T1B

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.

poptart wrote:He's obviously racist.

And probably extremely poorly educated.


I'd recommend Dennis go away and cling to his Bible or gun -----> and leave the thinking to those who can.

poptart wrote:He's obviously racist.

And probably extremely poorly educated.


I'd recommend Dennis go away and cling to his Bible or gun -----> and leave the thinking to those who can.

Free Republic

Democrats catching impeachment fever? Obama's actions in Libya Unconstitutional.

If nothing else, Dennis Kucinich is consistent. He wanted to push articles of impeachment against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over the Iraq war, which his own party’s leadership squelched in the summer of 2008 — when Bush’s term had all but expired anyway. Kucinich and John Conyers instead had to settle for “impugnment hearings,” which one witness called “slightly demented.”

Now we have another military action from another president, this one without the cover of a Congressional authorization to use military force, and Kucinich wants to crank up the impeachment process, pun most certainly intended:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

Technically, of course, Kucinich and other progressives are correct in that the Constitution doesn’t allow for Presidents to initiate military action without the involvement of Congress unless an immediate threat to American national security arises, the “clear and present danger” exception. One Constitutional scholar put it best in 2007:

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.

We’d get a clarification from this source to determine whether this applies to the current situation, but he’s traveling through South America at the moment and isn’t terribly engaged on this issue.

Traditionally, though, consultations with Congress have sufficed in the past. For instance, Congress didn’t specifically authorize Ronald Reagan to attack Libya in 1986 in Operation El Dorado Canyon, a retaliation for a terrorist bombing that killed American troops in Germany at a nightclub. Reagan consulted Congressional leadership before ordering the attack, an act of war by any definition. Presidents have conducted similar military actions without formal acts of Congress to authorize them, meaning it has a long precedent, even if it’s not necessarily a good idea. According to the report and Kucinich’s own objection, Obama did consult Congress before engaging in Operation Odyssey Dawn.

It’s certainly amusing in a small manner to see Obama get hoist with his own petard, but Kucinich is just as silly as ever in suggesting that impeachment proceedings should start over that action. Now, if we want to ask whether Obama should get called to Congress to account for his absence from the White House as he sent the American military into hostile action against Libya, that might be worth highlighting.

Martyred wrote:Democrat hypocrisy?

Why, I find that hard to believe.

Mace wrote:This is a non-issue

poptart wrote:

Mace wrote:This is a non-issue

Good sheep!

They count on idiots like you.

Mace wrote:"Consulting with Congress has sufficed in the past" and it will suffice now.

Mace wrote:Yeah, we should just assassinate them, right? :roll:

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.

mvscal wrote:

Mace wrote:Yeah, we should just assassinate them, right? :roll:

Your attempt to pop smoke and cover a disorderly withdrawal noted.

Back on point:

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.

True or false.

Y2K wrote:Obama must of come in on a UFO...anyone have his birth certificate?

KC Scott wrote:the self proclaimed "tard slapper" has been an expat quite a while now.

Does he really deserve an opinion?

KC Scott wrote:

mvscal wrote: Reagan's bombing of Tripoli was legitimate under the War Powers Resolution as a threat response to an attack on US servicemen. Grenada was dodgy. The House passed a resolution which passed 403-23 (after the fact) but the Senate never took up the resolution in conference. That doesn't cut it. Bottom line, Reagan played fast and loose with law and should have been flushed like a turd for doing so. Committing armed forces into hostlities is the most serious action a president can take and it needs to be above board.

Bosnia much?

Mace wrote:

mvscal wrote:Back on point:

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.

True or false.

True.

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.

mvscal wrote:OK then. Explain why Kucinich is a tard for wanting to impeach Ojugears for abusing his position to launch an unsanctioned military operation? That seems to be a rather serious charge, wouldn't you say?

Obviously, Ohypocrite thought so too when he said:

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.

...back in 2007. Yet fours years later here he is doing it and doing it with a phone call while he is out of the country on vacation no less.

Scott wrote:the self proclaimed "tard slapper" has been an expat quite a while now.

Does he really deserve an opinion?

Mace wrote:The precedent was set long ago and it continues today, right or wrong.

Mace wrote:Calling for impeachment is an over the top political maneuver to appease his voters, because he knows it will never happen...just as when he was screaming for impeachment of Bush.

mvscal wrote:So what you're saying then is that our laws and Constitution are meaningless and we need only comply with them when it is convenient to do so. Well, anarchy it is then. Just don't come crying to me when the bullets start flying.

Or, you know, maybe...just maybe these so called precedents which are based on blatant violations of the law really aren't the precedents we want guiding our actions. That's the thing about precedents. You can always set new ones. Just a thought.

While I seldom if ever agree with anything Kookcinich says or does, I will grant that he sincerely means what he says and isn't just posturing.

Mikey wrote:Not sure why mvscal has a problem with anybody being racist.

You'd think he might want to invite him over to share some rants and a bottle of Chardonnay.

Mace wrote:Was Obama calling for impeachment of Bush?

mvscal wrote: Back on point:

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.

True or false.

poptart wrote:

Mace wrote:This is a non-issue

Good sheep!

They count on idiots like you.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Where was this vitriolic gut-busting laff riot when we rolled in on Iraq with nothing more than a two-year campaign of steady lies, omissions, and gross distortions of faked intelligence?

Mace wrote:Was Obama calling for impeachment of Bush?

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Where was this vitriolic gut-busting laff riot when we rolled in on Iraq with nothing more than a two-year campaign of steady lies, omissions, and gross distortions of faked intelligence?

We rolled into Iraq with specific statutory authority, felchie, namely H. J. RES. 114. You can disagree with the rationale but what you cannot do is claim that it was illegal.

poptart wrote:Those pussies punted their authority (to call for war) over to the president.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: It was through lies, period.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:--and winnable!

poptart wrote: It's a very stupid question.

If someone were to be impeached over Iraq it would be the representatives who voted yes on the Iraq Resolution.

Those pussies punted their authority (to call for war) over to the president.

Mace wrote:I see, you want to impeach Obama for not complying with the Constitution but also want to impeach Congress when they do comply.