Be a Supporter!

Impeach Obama (?)

  • 2,018 Views
  • 37 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 11th, 2012 @ 08:43 PM Reply

On Wednesday, Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107, which states:

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.

Now, I know most of you partisan hacks out there view Obama as something of a progressive messiah, or at the very least absolutely preferrable to any current GOP candidate. But I'm not interested in why you think it is important to keep Obama as president, I want to know why, LEGALLY, he shouldn't be impeached.

He explicitly made use of military force without congressional approval, which is an impeachable offence. Progressives were (rightfully) seeking to have Bush impeached for identical reasons. So why not Obama? Should the law of the united states of america be followed only when we don't like a certain president or a certain war?

It's almost as if progressives want Obama to have powers that others presidents shouldn't have, failing to realise that allowing this kind of behaviour by Obama just allows other presidents to do the same and worse.

And no, I *really* don't give a fuck about the fact that he won't get impeached, so fuck off.


BBS Signature
Dawnslayer
Dawnslayer
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 11th, 2012 @ 10:08 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, SadisticMonkey wrote: 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.

Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Okay so far.

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:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: "[The Congress shall have Power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

This is where it gets tricky. Does "declaration of war" mean the same thing as "use of offensive military force"?

What you missed when reading this, Sadi, is that this resolution exists specifically to make the answer to that question "yes." Technically, the use of offensive military force without an overt declaration of war IS NOT legally defined by American law as a declaration of war as of yet. So (assuming you speak of Libya) because Obama did not declare war against Libya, it is not an impeachable offense. Bush, on the other hand, declared war against Iraq without approval by an act of Congress, which was an impeachable offense.

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's where your argument falls apart completely: it is stated absolutely NOWHERE in this resolution:

1) that any specific President should be charged under this resolution;
2) that the resolution is retroactive.

In other words, if this bill passes (which it might not), Obama can not be legally impeached under it on charges of any military action he has taken thus far. He could be impeached IF AND ONLY IF he uses offensive military force without an act of Congress AFTER this resolution passes.

So no, there is no legal precedent for Obama to be impeached to date. Sorry to disappoint you.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 11th, 2012 @ 10:11 PM Reply

First off, after reading Article II section 4, it's pretty easy to see that overstepping one's bound is NOT what they meant by high crimes.

I may have claimed for Bush's impeachment when I was youner, but the more I learn about the law and how it works, the less I believe that military action alone is grounds for impeachment. There is more than enough wiggle room there for this to avoid any such thing.

Speaking of partisan hacks, the person wrote this Bill is nothing other than a Partisan hack.

orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 11th, 2012 @ 10:32 PM Reply

Simply down to brass tacks here, the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, which means he has complete control of the military. Since you're referring to our involvement of Libya, it was considered not only legal for the president to do, {wise or not is up for debate.} but in no way can that be charged for high crimes and impeachment. I mean, if Truman, Nixon and both the Bush presidents declared "war" on other countries and there was no impeachment because of that, then Obama isn't up for impeachment.

Since the article of the Constitution wasn't specifically clear on such a matter as this, the president can use the military against another country without specifically declaring war, {by calling it a military action or something around those lines.} almost like a loophole.

In other words, it's legal on a technical level, but whether or not it's a good decision in the short and long term run is up for legitimate debate.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 11th, 2012 @ 11:01 PM Reply

We shouldn't be impeaching Obama, if we did we'd wouldn't hear the end of it from the asshats at MSNBC and other liberal media outlets about how America is a racist nation, besides he hasn't done anything impeachable yet. What we should be worried about is regulatory agencies overstepping their bounds.

frigi
frigi
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 11th, 2012 @ 11:13 PM Reply

Doesnt seem like he has done anything do get impeached. He kind of sucks, but that is pretty much any president. Few of them are actually good.

DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 13th, 2012 @ 02:49 PM Reply

I think he should be impeached for his approval of the NDAA alone. That's treason against the American people, right there.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
VictorGrey
VictorGrey
  • Member since: Jun. 4, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 13th, 2012 @ 03:17 PM Reply

At 1 day ago, Camarohusky wrote: First off, after reading Article II section 4, it's pretty easy to see that overstepping one's bound is NOT what they meant by high crimes.

I may have claimed for Bush's impeachment when I was youner, but the more I learn about the law and how it works, the less I believe that military action alone is grounds for impeachment. There is more than enough wiggle room there for this to avoid any such thing.

Speaking of partisan hacks, the person wrote this Bill is nothing other than a Partisan hack.

No. Walter James is not a partisan hack.

The validity of this bill's intent being put forward aside, he isn't a hack. His record of actions as a politician simply don't meet the definition for the slang term hack.
Neither is he partisan, if the word is to refer toward political party or fully adopting canned party ideology.

If he were indeed a political hack, he should be a lot more of a party partisan.
If he were a party partisan, he'd probably be a lot more of a hack.

It was a good turn of phrase and I see why you went for it, don't blame you. But Walter James' motivations for the bill probably don't come from being partisan to his party.

Now that said, other people in his party who would support him or cosign toward enacting that bill,
I am not going into there. You'd likely be exactly right.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 13th, 2012 @ 03:29 PM Reply

At 9 minutes ago, VictorGrey wrote: No. Walter James is not a partisan hack.

I looked into him and it appears that he is not. However, the timing of this reeks of partisan hackery. Oh well, nobody's perfect.

VictorGrey
VictorGrey
  • Member since: Jun. 4, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 13th, 2012 @ 03:38 PM Reply

At 3 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9 minutes ago, VictorGrey wrote: No. Walter James is not a partisan hack.
However, the timing of this reeks of partisan hackery.

No argument back from me there.

camobch0
camobch0
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Gamer
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 13th, 2012 @ 10:01 PM Reply

At 7 hours ago, HiryuGouki wrote: I think he should be impeached for his approval of the NDAA alone. That's treason against the American people, right there.

I completely agree with this. And, even before the NDAA was signed, he ordered the execution of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, with no trial, no chance to debate or even know the charges against him, and no notice of his execution.


A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.

BBS Signature
Proteas
Proteas
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 13th, 2012 @ 10:16 PM Reply

I move that we don't impeach him for one solid reason and one solid reason alone; Joe Bidden would become the acting president until the election.


BBS Signature
orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 13th, 2012 @ 10:57 PM Reply

At 43 minutes ago, camobch0 wrote:
At 7 hours ago, HiryuGouki wrote: I think he should be impeached for his approval of the NDAA alone. That's treason against the American people, right there.
he ordered the execution of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, with no trial, no chance to debate or even know the charges against him, and no notice of his execution.

Ok, I have to stop you right here. Al-Awlaki may have been a U.S. citizen, but he was the leader of an Al-Qaeda terror cell in Yemen. Last time I checked, we are at war with Al-Qaeda, and when you join their side, you should lose your rights as an American citizen, and not get the benefit of the doubt by having a trial. There is a reason why we can't negotiate with terrorists, because they want us dead, and we shouldn't take that lightly.

I can't believe people are still bitching about this, much less use that against Obama.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 13th, 2012 @ 11:24 PM Reply

At 8 hours ago, HiryuGouki wrote: I think he should be impeached for his approval of the NDAA alone. That's treason against the American people, right there.

No he shouldn't. If it's truly unconstitutional it is up the American public to sue on it and then get it ruled as such by the Supreme Court. The President signing a law that some people believe to be unconstitutional is no grounds for impeachment.

At 1 hour ago, camobch0 wrote: I completely agree with this. And, even before the NDAA was signed, he ordered the execution of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, with no trial, no chance to debate or even know the charges against him, and no notice of his execution.

Al-Awlaki was killed as an emeny soldier, because he acted as such, and held himself out as such. The nation of one's citizenship is mooted the moment that person takes up arms against the US.

Advice, look beyond the buzz words to the real heart of an issue. Things are NEVER as black and white as those on the extremes claim they are.

DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 14th, 2012 @ 10:53 AM Reply

No he shouldn't. If it's truly unconstitutional it is up the American public to sue on it and then get it ruled as such by the Supreme Court. The President signing a law that some people believe to be unconstitutional is no grounds for impeachment.

I personally view the signing of the NDAA as treason, but whatever.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 14th, 2012 @ 11:37 AM Reply

At 43 minutes ago, HiryuGouki wrote: I personally view the signing of the NDAA as treason, but whatever.

repeating yourself doesn't help your argument.

and it makes for boring lurking.

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 14th, 2012 @ 04:54 PM Reply

At 6 hours ago, HiryuGouki wrote: I personally view the signing of the NDAA as treason, but whatever.

Your personal view hardly hold any legal water whatsoever. (nor does mine)

ravichayal
ravichayal
  • Member since: Mar. 14, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Gamer
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 20th, 2012 @ 07:20 AM Reply

I agree with post, nice post..............

JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 12:56 PM Reply

Because legal precedence protect him. Every US president for the last century at least probably has used the military for offensive purposes without declaration of war from Congress.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
MultiCanimefan
MultiCanimefan
  • Member since: Dec. 19, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 02:57 PM Reply

At 7 days ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 8 hours ago, HiryuGouki wrote:
No he shouldn't. If it's truly unconstitutional it is up the American public to sue on it and then get it ruled as such by the Supreme Court.

Come on, Cam, as if the American public pays attention to much these days anymore. The very fact that we have ads dedicated solely to smearing opponents proves this. Whether or not the public believes something is unconstitutional or not is completely irrelevant if it actually is.

You give the people too much credit.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 04:26 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, MultiCanimefan wrote: You give the people too much credit.

It only takes one person to have a case.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 07:19 PM Reply

At 7 days ago, Camarohusky wrote:
Al-Awlaki was killed as an emeny soldier, because he acted as such, and held himself out as such. The nation of one's citizenship is mooted the moment that person takes up arms against the US.

Even his 16 year old, American son (which they first tried to claim was in his 20's)?

I love how you always leave out information.

n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 07:24 PM Reply

At 4 minutes ago, Memorize wrote:
At 7 days ago, Camarohusky wrote:
Al-Awlaki was killed as an emeny soldier, because he acted as such, and held himself out as such. The nation of one's citizenship is mooted the moment that person takes up arms against the US.
Even his 16 year old, American son (which they first tried to claim was in his 20's)?

I love how you always leave out information.

Hey memorize! Guess the forums lost a ton of traffic. School thing or did everyone get old? Sure do miss cellardoor6 around here.


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 10:46 PM Reply

At 3 hours ago, Memorize wrote: Even his 16 year old, American son (which they first tried to claim was in his 20's)?

His son knew what happened to him. yet he decided to spend time with the same dangerous sort like his father, whom he knew, or should have known, were military targets like his father. 16 may be young, but 16 is more than old enough to appear military aged so his presence near a high military target wouldn't immediately signify his status as a civilian, in reality it paints the other way.

I love how you always leave out information.

How did I leave anything out? The kid wasn't part of this conversation. (I talked about him a while ago, but I think it was a different thread, and if it was this thread I had already addressed him)

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 11:14 PM Reply

At 26 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
His son knew what happened to him. yet he decided to spend time with the same dangerous sort like his father, whom he knew, or should have known, were military targets like his father. 16 may be young, but 16 is more than old enough to appear military aged so his presence near a high military target wouldn't immediately signify his status as a civilian, in reality it paints the other way.

Can the police shoot and kill a 16 yr old kid at his drug dealing parent's house because he didn't run away?

How did I leave anything out? The kid wasn't part of this conversation. (I talked about him a while ago, but I think it was a different thread, and if it was this thread I had already addressed him)

Did he do anything illegal?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 11:31 PM Reply

At 13 minutes ago, Memorize wrote: Can the police shoot and kill a 16 yr old kid at his drug dealing parent's house because he didn't run away?

No they can't. That's not a good analogy though. We're performing a polcie investigation. We were attacking military targets. When you attack military targets you try to avoid civilian casualties, but they happen. They tend to happen more when the line between civilian and combatant are blurred, and the civilians present at a target fit the mold of the miltary targets.

Did he do anything illegal?

I don't know if he did.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 22nd, 2012 @ 01:13 AM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote:
No they can't. That's not a good analogy though. We're performing a polcie investigation. We were attacking military targets. When you attack military targets you try to avoid civilian casualties, but they happen.

You'd have a better point if he and his son weren't killed in two separate strikes.

I don't know if he did.

Having 1 man determine the value of someone's life is fun.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 22nd, 2012 @ 08:29 AM Reply

At 7 hours ago, Memorize wrote: You'd have a better point if he and his son weren't killed in two separate strikes.

No. He and his son were killed in 2 different strike, yes. But his son was killed in the strike upon 8 suspected militants, including the media chief of the regional terror branch.

Having 1 man determine the value of someone's life is fun.

Such is the general nature of war.

Greggg586
Greggg586
  • Member since: Sep. 27, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Gamer
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Mar. 23rd, 2012 @ 09:09 PM Reply

there is no reason to even bring up the idea of even thinking about the possibility of perhaps maybe in a different universe of having Obama impeached. In short: that is ludicrous. Impeach means to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office. to bring an accusation against. All to which there are none period.


KEEPIN It REAL Like HOLIFIELD, RAW like STAR WAR, CLEAN like Mr. CLEAN, MEAN Like Mr. T, SWEET Like SWEET TEA, I BRING THE BOOM!

BillyShakes
BillyShakes
  • Member since: Jul. 18, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Impeach Obama (?) Apr. 5th, 2012 @ 03:59 PM Reply

At 3/11/12 08:43 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: On Wednesday, Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107, which states:
I want to know why, LEGALLY, he shouldn't be impeached.

Because a president can't be impeached for things he did before the congress passed a law making what he did illegal. Simple enough.

And Obama's use of military without congressional approval is not beyond what of any other president as you assert.
Here is a list of congressionally approved military actions vs Non approved in the last hundred years

Congressional Approved Non Congressionally Appoved
WW1 A list of over 185 actions not including the wars
WW2 Korea
Lebanon 1958 Vietnam 70-75
Vietnam '64-70 Grenada
Syria 83 Bosnia
Iraq '91 A multitude of Iraqs including 2007-2011
Afghanistan 2001 Sierra Leon
Iraq 2003-2007 Sudan