(Quick note, with more extensive notes below, I'm trying to carefully read the relevant laws, here, not pass a judgment on any of the Obama administration's policies. You want to talk broken promises, war crimes, Constitutional violations, or generally stupid moves, I'm in. None of those, however, relate to impeachment, which is a specific process designed to resolve specific problems.)
Not to offend anybody, but it's probably because nobody calling for the man's impeachment has ever bothered to read the Constitution. Article II, Section 4 provides the criteria.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The closest you can get to treason is violating the Oath of Office in not defending the Constitution (specifically, the Bill of Rights) from its domestic enemies and covering up war crimes by not prosecuting the Bush administration. I've yet to see even an accusation of bribery.
High crimes and misdemeanors, maybe? Wikipedia suggests, "perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order." (
Edit: It's a term that was in use by English Parliament, amounting to blatant corruption, and the phrase replaced "corruption" during the drafting, along with "maladministration," which is what many people are trying to argue.)
Let's see...
- Perjury? Has not been called to testify.
- Abuse of authority? Arguably on issues like Libya, but not clearly.
- Bribery? Again, never heard anything.
- Intimidation? That must be why his opponents whine about how weak he makes us look.
- Misuse of assets? Nothing unauthorized that I've heard about. (Edit: Money allocated to agencies gets to the agencies, which is different from bad stewardship.)
- Failure to supervise? Maybe with the NSA, but the people who would bring charges would have to face them soon after.
- Dereliction of duty? Again, not that I've heard. Disagreeing with his policies doesn't mean he's not doing his job. Again, maybe not prosecuting Bush officials, but that's a nuclear option if ever I saw one.
- Conduct unbecoming? Well, I mean, he danced on "Ellen." Is that sufficient?
- Refusal to obey? That probably doesn't apply at this time.
In other words, there doesn't appear to be an impeachable offense and you can't impeach a President for supporting things you don't like. If the latter were the case, we'd have impeached every President since Washington.
Update:
This post has gotten a lot of attention (and some hilariously inept insults, including the ever-popular "your stupid," which I assume is donating a stupid to my fund), so let me clarify the somewhat-valid objections:
- I'm not an Obama supporter. I don't support any major-party politician, because they've perverted our system of government by limiting who we're allowed to elect. The man reminds me of children who find out that "ass" can also mean a donkey and use that to defend their rudeness.
- I believe in the Rule of Law, however. The Constitution is clear on what's permissible and what is an impeachable offense.
- Delaying implementation of a law is the prerogative and duty of the executive branch, given that it's tasked entirely with how to implement laws. The Take Care/Faithful Execution clause bans the alteration or dismissal of a law, but delays have always been acceptable in Constitutional law.
- Furthermore, if the legislature is allowed to dictate how laws are executed, then the Separation of Powers is eroded just as badly as if the executive alters legislation.
- Bush-era war crimes would include the 2007 Baghdad airstrikes (the "Collateral Murder" incident, as Wikileaks called it) and "enhanced interrogation techniques," at minimum, involve actions specifically banned by the third and fourth Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is a party.
And for the people objecting to Wikipedia citations, find contradicting definitions in more credible sources. It's a tiny mind that dismisses information based on its source, and Wikipedia at least comes with a free paper trail.
Why am I "defending Obama"? Because the law favors him in this context. The only way to successfully impeach him would be to throw out the Constitution in favor of extremist ideology, and
I've had enough of that crap from the government. It's not cute when they pass gun control laws, force people to buy insurance, or monitor people based on their religion, and it's not cute here, either.
Think of impeachment like the
death penalty: There are only certain contexts in which you're allowed to ask for it. If someone robs your house a thousand times, they're
still not eligible for the death penalty, no matter how annoyed it makes you. If you keep your activities to a state with no death penalty, you could be a serial killer and nobody can threaten you with the death penalty. It's only certain jurisdictions and certain offenses that trigger the possibility. It's the same situation here.
Original Source