Is It Time To Prosecute Republicans For Violating the U.S. Constitution?

2015-09-16T15:52:43-04:00

"An oath of office is an affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, and it is typical to believe the person taking the oath not only intends on fulfilling that “affirmation,” they actually comprehend what they are swearing to uphold. It is increasingly evident that since the American people twice elected an African American man as President, Republicans not only have no intent in fulfilling their oath of office, they may have no idea what they are swearing to support and defend. This is particularly true, once again, now that Republicans are questioning the need for the United States government to pay all its debts; something that the Constitution prohibits legislators to do....Now, there is no dispute on whether refusing or questioning the need to raise the debt ceiling or not paying the nation’s debts is Constitutional or not. According to the 14th Amendment, Section 4, “The validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned.” As if the Founding Fathers foresaw that in the 21st Century a cabal of racist conservative legislators would balk at or question paying the nation’s debts because an African American was twice elected as President, they included in Article 1, Section 8 the task assigned to all members of the federal legislature. Section 8 says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/12/time-prosecute-remove-republicans-violating-u-s-constitution.html

So, aren't the Republicans who advocate shutting down the government in violation of their oaths?

It Is Time To Prosecute Republicans For Violating the U.S. Constitution

Republicans not only have no intent in fulfilling their oath of office, they may have no idea what they are swearing to support and defend.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2015 8:01 PM

2015-09-16T20:01:15-04:00

Why is it you Just want to prosecute Republicans? Why not Democrats?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2015 8:43 PM

2015-09-16T20:43:36-04:00

Should the democrats be prosecuted for past government shutdowns? Should democrat mouthpieces be prosecuted for sticking their head up their arse?

Shutdown #1: HEWdown

When did it take place? Sept. 30 to Oct. 11, 1976
How long did it last? 10 days
Who was president? Gerald Ford
Who controlled the Senate? Democrats, 62-38; Mike Mansfield was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 291-144; Carl Albert was speaker
Why did it happen? The major budget conflict during this period came because Ford vetoed a funding bill for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare (or HEW, today split into the Departments of Education and of Health and Human Services), arguing that it failed to restrain spending adequately.
What resolved it? Congress overrode Ford's veto Oct. 1, so the spending bills took effect, but it wasn't until over a week later that the partial shutdown ended, as it was only on Oct.11 that a continuing resolution ending funding gaps for other parts of government became law.

Shutdown #2: The Abortion Shutdown

When did it take place? Sept. 30 to Oct. 13, 1977
How long did it last? 12 days
Who was president? Jimmy Carter
Who controlled the Senate? Democrats, 59-41; Robert Byrd was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 292-143; Tip O'Neill was speaker
Why did it happen? The House insisted on continuing the ban on using Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions except in cases where the life of the mother was at stake. The Senate wanted to loosen this to include allowances for abortions in the case of rape or incest or when the mother's health was in danger. Because the issue had become tied to funding for Labor and HEW, failure to come to an agreement led those agencies to have a funding gap.
What resolved it? The Medicaid ban was continued until Oct. 31 and the shutdown ended, to give negotiators more time to work out a deal.

Shutdown #3: The Abortion Shutdown II: Abortion Boogaloo

When did it take place? Oct. 31 to Nov. 9, 1977
How long did it last? 8 days
Who was president? Jimmy Carter
Who controlled the Senate? Democrats, 59-41; Robert Byrd was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 292-143; Tip O'Neill was speaker
Why did it happen? Not enough time had elapsed since the temporary measure ending the shutdown passed for the abortion standoff to be resolved.
What resolved it? Another temporary bill was signed by Carter to allow for more time for Congress to resolve its abortion dispute.

Shutdown #4: The Abortion Shutdown III: Dark of the Moon

When did it take place? Nov. 30 to Dec. 9, 1977
How long did it last? 8 days
Who was president? Jimmy Carter
Who controlled the Senate? Democrats, 59-41; Robert Byrd was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 292-143; Tip O'Neill was speaker
Why did it happen? The second temporary measure ending a shutdown, meant to allow more time for negotiation, didn't last long enough. The House, in particular, rejected a Senate proposal that would have allowed for Medicaid to pay for abortions by victims of statutory rape. House conservatives rejected it as too lax and House liberals as too tough on rape victims. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who is still in the House, asked on the House floor, "What happens in Fort Apache [South Bronx], where a girl is gang-raped and told she will be killed if she reports it?"

What resolved it? A deal was brokered in which the exception allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions in cases where the mother's life is endangered was widened to include abortions resulting from rape or incest, or which are necessary to protect the mother's health (even if her life was not endangered).

Shutdown #5: Jimmy Carter vs. the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

When did it take place? Sept. 30 to Oct.18, 1978
How long did it last? 18 days
Who was president? Jimmy Carter
Who controlled the Senate? Democrats, 59-41; Robert Byrd was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 292-143; Tip O'Neill was speaker
Why did it happen? Congress passed a defense bill including funding for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Carter judged that carrier wasteful and vetoed it. He also vetoed a public works appropriations bill because of water projects that he considered wasteful pork. Additionally, spending for HEW was delayed, once again, over a dispute concerning funding for abortion.
What resolved it? A new defense bill, excluding funding for the carrier, was passed, as was a new public works bill excluding the water projects Carter opposed. The previous year's compromise solution on abortion, in which funding was reserved for cases of rape, incest and jeopardy to the mother's health, was agreed to in both houses.

Shutdown #6: Higher pay, fewer abortions

When did it take place? Sept. 30 to Oct. 12, 1979
How long did it last? 11 days
Who was president? Jimmy Carter
Who controlled the Senate? Democrats, 58-42; Robert Byrd was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 277-158; Tip O'Neill was speaker
Why did it happen? The House wanted to raise congressional and senior civil servant pay by 5.5 percent, which the Senate opposed. The lower house also wanted to limit federal abortion spending to cases where the mother's life was in danger, while the Senate wanted to keep funding in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's health is in serious jeopardy. The dispute was not resolved before a partial shutdown.
What resolved it? The House got its pay increases but had to allow abortion funding in cases of rape or incest (but not when the mother's health, rather than life, was in danger). The latter was a slight tightening of the previous year's Medicaid abortion compromise.

Shutdown #7: You wouldn't like Reagan when he's angry

When did it take place? Nov. 20-23, 1981
How long did it last? 2 days
Who was president? Ronald Reagan
Who controlled the Senate? Republicans, 53-47; Howard Baker was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 244-191; Tip O'Neill was speaker
Why did it happen? Reagan promised to veto any spending bill that didn't include at least half of his proposed $8.4 billion in domestic budget cuts. The Senate passed a bill that met his specifications, but the House insisted on both greater defense cuts than Reagan wanted and pay raises for itself and for senior-level federal civil servants. Eventually, the House and Senate agreed to and passed a package that fell $2 billion short of the cuts Reagan wanted, so Reagan vetoed it and shut down the government.
What resolved it? The House and Senate passed, and Reagan signed, a bill extending current spending through Dec. 15, giving them time to work out a longer-lasting deal.

Shutdown #8: Let them eat shutdown

When did it take place? Sept. 30 to Oct. 2, 1982
How long did it last? 1 day
Who was president? Ronald Reagan
Who controlled the Senate? Republicans, 53-47; Howard Baker was majority leader
Who controlled the House? Democrats, 244-191; Tip O'Neill was speaker
Why did it happen? Basically no reason. The new fiscal year started and Congress just hadn't passed new spending in time, and so parts of the government were forced to shut down. While there were some disagreements over spending levels between the House and Senate and the administration, the reason the former didn't pass the bill before a shutdown was basically that they had other plans.

"Congressional leaders barred a late-night session because of major social events tonight by both Republicans and Democrats," Martin Tolchin at the New York Times reported. "President Reagan invited all members of Congress to a barbecue at the White House, while Democrats were having a $1,000-a-plate fund-raising dinner."
What resolved it? The House and Senate passed spending bills late, and Reagan signed them despite the fact that they exceeded his desired spending levels in the near-run.

ET. AL.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/25/here-is-every-previous-government-shutdown-why-they-happened-and-how-they-ended/

Here is every previous government shutdown, why they happened and how they ended

Since 1976, the government has shut down 17 separate times, lasting a cumulative 110 days. Here's why each happened.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 16 at 2015 9:06 PM

2015-09-16T21:06:37-04:00

Yes, right after Obama goes to jail for failing to uphold all the laws of our nation, not just the ones he wants to.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2015 10:21 PM

2015-09-16T22:21:33-04:00

I think that if we made it a sport to impeach elected officials for violating the Constitution or their oath of office, we would have a new national pastime. It is a failing not confined to a particular party, either. What I know for certain is that if we allow ourselves to fall into this cesspool, little or nothing will get done other than that.

It would be nice if we had a legislative branch that could deliberately ponder the 14 major appropriations bills through committee, scrutinizing every dollar by questioning the agency heads, and passing those bills in a timely manner for the President to sign.
It would be nice if the Executive Branch would enforce the nation's laws, duly passed by the Congress. And further, not to attempt to circumvent the Congress through executive orders, policy, or regulation fiat.
It would be nice if we had a Judicial Branch that interpreted the nation's laws, not attempt to legislate from the bench by creating laws from the ether.

I for one want the entire government to do its job and stop with the gotcha games. The good of the whole country should be the priority, not undermining the other side for political triangulation and posturing. I do not believe that any person or party has a monopoly on good ideas. So long as we work together for the common defense and general welfare, we can get there. We'd only disagree on how to do it.

We can do better than this.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2015 10:45 PM

2015-09-16T22:45:49-04:00

Your opinion is flawed Sir. Much of the debt is directly, 100%, contributed to the democratic administration. The Pres is the head of the law enforcement branch, not the law creating branch. The debt has more than tripled due to Democratic influence. I have to ask; are you a true naval officer or are you a troll?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 1:25 AM

2015-09-17T01:25:53-04:00

There's not a single on DC that has fulfilled the oath they took when they went there. Yes many of them probably went there with the best of intentions but have lost sight of the real reason they were sent there and that is to serve their constituents. It's just Republicans in DC being jackasses it everyone one of them there in all the branches.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Sep 17 at 2015 2:38 AM

2015-09-17T02:38:52-04:00

1. Obama crammed down our throats with a majority Democratic Congress and senate the UN Affordable act....un lawful and hurt way way more people than it's helping...and by the way...the people that it's helping....a gazillion dollars of tax payers money is going towards these people so they can have the un affordable care act.
2. Dodd Frank passed through and within the Un Affordable care act...crashed the real estate market in 2008...if you were in the industry and you understood what happened...how it happened, then you would know and realize this really screwed things up and is still screwing it up.
3. Obama crammed down our throats his amnesty act...unlawful
4. Associating with known criminals...associating with RACIST pastors and many other unsavory characters

He's made so many un lawful deals and decisions, but no one will do anything about it....especially for the longest time since he had a Majority vote all of the time...there is no such thing as Bi Partisan in his arena.

He was the cause of the government shutdowns...and turned around and made it seem it was only the Republicans behind it.

Like all Politicians he lies...lies and lies....but he is the worst of all...he puts people in place that are his puppets like Eric Holder...who, he himself should be in jail.

OH PLEASE...You just! Really? I find you to be ridiculously funny.

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Sep 17 at 2015 8:47 AM

2015-09-17T08:47:00-04:00

Those same Founding fathers that you quoted also hated government and thought it was a necessary evil. Since it was a necessary evil they wanted it as small as possible. The Constitution that you quoted Sir, were put into place to limit government.
The Next question is why just throw the republicans in jail? Why not everyone that holds elected office? Democrats are just as guilty of violating their oath as Republicans are. They have all long since stopped representing the common man, if they ever did.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 9:43 AM

2015-09-17T09:43:32-04:00

Captain Miller-I'm struggling to make the connection between the fact that an African-American was twice elected to the Presidency, and Congressional approval of a budget. Perhaps you can help me understand what it is you are suggesting.

To be plain, sir...please allow me to ask you what you would suggest the long-term plan should be for ensuring that the national debt does not exceed the ability for the national economy to pay for it? I believe I'm within the bounds of logic to request that that answer speak to the amount of available income at at even a 100% taxable rate towards paying off the national debt...whether or not you would support total enclave of all privatized business into the public sector...and if so accomplished, how one would expect to ensure a sustainable distribution of skills in the work force to support it?

The only other conceivable suggestion is that you are asserting that the national debt essentially "doesn't matter", and it is the duty of Congress to bottom line any funding (with the exception of course of national defense, because didn't the CIC ask for reductions there?) required as the result of executive order. This too, evokes constitutional over-reach.

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Sep 17 at 2015 10:12 AM

2015-09-17T10:12:10-04:00

Oh Lord you have done stepped into it now Capt Miller.... How about we start with a president who believes he can make laws? Or a Attorney General who ignored many issues and concentrated on those involving blacks? How about we consider the fact that, while the Democrats had both houses, and rammed thru Health care without a single Republican vote, and have gone so far to use the "Nuclear option" by ignoring every Republican in office.

This administration has divided this country by color, by personal views, and now you are actually stating that the Republicans should be taken to task?

Please note, those people you comment on, are not refusing to pay our debts, they are demanding that someone STOP spending money we don't have. Yes, the government will probably be shut down again... but listen to the reasons for this... consider the options... and then look at your kids, who were born owing thousands from their first breath. \

Sorry, Captain... your question hit me, just as I was considering 18 trillion in debt, and my six year old grandson already owing over fifty thousand dollars to the government to pay his share of the debt.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 17 at 2015 10:47 AM

2015-09-17T10:47:22-04:00

Yeah, get the gas chambers fired up, collect them up, take all their possessions (don't forget the gold teeth) and send them in. Get rid of those recalcitrant citizens that don't vote the way the left wing idiots desire. What ever happened to the loyal opposition? Probably in the trash bins with the bodies of the PP used parts sale that wasn't sold. Of all the BS written in this post, you would think we have a Monarchy rather than a duly elected President. And the serfs on the left are quite happy. Particularly since they reap the rewards of those that pay the taxes.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Sep 17 at 2015 2:11 PM

2015-09-17T14:11:22-04:00

Please don't feed this troll, RP members.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Sep 17 at 2015 2:26 PM

2015-09-17T14:26:56-04:00

Unbelievable! Let's just do away with Congress and coronate Barack Obama. He'd fit in just fine next to King George.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Sep 17 at 2015 3:00 PM

2015-09-17T15:00:51-04:00

I am more Democrat than Republican, however I think this topic is just as bad as this one.

The Professional Military Network | RallyPoint

Find service members and veterans like you, discuss military life, and share professional opportunities on the largest military network.

Response by PO2 Jeffrey Sheibels made Sep 17 at 2015 3:55 PM

2015-09-17T15:55:49-04:00

It's time to prosecute all politicans who violate the Constitution.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Sep 17 at 2015 4:52 PM

2015-09-17T16:52:22-04:00

Washington (CNN) -- Senate Democrats failed Thursday to win a procedural vote to open debate on a bill that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The motion for cloture, or to begin debate, needed 60 votes to pass due to a Republican filibuster, but fell short at 57-42 in favor.
While supporters said they would try to bring the bill up again, either on its own or as part of other legislation to be considered, the vote Thursday jeopardized the measure's chances for approval in the final weeks of the current congressional session.
The House previously passed the bill on a mostly partisan 268-160 vote.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reacted to Thursday's result by calling it "a tragic example of partisan politics trumping patriotism."
House passes 9/11 first responders bill

"I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their wrong-headed political strategy and allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote," Bloomberg said in a statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/09/senate.9.11.responders/index.html

If you vote for a GOP candidate, you are nuts.

Walt

9/11 responders bill defeated by Senate GOP filibuster

Senate Democrats failed Thursday to win a procedural vote to open debate on a bill that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 10:13 PM

2015-09-17T22:13:16-04:00

Sir, you may want to take a step back and reevaluate your statement. Why? I believe you may have made your comments in haste. As it is true that both parties are guilty of playing politics with the nations debt and to a larger degree the dept ceiling itself. We cannot honestly talk about one party with regard to such transgressions and do our audience justice. Because both sides of the aisle are guilty as charged in this rotunda. Perhaps, you should become an independant, sir, but of course if you do that you limit your responsibility and duty as a citizen of these United States to effect electoral change.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2015 4:50 AM

2015-09-18T04:50:07-04:00

Wow! What we are talking about is epic instigation and race-baiting. I will just leave it at that....

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Sep 18 at 2015 4:21 PM

2015-09-18T16:21:21-04:00

Brass cajones. How do you manage to walk. But here is my serious answer. No not all Republicans are so tribalistic that they are willing to put party interests above national interests by way of shutdowns, negotiating with other countries to circumvent our foreign policy, inviting foreign leaders to topple our foreign policy, speaking favorably more of the Russian leader than their own, insinuating non-stop that he is muslim, non-citizen, other. That said your ire should be directed at these politicians who happen to be republican and go out of their way to work against their own President; example being Senator Tom Cotton and 45 other Senators.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Sep 19 at 2015 1:40 AM

2015-09-19T01:40:28-04:00

You call the legislators racist? What is your basis for that?

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Sep 19 at 2015 9:09 AM

2015-09-19T09:09:19-04:00

This from President Lincoln in his special address to the Congress of 7/4/61 is also germane:

"Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled—the successful establishing, and the successful administering of it. One still remains—its successful maintenance against a formidable [internal] attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world, that those who can fairly carry an election, can also suppress a rebellion [or a shutting down of the government] —that ballots are the rightful, and peaceful, successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly, and constitutionally, decided, there can be no successful appeal, back to bullets; [or to shutting down the government] that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war [or by shutting down the government] —teaching all, the folly of being the beginners of a war."

It would be hard to say that secession, and shutting down the government itself, don't spring from the same traitorous mind set.

Walt

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Sep 25 at 2015 8:25 AM

2015-09-25T08:25:18-04:00

"Pundit prep: Shuttering the government actually costs more than keeping it open. The White House says the last shutdown, which lasted 16 days, meant 6.6 million days of lost work, $2 billion in back pay for 850,000 federal employees who did no work and 120,000 private-sector jobs gone." - Washington Post

Response by PO2 David Melton made Jul 28 at 2016 12:46 PM

2016-07-28T12:46:18-04:00

When the "impeaching" starts, folks, lets not limit it to Obama, let's get GW, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for their fabrications with Iraq's WMD; at least Tony Blair has stepped up and admitted his part ... let the Bush Administration do the same. We ALL deserve better than what we've been getting the past 2 decades.