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 Syrias 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 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. 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 didnt have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and thats got to be said. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) declared at the time that President Obamas 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 Obamas 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 neoconservatives praise. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has hailed many of Obamas 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 Presidents 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-Awlakis 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 its sad. What would the people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didnt 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, were not just on the slippery slope toward dictatorship, were 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 Ive known Id probably have to vote for impeachment, because theres very little respect for the Constitution, and certainly theres no respect for the Constitution [if theyre] assassinating American citizens. Ironically, Panetta callled upon the Constitution in his defene of the Presidents 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/co...-military-actions-in-syria-may-be-impeachable
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....
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.
Lol... just what we need, another "Obama is going to be impeached thread." The desperate right-wing is now grasping at straws. http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/237764-effort-impeach-obama.html http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/238045-obama-impeachment-bill-now-congress.html http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/237885-obuma-being-impeached.html http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...291-obama-will-impeached-his-second-term.html http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/232849-barack-obama-impeachment.html http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...impeachment-coming-2016-theater-near-you.html But yeah, I know, it's ok to have multiple thread on the subject because it's an anti-Obama topic, amirite?
No todd your not right. Current events is just that.....CURRENT......as in this week Obammy is screwing up BIG TIME, and weather you like it or not it's getting attention. Hence my source. dont be mad, your presidential savoiur will lie his way out of this like all other things he lies about...and continue to twist the minds of his followers ^^^
Any time Comrade Obama is fairly and squarely accused of breaking a Federal law, or violating the Constitution of the United States, his loyal supporters immediately gush out a smoke screen, like a wounded octopus... and magically, the issue isn't Obama anymore, it's old Bush, younger Bush, World War II, or some ad hoc "controversy" about whether the Federal law that the Messiah broke should even be a law or not. What an evasive, hypocritical response to something that is as obvious to the rest of us as a turd in a baptismal font! But don't worry... Ben Bernanke's handpuppet is safe! These F-ing gutless wonders that we Conservatives elected to Congress in 2010 to restrain your Constitution-hating, socialist autocrat turned out to be a bunch of panty-wetting RINO's. And the worst thing that can happen to him now is that he'll be sent back to Chicago next January in humiliated disgrace by American voters... because this time he's going to have to run for election on his record instead of his bullsh**t. Oooh, too bad for his loyal worshippers....
Obama and Biden both went on MSNBC when we bombed Iraqi and stated any president who bombs a country without Congressial approval should be impeached. Both Obama and Biden tried to pass a bill stating No Congressional Vote = Impeachment.
You can impeach a president, but how do you impeach a ruling elite or complete establishment that rules above that president that is doing tyranny?
I know but impeachment was headed his way. It would have happened if he wouldn't have stepped down. The question is, would Obama step aside if impeachment was a given?
Impeachment? We can always hope... I had a horrible thought. What is he loses (good) and then runs again in 4 years?
Oh I just am looking forward to using that quote next year if Obama is not re-elected. Here is a fun thought. What if Congress impeached Obama, and then the voters re-elected him? Oh the rightious indignation there would be....
Fringe parisans are too funny. Always believing in the ridiculous. There problem is they Are either incapable or refuse to accept reality. No one is going to be impeached.
read the text of the bill you linked too "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,"
Obviously not! The whole world would laugh at such a ridiculous move from the extreme Right! You guys are leaving in an alternate reality! But it's nice to see how desperate you are!