Obama impeachment bill now in Congress

[Inthemiddle]

You'll not put hypocrisy in my mouth. It was NOT okay what Bush did. Secondly, what Bush and his Congress did was a different offense that what Obama and his Congress did. Both are impeachable offenses.

What is the difference in composition between "this" Congress and "that" Congress? "This" Congress cannot rationally impeach Obama for exercising a law, because most of them were part of "that" Congress, that embraced the then President exercising the law.

What are you blathering about?
The problem here is that Obama BROKE the law, therefore his "exercise" was that of a high crime with a potential impeachment. (that will never happen).

Sit down and read slowly. The difference in Congress' membership between now and under Bush's days, is not that dramatic. There are alot of people here now who were in Congress then, and who did not make any objection to Bush exercising the War Powers Act. Since they did not have a problem with it, embraced it as constitutional, etc, they cannot rationally, and will not even try to impeach the President now.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Did W. get approval from congress within the time frame designated by the WPA? Because the way i remeber it, the congress deferred to him, which is consent.

That is different than simply not asking congress and then telling them that you dont need their approval at all.

Someone a ways back in the thread referred to the memo sent to Bush jr. that granted him authority to use military force against terrorists. That does not apply in this instance, however. As the Libya operation had nothing to do with terrorism (unless you include arming al qaeda and handing them the country, in which case, it is even worse than we first thought here...)

 

[BlindBoo]

it should be noted again, that only TWO presidents have broken this quasi-law. Clinton and Obama. Nothing will come of impeachment proceedings. It's all a pony show.

Clinton:

These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.


The ball is in Congresses court. Why haven't they done something?

Too much political hay to be made.

 

[OtaniKitano]

Good. About time someone stood up for the law of the land. Congress declares war, not the President and not the frickin' UN or NATO. Attempting to change the definition of war is ludicrous. If nothing else, I hope this scares the shit out of the next guy that attempts to takes us to war without following the Constitution.

Oh for chrissake...I'm afraid Obama is just following tradition.....

The Kucinich/Wexler impeachment resolution contained 35 articles covering the Iraq war, the Valerie Plame affair, creating a case for war with Iran, capture and treatment of prisoners of war, spying and or wiretapping inside the United States, use of signing statements, failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas, the 2004 elections, medicare, Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and 9/11.[1]
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the most substantial portion of the articles of impeachment introduced by Kucinich and Wexler. 15 of the 35 articles directly relate to alleged misconduct by George W. Bush in seeking authority for the war, and in the conduct of military action itself. Five other articles address allegations partially or tertiarily relating to the war, including the "outing" of Valerie Plame, treatment of prisoners (both in Iraq and from operations in Afghanistan and other countries), and building a case for Iran being a threat based in part on alleging Iranian actions in Iraq."

 

[Peach]

it should be noted again, that only TWO presidents have broken this quasi-law. Clinton and Obama. Nothing will come of impeachment proceedings. It's all a pony show.

Clinton:

These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.


The ball is in Congresses court. Why haven't they done something?

Too much political hay to be made.

Rather late to impeach also; there is an election in November.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They haven't done anything because they are impotent pen15 adn do not really object to military forces being used or tax dollars spent on illegal wars.

In essence, our congress has become ceremonial. Much like that of the SENATE from the days of the roman empire leaving the republic.

Like I said, this is simply a pony show.

 

[eflatminor]

You'll not put hypocrisy in my mouth. It was NOT okay what Bush did. Secondly, what Bush and his Congress did was a different offense that what Obama and his Congress did. Both are impeachable offenses.

What is the difference in composition between "this" Congress and "that" Congress? "This" Congress cannot rationally impeach Obama for exercising a law, because most of them were part of "that" Congress, that embraced the then President exercising the law.

What the hell are you talking about? Neither Bush, Obama, or the Congresses in question "exercised" a law, they broke it. You appear to be trying to get me to suggest I'm okay with one party breaking the law but not the other. That is simply not the case. I stand against unconstitutional acts from any party...and both the Ds and Rs have obliged with numerous examples.

 

[eflatminor]

Good. About time someone stood up for the law of the land. Congress declares war, not the President and not the frickin' UN or NATO. Attempting to change the definition of war is ludicrous. If nothing else, I hope this scares the shit out of the next guy that attempts to takes us to war without following the Constitution.

Oh for chrissake...I'm afraid Obama is just following tradition.....

Correct. Doesn't make it legal.

 

[jillian]

Good. About time someone stood up for the law of the land. Congress declares war, not the President and not the frickin' UN or NATO. Attempting to change the definition of war is ludicrous. If nothing else, I hope this scares the shit out of the next guy that attempts to takes us to war without following the Constitution.

Oh for chrissake...I'm afraid Obama is just following tradition.....

Correct. Doesn't make it legal.

and of course you didn't read the memo of law...

nope... why would you educate yourself?

impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemenors" only

people sound absurd when they head down the path you're on.

 

[paulitician]

Good intentions, but it wont work. You can't vote on any sort of Impeachment Legislation based on what a President might do in the future. I understand where he's coming from, but he just wont get much support for this. We'll just have to wait and see what happens, and then respond.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh for chrissake...I'm afraid Obama is just following tradition.....

Correct. Doesn't make it legal.

and of course you didn't read the memo of law...

nope... why would you educate yourself?

impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemenors" only

people sound absurd when they head down the path you're on.

You fail at the law, jillian. The memo granted authority to Bush for TERRORIST activities, not a unilateral for whatever instance we choose military action. Libya was supposedly a "humanitarian effort", which quickly devolved into full on regime change. That does not give Obama the authority to use military actions beyond 60 days without congressional approval. The memo in this instance, because of the nature of the military use, is not relevant.

Obama needed congressional approval and simply flipped them the bird on this. The impeachment proceedings are definitely called for. They simply will not happen.

 

[eflatminor]

Oh for chrissake...I'm afraid Obama is just following tradition.....

Correct. Doesn't make it legal.

and of course you didn't read the memo of law...

nope... why would you educate yourself?

impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemenors" only

people sound absurd when they head down the path you're on.

Which memo are you referring to? Are you suggesting Bush's memo to fight terrorism after 9/11 justifies Obama's bypassing of Congress today?

You're going to have to be more clear...and use your grown up words, please.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

jillian is trying to make this memo issued to Bush seem as though any president for any reason can side step congress on the WPA. Jillian is simply playing legal hackery.

As is obvious if you read the above memo.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Continued

Comment: Obama is taking his orders from the UN and should be impeached

I find blatant violations of the Bill of Rights and Constitution in general to be "high crimes."

Of course no congresscritter wants to make that argument because 85% of congress would face impeachment..

 

[The T]

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Continued

Comment: Obama is taking his orders from the UN and should be impeached

I find blatant violations of the Bill of Rights and Constitution in general to be "high crimes."

Of course no congresscritter wants to make that argument because 85% of congress would face impeachment..

They just need to be voted out of office.

 

[BreezeWood]

Stick to one here, breeze. this isn't a partisan issue. The conflicts that came after WWII became more steady from the exec adn dodging congressional authority by naming acts of war as something other than acts of war. Which is what the WPA was all about. Making sure the president didn't commit to any long term military action named anything besides war, without congressional authority.

I'm against every action since WWII on a constitutional basis, but since we're not addressing that, we're addressing the WPA of 1973, lets try and stay within the topic at hand.

Obama broke the law and the offense is impeachable. but again, it isn't going to happen.

.............................

OP - Robodoon: Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution


Maybe TakeAStepBack should take a step forwards - The OP does not refer to the WPA as the basis for the thread and if not ignoring it, refers to the WPA as illegal (unconstitytional).

- you are the one using WPA as the reason for some and others not being responsible, irregardless Article 1,S8 of the Constitution that is an indictment against all the previous Administrations according to the OP.

Robodoon: Comment: Obama is taking his orders from the UN and should be impeached

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-impeachment-bill-now-in-congress/?cat_orig=us

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations ....

It is Panetta who is using the WPA as the pretext for allowing the Administration to engage in hostility after legitimacy is acquired from the UN.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I agree with you, breeze. But this isn't a case that is going to be brought up anyway, as Ive stated. And I agree with you on every military action since WWII.

But the legal ground here, as we are a nation based upon case law and happenstance since the constitution, only can preclude to the WPA breach should the case go forward.

But it wont. It's just pony showing. Walking the dog. Parading around. It's simply not going to fly.

 

[The T]

I agree with you, breeze. But this isn't a case that is going to be brought up anyway, as Ive stated. And I agree with you on every military action since WWII.

But the legal ground here, as we are a nation based upon case law and happenstance since the constitution, only can preclude to the WPA breach should the case go forward.

But it wont. It's just pony showing. Walking the dog. Parading around. It's simply not going to fly.

That or the House will vote to pass it...and will be sent to the Senate to languish on Dingy Harry Reid's desk and collect dust like other pieces of legislation.