Skip to main content

and then appears to force the House of Representatives to pass said bill, all with the President's approval, what would be the consequences of said actions?

Impeachment proceedings perhaps?

If I were Obama or Reid, I wouldn't touch Boehner's advice if my life was at stake.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Senate cannot (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FistJab, bear83, Pluto, emelyn, splashy

    force the House to do anything. Even if they could, it wouldn't be the President's doing, but Harry Reid.

    What could lead to Impeachment is the President basically ignoring the debt ceiling and instructing the Treasury to keep paying the bills.

    He would cite the 14th Amendment, and the Republicans might try to impeach him.

    It would, I believe, be a disaster for the GOP but they are crazy enough to try it.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:16:26 PM PST

    •  the president has already ruled out (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, Pluto, johnny wurster

      The 14th amendment approach.

      •  Of course he has (3+ / 0-)

        It is no part of a negotiating position.

        He will continue to rule it out, right up to the point where he does it. If he does it.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:22:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  no, he does not believe the 14th Amendment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, johnny wurster

          Gives the president the Constitutional authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.  see here.  That is not a negotiating position.  That is a statement from a Constitutional law professor about what he believes his constitutional powers are.

        •  twigg - if he ever wanted to you it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk

          he would have stated personally and had his press secretary use much less definitive terms. Given that the President is on record stating that the 14th Amendment does not give him the authority to ignore the debt ceiling it would make it easy for Congress to have the DC Court stop the practice should the Treasury exceed the limit. They would simply cite the President's own words.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:44:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ironically, the President's own statement (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny wurster, VClib

            Would provide some arguable impeachment grounds if he used the 14th amendment route after that statement. Knowingly and intentionally exceeding your constitutional authority -- i.e., intentionally violating the oath of office (cite his statement for the "knowingly and intentionally" part)-- is arguably grounds for impeachment.

    •  I did use the word 'appear' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg

      Obviously we both know the Senate cannot force the House, but does everyone?

      •  Well I wasn't disputing what you said (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arlandbaee

        simply outlining a scenario that might lead to impeachment.

        I don't think it likely, but neither is it outlandish.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:28:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not outlandish at all. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg

          There's really only one sure way for a President to be removed from office via impeachment and that's to be found guilty of violating his oath to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution.

          Your idea or mine, they both have could be seen as usurping the powers of the House.

          •  So the problem the House (0+ / 0-)

            would have with that argument is that they voted to spend the money in the first place, and in doing so left the Executive in the de-facto position of House having raised the debt ceiling, because they appropriated the money.

            It would be interesting, and I do not believe the White House when they rule out a 14th Amendment challenge to the House.

            I rather feel they had to say that.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            by twigg on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:55:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree. But I try to remind myself (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              twigg

              That every scenario is different and next time the President may have a different view.

              For example, 'The last time, being the first time the House refused to raise the debt ceiling, the consequences of the House's inaction were only speculative.  Now that I know what can result from the House's failure to raise our debt ceiling, as President i cannot allow this to happen again.  If Congress again threatens to violate their oath to uphold the constitution by threatening the credit of America, my oath will ensure that that never happens.  I cannot, must not, will not let that happen.  

              I have put procedures into place which will guarantee that all debts, contracts and financial obligations incurred by the US of America will be paid, honored and fulfilled without hesitation.

              These procedures will automatically be triggered when certain thresholds have been crossed.

              While I'm the President, Americans will not suffer from such recklessness or the threat of such recklessness again.

  •  One of the questions raised on the MSNBC shows (0+ / 0-)

    was whether, if the Senate manages to pass a bill, and it might if McConnell is more annoyed at beiing set up for blame by Boehner than he is with whatever deal is reached,  Boehner committed to put the said Senate Bill to a vote, and, presumably waive the possible blue slipping of it unless the bill is created by gutting some other House revenue bill entirely and inserting the new deal in it. If he made that deal and follows it, I don't see how BHO can be blamed for that. In any case, the House can impeach but only the Senate, whose bill and action would have been dishonored, can convict.

  •  I wouldn't worry too much about Impeachment... (0+ / 0-)

    ...while the meaning of what constitutes "high crimes" in Article II Section 4 can be debatable, we aren't anywhere close to a situation where the drawing up of Articles of Impeachment in this particular House of Representatives would be of any more impact than the 30+ votes they've held to invalidate the Affordable Care Act...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:54:49 PM PST

    •  I agree, not because I can't imagine (0+ / 0-)

      Republicans wanting to impeach Obama,

      I just can't imagine, 'this particular House of Representatives' mustering the courage to attempt it.

      But I also won't underestimate their ability to manipulate the media and emotions to their benefit.

      •  You gotta be kidding. Those redneck teabaggers.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cph

        ... have been just itching to figure out some way to impeach Obama ever since October 2008. They've had the torches lit and the noose ready ever since -- they're just looking for a handy tree.

        I hope they try it -- it will expose exactly what they are.

        As if everybody didn't already know.

  •  Don't see how... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emelyn

    The House could impeach the President for something it agrees to do.

    Though it would be a hysterically funny act of political self destruction.

    Nor do I see how 45 GOP Senators could muster 67 votes for conviction.

    As for the 14th Amendment...I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that there might come a point where the President decides to pursue it.   But it should be as a last resort and not a bargaining chip.

    And again...you're not going to find 22 Democratic Senators willing to toss the President out of office for it.

    But let's sincerely hope for the sake of our country it doesn't come down to such madness.  Unlike those on the other side of the aisle I don't believe most of us want to push the country to the brink for a shallow political gain.

    "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

    by Notthemayor on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 01:43:05 AM PST

    •  Really, (0+ / 0-)

      The Republican controlled House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton over sex.  They may have crouched it as perjury and obstruction of justice but it was all about SEX and everyone knows it.

      Republicans impeached President Clinton because they believed they cold get away with it.

      You don't think they would willingly impeach Obama with accusations of Executive abuse of power or Constitutional abuse by the President, Dictatorial attempts by the administration to usurp Congressional powers in the name of protecting American Citizens from Congressional malfeasance.  Something or other like,

      Muslim,
      Kenyan,
      Black,
      Illegal,
      Socialist,
      Communist,
      And worse?

      Most of us don't want to take our country to the brink but pitting reasonable people against insane people, insane people usually win the battle.  Reasonable people lose, and then what once was reasonable suddenly appears, soft and weak.

      When reason becomes a weakness rather than a strength, 22 Democratic Senators become capable of tossing their President out of office.

  •  I can't remotely picture your scenario. The (0+ / 0-)

    bills can't pass unless some GOP vote for them, in both Senate and House.  Nobody is forcing anything on them.  How in the world could the President be blamed?  Presidents can say whatever they want about the legislative branch - he doesn't and cannot control them.

    "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

    by mumtaznepal on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 03:36:57 AM PST

    •  Actually, you are wrong, according to the (0+ / 0-)

      Constitution, the President is allotted some control to guide a dysfunctional congress. Article 2 Section 3.  

      Each day he's taking on moreof his constitutional responsibility.

      So tell me again.

      •  Can you quote which part of Article 2 Section 3 (0+ / 0-)

        would happen in your scenario?  Because I don't see anything in Article 2 that allows a President to force a vote in either an affirmative or negative upon the Congress.

        "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

        by mumtaznepal on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:14:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never said anything about the President forcing (0+ / 0-)

          congress about anything.  Even though he can force congress to convene or adjourn.

          To answer your question though, Article 2 Section 3 of the US constitution states,

          "The President shall have power to....recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary or expedient"

          Congress must consider what the President deems necessary or expedient.

          That's part of the President's executive power.  There is more, but that right there is enough.

          It's a pretty big power.

          •  The point of this diary is that you fear (0+ / 0-)

            impeachment for the President as a result of the Senate, then House, voting on a tax bill.

            As I have said, that scenario you outline (impeachment for alleged acts) can't happen.

            The President cannot force the Senate to hold a vote, nor the House, nor can he control the results of those votes one way or the other.

            Regarding the Senate originating a fiscal bill, that is done all the time.  The Senate takes a bill passed by House, substitutes or amends language, sends it back to the House.  

            There are full-time independent parlimentarians that are on the floor of House and Senate, that guide these actions to ensure legality and adherence to Senate, House rules and Constitutional requirements.

            The only "force" President Obama has in this whole "fix the fiscal cliff, Senate" deal scenario is public opinion.

            "Recommend" on the part of any President does not force any vote to occur, let alone a vote to support a president.  

            We have separation of powers, and system checks like those in Article 2, to keep independence and prevent takeover by either Executive or Legislative branch.

            "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

            by mumtaznepal on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:00:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is an excellent summation of the current (0+ / 0-)

              state of affairs, parlimentary and political, over this in the House and Senate today

              http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

              "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

              by mumtaznepal on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:22:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Once again you are misrepresenting my (0+ / 0-)

              argument.  I did not say that the President or congress could force the other to hold a vote.  

              You are wrong regardless, the President could 'force' congress to convene on December 31 to discuss the Economy, if he so chose.  If congress passed a bill the President disliked, the President could 'force' congress  to a second vote by vetoing the first bill.

              There are several more ways votes could be forced by one house or the other or the President. The probability of such occurrences are nigh impossible, but not completely.  I think I made my point.

              You really don't think there's a possibility of the house voting to impeach President Obama?

              They nearly did so once already over Lybia.  Those accusations were lies but they were still made.

  •  I never said the Presidnt could force (0+ / 0-)

    A House vote.  I said that the Senate could appear to force the House and with Presidential approval, the president could get blamed.

    Nevertheless, the Executive office has the Authority to recommend to congress issues for them to consider.  He also has the power to convene congress as well as adjorn them in specific cases.

    The Presidnt has been flexing this particular authority throughout the fiscal debacle.

    My impeachment scenario depends on a revenue bill not originating in the House, as Boehner is suggestin.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site