PRIEBUS: 'I DON'T KNOW' WHAT GOP SHOULD DO IF OBAMA ENACTS EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has no idea what Republicans should do if President Barack Obama grants temporary amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants via executive action. 

In an interview with Real Clear Politics for their "Changing Lanes" series, Priebus was asked this week in Chicago what happens if Obama moves ahead with his executive orders by the end of summer. 

"I don't know. ... These are all hypotheticals," he answered. "I've got enough to worry about on a daily basis let alone worrying about what could happen down the line."

He noted that the Supreme Court has struck down Obama on his expansive use of executive orders and mentioned that the current border crisis has made everyone, regardless of where they stand on the issue, realize that America needs secure borders. And he said recent events along the border have made the issue "more complicated" with a lot of "twists and turns."

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has said Obama should be impeached because of his lawlessness on illegal immigration because it impacts American workers, including legal immigrants, from all races and backgrounds. Multiple polls show that a majority of Republicans believe an Obama impeachment would be justified.

read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/08/RNC-Chair-Priebu...

Views: 1395

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Col.

Congress will not do It's duty now with what is Constitutionally right in front of them, plain and simple as it is. The Speaker, a republican, says the House will not impeach. Therefore, lawfully or unlawfully becoming moot, B.S. will continue in office, doing more of the same until either his term expires, or he seeks to lengthen it indefinitely, by declaring martial law using some trumped up emergency he caused and the congress lets him do it.

Then, suddenly, congress awakens, and search for a Constitutional means to arrest his highness? Sir. This sounds like something out of a movie. Creative? Well, yeah. But realistic? And this is offered as something to pin a hope on?

I do understand your intent in bringing this to our attention. However, many in congress understand that they are responsible for DC, that they are the sheriff of the town, and by George you people better wipe the grin off your face before entering. This is serious business only in this town, so take yourself to Disney or Vegas if you wanna play games. It is known as the  center of the beltway.

When people take office they are freshmen. House or Senate. They are told by seniors of their party how they will conduct themselves and if they prove to be good yes boys and girls they might get to "serve" on a committee, thus gaining media attention, keeping them and their party in power, which is the overriding goal. The Constitution is little more than a prop, a campaign slogan, a "living document" that must be brought up to date and fit the conduct of the members, and not the other way around. 

The only way Congress would remove the executive is if it serves them to do so. It does not, and they invent all kinds of excuses why they will not. I am not one who jumps on any conspiracy wagon , and I certainly do not advocate doing so at all. But I will say this: If martial law were declared, certain people in office would probably pay the ultimate penalty for it. The excuse for such action would be front and center for those who would not hesitate a moment. That is not hope, but tragic.

What you suggest is not really hope either, merely tea party thinking for a peaceful turn of events. I hope I win the lotto. Highly unlikely, and impossible unless you play the game. Congress does not offer hope at all.

I understand... but I remain hopeful that reason will return when push comes to shove... and that Congress will use the powers it has to restore balance between the branches of government.

Until then what would you suggest... arming up, hunkering down... preparing for civil insurrection? Turning the Civil Service on end? What? The idea that Congress will defund the government has been tried and failed. Congress has so far been unwilling to do what is needed to defund the government in ways that will stop Obama...

Obama is likely to declare an emergency if Congress defunds the government... and rightfully so, if the welfare mobs riot. If not, he may issue an Executive Order to require the Secretary of the Treasury too fund the government.  Then what? Congress doesn't have the votes for Impeachment?  Pass a statute? Sue the President? 

Each will fail... he will veto any legislation, the courts may take years to hear the case and any attempt to enforce a judgment against the President will be fought on the Constitutional grounds of separation of powers. The GOP controlled Senate will not be able to override a veto or too Impeach without a super majority.

How about we do all of the above... your suggestions and those of others and see which takes. This is not an either or proposition.  Congress should attempt to restrain this president using every Constitutional means it has.

Yes, it should. Congress should impeach. It will not.

I do not want to sound like a preacher, because I am certainly not. Yet you ask me what I would suggest, and I have stated it many, many times before. Simply said, it is put God back in our lives and He will heal the country.

There is a process in doing such. God's process. Not mine. I never wrote a single word of it. And it is guaranteed to work by the Maker of Man.

Ron & Dale ...

First: corruption inside this mis-administration is beyond anything ever seen in the US ... heck, this bunch makes the U.S. Grant administrations look like boy scouts in comparison. But as Ron aptly notes, the mess is fixable -- largely by the measures he proposes.

As for impeachment, I've worked under the notion that Obama's "corruptocrats" must be impeached and removed ... perhaps I should have been more forceful in stating that point ... but tossing the Attorney General, Secretaries of HHS, Education, DHS and Director of the EPA would certainly get Obama's attention.

Using the DC powers is certainly a good idea -- it would have immediate impact on BHO's "Cabinet" officers (I think of them as gang lords) ... but as I read that power the President would have be removed from office before he could be indicted ... but once removed, or upon completion of his term office, he is certainly fair game for investigation of criminal acts while in office.Although there is some risk of setting a precedent that could be used at some point against one of our Presidents, I'd go for that approach -- in a heartbeat.

You and I both have lived under the restrictions of The Hatch Act for decades. In sum, it's a good law ... but it needs updating and some steroids to give it real muscle. If a revitalized Hatch Act were put into place the civil service would return to a meritocracy not a political play thing. I'd actually like to see something like AR 600-200 be put in place for members of the civil service...I'm gonna crab a bit here: I worked really hard for 20 years to rise into the Senior Executive Service ... I was a MERIT SES ... you can't imagine my chagrin at having to work for/with political appointee SESs who knew little about the profession but knew loads about bundling political donations ... aaarrrggggh.

In a revamped civil service, the only appointed SESs & senior GPAS employees would be cabinet secretaries (SES-1) and their direct aides/deputies ... and those deputy slots should be limited to GS-15. Deputy Assistants as GS-14s ... and none with the capability to embed into the merit system. OK ... done crabbing.

I think the most inspired I was during my time with the government (Dept. of the Army) was the 10-month course I took at Ft. Leavenworth: the CGSC Civilian Leadership course. Much of the course work was taken alongside serving Majors at the Command and General Staff College. The values we learned were character forming ... too bad elected politicians aren't required to complete a similar course of instruction.Heck, even the SES Development Program would do those dogs some good.

Obama must go ... that's for certain. But I still don't see a way to impeach him personally -- but gutting his gang and hanging their (political) entrails from the Capitol flag pole might get his attention.

Jim. The man should have to suffer an impeachment for what he has done. If done correctly the Senate would look like accomplices, those condoning and openly aiding and abetting lawlessness rather than "statesmen".

Impeachment cannot be just another boring political procedure, it has to be MUST see Theatre, a production involving the viewers as to what crimes have been committed and how each affects them (the public) personally, that this behavior cannot be allowed to continue and here is why, in strong and forceful language that all can understand, that it is no longer going to be. Make the Senate, and all those who would oppose impeachment, hang their heads in shame.

Then, it really doesn't matter much if the Senate convicts. The damage from exposure will have been done and the public will see what the democrats truly stand for. End the charade, and BS will be publicly made out to be what he really is.

Dale... well said... the House must make Impeachment a major production with well planed hearings that expose the depths and serious nature of this Administrations crimes... to the point that the Senate Democrats will find it very difficult not to vote for conviction... and if they do the people will become so incensed that they throw out every Democrat up for reelection this year.

The hearings have to take place right away... and should have been in the works before going on brake... in fact, the Speaker should have announced that the House was not going on brake because of a national constitutional crisis of the most serious nature... and then outlined what they would be doing over the brake to draft and conduct hearings on the Impeachment of Obama..

Holding the hearings over the brake would have been a grand stand play... and it would have signaled how serious the charges are.  It would have put the GOP in charge of the political narrative and caught the Democrats off balance, the President on vacation, and the MSM unprepared... to wage a counter campaign against the hearings for impeachment...

But... none of it happened and it remains very unlikely that Impeachment will occur before next year and it is doubtful it will occur then.

Obama should be in prison but I can guarantee you impeachment will never happen. republicans ignore the Constitution and kiss Obama's butt every day so I can't imagine they are going to follow the Constitution, EVER!!!!!

They can't because then they would expose themselves as well. Both sides hold each other hostage with exposing the truth about the other. That's why they all need to go and we must start over with fresh reps. Will the elite let that happen ? No. Total overhaul and the truth must happen but again will the elite let that happen ? No.

THE REPUBLICANS TO NOT HAVE THE BACK BONE TO DO ANYTHING! THEY WILL NOT ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT THAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS HAVE LAID OUT FOR US!

TO BE HONEST THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT PROBLEM THIS THE PEOPLES

PROBLEM! WHAT DOSE THE PREAMBLE OF OUR CONSTITUTION STATE WE THE PEOPLE OF

THE UNITED STATES  DO WHAT LOOK IT UP! POINT BEING  IT DOSE NOT SAY WE THE REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS BUT IT SAY WE THE PEOPLE.. OUR CONSTITUTION DOSE NOT GIVE  OBAMA OR ANY PRESIDENT THE POWER TO GOVERN ON IT'S OWN, IF LET THAT HAPPEN WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT THEY WILL  GOVERN WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT IS TO BE GOVERN BY A DICTATOR!

PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY        

Constitutional Convention of the States would be the next step to stop him. Impeachment would take too long.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service