Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Article I the US Constitution sets forth the powers and responsibilities of Congress including, of course, the Senate. When Mitch McConnel became majority leader of the Senate afterthe 2010 electio, he made the now famous statement that his number one priority was making sure that Barack Obama was a one term president. I don't find any provision in Article I (or elsewhere for that matter) of the Constitution even the suggestion that one of the responsibilities of the Senate, much less its number one priority, is trying to unseat the President, who is a Constitutionally defined part of the U.S. Government. From the acts of the Senate with filibusters, secret hold, etc in hugely record numbers, they clearly are not trying to govern, but rather to accomplish the overthrow of the duly elected Artcle II officer.
Frankly, Mr. McConnell should be impeached for his (in)action in facilitating, and actual obstruction of, the Constitutionally delegated responsibilities of the Senate, in and pursuing his other agenda.
What a stupid, baseless accusation. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Congress has to act along with the President, nor are members of Congress's speech restricted
How about impeaching everyone in Congress that voted for the Patriot Act after 9/11 and everyone that voted for its renewal? I think that would be far more productive.
Being that statement was made against the most far left big government radical President since Castro in Cuba I have no problem with it.
If you had Castro come to power in the USA you would want him out as soon as possible and for his agendas to all fail.
It is pretty much the same exact thing here.
We should all want the President's agenda to fail, because it isn't pro-America, pro growth, pro jobs or pro much of anything but government unions and the welfare state.
The President can say he wants jobs, pie in the sky and a better economy, but actions speak louder than words and his actions are like a Castro. So who wants to see a Castro get a second term in the USA? Makes PERFECT sense to me.
Article I the US Constitution sets forth the powers and responsibilities of Congress including, of course, the Senate. When Mitch McConnel became majority leader of the Senate afterthe 2010 electio, he made the now famous statement that his number one priority was making sure that Barack Obama was a one term president. I don't find any provision in Article I (or elsewhere for that matter) of the Constitution even the suggestion that one of the responsibilities of the Senate, much less its number one priority, is trying to unseat the President, who is a Constitutionally defined part of the U.S. Government. From the acts of the Senate with filibusters, secret hold, etc in hugely record numbers, they clearly are not trying to govern, but rather to accomplish the overthrow of the duly elected Artcle II officer.
Frankly, Mr. McConnell should be impeached for his (in)action in facilitating, and actual obstruction of, the Constitutionally delegated responsibilities of the Senate, in and pursuing his other agenda.
OMG - THREAD EPICALLY FAILS.
Dear, Sen McConnell is NOT the majority leader.
Another thing, you DO know that the Executive and Legislative are CO-EQUAL branches? That means the Congress is under NO obligation to do the bidding of the president, especially if they disagree with his policies.
Location: The bustling, world-renowned downtown of Pataskala, OH
188 posts, read 197,860 times
Reputation: 129
The Constitution is basically a daily rape victim now. If we were to follow that silly, silly document the way we are suppose to, it would be total madness. But seriously, of all the egregious trampling on the Constitution, that's what you come up with?
Another thing, you DO know that the Executive and Legislative are CO-EQUAL branches? That means the Congress is under NO obligation to do the bidding of the president, especially if they disagree with his policies.
You're right!!!!!!! My bad. However, the point is the same. In fact, it's even more supportive of my point-as minority leader he is using the filibuster, secret hold, etc to thwart the will of the majority, not for the constitutional purpose of governing, but for the ability to block the majority for a purely political goal rather than a governmental one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
