Walter Jones: obama if you start anymore wars without Congressional approval

[bigrebnc1775]

We are going to impeach your ass.

Congressman Walter Jones moves to impeach Obama - Charlotte Libertarian | Examiner.com

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Congressman Walter Jones moves to impeach Obama -

 

[Sallow]

Good luck with that.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The fucking idiot doesn't know that all Obama's actions are founded in treaty and existing law. I hope this brain dead idiot tries to impeach. I guess he didn't know that Kadafi is a known terrorist, in spite of Bush trying to kiss his ass.

 

[OtaniKitano]

I wonder if this clown knows that Bush invaded Afghanistan without Congressional approval...Oh, and dumbass....we're still there.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The fucking idiot doesn't know that all Obama's actions are founded in treaty and existing law. I hope this brain dead idiot tries to impeach. I guess he didn't know that Kadafi is a known terrorist, in spite of Bush trying to kiss his ass.

There is no Treaty that I know of that gives the president authority to go to war without congressional approval. If so site the source.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I wonder if this clown knows that Bush invaded Afghanistan without Congressional approval...Oh, and dumbass....we're still there.

What's even stupider is making the claim that Bush invaded Afghanistan without congressional approval.
True story

 

[ladyliberal]

I'm all for restricting the ability to wage offensive war, but Jones' resolution seems to have a few problems:

1) It's purely symbolic
2) It doesn't look like Congress will pass it
3) Even if it was passed as a law, it seems to be unconstitutional

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm all for restricting the ability to wage offensive war, but Jones' resolution seems to have a few problems:

1) It's purely symbolic
2) It doesn't look like Congress will pass it
3) Even if it was passed as a law, it seems to be unconstitutional

It seems we have two unconstitutional measures here obama thumbing his nose at congress and sending troops to war and this if what you say is true.

 

[occupied]

I hope Republicans remember their anti-war stance when they get another president elected. President Obama could not get congressional approval to put out Boehner if he was on fire.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I hope Republicans remember their anti-war stance when they get another president elected. President Obama could not get congressional approval to put out Boehner if he was on fire.

It's not anti war it's anti unconstitutional war.

 

[Caroljo]

I wonder if this clown knows that Bush invaded Afghanistan without Congressional approval...Oh, and dumbass....we're still there.

I think i'd call you the dumbass......

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BlindBoo]

Goddamn peacenicks.

Fuck-n-A

Love it or leave it traitor!

Hahahahahaha. Just kidding.

God, I've alway wondered what it would be like to say that.

According to the WPA the president can introduce troops any where in the world he wants, no congressional restrictions for xxx number of days.

Pull the troops out of Lybia damn it. Bring them home, now.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[occupied]

I hope Republicans remember their anti-war stance when they get another president elected. President Obama could not get congressional approval to put out Boehner if he was on fire.

It's not anti war it's anti unconstitutional war.

Really, is that your professional opinion Mr Chief Justice? Oh wait you are just an internet crank like the rest of us.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Walter Jones: obama if you start anymore wars without Congressional approval

We are going to impeach your ass.

Yeah....it's different when....

....The DICK; Cheney "cherry-picks" Wars.....

....right??

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Goddamn peacenicks.

Fuck-n-A

Love it or leave it traitor!

Hahahahahaha. Just kidding.

God, I've alway wondered what it would be like to say that.

According to the WPA the president can introduce troops any where in the world he wants, no congressional restrictions for xxx number of days.

Pull the troops out of Lybia damn it. Bring them home, now.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

It's 60 days by the WPA. Obama breached that and claimed he did not need congressional authority. He is in violation and therefore, subject to impeachment proceedings. Should the ceremonial congress wish to flex its power. It wont though. Bush II gets the pass from the left wing idiots.

 

[Katzndogz]

What's the good of being a dictator of he can't go to war whenever he wants to? The UN will tell obama when he can or cannot go to war.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Goddamn peacenicks.

Fuck-n-A

Love it or leave it traitor!

Hahahahahaha. Just kidding.

God, I've alway wondered what it would be like to say that.

According to the WPA the president can introduce troops any where in the world he wants, no congressional restrictions for xxx number of days.

Pull the troops out of Lybia damn it. Bring them home, now.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

It's 60 days by the WPA. Obama breached that and claimed he did not need congressional authority. He is in violation and therefore, subject to impeachment proceedings. Should the ceremonial congress wish to flex its power. It wont though. Bush II gets the pass from the left wing idiots.

That's not the way the WPA works.

He had 60 days to inform Congress - which he did.

Then, they have to schedule a vote on it - either vote yes, or no. They never scheduled a vote.

There's no "impeachable" offense here.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Goddamn peacenicks.

Fuck-n-A

Love it or leave it traitor!

Hahahahahaha. Just kidding.

God, I've alway wondered what it would be like to say that.

According to the WPA the president can introduce troops any where in the world he wants, no congressional restrictions for xxx number of days.

Pull the troops out of Lybia damn it. Bring them home, now.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

It's 60 days by the WPA. Obama breached that and claimed he did not need congressional authority. He is in violation and therefore, subject to impeachment proceedings. Should the ceremonial congress wish to flex its power. It wont though. Bush II gets the pass from the left wing idiots.

That's not the way the WPA works.

He had 60 days to inform Congress - which he did.

Then, they have to schedule a vote on it - either vote yes, or no. They never scheduled a vote.

There's no "impeachable" offense here.

Gee.....imagine that.....Republicans never scheduling a vote.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

President Obama To Congress: War Powers Act Doesn’t Apply To Libya

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2011

Taking a position that is certain to raise eyebrows, the White House sent a response to Congress today regarding the request for further information about the military action in Libya that argues that the War Powers Act is inapplicable to current American involvement there:
WASHINGTON — The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.
In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.
On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.
“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.
The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.
They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.
“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
The administration unveiled its argument at a time when members of Congress have shown increasing skepticism about the Libya operation. On June 3, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that the mission had not been authorized.
It’s worth taking a look at what the War Powers Act actually requires, so let’s take a look at 50 USC 1543:
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
50 USC 1544(b) then requires:
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
The question then is whether United States United States military forces are still involved in “hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” There seems to be no real contention by anyone that American forces, or NATO forces for that matter, are actually on Libyan territory or in Libyan territorial waters. The Administration seems to be arguing that since there are no American ground troops and no American fighter planes involved in action over Libya, then the answer to that question is no. As John Cole notes, though, we are using Predator drones to launch missiles at Libyan target on an as-needed basis, so the idea that we’re completely off the grid on this mission isn’t entirely true.

No, that is not how it happened.

 

[BluePhantom]

Best of fucking luck with that one.