Quote:
Originally Posted by ZonieDiver
How long will the impeachment process take, and what are it's chances for success?
No doubt he could be impeached.
Do you think he'd lose in the Senate trial?
And... those morons in Congress would freeze ALL other important business facing this nation while they diddle themselves over this.
Courts are a better way to go, and IMHO give us a better chance at success.
|
The actual impeachment process for Clinton lasted ~ 2 months.
I think I see what you are getting at. An attempt to impeach him, after the fact, wont have any bearing on the EO being implemented.
Quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from
Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States:
|
[source]
Would he actually lose the Senate trial? I doubt it. I cant quantify my doubt, I know that BHO has managed to do some things I thought impossible already (including getting re-elected) so its probably just pure pessimism.
I did a little research this morning and found an interesting precedent.
In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, the courts ruled in favor of Heller, partially basing their decision on United States v. Miller. This case defies the argument that "assault weapons" do not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment because they are a recent invention.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER states:
Quote:
|
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
|
[source]
So maybe there is hope that a ban on "assault rifles" is illegal.