Impeachable Offense?

[delldude]

The most disturbing aspect, however, is the intervention’s lack of constitutional and legal authority. It is an illegal war. The Constitution clearly stipulates that only Congress can authorize the use of military force. Unless American territory has been invaded or U.S. citizens have been directly attacked, the president must first ask for congressional approval before ordering any kind of military action. To do otherwise is to behave like a despot.

That is why the Founding Fathers insisted that going to war could be sanctioned only by the people’s representatives. The most serious act of any state is to use military force - to demand that countrymen risk their lives on behalf of their nation. Hence, congressional input and approval is necessary as a fundamental check and balance against an imperial president.

Mr. Obama claims he does not need congressional authority. His behavior reflects contempt for the rule of law and American democracy. His arbitrary will trumps legal restraints. Unless he is stopped and removed from office, we are a constitutional republic in name only.

His blatant abuse of power is illegal, immoral and hypocritical. During the war in Iraq, then-Sen. Barack Obama criticized President George W. Bush for not asking Congress for a formal declaration of war. On Dec. 20, 2007, Mr. Obama said in a speech that the “president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Story

 

[dapoes]

If we could be so lucky...

 

[700UW]

Gee Reagan did the same to Libya, before, Clinton and Bush to Bosnia, so dont play the BS card.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Gee Reagan did the same to Libya, before, Clinton and Bush to Bosnia, so dont play the BS card.

Ronald Reagan absolutely did NOT do the same thing. Here is a snip from the BBC.

Self Defence

President Reagan made a TV address to the American people two hours after the attack.

In it he said : "When our citizens are attacked or abused anywhere in the world on the direct orders of hostile regimes, we will respond so long as I'm in this office."

He argued that America was exercising its right to self defence as defined by Article 51 of the UN charter.

The presidential spokesman, Larry Speakes, said, "US forces have executed a series of carefully planned air strikes against terrorist targets in Libya."


This is completely different from today's justification under a UN resolution, It was also a ONE DAY effort. Bush one and two had the consent of the people under the War Powers Act to use force in enforcement of the various UN Resolutions. To date, I've not seen nor heard of The Supreme Leader of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Barackistan seek any such consent of Congress, so we have a very different situation at hand. Impeachable? Don't know and there is much debate over the UN Charter and how it interacts with the US Constitution which is why Libertarians are never real excited about treaties and foreign entanglements.

Never let the facts interfere with blind obedience to the Supreme Leader Obama.

 

[777 fixer]

Ronald Reagan absolutely did NOT do the same thing. Here is a snip from the BBC.

Self Defence

President Reagan made a TV address to the American people two hours after the attack.

In it he said : "When our citizens are attacked or abused anywhere in the world on the direct orders of hostile regimes, we will respond so long as I'm in this office."

He argued that America was exercising its right to self defence as defined by Article 51 of the UN charter.

The presidential spokesman, Larry Speakes, said, "US forces have executed a series of carefully planned air strikes against terrorist targets in Libya."


This is completely different from today's justification under a UN resolution, It was also a ONE DAY effort. Bush one and two had the consent of the people under the War Powers Act to use force in enforcement of the various UN Resolutions. To date, I've not seen nor heard of The Supreme Leader of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Barackistan seek any such consent of Congress, so we have a very different situation at hand. Impeachable? Don't know and there is much debate over the UN Charter and how it interacts with the US Constitution which is why Libertarians are never real excited about treaties and foreign entanglements.

Never let the facts interfere with blind obedience to the Supreme Leader Obama.

Where exactly does it say in the Consitution that it's okay as long as the president gets on TV claims self defense and refrences a UN article?

 

[Ms Tree]

Where exactly does it say in the Consitution that it's okay as long as the president gets on TV claims self defense and refrences a UN article?

And dont forget about Panama.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Where exactly does it say in the Consitution that it's okay as long as the president gets on TV claims self defense and refrences a UN article?

The justification was Article 51 of the UN Charter. Refer to Article XI of the US Constitution regarding treaties and you'll find exactly how the UN Charter and the US Constitution mesh. Same is true for about 165 other treaties.

Short version is a Treaty ratified by the Senate becomes "The Supreme Law of the Land". The exception is when there is a conflict between the US Constitution and the Treaty, then the Constitution overrides.

Since something like 31% of High School Seniors don't know the name of the Vice President it doesn't surprise me that most have no earthly idea what we're discussing, especially the MSM types.

 

[SparrowHawk]

And dont forget about Panama.

"President Bush's allegations that forces under Noriega's command had shot and killed an unarmed American serviceman, wounded another, arrested and brutally beat a third American serviceman and then brutally interrogated his wife, threatening her with sexual abuse, were cited by US Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering to the United Nations Security Council as sufficient grounds for invasion as an act of self-defense within Article 51 of the UN charter."

Note the use of the word "allegations". This little example of US adventurism never sat very well with me as it always appeared to me that the allegations were just that and I have little to no evidence to support the Bush allegations. None the less the UN Charter gave the Bush Administration enough cover with which to carry out the elimination of a liability that was once an asset with some pseudo-legal justification.

Panama, BOTH Libya incursions and likely Grenada as well are examples of why we as a nation need to maintain our sovereignty by not becoming entangled in International treaties and alliances any more than is absolutely necessary for us to function as a nation in a global economic environment. The challenge a sitting President faces is the world expects the USA to react & intervene. For once somebody needs to say, "Wait until after March Madness if you're still having a problem we'll discuss it then" OR perhaps, "Sorry Oprah is on". Point being as the worlds most powerful nation we can sit on our collective asses and watch TV and not respond to every metaphorical hangnail some country gets and goes boo hooing to Uncle Sam.

 

[777 fixer]

The justification was Article 51 of the UN Charter. Refer to Article XI of the US Constitution regarding treaties and you'll find exactly how the UN Charter and the US Constitution mesh. Same is true for about 165 other treaties.

Judicial limits?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Judicial limits?

I seem to recall someone trying to challenge the first go around in Libya in Federal Court and just about getting laughed out as the case was dismissed. Presidential powers are limited in some ways just not as much as one might think, especially when it comes to the use of force.

 

[leprechaun]

Your hypocrisy has no bounds.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Your hypocrisy has no bounds.

OK! Thanks for sharing with the class.

Now then do you have anything productive to add? Like an opinion? Concept? Rebuttal? Hey I'm all ears and I think I'm pretty freaking consistent with my views. You know sometimes I just research and post what I find without an opinion. Some seem to think just because I post it means I believe it to be right.

I don't like the USA being part of the UN as it gives our leaders powers not directly conferred upon them by the US Constitution and the citizens. Don't like that? I'll live