Any recourse?

[Samnospam]

I was pondering this the other day, really from a hypothetical standpoint, but it has a practical application with our current executive administration.  The executives job is to see to the enforcement of the laws.  What if a president refuses to do that?  Does that qualify as a "high crime and misdemeanor"?  Obviously congress could and should appoint a special prosecutor to deal with Holder since he has at the minimum lied under oath, but Obama will just replace him with another protector of the criminal elite.   Is doing nothing sufficient crime for impeachment?

[BA Deere]

This shows that the presidency is a big "blanking" deal.  We need to get behind the Republican nominee regardless of who it is and get rid of 0bama.  This is all the Democrat`s fault, we are so desparate to get rid of this communist loser that they saddled us with that we can`t afford to lose in November and will have to settle for "the lesser of two evils" once again.

[Milligan Hay - Iowa d:^)]

---

@Samnospam wrote:

I was pondering this the other day, really from a hypothetical standpoint, but it has a practical application with our current executive administration.  The executives job is to see to the enforcement of the laws.  What if a president refuses to do that?  Does that qualify as a "high crime and misdemeanor"?  Obviously congress could and should appoint a special prosecutor to deal with Holder since he has at the minimum lied under oath, but Obama will just replace him with another protector of the criminal elite.   Is doing nothing sufficient crime for impeachment?

---

That is why anyone can, confidently, call him by his true title.  Der Führer.

If he remains after next year, he will make Adolf Hitler look like a Sissy. 

Time will prove me correct. .... as usual.

Barack Huein Obama, .... America's Shame.

[bruce MN]

The Bush adminsitration set a precedent on the prosecutability of Presidential administration dishonesty.  They lied us into a war that cost us multiple billions of dollars and thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of other lives.

There ain't nothing that any Pres or Adminstration can say or do now that wouldn't be protected by that precendent which has ever since avoided charges or prosecution.

[Samnospam]

Well no that's not the same.  If Bush lied and its provable then that's certainly impeachable (of course you've got that problem with all those senators saying the same thing as Bush, need to clean that place out for sure). 

What if the President has an AG that simply doesn't prosecute crimes?  What if the President endorses this attitude.  Can you impeach for that?

[Samnospam]

You need to switch it up some Craig, everyone uses Hitler.  How about Pol Pot?  Er, King Louie, that's a good one.

[GoredHusker]

Isn't this line of thinking what got us Obama?  The American people were so fed up with Bush and fell for the thought that McCain was simply an extension of Bush.  This resulted in Obama winning the election which for all practical purposes was just like putting Bush back in the White House.  I think people overlook the fact that Obama based his Obamacare from Romney's plan in New Jersey.  Newt=Obama=Romney.  Pick your poison, they're all lethal.

[Papa Wheelie]

I would think Andrew Jackson's decision to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling on The Indian Removal Act would be precedent enough for any President to ignore any court ruling with which they disagree.

That would be my defense

[Samnospam]

Good point, and a kudo for bringing up a historical fact.