More than a simple impeachment...

More than a simple impeachment... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SadistDave -> More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 3:03:59 AM)
So just out of curiosity, with all this talk of "Slutgate", Trayvon Martin, and [insert your favorite flavor of the week political story here], how many people were aware of the Congressional resolution to impeach Obama? It's a pretty interesting read... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107.IH: For people who don't like to click, this is from The Library of Congress website: 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... (Introduced in House - IH) HCON 107 IH 112th CONGRESS 2d Session 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. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 7, 2012 Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 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 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-

dcnovice -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 5:31:56 AM)
FR Your link doesn't work. Doesn't Congress pass "sense of the Congress" bills fairly often? I'm not sure how binding they are, which raises the question of whether this is anything more than political theater.

DomKen -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 5:57:22 AM)
Sense of the Congress resolutions mean exactly nothing. For the President to be impeached the House would have to draft and pass articles of impeachment which would serve, sort of, as the indictment in his trial in the Senate.

Hillwilliam -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 6:12:02 AM)
The link doesn't work. It looks like Congress has found something 'more important' to work on than unemployment, foreclosures out of control, crappy housing markets, outsourcing of jobs, slow economy, illegal immigration, mideast clusterfucks, North Korean sabre rattling, etc, etc, etc.[8\|]

DesideriScuri -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 6:31:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave 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- Actually, the UN Resolution for action in Libya was specific to NATO action. That allowed (but the UN can not force anyone to act, btw) NATO to act. Since we are part of NATO, we jumped into the fray. I also must add that, even as part of NATO, we didn't have to act. We could have sat out since all our NATO treaty really states (as far as military action is concerned) is that an act of aggression on one member is to be considered an act of aggression on all members, and that we'll be part of the defense of any member nation attacked. Since there was no attack on any member nation, we didn't have to act. My argument has always been that NATO has no enforceable control over the US, and neither does NATO (at least not in this case). Citing either of those as the authorization for use of our military by the President is wrong. The President is bound by the War Powers Resolution and still must follow those rules. Since we are sovereign and not under UN-controlled, we do not have to act according to its whim when doing so crosses afoul of our Constitution and laws. And, let's be clear about something else. The UN Resolution for NATO to act was 1. Set up a No-Fly Zone 2. Prevent the Libyan military from killing Libyan civilians Goal 1 was easily completed within hours. Goal 2 was not much of an event. When civilians take up arms against their government, they are combatants/rebels and not civilians. Attacking and quashing an insurrection is much different than slaughtering innocent civilians. Even if we overlook that last part, how was it acceptable under the UN Resolution for NATO to essentially be the air force of the insurrection? NATO stopped defending and started attacking. The insurrection forces followed behind, allowing NATO to soften up the Libyan military. That right there should have been enough for Congress to stop the presses. I am quite unhappy with Boehner for letting the President continue the military actions.

mnottertail -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 6:34:50 AM)
Regarding the bill: Fucking imbecilic, a waste of taxpayer resources, and a misuse of office. They should be impeached.

Marc2b -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 6:36:24 AM)
"Sense of the Congress." Now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

DarkSteven -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 6:55:23 AM)
1. It has been well established that the President does not need Congressional approval for a war. This was proven in Vietnam and Bay of Pigs. Arguably Reagan in Grenada. The Constitution declares otherwise, but precedent overrides it here. 2. It's difficult to give a single word to characterize our involvement in Libya. But it would be difficult to define it as a war because we committed no troops to it. Frankly, I would consider the unmanned drones in Pakistan to be closer to war than our activities in Libya. 3. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a vague term. It means whatever the impeachers want it to mean. Basically, this is an attempt to say (correctly) that the President is required Constitutionally to get Congressional approval, and represents a rare occasion that Congress tries to reclaim some power which it has been cheerfully ceding to the Executive branch for decades because actual power interferes with its unstated mission of earmarks and getting reelected. Unfortunately by now there are decades of precedent of Congress standing by while the Executive branch did whatever it wished. This is political theater and won't go anywhere.

RacerJim -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 7:00:01 AM)
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.

mnottertail -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 7:03:09 AM)
Yeah, like all this dipshits stuff it will be buried in committee, never to see the light of day. When Obama does something that is actually unconstitutional, let us know with some credible citations from credible sources, will ya?

Hillwilliam -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 7:37:53 AM)
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?

slvemike4u -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 7:40:21 AM)
So when will the impeachment hearings start.....? I would not want to miss a moment of it,wildly historical stuff,eh ?

mnottertail -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 7:45:08 AM)
I have not seen one of that guys bills ever reported out of committee, he is a dipshit teabagger. Makes Paul look sane, and Romney only half-assclown.

Owner59 -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 9:03:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Makes Paul look sane, and Romney only half-assclown. This my be the perfect running mate for Mittens.......[:D]

DomKen -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 9:17:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave 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... This level of absolute cluelessness has been bothering me. Article VI of the US Constitution quote: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land Article 42 of the UN charter (a treaty the US has signed and ratified) quote: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. UN Secuirty Council Resolution 1973 quote: 4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory So by implementing SCR 1973 the President was honoring the black letter of the US Constitution and is definitely not guilty of treason or any impeachable offence.

Owner59 -> RE: More than another GOP embarrassment... (4/19/2012 9:47:50 AM)
Gotta hand it to you guys......what`s that definition of crazy.....doing something that always fails but then doing it again thinking it won`t? Worked out great the last time...lol......newty`s a frick`n rockstar![8\|] [:D] [image]http://www.thefullmooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Newt-Gingrich-on-Family-Values.jpg[/image]

RacerJim -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 10:03:30 AM)
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.

mnottertail -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 10:26:49 AM)
Well, on the scale of relativism, his concern for veterans issues is much higher than yours. So, probably not an impeachable offense for the Hillster.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 10:58:23 AM)
A reminder that All things Zimmerman is where anything relating to Zimmerman/Martin may be posted. http://www.collarchat.com/m_4088215/tm.htm Thank you for being a part of CollarMe, VideoAdminGamma quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave So just out of curiosity, with all this talk of "Slutgate", Trayvon Martin, and [insert your favorite flavor of the week political story here], how many people were aware of the Congressional resolution to impeach Obama? It's a pretty interesting read... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107.IH: For people who don't like to click, this is from The Library of Congress website: 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... (Introduced in House - IH) HCON 107 IH 112th CONGRESS 2d Session 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. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 7, 2012 Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 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 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-

DaddySatyr -> RE: More than a simple impeachment... (4/19/2012 11:02:40 AM)
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

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875