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-

1. Set up a No-Fly Zone
2. Prevent the Libyan military from killing Libyan civilians

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


Makes Paul look sane, and Romney only half-assclown.

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...

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

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.

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

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?

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-