+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: Obama impeachment...coming soon?

  1. #1

    Default Obama impeachment...coming soon?

    Obama's ignoring of rules and regulations may just get him impeached...But im sure the Left will dismiss this and ignore his "minor" flaws....oh, and the media is all the sudden on vacation too....

    How ironic.




    On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Obama administration would seek “international permission” before engaging in war in Syria. Besides the possibility that it is merely a ruse — as there is growing evidence that the United States may already be covertly involved in Syria’s war — for the United States to seek permission from other nations to go to war is unconstitutional. For that reason, Representative Walter Jones (R-N.C., left) has just introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107, calling for the impeachment of the President if he declares war without congressional approval.

    Jones's resolution, which calls upon the U.S. House — with the Senate concurring — to prevent President Obama from starting yet another war without Congress declaring war. House Concurrent Resolution 107 states:

    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 Congress’s 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 Congress’s 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.

    The Obama administration has openly rejected the constitutional requirement of seeking congressional approval for U.S. military engagement.

    "Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this," Panetta replied. "Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues I think we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here."

    The Obama administration has previously violated the Constitution in electing to involve the United States in an attack on Libya without congressional consent, prompting some members of the U.S. House to issue a resolution demanding that the President explain his reasons for such a decision. The resolution was ignored.

    The Ohio Democrat told Raw Story, “President Obama moved forward [militarily against Libya] without Congress approving. He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.”

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) declared at the time that President Obama’s approval of air strikes against Libya was officially an “impeachable offense.”

    Kucinich has been relatively consistent on the issue of unconstitutional wars, as he indicated his desire to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for similar actions in leading the United States into war against Iraq.

    Ironically, in 2007 Obama adhered to a philosophy similar to that of Kucinich, when as a Senator he declared, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

    Since taking office, however, President Obama’s views of the so-called War on Terror seem to have changed dramatically. Yahoo's Associated Content observed:

    Barack Obama has been obliged to renege on a number of his campaign promises surrounding the War on Terror. Besides keeping the prison at Guantanamo open, he has not made a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, has actually increased troop levels in Afghanistan, and has stepped up drone strikes in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. The joke is that Obama has killed more terrorists in the two years of his presidency than George W. Bush did in all eight years of his.

    In fact, critics note that President Obama has exhibited all the qualities worthy of a neoconservative’s praise. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has hailed many of Obama’s hawkish decisions, explaining, "I think he's learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he's learned from experience.”

    The discussion of a possible Obama impeachment was revisited following the targeted killing of American-born al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki last September, with no charges being brought. Texas Congressman and GOP presidential contender Ron Paul has observed that because of the President’s “flouting” of the law in the murder of al-Awlaki, impeachment is possible.

    Ben Johnson of White House Watch wrote of the assassination of al-Awlaki:

    Although federal agents have sought al-Awlaki since the Clinton administration, and the Authorization for the Use of Force passed following 9/11 allows the president to kill anyone he “determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,” al-Awlaki’s birth in the United States has many debating the proper interplay between national security and civil liberties.

    According to Rep. Paul, the assassination of an American citizen, regardless of the reason, "continues" and "accelerates" the "slip toward tyranny.” He added, "I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction. We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”

    Paul warned attendees at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, that permitting targeted killings of American citizens without proper due process could set a dangerous precedent:

    Al-Awlaki was born here. He is an American citizen. He has never been tried or charged for any crimes. If the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating who he thinks are bad guys I think it’s sad. What would the people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn’t assassinate him. We were pretty certain that he had done it. And they put him through the courts and they executed him.

    Similarly, blogontherun.com wrote, “When the president of the United States can singlehandedly order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without charge or trial, we’re not just on the slippery slope toward dictatorship, we’re in free fall.”

    Paul added that virtually every U.S. President during his own terms in Congress had committed impeachable offenses. “I just said almost every President I’ve known I’d probably have to vote for impeachment, because there’s very little respect for the Constitution, and certainly there’s no respect for the Constitution [if they’re] assassinating American citizens.”

    Ironically, Panetta callled upon the Constitution in his defene of the President’s decision to seek international approval for military intervention in Syria. "When it comes to the national defense of this country, the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country and we will,” he declared.

    He did not explain how U.S. military intervention in the Mideast country of Syria is acting in defense of the United States or where in the constitution authorization for such executive branch action is found.



    Source http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...be-impeachable
    No Jesus
    No Peace

    Know Jesus
    Know Peace

    Phillipians 4:13

  2. #2

    Default

    No, no impeachment is coming. We haven't had a congressionally enacted war since WW2.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarlB View Post
    No, no impeachment is coming. We haven't had a congressionally enacted war since WW2.
    Congress almost unanimously voted yes with only one no vote for the use of force in Iraq.

    S.J.RES.23
    Latest Title: Authorization for Use of Military Force
    Sponsor: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. [SD] (introduced 9/14/2001) Cosponsors (1)
    Related Bills: H.J.RES.64
    Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 107-40 [GPO: Text, PDF]

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.J.Res23:


    What was the vote count for use of force in Libya?
    Would the IRS accept the excuse YOUR hard drive crashed 10 days after receiving an audit notice, so you can't supply the information they're asking for? Would they just drop it and go away? Why should they be held to any less of a standard they set for us?

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Peabody View Post
    Congress almost unanimously voted yes with only one no vote for the use of force in Iraq.

    S.J.RES.23
    Latest Title: Authorization for Use of Military Force
    Sponsor: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. [SD] (introduced 9/14/2001) Cosponsors (1)
    Related Bills: H.J.RES.64
    Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 107-40 [GPO: Text, PDF]

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.J.Res23:


    What was the vote count for use of force in Libya?
    What have I told you about using facts against liberals in arguments! Its not fair!

  5. #5
    usa us colorado
    Location: State of Colorado, USA
    Posts: 8,438
    bestpost
    Blog Entries: 1
    My Latest Mood: Grumpy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Peabody View Post
    Congress almost unanimously voted yes with only one no vote for the use of force in Iraq.

    S.J.RES.23
    Latest Title: Authorization for Use of Military Force
    Sponsor: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. [SD] (introduced 9/14/2001) Cosponsors (1)
    Related Bills: H.J.RES.64
    Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 107-40 [GPO: Text, PDF]

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.J.Res23:


    What was the vote count for use of force in Libya?
    Answer: there was no vote on the use of force in Libya! Obama completely and illegally ignored the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which is a FEDERAL LAW (50 U.S.C. 1541-154. He should have been impeached and removed from office for this "high crime", as prescribed in the U. S. Constitution, last year....
    Last edited by Pollycy; Mar 17 2012 at 01:37 PM.
    Why aren't Eric Holder and Obama keeping the Michael Brown/Ferguson thing in spotlights?! Is it because they realize Brown was just a strong-arm robber and thug?! Aw! Too bad! They really thought they "had Whitey on the run" and could ride it 'till November....

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pollycy View Post
    Answer: there was no vote on the use of force in Libya! Obama completely and illegally ignored the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which is a FEDERAL LAW (50 U.S.C. 1541-154. He should have been impeached and removed from office for this "high crime", as prescribed in the U. S. Constitution, last year....
    Did Congress give us approval to go into Panama and remove Noriega? I don't remember.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pollycy View Post
    Answer: there was no vote on the use of force in Libya! Obama completely and illegally ignored the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which is a FEDERAL LAW (50 U.S.C. 1541-154. He should have been impeached and removed from office for this "high crime", as prescribed in the U. S. Constitution, last year....
    Well the Congress can impeach any President that they want- there is no recourse to impeachment, no Supreme Court telling Congress what is or is not a high crime or misdeamenor.

    So Congress could pretend that the President is subject to the War Powers Act....even though on the face of it, the War Powers Act itself seems unconsitutional, since only Congress has the power to declare war, something Congress has declined to do since World War 2.

    But of course, starting an impeachment process in an election year, especially one that would be doomed to failure in the Senate, would be seen a blatantly political move, and probably doom any Republican candidate.

    I guess what I wonder is- are you all so sure you are going to lose the election that you think you better advocate impeachment while you at least have control of the House? Do you distrust the American voters so much that you wish to bypass the election process?

    Yeah, I think you do.
    The real harm is to our children. As long as we remain suspicious of the wrong people, predators will continue to have free reign to abuse innocent children. If they remain free from scrutiny because everyone else is focusing on gays and lesbians, more young lives will continue to be shattered and more parents will suffer the agonizing heartache of learning that they trusted someone who destroyed their child’s future.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    What have I told you about using facts against liberals in arguments! Its not fair!
    Exactly!
    No Jesus
    No Peace

    Know Jesus
    Know Peace

    Phillipians 4:13

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pollycy View Post
    Answer: there was no vote on the use of force in Libya! Obama completely and illegally ignored the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which is a FEDERAL LAW (50 U.S.C. 1541-154. He should have been impeached and removed from office for this "high crime", as prescribed in the U. S. Constitution, last year....
    Couldent have said it better, oh and i love your sig!
    No Jesus
    No Peace

    Know Jesus
    Know Peace

    Phillipians 4:13

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF View Post
    Well the Congress can impeach any President that they want- there is no recourse to impeachment, no Supreme Court telling Congress what is or is not a high crime or misdeamenor.

    So Congress could pretend that the President is subject to the War Powers Act....even though on the face of it, the War Powers Act itself seems unconsitutional, since only Congress has the power to declare war, something Congress has declined to do since World War 2.

    But of course, starting an impeachment process in an election year, especially one that would be doomed to failure in the Senate, would be seen a blatantly political move, and probably doom any Republican candidate.

    I guess what I wonder is- are you all so sure you are going to lose the election that you think you better advocate impeachment while you at least have control of the House? Do you distrust the American voters so much that you wish to bypass the election process?

    Yeah, I think you do.


    Election year or not, Wrong is Wrong!
    No Jesus
    No Peace

    Know Jesus
    Know Peace

    Phillipians 4:13

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obama impeachment bill now in Congress
    By Robodoon in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Mar 12 2012, 06:02 PM
  2. Barack Obama Impeachment!
    By ImpeachObama in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 182
    Last Post: Feb 24 2012, 11:36 PM
  3. Barack Obama Impeachment! coming in 2016 to a theater near you
    By peoplevsmedia in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Feb 16 2012, 08:01 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks