do not do the President or his party any good. With unpopular EOs, he loses political capital while in office and could jeipardize many initiatives that need actual legilsation such as for funding. Further, he hurts his chances for reelection if in the first term, and hurts his party if in the second term. There are political checks.

Originally posted by moon1969
It is also a political issues and impediments in at least a couple of ways. First, EOs can be undone by the next President. Unlike a king, the term is only 4 years. Second, upopular EOs do not do the President or his party any good. With unpopular EOs, he loses political capital while in office and could jeipardize many initiatives that need actual legi ...[text shortened]... on if in the first term, and hurts his party if in the second term. There are political checks.

The notion of impeachment over EOs is laughable. It doesn't even deserve the attention of a web site debate forum, never mind significant Congressional attention.

The general tendency of President's to use EOs is a cause for serious concern for right minded people of both parties. The EO only has direct effect on Executive Branch agencies, but because so many of those agencies and bureaucracies have direct control of citizen's everyday lives the EO can and does amount to the Executive grabbing legislative power if only for the duration of his term.

Future Presidents can summarily repeal previous EOs but typically this is not done. Once elected a President of the opposite party often likes the new power his predecessor gave him.

Originally posted by normbenign
There are epically stupid people everywhere, and of every political persuasion. Government tends to draw stupid people like crap draws flies.

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but aren't you a birther?

Originally posted by normbenign
Future Presidents can summarily repeal previous EOs but typically this is not done. Once elected a President of the opposite party often likes the new power his predecessor gave him.

True. Indeed, most EOs are at least acceptable to the electorate. Romney might had suffered some backlash from his right wing if elected and had he not repealed the EO for the Dream Act.

Originally posted by moon1969
True. Indeed, most EOs are at least acceptable to the electorate. Romney might had suffered some backlash from his right wing if elected and had he not repealed the EO for the Dream Act.

The Dream Act is another superb example of legislation that should have been made attractive enough to pass as a bipartisan bill.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
The Dream Act is another superb example of legislation that should have been made attractive enough to pass as a bipartisan bill.

Attractive enough? There's no such thing when the STATED number one priority of the opposition party is to sabotage the President.