Impeach Obama over sequester?

[DSM Local]

If Obama takes the sequester and the cuts to where it hurts Americans the most, is that not treason?

My Question is can it be proven he did it on purpose (even if just for political points).

Let me know what you think

[Blern]

Only a liberal would think that spending less money would be treasonous. Its less than 4% people. Get a grip.

[Bushwhacker]

Let me know, when you DO THINK !!!

[CRASSUS]

Impeach Obama!

[Bushwhacker]

Gay racists coalition, crass ???

[Bushwhacked]

Bushwhacker wrote:

Gay racists coalition, crass ???

Slewsie dear, you are the President of the gay racists coalition. I am so proud of my gay hubby.

[liBeRALs]

DSM Local wrote:

If Obama takes the sequester and the cuts to where it hurts Americans the most, is that not treason?
My Question is can it be proven he did it on purpose (even if just for political points).
Let me know what you think

Cutting anything that puts the people of this country in harm's way when there are other areas to cut would be close enough to treason for me. HIS #1 job is to protect our nation.

[Blern]

This sequester should be the first of many. It worked. Next we should target more cuts if the libs want anything. Its terrible that we have to do this to stop them from spending us to ruin, but we have no choice.

This crying about spending cuts is ridiculous. They are necessary reductions that lower our federal outlays. Any responsible business would do the same if faced with these deficits. Yes, more waste should have been cut than actual services, but the department heads will look at their individual budgets soon and make the right decisions.

Enough demagogy and disaster talk. Lets move on. Its done.

The bad thing is that Obama probably won't agree to this again so they will have to call it something else.

[LIbEralS]

Correction, instead of " Any responsible business would do the same if faced with these deficits.", I would suggest:

Responsible businesses have already done the same when faced with these deficits. Unless, of course, they were favored by Obama, then the taxpayers paid for a bailout for them.

[Ralph]

DSM Local wrote:

If Obama takes the sequester and the cuts to where it hurts Americans the most, is that not treason?
My Question is can it be proven he did it on purpose (even if just for political points).
Let me know what you think

Whatever he cuts will be done by him and he will be held accountable.

It's quite normal for Government to cut where it hurts most when they are forced to cut. Examples are towns always cut COPs and firefighters FIRST. They NEVER cut parks and rec, community centers, city hall staff, roads, sewer and water, electric utilities, planning, city manager, police cheif, fire cheif, utility manager, town vehicles, management bonuses, economic development, historical planning, council and mayor pay, tree trimming etc.

They ALWAYS cut COPs and firefighters.

You watch what Obama cuts, it WILL hurt the most......

[Article 3 Section 3]

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[12]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[13] In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[14] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

[Article 3 Section 3]

In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.
Based on the above quoted excerpt it was noted by lawyer William J. Olson in an Amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[15] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trial by military commission. As Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the United States’s] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of...

[Article 3 Section 3]

liBeRALs wrote:

<quoted text>
Cutting anything that puts the people of this country in harm's way when there are other areas to cut would be close enough to treason for me. HIS #1 job is to protect our nation.

in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

Don't the Military cuts and Letting Illegals go count as such, why is he not cutting garbage like the department of education or fixing the fact that Superintendents make over $150K a year on the LOW end.

I like sequester I WANT to see spending cut but I also want Obama GONE

[DSM Local]

Ralph wrote:

<quoted text>
Whatever he cuts will be done by him and he will be held accountable.
It's quite normal for Government to cut where it hurts most when they are forced to cut. Examples are towns always cut COPs and firefighters FIRST. They NEVER cut parks and rec, community centers, city hall staff, roads, sewer and water, electric utilities, planning, city manager, police cheif, fire cheif, utility manager, town vehicles, management bonuses, economic development, historical planning, council and mayor pay, tree trimming etc.
They ALWAYS cut COPs and firefighters.
You watch what Obama cuts, it WILL hurt the most......

That is my point! That is NOT in the BEST interest of the people. That is done with the sole aim of causing pain to AMERICANS. Harming or causing pain to the country you have sworn to defend and protect on PURPOSE is that not TREASON?

[DSM Local]

Blern wrote:

This sequester should be the first of many. It worked. Next we should target more cuts if the libs want anything. Its terrible that we have to do this to stop them from spending us to ruin, but we have no choice.
This crying about spending cuts is ridiculous. They are necessary reductions that lower our federal outlays. Any responsible business would do the same if faced with these deficits. Yes, more waste should have been cut than actual services, but the department heads will look at their individual budgets soon and make the right decisions.
Enough demagogy and disaster talk. Lets move on. Its done.
The bad thing is that Obama probably won't agree to this again so they will have to call it something else.

Be Real, the so called republicans will buckle and we'll face more taxation. Why don't people understand the concept of spending LESS. And what about Budgets, can't we jsut bring in the 2006 budget or some other previous budget until a NEW one is approved, nope can't go back to those levels. Government is broken and too powerful. There is a reason the Founders put a limit on it.

[Schmahl Spew]

DSM Local wrote:

If Obama takes the sequester and the cuts to where it hurts Americans the most, is that not treason?
My Question is can it be proven he did it on purpose (even if just for political points).
Let me know what you think

That would be treason on the part of Bonehead Boehner, actually.

What's this I hear that you are moving to Jacksonville to try to escape your level 3 sex offender status???

[DSM Local]

Schmahl Spew wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be treason on the part of Bonehead Boehner, actually.
What's this I hear that you are moving to Jacksonville to try to escape your level 3 sex offender status???

what is it with you and sex crimes, if you commited one you should kill yourself

[Schmahl Spew]

We know about you and the neighborhood boys. Don't try to lie your way out of it; it is a matter of public record.

[DSM Local]

Schmahl Spew wrote:

We know about you and the neighborhood boys. Don't try to lie your way out of it; it is a matter of public record.

and little boys MY god you are one SICK piece of Sh !t only a FGAGGET piece of SWINE such as yourself brings this garbage up unprovoked. You should kill yourself for the crimes you have commited

[Schmahl Spew]

DSM Local wrote:

<quoted text>
and little boys MY god you are one SICK piece of Sh !t only a FGAGGET piece of SWINE such as yourself brings this garbage up unprovoked. You should kill yourself for the crimes you have commited

You don't even deny it, you child-molesting POS!