Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/13/12 10:16 PM, Proteas wrote: 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.

i have to agree with that, at least obama has two working brain cells

---

At 3/11/12 08:43 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: 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.

Okay, so in the constitution, we have the Congress which is empowered to declare war and build up and maintain the various branches of our military (Art I, Sec 8, Cla 11-16). Then, we have the executive branch, with the President being the commander in chief of the military. What does commander-in-chief mean? It means when the President says jump, the military asks how high without waiting for Congress' approval. It is actually this power that enabled President Obama to send Navy SEALs into Pakistan to kill the 'potential high-value target' who was assumed to be bin Laden without getting Congressional approval first.

But what we have today, over 200 years later, is a more refined understanding of how that delineation works. Congress has the power to declare war, but the President has the power to use the military. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 actually gives the President certain powers and restrictions on how he can use the military without congressional approval. The 1973 resolution dictates that within 48 hours of deploying the military, the President must notify Congressional leaders (which he did - see here: http://www.c-span.org/uploadedfiles/Content/Documents/2011li bya.military.rel.pdf )

Now, the War Powers Resolution also allows for the President to use military forces for up to 60 days (with an additional 30-day withdrawal period) before congressional approval is needed. Now, the total length of Operation Odyssey Dawn (as it was known in the USA) was 254 days. But there is a Constitutional grey area here, since President Truman established a precedent by arguing the Korean War was justified since the US Congress had ratified the UN charter and the UN Security Council had directed member states to engage in military action. The argument is that since the American people authorized our entry into the UN via the US Senate, the American people have also authorized the use of force in a UN-sanctioned coalition. This is where Bush went wrong - instead of pursuing more diplomatic and political means to try and win over the UN, he just went ahead and did it anyway. But Obama's actions in Libya, first off, were far more limited in scope than what Bush did in Iraq, not to mention the American-approved UN ordered member states to initiate military action against Libya for a whole littany of reasons. The main argument for US intervention is listed in the above .pdf file that I linked to, in the last 3 paragraphs on page 2.

Moreover, the Senate had previously passed S. Res 85, which called for the resignation of Muammar Qaddafi and the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya. The President's actions in sending military forces to aid in the UN's involvement in Libya could further be justified using that Resolution.

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.

See above.

He explicitly made use of military force without congressional approval, which is an impeachable offence.

Not under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and not if we want to stay consistent with historical precedent.

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?

See above, again.

It's almost as if progressives want Obama to have powers that others presidents shouldn't have.

And how exactly are we doing that?

failing to realise that allowing this kind of behaviour by Obama just allows other presidents to do the same and worse.

That would be true, if we were actually condoning a use of force that violated Constitutional law, international law and didn't follow historical precedent.

The great thing about precedents is that it enables us, given the mostly rational world we live in, to determine what actions are acceptable and which are not. When you combine the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the historical precedent of the US President engaging military forces in support of a UN operation, and the fact that, as Obama puts it, he is acting pursuant to his constitutional powers to conduct U.S. foreign relations and acting as commander-in-chief and the Chief Executive, I don't understand why anyone actually has a problem with our limited role in the events that unfolded in Libya during 2011.

(Note: I actually have been out of the loop for a while, so this post actually took me like 3-4 hours to write, as I was actually researching most of the arguments made herein, as well as getting the facts of our involvement with Libya.)

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

---

Federal Guide line Infinity Section Infinity Subdivision Infinity. Infinity

A. Nitpick for entirety!

---

At 4/17/12 06:48 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: If being an idiot is an impeachable offense, then go for it.

Otherwise, he hasn't done anything illegal.

so what? if you have enough votes for it why not?

---

I was thinking that if there was any reason for Obama to be impeached, it would be his attack on Libya. Then again, he ended that war quite quickly and killed Gaddaffi, so that argument probably doesn't hold water anymore. With any President, there are going to be people who hate him and that will call on him for impeachment. Every President in my life whom I can remember has had people who wanted to impeach him, Clinton and Bush. It's just going to go on forever.

---

just a reminder for everybody here: impeach is just a really fancy word for 'to accuse of unlawful activity." there is a trial, and if a conviction is reached, then the president will be removed from office.

---

Pardon my French, but I've think we've grown to bastardize the term "impeach". We use it to threaten any President who has done something wrong. I think it might have started with the whole Clinton thing. Granted, Bush had a lot better reasons for impeachment than either Clinton or Obama, but it's just becoming too frequent. I found out that no President has actually ever been removed from office, which I thought was the same as impeachment, so it's never been that bad.

---

At 5/3/12 06:18 PM, Ericho wrote: Pardon my French, but I've think we've grown to bastardize the term "impeach". We use it to threaten any President who has done something wrong. I think it might have started with the whole Clinton thing. Granted, Bush had a lot better reasons for impeachment than either Clinton or Obama, but it's just becoming too frequent. I found out that no President has actually ever been removed from office, which I thought was the same as impeachment, so it's never been that bad.

andrew johnson was one vote away from a conviction, and, c'mon, we all know what would have happened to nixon. he did too, so he resigned in disgrace.