Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Obama Impeachment Bill Now in Congress (Video)
Source:
WND
URL Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-im ... l-now-in-congress/?cat_orig=us
Published: Mar 11, 2012
Author: Drew Zahn
Post Date: 2012-03-11 21:50:19 by Murron
Keywords: None
Views: 2676
Comments: 4
Obama Impeachment Bill Now in Congress: Declares president's use of military without approval 'high crime, misdemeanor' Let the president be duly warned. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.” Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya. In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. “This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.” In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.” “Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].” Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution. Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer. “Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.” The exchange itself can be seen below: The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows: 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].” Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution. Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer. “Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.” Panetta's response to questions from Sen. Sessions was 'breathtaking'. If there is anyone left who might wonder who is in control of this nation and our military, watch this video, it's not just breathtaking, it's the most chilling exchange I've seen among our leaders in a long time...if ever! jmho!
("Every fetus that DOESN'T go on welfare in 18 years because he/she was aborted yesterday... brings a smile to my face today" ~ GrandIsland - LibertyPost)
What about where we have treaty obligations?
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
There are no treaty obligations that usurp the role of congress to declare war. Cite said treaty obligation.
Leon Panetta "Let me just for the record, be clear again, Sen., so that there's no misunderstanding. When it comes to the National Defenses of this country, the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country, and we will! Now, if it comes to an opperation where we are trying to build a coalition nation, to work together, to go in and operate as we did in Libya, or Bosnia for that matter, or Afghanistan, we want to do it with permission either by NATO, or by the International Community". Tom Tancrendo stated,"President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. That must change. That Obama can be voted out of office in eight months is not a reason to hold back on impeachment. Formal impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives would help alert the nation’s 120 million likely voters that more is at stake in Obama’s power grabs than Syrian human rights and contraception subsidies for college students. The grounds for House impeachment proceedings have been laid by Obama’s own actions. A list of his unconstitutional and illegal actions would embarrass any honest public official and makes Nixon’s Watergate cover-up look like a college fraternity house panty raid. Obama’s policy on the use of military force abroad raises grave issues – both policy issues and constitutional issues. When Defense Secretary Panetta tells a Senate committee he will rely on NATO and the U.N. for “permission” for use of military force, that is an affront to and direct assault on the Constitution. Those Panetta statements (above on video) propelled Rep. Jones to introduce a House resolution stipulating that any use of military force by the president without an act of Congress, except to repel a direct attack on the United States, is an impeachable offense under the Constitution." ("Every fetus that DOESN'T go on welfare in 18 years because he/she was aborted yesterday... brings a smile to my face today" ~ GrandIsland - LibertyPost)
In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”
#2. To: Murron (#0)
“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
#3. To: lucysmom (#2)
What about where we have treaty obligations?
#4. To: All (#1)
Sen. Sessions: "I'm all for having international support, but I'm really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the US Military to be deployed in combat. I don't believe it's close to being correct, they provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that's required for the US Military is the Congress, the President, and the Law and the Constitution."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]