Is selective government funding of programs--an impeachable offense?

[CoffeeCat]

I was in the car listening to Bob Brinker. I like him. He's a financial/economic guru, and he's got a pretty good handle on government and politics. He's not overly political though. He's not a complete right-wing tool and demagogue like Rush and the
rest of that crazy ilk.


I was only in the car for a few minutes, but I heard him discussing the current Republicans bills which selectively fund specific agencies, projects or policies. For example--funding the veterans--but leaving out the rest of the budget.

I also heard Bob say that President Obama should not engage in this type of selective budgeting--picking and choosing certain programs that are funded, while not funding others. In effect, the President would be cherry picking specific programs and (in effect) defunding others.

Brinker said that his was "unconstitutional" and could "trigger articles of impeachment".

I had never heard that said before. My curiosity and interest were definitely sparked.

Any government/civics experts out there understand what Brinker was saying? Is this true?

If so, I wonder if the Republicans are goading the President into walking into a trap? They certainly are hammering President Obama for failing to consider these "selective funding bills" that give money to a few programs--but not others.

If anyone can shed some light, I would appreciate it. I seriously wouldn't put it past those scurrilous Republicans to engage in tactics that could trigger impeachment.

Thanks for any insight.

[Recursion]

1. Ultimately the House decides what is and isn't impeachable

Personally, the paranoid side of me worries that the GOP wants a debt default in order to put Obama in the position where his only two options are:

1. Borrowing money he is not authorized to borrow (illegal), or
2. Failing to pay money he is legally obliged to pay (illegal)

and they'll impeach regardless of which way he chooses.

[doc03]

4. But doesn't the Senate also have a vote? No way the Senate would vote impeachment. n/t

[Lil Missy]

5. The house votes for impeachment, the Senate

votes on whether or not to convict.

Clinton was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate.

[doc03]

6. That's what I mean. Didn't Al Gore save Clintons ass n/t

[Recursion]

9. No, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate; 67 guilty votes were required and 45 were obtained

Some of the system is still left over from the time when the VP was the guy who got the 2nd highest number of votes compared to the President in the electoral college, so they didn't want him running any trial of the President. After the House impeaches the President, the Senate holds a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[PoliticAverse]

21. There were 2 articles of Impeachment in Clinton's case...

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

The perjury charge failed with 45 senators (all Republican) voting "guilty" and 55 senators (45 Democrats and 10 Republicans) voting "not guilty". The obstruction of justice charge failed with 50 senators (all Republican) voting "guilty" and 50 senators (45 Democrats and 5 Republicans) voting "not guilty". In both cases, a two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required for conviction.

[Recursion]

7. The Senate will not vote to remove Obama from office (at least not the current Senate)

But the House could very well vote to impeach (it's like the difference between indictment and conviction: the House is the grand jury, and decides whether or not to impeach, and the Senate is the jury and decides whether or not to remove from office).

Two Presidents have been impeached; none have been removed from office.

[doc03]

11. Boy all this gloom and doom has got me down. Reading posts

on DU tonight makes me think we better just give Boner whatever he wants.

[Recursion]

13. My own paranoid suspicion is that a default is being set up in order to impeach

But maybe I'm just being crazy.

[doc03]

15. I don't think you are crazy. Just the last couple weeks

"Save America Impeach Obama" signs have spung up around this area. I think
Bob Murray the coal mine pig is paying for them. If that happens every f---g Democrat better hit the streets.

[PoliticAverse]

22. Consider that perhaps that is the purpose of all this impeachment talk. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

16. Nor will the next Senate as you need 2/3rds to convict. This whole Impeachment topic on DU

(and it is mentioned often) is ridiculous. Obama is not going to be removed from office over the Debt limit
issue.

[Recursion]

17. Impeachment is not removal

Impeachment could definitely happen; it just takes a majority vote in the House.

[PoliticAverse]

18. Yes I know that. If Republicans want to self-destruct over this issue by impeaching Obama

for not letting the US default, let them self-destruct (Obama won't be removed from office over it).

[doc03]

2. I was also listening to Brinker today for a few minutes. I missed that

discussion but I heard a caller saying that the Republicans can use the 14th Amendment to force the cuts they want to balance the budget. Oh, on non-political Bob Brinker. I listened to him years ago, I remember back when Bill Clinton was trying to increased taxes on the rich. Bob Brinker said the Clinton Administration didn't have a clue about economics and if they increased the taxes on the rich it would cause another great depression. We know how those Clinton years caused another great depression don't we? Bob Brinker is just another republican blow hard.

[CoffeeCat]

8. I do agree with you about Brinker....

...I have heard his partisan malarkey. He is obviously a true fiscal conservative. However, he is not a lying bastard demagogue like most of those right-wing radio hosts.

Brinker only spends 15 percent of his show being partisan. I like his financial advice and his knowledge on economics and the financial markets.

Yes, he is a fiscal conservative. But, he's not crazy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Members of congress can't be impeached

[Recursion]

10. They can be expelled, but only by their own chamber

Looking back, I think that's a weakness of the system; there should be a combined executive-judicial check on the legislature along those lines. But then again the legislature is more directly accountable to the people than the other two branches.

[pinboy3niner]

12. He cannot be impeached for signing bills passed by Congress

The House that originated the piecemeal bills would hardly attempt to impeach him for that (if he were to sign them).

[CoffeeCat]

14. On the other hand...

...I can understand why the President couldn't look at a budget and say--I'm funding only two items here. The rest is doing into the circular file cabinet.

I'm wondering if these partial funding pieces of legislation--would be viewed legally as financial cherry picking?

I don't know. I'm just asking questions at this point.

And I agree with you---that the President would be signing bills crafted by the House--so how could that be wrong?

I don't know. It could be wrong from a legal/Constitutional viewpoint.

[PoliticAverse]

19. This would just end up in the Supreme Court as to whether the President's action was

constitutional. If they disagreed with him they'd just tell the government to do something different.

[Loudly]

20. It's the Line-Item Veto but foisted upon the President by the House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York