[CCIP]

Alright guys, let's not attack the messenger, but check the message. That's the real problem here.

In all seriousness, here's also one reason that Obama is not going to get impeached for these reasons: because that would set a precedent that neither party can afford to risk. It would be very short-sighted of them to kick out a president for, at best, bending constitutional interpretations to his agenda - because as soon as they do, then good luck avoiding the same for future presidents. Yes, it might be smart to slap the executive on the wrist for throwing around its authority (as Obama did on several occasions), but what makes you think that having a legislative branch than can throw out a prez at whim is in any way better? More importantly, what makes you (as the law student around here) think that this won't give a dangerous legal precedent to the supreme court?

The fact is that the election cycle does a much better job of this without upsetting the balance, and it has already given Obama plenty of kicks. But if you want to get rid of a president altogether, you're gonna have to come up with much better and more popularly-supported competition, and do so in the election cycle - something that the GOP is failing miserably at as we speak. But wait, of course - the Right is right and, unlike that darn scheming socialist agenda, the Tea Party knows exactly what America needs, regardless of how the electorate actually votes. Cause the electorate is after all dumb and gullible and doesn't know what it really needs, right?

Some democratic logic there!