GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control

[JohnC]

We need to send letters of support and signed petitions to support an impeachment if Obama uses EO on 2A rights! :up:

 

 

GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control

 

 

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.

At his press conference Monday, Obama floated the possibility of using executive action to enact policies aimed at reducing gun violence.

The freshman congressman, who served one term in Congress in the mid-1990s, further labeled the possibility “an existential threat to this nation” because, he said, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from tyranny. (RELATED VIDEO — Walter Williams: People misunderstand the point of the Second Amendment)

“Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible,” he added. “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”

He concluded by claiming that an executive order would be not just “not just an attack on the Constitution,” but also an “attack on Americans.”

“If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” he said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-uses-executive-action-for-gun-control/#ixzz2I0DqoeL1

[plank white]

Its about Dammed time somebody started taking there Oath of office seriously This just made my happy Ometer rise a notch or two

[hipower]

Sounds good anyway. But will the rest of the Congress, or at least some, back Stockman?

 

There's been a serious lack of cojones in recent times from these men.

Edited January 15, 2013 by hipower

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Why do you want to hear this stuff? I'd rather Obama slip on his banana. After he does that, then is the time for the impeachment

proceedings, not just rhetoric. I'm confident this House member is sincere, but why keep warning Obama? A shot across the bow

means nothing to him. About the only thing that might concern him is someone threatening war from the floor of the House, and I

seriously doubt that would get his attention. Don't say it. Put on your Nikes. Just do it!

 

These guys utilize rhetoric when they could be using moxie.

[mcurrier]

Boehner will block any impeachment attempt.

[reed1285]

eh i still took a couple mns out of my day to write to him to thank him for taking that stand anyway.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Boehner will block any impeachment attempt.

He needs to go, too. He is a symptom of why we need the Tea Party changing of the guard. The Republicans kept him in.

If they really think so highly of him, they may need to go, too.

[MattCary]

Look! A spine! Who knew?

[Wingshooter]

I say go ahead and start the impeachment process over bengazi and F&F. That will start the MSM's heads spinning in the opposite direction therby shifting focus away from gun control. Best case... impeahment. Worst case...... well I guess we could loose the house in 2014, so nevermind, lol

[Guest 6.8 AR]

eh i still took a couple mns out of my day to write to him to thank him for taking that stand anyway.

I understand what you say, but thoughts don't replace deeds. The congressman from Texas appears to be a good

guy, but every one in the House seems to work off the premise of posture first, back down after the dust clears. When

you go to the House, your job is to do the work of the House, which is to do the work the Constitution requires. It's why

they take an oath to the Constitution, not to stand up and make puny threats that may sound good to us or any other

group. Like in another thread, the one about the guy asking whether it is your duty to stand up for liberty or not, the

idea is not about rhetoric, or whether we live in a democracy or republic, it is about getting the job done. How about

just one time, one of them, not acting like a Greek orator and just submitting a bill setting the stage for impeachment

proceedings, without first warning the President? Like he really cares. Like that old saying, "Actions speak louder

than words", if they would quit the crap, more people might have confidence in their actions, and just do their damned

job.

 

Everyone seems to need that camera stuck in their face for smoochy time with their adoring public.

[Wingshooter]

[quote name="6.8 AR" post="885211" timestamp="1358217874"]I understand what you say, but thoughts don't replace deeds. The congressman from Texas appears to be a good guy, but every one in the House seems to work off the premise of posture first, back down after the dust clears. When you go to the House, your job is to do the work of the House, which is to do the work the Constitution requires. It's why they take an oath to the Constitution, not to stand up and make puny threats that may sound good to us or any other group. Like in another thread, the one about the guy asking whether it is your duty to stand up for liberty or not, the idea is not about rhetoric, or whether we live in a democracy or republic, it is about getting the job done. How about just one time, one of them, not acting like a Greek orator and just submitting a bill setting the stage for impeachment proceedings, without first warning the President? Like he really cares. Like that old saying, "Actions speak louder than words", if they would quit the crap, more people might have confidence in their actions, and just do their damned job.   Everyone seems to need that camera stuck in their face for smoochy time with their adoring public.[/quote] You have a good point. Let him hang himself with a bad order then boot him out for it. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

[Mike.357]

the congressman can do what he wants, anyone thinking the senate will vote for it has been smoking some good stuff and needs to share.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sure he can, Mike. I am referring to the tactics Republicans have been losing on for years, though. Anyone can

lob softballs. It's the ones with teeth that matter. That's all I meant.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Actually, the Constitution requires impeachment proceedings against any member or executive, including the president

who doesn't uphold their oath of office. But that would also mean we would have too many vacancies, for a while.

 

Something like that in there anyway.

[Wingshooter]

[quote name="Mike.357" post="885220" timestamp="1358218264"]the congressman can do what he wants, anyone thinking the senate will vote for it has been smoking some good stuff and needs to share.[/quote] I would tend to agree unless he does something VERY unconstitutional, he steps on some senate toes in the process, a large number of senate dems catch serious heat from voters, and some senators are truely concerned about the integrity of the constitution. I agree that the stars would have to align, but hussein is threatening some bold moves

[Mike.357]

Sure he can, Mike. I am referring to the tactics Republicans have been losing on for years, though. Anyone can

lob softballs. It's the ones with teeth that matter. That's all I meant.

 

 

I was not referring specifically to your post, just a generalization that it would rest in the senates lap.

 

An impeachment has been needed for a while now. 

[Oh Shoot]

I was not referring specifically to your post, just a generalization that it would rest in the senates lap.

 

And the House has to first serve it up to them. As if.

 

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I would tend to agree unless he does something VERY unconstitutional, he steps on some senate toes in the process, a large number of senate dems catch serious heat from voters, and some senators are truely concerned about the integrity of the constitution. I agree that the stars would have to align, but hussein is threatening some bold moves

You don't have to embellish unconstitutional with "very" to get the job done. He did that in the first term. :D

[Wingshooter]

You don't have to embellish unconstitutional with "very" to get the job done. He did that in the first term. :D

 

That's true. Probably just the fact that he holds office is unconstitutional (Kenya... Hawaii?) :-\ . I added the 'very' because I think think that it would have to be something just over-the-top and obvious in order to sway enough senate dems. I could be wrong, and I think he should be impeached right now.

 

 

Edit: Here's hoping! :cheers:

Edited January 15, 2013 by Batman

[East_TN_Patriot]

I think that people need to be careful what they wish for when it comes to impeachment. I think it would be a grave mistake for the US to start impeaching presidents over disagreements in policy decisions. The Constitution is clear on the circumstances under which an impeachment is justified and that should be strictly followed. The last thing we want is for our presidents to be impeached any time the opposition party is upset over policy that can be accused of being unconstitutional. Much like frivolous litigation is detrimental to our society, so to would the constant impeachment circus be if this became a common practice.

[Guest CCI]

I think that people need to be careful what they wish for when it comes to impeachment. I think it would be a grave mistake for the US to start impeaching presidents over disagreements in policy decisions. The Constitution is clear on the circumstances under which an impeachment is justified and that should be strictly followed. The last thing we want is for our presidents to be impeached any time the opposition party is upset over policy that can be accused of being unconstitutional. Much like frivolous litigation is detrimental to our society, so to would the constant impeachment circus be if this became a common practice.

Any president that goes against the Constitution needs to be impeached!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Impeachment and removal from elected office for any elected official should be part of what they take to heart when

conducting the business of the country. If that was the case, we might not have had a lot of the grief and lousy illegal

laws enacted. Want me to start naming them? The list is long. It was put together by both parties and it doesn't mean

someone is being discriminating against. Troubling me most is the last two presidents that, if I paid attention at the time,

I would have said the same to both.

Just the use of an EO the way both Bush and Obama did and still does, makes me sick.

 

I still don't know where in the Constitution it says that "an executive order, once signed and after thirty days, becomes

law". Been hearing that on the media sources(links off Drudge, etc.) and places on here, I think. That's just not the

case.

How about that nasty bribery and extortion that goes on all the time to get a bill passed. Obamacare was a shining

example of that, but not close to being the only one. Sandy relief is another boondoggle. All the money will go to federal

agencies first, including a fishery or two, before anything gets to a single family. Shameful.

Then tomorrow we face his possibility of an EO to play with our 2nd Amendment rights further.

 

I say put up a gallows with two nooses on it. I'm tired of this.

[.357SIG]

If he does something unconstitutional? Because he has never done anything like that before........

 

I am glad that there are still some people in that liberal infested area that remember the words of the oath they took and can actually understand them!

[mikegideon]

Impeachment and removal from elected office for any elected official should be part of what they take to heart when

conducting the business of the country. If that was the case, we might not have had a lot of the grief and lousy illegal

laws enacted. Want me to start naming them? The list is long. It was put together by both parties and it doesn't mean

someone is being discriminating against. Troubling me most is the last two presidents that, if I paid attention at the time,

I would have said the same to both.

Just the use of an EO the way both Bush and Obama did and still does, makes me sick.

 

I still don't know where in the Constitution it says that "an executive order, once signed and after thirty days, becomes

law". Been hearing that on the media sources(links off Drudge, etc.) and places on here, I think. That's just not the

case.

How about that nasty bribery and extortion that goes on all the time to get a bill passed. Obamacare was a shining

example of that, but not close to being the only one. Sandy relief is another boondoggle. All the money will go to federal

agencies first, including a fishery or two, before anything gets to a single family. Shameful.

Then tomorrow we face his possibility of an EO to play with our 2nd Amendment rights further.

 

I say put up a gallows with two nooses on it. I'm tired of this.

 

It's in there. Obama will either step over the line, or he won't. I don't know if his big ego will allow him to walk into an impeachment that has real grounds, even if there is no chance of the senate acting on it. Still goes in the history books.

 

If he really does just strengthen the enforcement of existing laws with his EO's, and doesn't overstep, it's going to have a real twist. THAT's a long standing NRA position. Wouldn't it be something to see the NRA praising Obama's actions on National TV. Gonna be a WTF moment for the anti's.

 

Maybe I'm just dreaming, because he'll probably overstep. Still, better enforcement is in our best interest, and will remove some pressure for outright bans.

[mcurrier]