Forum Post: Obama warned against impeachable high crime
Posted 12 years ago on March 8, 2012, 12:40 p.m. EST by arturo
(3169)
from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:
Yesterday Rep. Walter Jones, republican of North Carolina, introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to do the following:
"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.”
Will Obama risk impeachment for the use of unjustified offensive military force?
The war-monger-in-chief clearly should be impeached. The attack on Libya with no congressional approval and on behalf of a foreign entity, NATO, was outrageous & criminal.
The conservatrolls commenting here proved their illegitimacy. Honest conservatives should want to join with anyone else (including progressives) to uphold constitutional law. See Sessions (who I am not a fan of usually) nail Panetta: http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressShop.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=f95f9500-0de8-5063-102c-7342aeb3701a&Region_id=&Issue_id= .
What happened to the post that mentioned Lyndon L.? It is amazing that his ideas are not allowed but TPWP and his racists comments are allowed. To my way of thinking, LL's greatest fault is that he doesn't take half positions, so he's either spectacularly right or spectacularly wrong. But we're all grownups here, we can judge ideas on their own merit.
Thanks for your support. Here are a couple articles from Lyndon Larouche that are related:
Obama Put on Notice http://larouchepac.com/node/21930
Obama Seeking War Plan on Syria http://larouchepac.com/node/21933
What HASN'T the mulatto-in-chief done that ISN'T impeachable?! So far the count stands at 57 impeachable offenses. I know, we all know, IT'S BUSHIE'S FAULT!! WAAAA!
Wow, a racist fuck in the tea party? No way. Did you vote for Bush twice, imbecile? That would make you the most hypocritical fuck imaginable. Wait, a hypocritical fuck in the tea party? No way! Go buy some country CDs at Walmart.
Easy fella, he's on our side. ;-)
"What HASN'T the mulatto-in-chief done that ISN'T impeachable?!"
Agreed,now if they would just get off their ass and get it done already.
Pray (to me) tell, this is like congress passing laws making it illegal to violate laws they already passed.
Is it possible there is a good reason why this actually happens?
Are we actually seeing constant patching in of bits from The Constitution for the United States of American to whatever constrains our current form of governance?
It just about appears that way......... it even appears that multi-national corporations are for some reason, continually represented with a loud and clear voice in DC vs the people's token votes which change nothing.
Strange days indeed.
In this case, the "good reason" would be preventing the triggering of a nuclear WW3 by an attack on Iran.
But then again, considering your credentials, you might like that, mightn't you?
But you're missing the point........
the Constitution for the United States of America is very clear regarding war powers and even congress being subject to laws they pass
why the redundancy?
Considering the recent military adventures our president has engaged in without congress actually declaring war, I think the redundancy is appropriate. It is meant to send the message that indulging in any more of such adventures will have immediate consequences.
But he isn't the first one to seemingly legally circumvent The Constitution for the United States of America....... how did it ever happen the first time?
Well, you should know the answer to that. Wasn't it you who corrupted our representatives and in fact our culture as a whole to be "tolerant" of evil?
I watched them do it all by themselves. I created them greedy and never could resolve the conflict of the survival and greed chromosomes.
The answer is, the other one.
Here's the question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYDnYgQ5MQ