Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?
Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.

Which was ruled Constitutional in Connecticut v. American Electric Power(2011), no impeachable offense here.

Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.

In Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWB’s military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impeach.

Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.

Per Plyler v Doe (1982) undocumented children may not be denied access to public education, the EO comports to Constitutional case law, consequently there are no grounds for impeachment.

Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
Isn't this how dictators begin?

I would say your issue is with the American people, who, through their approval of Congressional action, have allowed the manifestation of the Imperial President – this has nothing to do with Obama per se, as it dates back to the Truman Presidency and is a byproduct of American fear and cowardice – where ‘communism’ is replace by ‘terrorism.’

As an aside, I assume you exhibited the same outrage during the GWB years, and also advocated his impeachment.

 

[Too Tall]

No it hasn't. Our government has become paralyzed because of right wing radicalism..that has lied to get into power. The Republican governors ran on an agenda of creating jobs. What do they do? Once in power..they smashed Unions. Not only that..they cut taxes on the wealthy.

The representatives that won in 2010, did so because they scared seniors with the idea that the Health Care Package was going to kill Medicare and cause health care to become a "rationed" mess..and that they would be forced to die.

What do they do once in power? They try to kill Medicare, try to restrict and tax abortion and block almost every meaningful bill that comes down the pike. They passed like 19 bills since their asses hit the seats and like 16 of them were for naming stuff.

hahaha, busting the UNIONS WILL create JOBS..they will not be able to make obscene DEMANDS on a employer so they will be able to HIRE..
And don't ya love it, ALL IN SIX months the Republicans (who are now called, right wing radicals) have been in CONTROL and this mess is ALL THEIR FAULT..you just gotta shake your head and laugh

Reagan busted the Air Traffic controllers Union which resulted in a wave of Air Traffic Controller hiring..right?

That's your contention?

Really?

PATCO broke the law and Reagan enforced it. The Air Traffic Controllers were eventually trained and replaced.

On August 3, 1981 the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.

On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life. (This ban was later rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993.) In the wake of the strike and mass firings the FAA was faced with the task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired, a hard problem to fix as at the time it took three years in normal conditions to train a new controller. They were replaced initially with nonparticipating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some nonrated personnel, and in some cases by controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. Some military controllers were also used until replacements could be trained. The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it would take closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal. PATCO was decertified from its right to represent workers by the Federal Labor Relations Authority on October 22, 1981. The decision was appealed.

Some former striking controllers were allowed to reapply after 1986 and were rehired; they and their replacements are now represented by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which was organized in 1987 and had no connection with PATCO

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?
Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.

Which was ruled Constitutional in Connecticut v. American Electric Power(2011), no impeachable offense here.

Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.

In Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWB’s military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impeach.

Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.

Per Plyler v Doe (1982) undocumented children may not be denied access to public education, the EO comports to Constitutional case law, consequently there are no grounds for impeachment.

Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
Isn't this how dictators begin?

I would say your issue is with the American people, who, through their approval of Congressional action, have allowed the manifestation of the Imperial President – this has nothing to do with Obama per se, as it dates back to the Truman Presidency and is a byproduct of American fear and cowardice – where ‘communism’ is replace by ‘terrorism.’

As an aside, I assume you exhibited the same outrage during the GWB years, and also advocated his impeachment.

1. The president cannot use the militasry without Congressional approval. Has obama gotten that yet?

2. The dream act was not passed. obama is by-passing congress with the stroke of a pen.

3. WHEN DID BUSH DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?

 

[Too Tall]

C_Clayton_Jones states "WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply."

Where in the WPA does it specify 'ground troops'? What else would you expect from Obama's hand picked yes men on his legal staff?

I have heard 'unnamed' WH spokesmen slyly suggesting that the CIA is on the ground in Libya and an Air Force or Naval Aviator in harms way flying over Libya is in as much danger as a soldier on the ground.

 

[bodecea]

Republicans are a bunch of pussies

They have held Congress for over six months now and have not started impeachment proceedings. Ken Starr is standing at the ready..what are they waiting for? There are plenty of charges they can impeach on:

TelePrompTer reading
Excessive Golf
Improper birth certificate
Miscounting States

What's the matter with this group of Republicans?

Don't forget

Mustardgate

Putting his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office

Having a beer with a cop and professor

 

[bodecea]

if it were an impeachable offense to use an executive order to go around congress, then President Bush and all other presidents would have been impeached.

me thinks you're crying wolf....

To use an executive order to by-pass congress when a legislation was not passed in congress should be impeachable. And I mean removed from office not impeached but allowed to remain president like Clinton was allowed.

Come on Republlicans...go for it

What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action

Truely.

 

[rightwinger]

Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.

Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.

Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.

Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
Isn't this how dictators begin?

Isn't impeachment limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
The definitions of the terms "high crimes and misdemeanrs are left up to congress.

A probable cause for impeachment might be if the president had full knowledge and approved of "Fast and Furious" illegal gun sales by the AFT, since there was no effort to arrest the purchasers, and they were used in criminal activities both in the US and Mexico.

For my part, I'd prefer there was a full airing by the media, the highest administration official who approved it or signed off on it be fired, and the president be fired come 2012.

I doubt that the media will give it a full airing, and I doubt congress as run by the Republicans have the heart to profer a vote on impeachment charges, which would be one way to get into the media, but they would not be unscathed.

I think trading arms for hostages is more like it
Even spreading lies to start a war and engaging in torture

But hey.....you could impeach over a blow job

 

[Too Tall]

To use an executive order to by-pass congress when a legislation was not passed in congress should be impeachable. And I mean removed from office not impeached but allowed to remain president like Clinton was allowed.

Come on Republlicans...go for it

What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action

It's not only Republicans talking impeachment, it's a few democrats.

No way should Obama be impeached. As the a saying goes, I wouldn't impeach him if he was found in bed with a young boy or a dead girl.

Can you imagine Joe Biden being the C in C?

 

[Too Tall]

Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.

Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.

Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.

Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
Isn't this how dictators begin?

Isn't impeachment limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
The definitions of the terms "high crimes and misdemeanrs are left up to congress.

A probable cause for impeachment might be if the president had full knowledge and approved of "Fast and Furious" illegal gun sales by the AFT, since there was no effort to arrest the purchasers, and they were used in criminal activities both in the US and Mexico.

For my part, I'd prefer there was a full airing by the media, the highest administration official who approved it or signed off on it be fired, and the president be fired come 2012.

I doubt that the media will give it a full airing, and I doubt congress as run by the Republicans have the heart to profer a vote on impeachment charges, which would be one way to get into the media, but they would not be unscathed.

I think trading arms for hostages is more like it
Even spreading lies to start a war and engaging in torture

But hey.....you could impeach over a blow job

I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.

Could you?

Speaking of lies, what do you think of these two?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

[rightwinger]

Isn't impeachment limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"
The definitions of the terms "high crimes and misdemeanrs are left up to congress.

A probable cause for impeachment might be if the president had full knowledge and approved of "Fast and Furious" illegal gun sales by the AFT, since there was no effort to arrest the purchasers, and they were used in criminal activities both in the US and Mexico.

For my part, I'd prefer there was a full airing by the media, the highest administration official who approved it or signed off on it be fired, and the president be fired come 2012.

I doubt that the media will give it a full airing, and I doubt congress as run by the Republicans have the heart to profer a vote on impeachment charges, which would be one way to get into the media, but they would not be unscathed.

I think trading arms for hostages is more like it
Even spreading lies to start a war and engaging in torture

But hey.....you could impeach over a blow job

I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.

Could you?

Shit yea...impeaching over a blow job makes more sense than for lying to start a war

Mushroom clouds? Yea right

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. The president cannot use the militasry without Congressional approval. Has obama gotten that yet?

The WH says the WPA does not apply – can you cite case law giving Congress grounds to sue? There needs to be legal precedent to establish what the law is and what constitutes a crime. Per Dellums v. Bush, there is no legal standard established. There would be nothing to constitute the articles of impeachment.

You’ll say Obama violated the law by violating the WPA, Obama says it doesn’t apply. If the courts refuse to address this and other issues, and make a ruling as to which party is correct, on what grounds will the House impeach? And this determination can’t be made in the venue of a House impeachment proceeding because the House is an interested – and biased – party.

2. The dream act was not passed. obama is by-passing congress with the stroke of a pen.

Here there is legal precedent: Plyler v Doe – in order for impeachment to commence the House would need to cite case law overturning Plyler – and of course there isn’t any. How can the president be impeached for taking action which comports to Constitutional law?

3. WHEN DID BUSH DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?

Without approval from Congress or the courts:

Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps

A government report raises new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice officials in the dark about the post-Sept. 11 program.
July 11, 2009|Josh Meyer

The Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 surveillance efforts went beyond the widely publicized warrantless wiretapping program, a government report disclosed Friday, encompassing additional secretive activities that created "unprecedented" spying powers.

The report also raised new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice Department officials in the dark as it launched the surveillance program.

In a move that it described as "extraordinary and inappropriate," the report said the White House relied on a single, lower-level attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for assessments about the programs' legality.

Bush Surveillance | Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps - Los Angeles Times

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if a president elects to do something via EO that Congress has elected to not do, the president has ‘broken the law.’ That is clearly not the case. That because Congress decides not to do something doesn’t mean the president can’t.

I understand you hate Obama and would like to see him impeached, presumably to diminish his re-election chances. But you’re attempting to address issues of law, not partisan politics – that you and others hate Obama is not sufficient grounds for impeachment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.

Perjury and obstruction would be examples of impeachable offenses.

But if such charges are brought up per partisan politics, conviction won’t be secured in the Senate, as with Clinton.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which was ruled Constitutional in Connecticut v. American Electric Power(2011), no impeachable offense here.



In Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWB’s military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impeach.



Per Plyler v Doe (1982) undocumented children may not be denied access to public education, the EO comports to Constitutional case law, consequently there are no grounds for impeachment.



I would say your issue is with the American people, who, through their approval of Congressional action, have allowed the manifestation of the Imperial President – this has nothing to do with Obama per se, as it dates back to the Truman Presidency and is a byproduct of American fear and cowardice – where ‘communism’ is replace by ‘terrorism.’

As an aside, I assume you exhibited the same outrage during the GWB years, and also advocated his impeachment.

1. The president cannot use the militasry without Congressional approval. Has obama gotten that yet?

2. The dream act was not passed. obama is by-passing congress with the stroke of a pen.

3. WHEN DID BUSH DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?

you are a fucking idiot. He quoted actual court cases and you go as if they dont exist, because you wont change your mind, and then you ask him a question in number 3 that he already answered.
You are one of the stupidest people on the internet. Good job moron.

I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit
1. The president cannot use the military without congressional approval
2. The dream act was not passed obama just went past congress.
So eat my mother fucking shit balls stupid fuck. All I said is Constitutional. Fuck you and your go\d damn liberal fucking vioews SOB.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. The president cannot use the militasry without Congressional approval. Has obama gotten that yet?

The WH says the WPA does not apply – can you cite case law giving Congress grounds to sue? There needs to be legal precedent to establish what the law is and what constitutes a crime. Per Dellums v. Bush, there is no legal standard established. There would be nothing to constitute the articles of impeachment.

You’ll say Obama violated the law by violating the WPA, Obama says it doesn’t apply. If the courts refuse to address this and other issues, and make a ruling as to which party is correct, on what grounds will the House impeach? And this determination can’t be made in the venue of a House impeachment proceeding because the House is an interested – and biased – party.

2. The dream act was not passed. obama is by-passing congress with the stroke of a pen.

Here there is legal precedent: Plyler v Doe – in order for impeachment to commence the House would need to cite case law overturning Plyler – and of course there isn’t any. How can the president be impeached for taking action which comports to Constitutional law?

3. WHEN DID BUSH DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?

Without approval from Congress or the courts:

Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps

A government report raises new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice officials in the dark about the post-Sept. 11 program.
July 11, 2009|Josh Meyer

The Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 surveillance efforts went beyond the widely publicized warrantless wiretapping program, a government report disclosed Friday, encompassing additional secretive activities that created "unprecedented" spying powers.

The report also raised new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice Department officials in the dark as it launched the surveillance program.

In a move that it described as "extraordinary and inappropriate," the report said the White House relied on a single, lower-level attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for assessments about the programs' legality.

Bush Surveillance | Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps - Los Angeles Times

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if a president elects to do something via EO that Congress has elected to not do, the president has ‘broken the law.’ That is clearly not the case. That because Congress decides not to do something doesn’t mean the president can’t.

I understand you hate Obama and would like to see him impeached, presumably to diminish his re-election chances. But you’re attempting to address issues of law, not partisan politics – that you and others hate Obama is not sufficient grounds for impeachment.

FUCK OFF.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution
Has obama consulted with congress?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Come on Republlicans...go for it

What a bunch of pussies, all talk and no action

It's not only Republicans talking impeachment, it's a few democrats.

No way should Obama be impeached. As the a saying goes, I wouldn't impeach him if he was found in bed with a young boy or a dead girl.

Can you imagine Joe Biden being the C in C?

At this point and time biden couldn't fuck it up any worse.

 

[American Horse]

I think trading arms for hostages is more like it
Even spreading lies to start a war and engaging in torture

But hey.....you could impeach over a blow job

I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.

Could you?

Shit yea...impeaching over a blow job makes more sense than for lying to start a war

Mushroom clouds? Yea right

Depends on the definition of "Lie" doesn't it? No president should be impeached for a policy initiative.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit.

In which case rational discourse is pointless, if you refuse to recognize the Constitutionally mandated authority of the courts and abide by the rule of law.

You asked the questions and I provided you the answers. That you don’t like the answers or that the answers don’t comport to your subjective opinion is immaterial. Indeed, why bother asking in the first place?

Otherwise, feel free to continue to exhibit your ignorance on the issue.

 

[Too Tall]

I could impeach over lying under oath to a federal judge since that meets the requirement of a high crime and misdemeanor.

Perjury and obstruction would be examples of impeachable offenses.

But if such charges are brought up per partisan politics, conviction won’t be secured in the Senate, as with Clinton.

That has been proven, but it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. Since when is lying under oath and obstruction a partisan issue? Scooter Libby comes to mind and Blago is going to prison.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit.

In which case rational discourse is pointless, if you refuse to recognize the Constitutionally mandated authority of the courts and abide by the rule of law.

You asked the questions and I provided you the answers. That you don’t like the answers or that the answers don’t comport to your subjective opinion is immaterial. Indeed, why bother asking in the first place?

Otherwise, feel free to continue to exhibit your ignorance on the issue.

Lest you forget Democrats did this.
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution
Has obama consulted with congress?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you are a fucking idiot. He quoted actual court cases and you go as if they dont exist, because you wont change your mind, and then you ask him a question in number 3 that he already answered.
You are one of the stupidest people on the internet. Good job moron.

I don't give a god damn what liberal court he used as reference.
Fuck wit a liberal court can get over tuirned. Fuckwit
1. The president cannot use the military without congressional approval
2. The dream act was not passed obama just went past congress.
So eat my mother fucking shit balls stupid fuck. All I said is Constitutional. Fuck you and your go\d damn liberal fucking vioews SOB.

In Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (1990), D.C. Federal District Court Judge Harold H. Greene denied to grant an injunction against GHWB’s military build up in the Persian Gulf. The ruling established the doctrine that the courts will not get involved in disputes between the Congress and Executive. And it was Congress that foolishly gave away its sole authority to the Executive to declare war. WH legal staff have argued that because there are no ground troops involved, the WPA does not apply. Congress has no standing to sue over the issue and since there is no violation of the Constitution and the law, there are no grounds to impe

Note the underlined part you fucking moron. Your wrong, you are always wrong, and this will it ever be that you are a waste of air.
The president Can and has used Military force without congress since the war powers act. You have no argument, you have no facts on your side. You have your stupid ignorant opinion and that just doesnt cut it.

Oh btw dipshit, Simply stating that you are wrong and that the President can in fact use the military without approval doesnt make me a liberal. Then again a moron like you wouldnt understand these simple things.

why dont you go into your living room, drool, and jerk off to Beck feeding you your daily porn.

Fuck i take shits that have a higher brain wave level than you.

little boy go plasy with your autobots.


Court case versus Constitutional law.
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution