RE: More than a simple impeachment...

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: More than a simple impeachment...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: More than a simple impeachment...

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: More than a simple impeachment... - 4/19/2012 11:18:17 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Yeah, you need to read up on current events.

Mcain and Kerry had a bi-partisan carte blanche authorization ready for his asking all typed up.

It actually made the news (even Faux, I believe) and was quoted here repeatedly.

He said, correctly; I am in compliance with the constitution, andI don't need the fuckin thing, you guys can stick it.

Since any premise you have forwarded is fundamentally and deeply flawed, your conclusions would suffer the same shortcomings.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: More than a simple impeachment... - 4/19/2012 12:42:57 PM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

Google "H.CON.RES.107" and take your pick.

It looks like Congress has found the MOST IMPORTANT thing to work on...Obama's unconstitutional activities.

That's right Jim. Let the N Koreans or Iranians start WWIII. Let our country be flooded with illegals. Ship what jobs there are overseas. Put taxpaying citizens out in the street. Let our veterans die from lack of proper medical care. Most importantly, let those Arab sheikhs make a few more tens of billions along with their American financial sluts in the AWWWWWL Bidness who do their bidding.
The IMPORTANT thing is to get to the bottom of why the Libyan operation was successful so quickly that Congress didn't have time to fuck it up with endless debate and gridlock.
How DARE someone do that?

Well, Hillwilliam, that you don't consider letting our Veterans die from lack of proper medical care THE MOST IMPORTANT issue tells me all I need to know about you.

It completely went over your fucking head didn't it? Maybe I should have turned on the bright red blinking <sarcasm font> sign and you could have figured it out.

Nah, I doubt it.

< Message edited by Hillwilliam -- 4/19/2012 12:43:59 PM >

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to RacerJim)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: More than a simple impeachment... - 4/19/2012 12:49:07 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

how many people were aware of the Congressional resolution to impeach Obama?

A "sense of Congress" resolution is not an impeachment.

~FR

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.

Much to do about nothing, really

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 4/19/2012 12:50:41 PM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: More than a simple impeachment... - 4/19/2012 1:29:32 PM

wolf223

Posts: 89
Joined: 3/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I don't think: "It's happened before so, it's alright now" is a very good reason to shitcan the constitution. If it were, I would posit that Mario Drake is innocent because Ted Kennedy was never called to task for his negligent homicide.

Libya was not the same thing as President Reagan, going into Grenada because there were Americans there that could have become hostages; not many but one would have been enough in my book.

Libya may very well be a parallel to the Bay of Pigs, although, in reality, the Bay was a bit more egregious because there was no "international support". It was a covert military op, initiated by the US at the behest of some refugees (maybe).

What we have, here (to quote one of my favorite movies) is a failure to communicate, literally. If President Obama had asked (secretly, even) the congress to authorize a military action in Libya, he might have had to play a little "inside baseball" to get a desirable outcome but, ultimately, he's the commander-in-chief and he could have twisted congress' nuts, if they didn't go where he led them.

So, the president took it upon himself to violate the constitution and that is absolutely a "high crime" (Pornounced: "treason" for those of you in Poughkeepsie).

Peace and comfort,

Michael

You do realize people are going to say this is a good reason.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: More than a simple impeachment... - 4/19/2012 7:34:14 PM

Fellow

Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

I would be interested what is actually behind the scenes mechanism for these modern wars? Anybody there who believes teleprompter-reading puppet Obama actually had any fundamental part in Libya attack or GW Bush invaded Iraq?
As the resolution is concerned, it is hard to imagine members of Congress pushing it hard. Forget the substance, very few find the Constitution useful these days. Most of the members of the Congress are semi-retired parasites, they are not interested in disturbing their own comfort zone. Presidential campaigns are uncomfortable of using the subject. Romney has expressed support of these wars. Mainstream media blackout supports the lack of enthusiasm pushing this thing.

(in reply to SadistDave)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: More than a simple impeachment... - 4/19/2012 7:42:54 PM

SoftBonds

Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
The resolution has been introduced and has co-sponsors. It has been in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee since March 7, the day it was introduced. I think it makes impeachment proceedings easier, but Obama's name is not linked to the resolution, so I am unsure of how anyone would consider this an impeachment in and of itself. In theory, at the very least it would make Obama's impeachment over Lybia easier to accomplish. At least thats the scuttlebutt.

As pleasant as I find that prospect, it is unlikely... The resolution simply affirms that acts of war without Congressional approval are impeachable under The Constitution. Nothing more. So, lets put the possibility of impeachment aside for a moment because we all know it ain't gonna happen.

I actually have a bigger fish to fry here...

The real implication here is with the U.N.. Obama's use of the military in Lybia was based on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. As per U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, the U.N. may call for armed action (as it did with Lybia), and when it does (as it did in Lybia) all U.N. nations must comply (which Obama did, albeit without Congressional approval)... This would explain Obama's assertion that essentially starting a war in Lybia was legal under U.S. law because he had "international approval". That, as unfortunate as it may be, is fair under the circumstances to a degree... However, by favoring U.N. Resolution 1973 over the Constitution of The United States, he failed to keep his oath of office, which is actually an impeachable offence and high treason...

Not surprisingly, the media has been absolutely silent on this bill since it was introduced. There has been a pretty thorough media blackout on it. It is not difficult to see why the mere fact that this resolution even made it to the House Judiciary Committee is an indictment on Obama and his disdain for The Constitution of The United States of America. It is a repudiation of his desire to kowtow to the international community.

H. Con. Res 107 of the 112th Congress represents a first step in returning the military and military resources to the direct control of Congress as per The Constitution. H. Con. Res. 107 will force all future Presidents to uphold their oaths of allegience to The Constitution of the United States of America above any and all international treaties or agreements. In other words, there will no longer be a convenient vehicle for the Executive Branch to cede American sovereignty to international influences, making this resolution a real game changer for international politics by renewing America's commitment to American interests over the interests of other nations.

Good times!

-SD-

SD,
Not a real issue, though it is good that congress is affirming it's power to choose when to declare war. However, the Senate declared war on Libya...
You see, the senate ratified a treaty allowing the UN to call on us for military support.
All the President did was execute the decision that the Senate made.
If the Senate doesn't want the President to use military force in accordance with a treaty, they need to change that treaty.

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to SadistDave)

Profile

Post #: 26

Less than a simple impeachment... - 4/19/2012 7:49:37 PM

Musicmystery