Articles of Impeachment against Obama

[GostHacked]

I think a possible coup d'etat happened in the USA recently. With the hearing session with Panetta essentially saying that Obama does not need congressional approval to take the country to war, this is a dangerous precedent.

Articles of Impeachment put in by Congressman Walter Jones

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

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.

Here is the session where Panetta admits the fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkDyKHYPO7g

The way I see it, the USA as I knew it , is dead.

Edited March 9, 2012 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

How many wars since 1950 have had congressional approval ?

[GostHacked]

How many wars since 1950 have had congressional approval ?

I don't know. But if that has always been the case, then the USA has been dead for a very long time.

[Michael Hardner]

After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93-148) over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president's claimed powers. Today, Congress recognizes no claimed power of the president to wage war outside of the War Powers Resolution.

link

41 years...

Also, I can't find a declaration of war for the Korean conflict either, which is commonly referred to as the Korean "war".

[GostHacked]

link

41 years...

Also, I can't find a declaration of war for the Korean conflict either, which is commonly referred to as the Korean "war".

So the constitution really has not meant anything for a long time.

[Michael Hardner]

So the constitution really has not meant anything for a long time.

See the Wikipedia entry - the Supremes ruled on it.

It's really a Paulist sound byte today: Ron Paul can go on about this, and his followers will parrot him too, but they made the ruling so it's just a slogan really.

[GostHacked]

See the Wikipedia entry - the Supremes ruled on it.

It's really a Paulist sound byte today: Ron Paul can go on about this, and his followers will parrot him too, but they made the ruling so it's just a slogan really.

IT may be a Paulist type sound bite. But it's also the truth. Through amendments and executive orders, the constitution has been marginalized. Now we have people on the site that love the constitution, but have little understanding that it holds no more power. The one document that built a great nation is now practically null and void.

I said before last year (the Libya threads) that the USA gets it's marching orders from the UN. This seems to help prove my point. The USA as much as it wants to act unilaterally, can't.

[Michael Hardner]

IT may be a Paulist type sound bite. But it's also the truth. Through amendments and executive orders, the constitution has been marginalized. Now we have people on the site that love the constitution, but have little understanding that it holds no more power. The one document that built a great nation is now practically null and void.

Hyperbole. It's a legal document and a living document. It's not null and void, or the legal system would have collapsed.

It's fine if Paul wants to use apocalyptic-sounding slogans to get people interested in him, but we go a little deeper than that here. This is MLW, so you should leave political slogans off the board IMO. They don't really fly here - we're more about the facts than the sound bytes. Americans are well equipped to re-evaluate their constitution and enact reforms where they see fit.

I said before last year (the Libya threads) that the USA gets it's marching orders from the UN. This seems to help prove my point. The USA as much as it wants to act unilaterally, can't.

Another bogeyman. The US acts unilaterally when it's in its interest, as it did recently in Iraq without UN support. There's no new world order, no bogeyman, no illuminati ...

[GostHacked]

Hyperbole. It's a legal document and a living document. It's not null and void, or the legal system would have collapsed.

The President no longer needs congressional approval for war. Also with the recent passing of the NDAA it puts that 'living document' into the crapper.

It's fine if Paul wants to use apocalyptic-sounding slogans to get people interested in him, but we go a little deeper than that here. This is MLW, so you should leave political slogans off the board IMO. They don't really fly here - we're more about the facts than the sound bytes. Americans are well equipped to re-evaluate their constitution and enact reforms where they see fit.

I don't understand how supporting a document that is pretty much the basis for the land of the free, home of the brave, sloganeering. I did not bring Paul into this, you did. So you can't say I am bringing political slogans here.

Another bogeyman. The US acts unilaterally when it's in its interest, as it did recently in Iraq without UN support. There's no new world order, no bogeyman, no illuminati ...

You may want to watch that bit again with Panetta and understand what he is saying. You are bringing more sloganeering here into this thread with illuminati. I don't use that term.

I find it really baffling that people don't want to uphold this important document. They complain their rights are being taken away, but at the same time don't care if the constitution is marginalized.

The USA now gets it's marching orders from the UN. I think you do understand what I am getting at overall here Mike.

[Michael Hardner]

The President no longer needs congressional approval for war.

Right, since 1950 or earlier.

I don't understand how supporting a document that is pretty much the basis for the land of the free, home of the brave, sloganeering. I did not bring Paul into this, you did. So you can't say I am bringing political slogans here.

It's also sometimes called wrapping yourself in the flag. Who DOESN'T support the constitution ? Paul has made a name for himself doing this.

I find it really baffling that people don't want to uphold this important document. They complain their rights are being taken away, but at the same time don't care if the constitution is marginalized.

I guess this assumes that they disagree with the US Supreme Court in the first place. Americans trust the justice system; maybe if you understood that you wouldn't be so baffled.

The USA now gets it's marching orders from the UN. I think you do understand what I am getting at overall here Mike.

I pointed out an example where they didn't. But there are likely millions like you who are convinced of various levels of globalist/new world order conspiracy.

[cybercoma]

I said before last year (the Libya threads) that the USA gets it's marching orders from the UN. This seems to help prove my point. The USA as much as it wants to act unilaterally, can't.

That's not entirely true. The US can and will act unilaterally if it or its territories are threatened. However, the video in the OP indicates that the president may deploy the military to conflicts based on the US's relatioship with NATO and the UN. Understandbly the Sen. has a problem with this. The US, as a rule, is very resistant to the idea that they have to meet any obligations or follow any laws, conventions, or rules that come from beyond their elected representatives and the Constitution. The point the Sen. was trying to make is that it's the president's responsibility to seek the approval of Congress before deploying troops and forming international coalitions for military offensive actions. This is legally true since the War Powers Resolution was passed. At the same time, I find it interesting because many of the same people that would seek to impeach Obama over this are the same people that would vocally condemn a Congress for turning down a president's request to provide military assistance to these coalitions by saying the United States is required to meet its obligations as a member of NATO at the very least, if not the UN.