there must be an indictable offense with which he can be charged. Treason is taking arms against the US or aiding & abetting an enemy of the US (enemy of state - like spy vs spy)

legislature or articles to amend or affect change in rules governing protected freedoms (bill of rights) are not in themselves treasonous, however, domestic use of drones could be (as an act of war against the United States) especially if the lower house perceives it as such. The lower house has to file the charges and I believe they will as soon as there is an impeachable offense that can be PROVEN.

Benghazi deserves another looksee - failure to protect could be treason or any implicit cooperation by knowingly failing to act against that attack is treason

Financial improprieties would not qualify as treason, but they could qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" which are impeachable (can anybody say wiretapping)? lol

So I think he has to be especially careful regards the taking up of weapons against the homeland, and financial improprieties regarding the banks and the auto indistry that has STILL not been required to pay up/ pay back the buy out. I don't think financial impropriety would be hard to prove with respect to executive raises and bonuse not being cancelled while Federal money was in receipt, federal holding was in receivership. It's worth a looksee..IMO

The Senate presides over an impeachment hearing and trial. It would be surprising to see the Senate convict, but they will if votes at home demand it.

I'd say Mr. Obama needs to tread carefully. The fact that he remained for a second term is going to be either his undoing or his saving. I hope for the latter, but I want the banks and GM to pay me back ...

MEDIA BLACKOUT: OBAMA’S SUPREME COURT HEARING ABOUT FORGED ID’S Was Friday – Decision On Tuesday!!!

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/media-blackout-obamas-supreme-court-hearing-about-forged-ids-was-friday-decision-on-tuesday/

http://www.examiner.com/article/supreme-court-rules-on-obama-forgery-case-birthers-protest-decision

At the core of this action is a simple request that Federal courts uphold the Supreme Court ruling. Both lawsuits, and the Liberty Legal Foundation promises there will be more, would render it impossible for the Democratic National Committee to place Obama’s name on the ballot.

Here’s the crux of it.

Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:

“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Obama’s problem, by his own admission and records of the State Department is this:

Obama’s father was not a United States citizen.

Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

Dude, you really should do more legal research.

In the 1897-1898 SCOTUS case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that a person born in the USA is a natural-born citizen regardless of the nationality of that person's parents. That Court ruling has not been overturned, and ever since then, federal courts have adhered to that ruling.

So true. You see the whole picture. It is a sad state of affairs.

The nuts are running the asylum.

No, the country is getting desperate. The jack a$$ is destroying what we have spent over 200 years building. He spend more in his first year in office then President Bush did in 8 years (including two wars) and it will triple by the time he leaves office (if the American people don't make a stand. He has strained diplomatic relations with America's closest allies. If he doesn't get his way he just issues an executive order or recess appointment. He is planning on taking the gun away from the American people by executive order if Congress doesn't do what he says. He has let rogue nations and terrorism supporters gain nuclear weapons and has let rogue nations push our country around.

We spent close to a hundred years fighting Communism and the uneducated people of this country opened the door right to it by electing this monster.

Uh, the money spent by the U.S. government is regulated by Congress. The President can't spend it if Congress doesn't give it.

I suppose you believe that congress is not a corrupt pit of greedy vipers but loyal and dedicated public servants.

Actually, I believe I'll have a pint.

Obama's Democratic controlled Congress pushed it through and that is one of the reasons Republican's rode the tidal wave into office in the next elections replacing Democrats and Democratic controlled seats that they controlled for over 50 years like that of Kennedy.

Presidential Fiat!
Chip,Chip,Chipeddy-Chip!
There goes the Constitution!

Obama was saying it makes great toilet paper!

I think he ought to stick with regular Tissue,on account that Parchment might give him Boils!

Its Official: Obama Impeachment Starts Here

http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/02/its-official-obama-impeachment-starts-here-2445528.html

The only thing official is the fact that Lyndon LaRouche is a convicted felon, and beforeitsnews.com loses credibility by promoting LaRouche.

Credibility? It never had any.

That mob sounds all too familiar.

If you knew how many real criminals and felons are actually running this country, you wouldn't harp about Lyndon LaRouche or anyone else you don't like being a "convicted felon."

Babes in the woods you are.

U.S. Federal Court hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office. The charges presented are detailed and damning. The indictments assert that President Obama “acted as a dictator” to exceed his powers of office to appoint officials behind the back of Congress during a recess period.

In a staggering announcement an Associated Press report declared: “President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.”

Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well-connected journalist and political activist characterized the court’s assessment as “probably the greatest indictment ever seen on a standing president throughout history.” White House press secretary Jay Carney reacted strongly against the charges declaring, “we believe that the president’s recess appointments are constitutionally sound.” However, the federal court seems to disagree having put in place ” a list of charges presented as conclusions” according to Larouche. The court appears to take the view that no such recess was in place. As such, the president was in violation of Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution that stipulates that a president cannot make appointments without the consent of the Senate.

The failed Obama gambit had hoped to apply the section of the Constitution that reads: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

The Washington Post reports on the seriousness of this abuse of office, “is more than an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role. It is a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers and the duty of comity that the executive owes to Congress.”

Crucially, no other president in history has ever tried to force through such alleged “ recess appointments” while Congress is still in session. The offenses occurred last year when President Obama opted to bypass Congress and unilaterally appoint three people to seats on the National Labor Relations Board . He also made Richard Cordray (pictured with Obama) head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (after the Senate blocked action on his nomination). Cordray’s appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate court case.

Lyndon Larouche has characterized the events as probably the worst violation by any sitting president trying to use a “procedural loophole.” Jubilant Republicans are already looking to set in motion impeachment proceedings. Larouche, who studied the court indictments, believes Obama’s offenses are “far graver” than those that led to the impeachment and removal from office of disgraced Republican president, Richard Nixon, after the Watergate scandal.