Let the president be duly warned. 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 Obamas 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: After Lybia he should be impeached, and he is the most UN-American president we have ever had, worse than bush or clintong
El Presidente` Soetoro has committed so many violations of his oath, especially considering that he IS a domestic enemy, that this will simply have to do.
House Res 107...? http://thomas.loc.gov/home/bills_res.html Nowhere to be found. Actually, 107 is something completely different. Got a source other than WND? They are notoriously full of B.S.
Shouldn't this be in Humour and Fun Section ? Admittedly this is a tricky subject for Americans but this Topic is for losers , if they take it seriously .
They are just ignoring congress, this is a very big deal. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84&feature=player_embedded"]Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria - YouTube[/ame] The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows: 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. Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congresss exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congresss exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Funny, I don't see Obama's name anywhere in the bill. Looks to me just like a Congressman wanting to get some publicity with a non-binding resolution that is unlikely to pass. Congress can impeach "the President" for wearing red on the Fourth of July, should Congress choose to do so. Congress could have impeached President Bush for invading Iraq- not because it is truly an impeachable offense but because under the Constitution only Congress can determine what is an impeachable offense. Anyway- don't get your hopes up. This is just smoke and mirrors to appeal to the gullible.
This law will be shot down, and this Congressman obviously doesn't know how to create a compelling statute, even on a matter as ludicrous as this.
Well, the Senate must try impeachment, the House can merely recommend impeachment. I doubt Reid and Co. are going to take up the Congressman's offer as legitimate if it goes through the House.
This thread is a duplicate. http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/237764-effort-impeach-obama.html
About 'Sense of Congress' Resolutions They do not make law and are not enforceable http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/senseof.htm When members of the House, Senate or entire Congress want to "send a message," or state an opinion, they try to pass a "sense of" resolution. Since such resolutions do not create law, what good are they? Simple or joint resolutions expressing the "sense of" the Senate, House or Congress merely express a majority opinion. They do not make law and are not enforceable. Only bills and joint resolutions create laws. "Sense of" legislation can come in the form of Simple Resolutions (H.Res. or S.Res.), used to express the opinion of the House or Senate alone, or as Concurrent Resolutions (H.Con.Res. or S.Con.Res.) used to express the opinion of the entire Congress. "Sense of" resolutions can also be added as amendments to regular House or Senate bills. Even when added to regular bills, "sense of" amendments have no force law. "Sense of" resolutions are typically used as: For the record: a way for individual members of Congress to go on the record as supporting or opposing a particular policy or concept; Political persuasion: a simple attempt by a group of members to persuade other members to support their cause or opinion; Appeal to the president: an attempt to get the president to take or not take some specific action (such as S.Con.Res. 2, considered by Congress in January 2007, condemning President Bush's order sending over 20,000 additional U.S. troops into the war in Iraq.), On foreign affairs: a way to express the opinion of the people of the United States to the government of a foreign nation; and Just saying "thanks": a way to send the congratulations or gratitude of Congress to individual citizens or groups. For example, congratulating U.S. Olympic champions or thanking military troops for their sacrifice. "Sense of" resolutions require only a simple majority vote to pass and, since they do not create laws, do not require the signature of the president. Although "sense of" resolutions have no force in law, foreign governments pay close attention to them as evidence of shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities. Finally, no matter how momentous or threatening the language used in "sense of" resolutions may be, remember that they are merely a political tactic and create no laws, whatsoever.