'International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

[jimnyc]

So says Leon Panetta...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5zNwOeyuG84" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Note that Sessions himself states that we don't need Nato and/or UN resolutions to act in what we feel is the best interests and security of the United States....

[Gaffer]

I feel the same way Sessions did. Just WOW, did he really say that? He is saying that congress is irrelevant to decisions made involving war. Talk about real conspiracies.

[fj1200]

Panetta: "We will defend the country."

OK, how did Libya and how does Syria threaten the country?

[Gaffer]

Panetta: "We will defend the country."

OK, how did Libya and how does Syria threaten the country?

He just didn't mention what country.

That is an upsetting video. I didn't like panetta before, he has sunk to zero's level with me now.

[jimnyc]

Panetta: "We will defend the country."

OK, how did Libya and how does Syria threaten the country?

Noticed that too. Definitely stepped on his tongue with that one.

But I do note again, that Sessions stated we don't need UN or Nato permission to act in the Nation's best interest. That goes against what many others believe, that we should have permission from the UN and other authorities in order to act in our interests. I agree with Sessions on that matter.

[revelarts]

I've got almost no words here.

they are just coming out and saying it.
"The Prez will attack anyone we want and we'll let you congress folks know about it later."

"LIKE in Lybia", were we were an Agressor. never attacked but joined a foreign civil war.

the international permission he's looking for is to Attack not defend. he needs it becuase Attacking another nation is A war crime. plan and simple.
they have to collect enough other nations to gang up on a Non-aggressive nation, float an excuse and get a permission slip as legal cover from international prosecution and possible legitimate counter attack.

where Eisenhower when you need him:
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

[ConHog]

I've got almost no words here.

they are just coming out and saying it.
"The Prez will attack anyone we want and we'll let you congress folks know about it later."

"LIKE in Lybia", were we were an Agressor. never attacked but joined a foreign civil war.

the international permission he's looking for is to Attack not defend. he needs it becuase Attacking another nation is A war crime. plan and simple.
they have to collect enough other nations to gang up on a Non-aggressive nation, float an excuse and get a permission slip as legal cover from international prosecution and possible legitimate counter attack.

where Eisenhower when you need him:
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

I'm shocked that you're wrong again.

193 military actions in our history Rev, and FIVE of them have been declared wars. The rest unilateral actions taken by POTUS.

Feel free to disagree with the decisions made by the Commander in Chief, I certainly do, but don't try to pretend that he doesn't have the authority to do exactly what he is doing in this area.

At best it's a policy issue, have we agreed to consult with NATO or the UN before taking any military actions? If we have, we're stupid. If we haven't NATO and the UN can kiss our asses.

[jimnyc]

I'm shocked that you're wrong again.

193 military actions in our history Rev, and FIVE of them have been declared wars. The rest unilateral actions taken by POTUS.

Feel free to disagree with the decisions made by the Commander in Chief, I certainly do, but don't try to pretend that he doesn't have the authority to do exactly what he is doing in this area.

At best it's a policy issue, have we agreed to consult with NATO or the UN before taking any military actions? If we have, we're stupid. If we haven't NATO and the UN can kiss our asses.

I've corrected him on this before but it won't stop him and his ilk from whining. RARELY has congress ever declared war, like it or not.

And the link I've given previously, showing those 5, and a bunch of notable other "wars" that were never declared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

[revelarts]

I'm shocked that you're wrong again.

193 military actions in our history Rev, and FIVE of them have been declared wars. The rest unilateral actions taken by POTUS.

Feel free to disagree with the decisions made by the Commander in Chief, I certainly do, but don't try to pretend that he doesn't have the authority to do exactly what he is doing in this area.

At best it's a policy issue, have we agreed to consult with NATO or the UN before taking any military actions? If we have, we're stupid. If we haven't NATO and the UN can kiss our asses.


I've corrected him on this before but it won't stop him and his ilk from whining. RARELY has congress ever declared war, like it or not.

And the link I've given previously, showing those 5, and a bunch of notable other "wars" that were never declared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.

[jimnyc]

you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.

Then why has congress voted to authorize the military to take action so many times? Why has no one from congress or past administrations been charged with crimes for going to war? According to you, the USA has committed "war crimes" nearly 200 times.


you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.

And he DOES, as 190x previously shows, whether you like it or not.

[ConHog]

you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.

Wrong again Revvers, it is YOU who is mad that the POTUS is within his constitutional authority to do so. YOU don't like the law. I may disagree with some of the decisions , but they ARE within the President's powers.

Stop trying to rewrite the COTUS.

[jimnyc]

Wrong again Revvers, it is YOU who is mad that the POTUS is within his constitutional authority to do so. YOU don't like the law. I may disagree with some of the decisions , but they ARE within the President's powers.

Stop trying to rewrite the COTUS.

Or more specifically, the war powers resolution. It would be "illegal" for a president to declare war without congress, but there is nothing wrong with the actions so long as they remain consistent with the resolution. If some don't like the resolution, they should fight to have it changed.

[logroller]

you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.
Why do you put that in quotes...usually that's done because it's someone else's quote or its an expression not to be taken literally.

[logroller]

Or more specifically, the war powers resolution. It would be "illegal" for a president to declare war without congress, but there is nothing wrong with the actions so long as they remain consistent with the resolution. If some don't like the resolution, they should fight to have it changed.

fair enough; but didn't Obama overstay the 60 days?

[revelarts]

Then why has congress voted to authorize the military to take action so many times? Why has no one from congress or past administrations been charged with crimes for going to war? According to you, the USA has committed "war crimes" nearly 200 times.


And he DOES, as 190x previously shows, whether you like it or not.
Wrong again Revvers, it is YOU who is mad that the POTUS is within his constitutional authority to do so. YOU don't like the law. I may disagree with some of the decisions , but they ARE within the President's powers.

Stop trying to rewrite the COTUS.
Or more specifically, the war powers resolution. It would be "illegal" for a president to declare war without congress, but there is nothing wrong with the actions so long as they remain consistent with the resolution. If some don't like the resolution, they should fight to have it changed.


Several Senators and congress people HAVE tried to Charge many presidents with a war crimes, however to many Other congress people think like Jim and Con or just hate to "put the country through that" "what good would it do?", or they are simply partisan and won't go against "their" president, or are simply intimidated or they agree with the unlawful actions and basically know they they couldn't get a declaration passed in congress if the tried it and are happy that the Dictator & Chief has taken the action UNILATERALLY. that is, One man Decides that the whole nation goes to war. If you guys think that's constitutional or that's the intent of the law your crazy. And if it is what you believe you have NO right to claim any other rights and priveleges of the constitution. the Right to own a gun is BS if you can read the constitution to say that ONE MAN can Send the country to war is Constitutional. Even with the unconstitional caveat of the war powers act there are several hurdels that have not been met by many Presidents.

And Concering the 190+ times, We'd have to touch on each oone by one to see what was done. Some the president just moved troops but there was no action, Other they tried to use a legal cover of "criminal activy" Some where given a backhanded approval as "military action" which is esetial war. But often the presidents just plain broke the law.





Why do you put that in quotes...usually that's done because it's someone else's quote or its an expression not to be taken literally.

I put it in quotes becuase some people on the board seem to be for ANY, law good or bad, as long as it's "DA LAW". Except it seems when it's the constitution against their particular points.

however we see that's not Really the case, that Fact that it was done 190+ times Means Here SOMEHOW that it's magically legal. even though it's NOT the law. If you can get away with it 190+ it's legal. Then marijuana should be legal too, running a red light, going pass the speed limit, Heck serial killing or rape, I guess, if getting away with it is the standard and not what the law says.
we don't look at the law we look at how many times it was broken, and have to defend the idea that they weren't charged. It's just a frustrating double standard that I've seen too often here. when the gov't breaks the law it's not REALLY breaking the law unless they are Charged and prosecuted. Even farther if they do happened to get charged it's "just partisan" and since it's been done so may times it's really OK.

[jimnyc]

Several Senators and congress people HAVE tried to Charge many presidents with a war crimes, So Presidents can be impeached for sex in the oval office and/or lying, but no traction can be gained in congress for war crimes? Can you post the bills that were sponsored in congress (links) that also include the voting?
fair enough; but didn't Obama overstay the 60 days? The Obama administration argued that the WPR didn't apply to their actions. Shocker, right? He claimed leadership was transferred to NATO within the 60 days and therefore the WPR no longer mattered. I think it should be a "boots on the ground" decision. If boots are on the ground, you need permission past 90 days. If not, he's within his powers as CIC and POTUS. Btw, Rev, I don't need war crime charges back to George Washington - Bush the 1st, Clinton, Bush II and Obama would suffice...

[revelarts]

So Presidents can be impeached for sex in the oval office and/or lying, but no traction can be gained in congress for war crimes? Can you post the bills that were sponsored in congress (links) that also include the voting?

how many will it take for you to agree with the point Jim?
hmm?

Bush Had a bill of impeachment against him for war Crimes while he was in office put up by Dennis Kucinch, He read each Count out on the floor but your good buddy Pelosi and other democrats said they didn't think it was a good idea at the time.

Ron Paul On impeaching Clinton over Sudan Bombing 1998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

[jimnyc]

how many will it take for you to agree with the point Jim?
hmm?

Bush Had a bill of impeachment against him for war Crimes while he was in office put up by Dennis Kucinch, He read each Count out on the floor but your good buddy Pelosi and other democrats said they didn't think it was a good idea at the time.

Ron Paul On impeaching Clinton over Sudan Bombing 1998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

Not watching Youtube, Rev - just please post the bills in congress with the vote tallies, this way I can read the context and who voted. Surely you can find actual bills instead of youtube videos.

I'm looking around through past congresses, and all I'm finding is a decent amount of "brave talk" from nutters Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I can't find any bills at all and certainly nothing at all that could grow legs. If there was sufficient evidence, EITHER side would LOVE to charge an opposing president with war crimes. Neither side has even found enough evidence to move forward let alone garner enough votes. Nutter talk, and doesn't surprise me that your info comes from "The Great Strategist".

[revelarts]

I'm looking around through past congresses, and all I'm finding is a decent amount of "brave talk" from nutters Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I can't find any bills at all and certainly nothing at all that could grow legs. If there was sufficient evidence, EITHER side would LOVE to charge an opposing president with war crimes. Neither side has even found enough evidence to move forward let alone garner enough votes. Nutter talk, and doesn't surprise me that your info comes from "The Great Strategist".

Just as I thought, I give you 2 off the top of my head mention how Pelosi declined to join in on one agaist Bush and you dimiss the congressmen as "nutters" and cover your ears and mumble over Pelosi's not taking her shot. look Jim Believe your own fantasies about gov't power and CiC's "constitutional" power to declare war without congress, and how partisan politics works don't let me disturb your world.

[jimnyc]

Just as I thought, I give you 2 off the top of my head mention how Pelosi declined to join in on one agaist Bush and you dimiss the congressmen as "nutters" and cover your ears and mumble over Pelosi's not taking her shot. look Jim Believe your own fantasies about gov't power and CiC's "constitutional" power to declare war without congress, and how partisan politics works don't let me disturb your world.

Can you please link me to the thread where you posted the bills accusing the presidents I named with war crimes? Off the top of YOUR head doesn't cut it for me. I'd really like to read the text of the bills, and the voting, more specifically who voted for what. It was you that made the claim about these war crimes - I just want to read the text of the bills. That's not a fantasy, it's called facts and due diligence before I go further with the discussion. Admittedly, I can't find what it is I'm looking for, call me dense if you will, but I figured since you made the claims that I would read what it is you are basing your comments on.


Ron Paul On impeaching Clinton over Sudan Bombing 1998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA

Rev, I decided to give your video a chance, and that was a mistake. The "impeachment" in this video is in reference to Clinton being impeached for the reasons he was. Paul rants throughout about Sudan, but I see no "bill" that he sponsored or submitted, just a press conference of sorts. It's hard to tell what it is, as it's cut and edited so much and so often that it's hard to keep up with specifically what he's discussing.

That, and just a mention alone of Kucinich, but no bill.

I want to read the text of these bills, and find out why no one in congress would support it. If it's as clear cut as you make it out to be, I'm wondering why one party wouldn't vote to impeach the other parties president. The only logical reason I can think of that this would happen, that both parties basically ignoring it, would be if the bill itself was total horseshit and wouldn't pass muster from grammar school judges. I'm leaning towards the latter, but still willing to read the text and grab a better idea as to why the actual bills were voted against.

[revelarts]

Never said you were dumb, willfully blind , hard headed maybe but not dumb. Jim, you've already called Kucinich a Nutter, doesn't give one the impression your being objective. I'd guess what ever he writes you won't agree with and will dismiss. As you have when I've wasted my time posting long list of Military, CIA, DIA, and executive branch personnel and testimony about Iraq which you dismiss by saying things LIKE "they want to sell a book" so they are not credible. Or "why didn't they say that before" or "they are democrats" or they are "out in left field politically" or "Why didn't congress do something..." If not those exact words that's the jist i got. All of which, at best just raise the bar of evidence to an impossible level, but never address the illegal activity. You already said that the Prez pretty much has the right to declare war BY HIMSELF and they've done it 190+ times therefore it"s Legal. And unless someone challenges the legality then NO MATTER what the Constitution says the fact that they've gotten away with it trumps the constitution. Except, they have been challenged, but now you want to see if you agree with the challenge, well I'd guess you will not. And if you did, I ask you again, would you change your position. yes or no? it's a simply question. I don't know you but I'd guess that you'd just raise the bar Again. And Asked that the impeachment succeed. Since they didn't well It's means that the prez is Not breaking the law because he got away with it. over and over. your win, if that's your stand. But it's EXTREMELY clear that the law and the intent of the constitution was to have the war making power rest in the congress, there's NO ambiguity or question about that. All one has to do is read the constitution and the founder on the war powers and if you'd like even the war powers act. 190+ times or a million times it's still illegal. but here's the kucinich bill H.Res.1258 - Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. by the way have been are lawsuits against presidents over this issue as well, but fight city hall you don't get far.

[jimnyc]

So rather than just supply the bills, and lets all take a peek at the text of the bills, and see if everyone agrees if they should or shouldn't have went forward, and why or why not - you choose to go off on a rant not so different than Paul or Kucinich.

Bottom line is, there's not enough evidence to support an impeachment based on war crimes. Not for Bush I, Clinton, Bush II or Obama. The majority of either party would LOVE to vote on a bill to impeach someone from the other party, but only if the bill is sound and irrefutable. Don't blame me that entire congresses over several administrations disagree with your legal analysis on these issues.

[revelarts]

Never said you were dumb, willfully blind , hard headed maybe but not dumb. Jim, you've already called Kucinich a Nutter, doesn't give one the impression your being objective. I'd guess what ever he writes you won't agree with and will dismiss. As you have when I've wasted my time posting long list of Military, CIA, DIA, and executive branch personnel and testimony about Iraq which you dismiss by saying things LIKE "they want to sell a book" so they are not credible. Or "why didn't they say that before" or "they are democrats" or they are "out in left field politically" or "Why didn't congress do something..." If not those exact words that's the jist i got. All of which, at best just raise the bar of evidence to an impossible level, but never address the illegal activity. You already said that the Prez pretty much has the right to declare war BY HIMSELF and they've done it 190+ times therefore it"s Legal. And unless someone challenges the legality then NO MATTER what the Constitution says the fact that they've gotten away with it trumps the constitution. Except, they have been challenged, but now you want to see if you agree with the challenge, well I'd guess you will not. And if you did, I ask you again, would you change your position. yes or no? it's a simply question. I don't know you but I'd guess that you'd just raise the bar Again. And Asked that the impeachment succeed. Since they didn't well It's means that the prez is Not breaking the law because he got away with it. over and over. your win, if that's your stand. But it's EXTREMELY clear that the law and the intent of the constitution was to have the war making power rest in the congress, there's NO ambiguity or question about that. All one has to do is read the constitution and the founder on the war powers and if you'd like even the war powers act. 190+ times or a million times it's still illegal. but here's the kucinich bill H.Res.1258 - Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. by the way have been are lawsuits against presidents over this issue as well, but fight city hall you don't get far.
did you miss this part?

[jimnyc]

did you miss this part?

Nope, doing searches now - I was looking for the texts of such bills, and a list of them - and links to the votes. From what I can find thus far, this was an introduction of a bill and it didn't go anywhere.

Rev - reading through the text of the Kucinich bill, the bill is "High crimes and misdemeanors" - not war crimes, and has very little to do with starting an illegal war, or anything to do with the War Powers Resolution. I thought this started as "who" can start wars, whether the POTUS or along with congress, or international agencies... And then the question became whether it was legal for a president to do so without congressional approval. But this Kucinich bill is little to nothing to do with "authority" to have started war, or war crimes.

[revelarts]

Rev - reading through the text of the Kucinich bill, the bill is "High crimes and misdemeanors" - not war crimes, and has very little to do with starting an illegal war, or anything to do with the War Powers Resolution. I thought this started as "who" can start wars, whether the POTUS or along with congress, or international agencies... And then the question became whether it was legal for a president to do so without congressional approval. But this Kucinich bill is little to nothing to do with "authority" to have started war, or war crimes.

Articles VI and VII at directly.


Article VI--Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of H.J. Res. 114
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 3 of the Constitution ‘to take care that the laws be faithfully executed’, exceeded his Constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq in 2003 without meeting the requirements of H.J. Res. 114, the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’ to wit:

(1) H.J. Res. 114 contains several Whereas clauses consistent with statements being made by the White House at the time regarding the threat from Iraq as evidenced by the following:

(A) H.J. Res. 114 states ‘Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;’; and
(B) H.J. Res. 114 states ‘Whereas members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;’.

(2) H.J. Res. 114 states that the President must provide a determination, the truthfulness of which is implied, that military force is necessary in order to use the authorization, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Section 3 of H.J. Res. 114 states:



‘(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

‘(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
‘(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.’.
(3) On March 18, 2003, President George Bush sent a letter to Congress stating that he had made that determination as evidenced by the following:

(A) March 18th, 2003 Letter to Congress stating: ‘Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

‘(i) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
‘(ii) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.’.


(4) President George Bush knew that these statements were false as evidenced by:

(A) Information provided with articles I, II, III, IV, and V.
(B) A statement by President George Bush in an interview with Tony Blair on January 31st, 2003: [WH]
Reporter: ‘One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?’
President Bush: ‘I can’t make that claim’.
(C) An article on February 19th by Terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna states ‘I could find no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The documentation and interviews indicated that Al Qaeda regarded Saddam, a secular leader, as an infidel.’. [International Herald Tribune]
(D) According to a February 2nd, 2003 article in the New York Times: [NYT]
At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration’s insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s network. ‘We’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don’t think it’s there’, a government official said.

(5) Section 3C of H.J. Res 114 states that ‘Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.’.
(6) The War Powers Resolution Section 9(d)(1) states:

‘(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

‘(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or’.
(7) The United Nations Charter was an existing treaty and, as shown in article VIII, the invasion of Iraq violated that treaty.
(8) President George Bush knowingly failed to meet the requirements of H.J. Res. 114 and violated the requirement of the War Powers Resolution and, thereby, invaded Iraq without the authority of Congress.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article VII--Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under article II, section 3 of the Constitution ‘to take care that the laws be faithfully executed’, has launched a war against Iraq absent any congressional declaration of war or equivalent action.
Article I, section 8, clause 11 (the War Powers Clause) makes clear that the United States Congress holds the exclusive power to decide whether or not to send the nation into war. ‘The Congress’, the War Powers Clause states, ‘shall have power . . . To declare war . . .’
The October 2002 congressional resolution on Iraq did not constitute a declaration of war or equivalent action. The resolution stated: ‘The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he deems necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.’ The resolution unlawfully sought to delegate to the President the decision of whether or not to initiate a war against Iraq, based on whether he deemed it ‘necessary and appropriate.’ The Constitution does not allow Congress to delegate this exclusive power to the President, nor does it allow the President to seize this power.
In March 2003, the President launched a war against Iraq without any constitutional authority.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

[avatar4321]

We need to seriously get these people out of power and we need good honest people in charge instead.

[logroller]

Seriously rev, great post. I did a search and came across what I believe demonstrates the 'logic' such bills must overcome

http://impeach.wikia.com/wiki/House_Resolution_1258

[fj1200]

^Hall of fame lineup right there.

[revelarts]

...If there was sufficient evidence, EITHER side would LOVE to charge an opposing president with war crimes. Neither side has even found enough evidence to move forward let alone garner enough votes. ...
Seriously rev, great post. I did a search and came across what I believe demonstrates the 'logic' such bills must overcome

http://impeach.wikia.com/wiki/House_Resolution_1258

That and this type of thing

JOY BEHAR: You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think that it — I think it was important, when I became Speaker — and it’s, by the way, a very important position — President, Vice President, Speaker of the House — I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country.

In terms of what we wanted — set out to do, we wanted to raise the minimum wage, give the biggest increase in veterans benefits to veterans in the seventy-seven-year history, then pass research for stem cell research, all of that. This week, we’re going to pass equal pay for equal work.....
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/30/house_speaker_nancy_pelosi_defends_her


Kucinich announced his intention to seek Bush's impeachment Monday night, when he read the lengthy document into the record.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she would not support a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment, saying such a move was unlikely to succeed and would be divisive.


http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-11/politics/kucinich.impeach_1_impeach-kucinich-resolution?_s=PM:POLITICS

[jimnyc]

I've read the entire text... We've seen the same arguments here, and even better here IMO, so I see why it was largely ignored, like such attempts previously. Full of wild accusations and supplies very little proof. And no, I'm not debating the text, we've done that here a billion times. This is why the usual nutters are involved in the bill, and they couldn't even sway their own party leaders let alone other parties. Let's face it, if it was factual in nature, there would be little alternative but to move forward, have investigations, and perhaps impeach. Instead, it gets shelved. Not because of a cover up, but because a lack of evidence and a mountain of rhetoric. You expect our Congress to be like so many internet nutters, that they'll listen to rhetoric, or a youtube video, and impeach the president. I wouldn't have moved forward with Paul's rhetoric on Clinton either, on the same basis, so it's not that I'm a hack for either side.

And talk about a hall of fame lineup, look at Kucinich and the sponsors of the bill. Lifelong nutters, facts aside, or lack of.

[revelarts]

:rolleyes:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:


... wild accusations .. the usual nutters ... like so many internet nutters,... , or a youtube video ... Lifelong nutters, facts aside....

[jimnyc]

:rolleyes:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Don't like the fact that they couldn't even get their own party to believe what they were trying to pass off as truth and facts? Sorry!

[revelarts]

:laugh: ahhh.

not for you Jim but others that are interested here's a bit more


....In October 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had ordered a pre-dawn invasion of Grenada by nearly 1,900 Marines and armed airborne troops under the code name “Urgent Fury.” The fighting was heavier than expected and by the end of the month, the United States military presence had reached more than 5,600 troops. After a few days of heavy fighting and a number of deaths, the shooting ended.

The invasion and occupation constituted, within the meaning of the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a war against the people of Grenada. The president, however, at no time sought the required congressional approval. He justified the invasion by claiming falsely that the lives of U.S. medical students were in danger. The same pretext was given to justify the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965."


In 1983, however, calls for impeaching Reagan in the Democratically controlled House went nowhere, at least in part because Speaker Tip O’Neill refused to pursue them. On a practical level, he knew the matter would likely fail in the Senate, where Republicans were in the majority. Politically, he surmised impeaching Reagan, whose Gallup approval rating was 49 percent, would not sit well with the public.

After Speaker O’Neill took impeachment off the table, a group of civil libertarians brought a lawsuit against the government for violating the War Powers clause on behalf of Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. In fact, during Reagan’s two terms in office, Democratic members of Congress sued him four times (http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/war-powers-resolution) for War Powers Clause violations, including the Conyers action, as well suits related to his sending military advisers to El Salvador and his activities in Nicaragua and the Middle East. All four cases were dismissed.

In the 1990s, Pres. George H.W. Bush was sued by Rep. Ron Dellums, D-Calif., for not consulting Congress before sending troops overseas to prepare for the Gulf War. A few years later, 26 members of Congress, led by GOP Rep. Tom Campbell of California, sued Pres. Clinton for not consulting Congress before he invaded Yugoslavia. These cases were dismissed, too.

In general, courts dismissed these lawsuits on the grounds that the Constitution established impeachment as the preferred method for adjudicating criminal charges against the Executive Branch by Congress.

While some liberals view congressional notification as a constitutional, rather than a partisan issue — just this week Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, called for impeachment hearings on Pres. Obama’s actions in Libya — Republicans don’t give a damn about violations of the War Powers Clause when GOP presidents do it. ....


http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/03/24/reagan-invaded-grenada-without-consulting-congress/



but hey Jim this is for you.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ejvyDn1TPr8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ejvyDn1TPr8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

"... but when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal..."

[jimnyc]

Rev, just bringing forth charges of impeachment doesn't mean it carries any weight. Many, many, presidents have had this done to them. It's almost a matter of practice to try and impeach, but very, very few times has it truly been taken seriously.

Now, you referred to "war crimes" initially, and I just don't see it anywhere, so let's shelve the talk of war crimes, at least until you produce legislation charging them with such. I think there's a big difference between impeachment and war crimes, a very big difference.

This is Kucinich trying to push forward "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" on President Bush based on the buildup and entrance into the Iraq war. It reads very similar to the hundreds of debates that have been on this very board, and lacks the proof that exists on the posts here too. As one who sides with Paul, Kucinich & the anti-war folks, it's of very little surprise that you think it's all factual and should have resulted in a conviction of sorts. But those that would actually take the time and read the text and accompanying proof, there's just not enough there. Lots of rhetoric and pointing to shitty decisions, policies and other things - but not enough proof to push it forward and convict the POTUS. You're going to need a hell of a lot more than what is posted on this board to impeach the leader of the free world.

Do I think the President is above impeachment, or charges of war crimes? Nope, not at all. I just think the proof needed would need to be dead on and irrefutable.

[DragonStryk72]

I've read the entire text... We've seen the same arguments here, and even better here IMO, so I see why it was largely ignored, like such attempts previously. Full of wild accusations and supplies very little proof. And no, I'm not debating the text, we've done that here a billion times. This is why the usual nutters are involved in the bill, and they couldn't even sway their own party leaders let alone other parties. Let's face it, if it was factual in nature, there would be little alternative but to move forward, have investigations, and perhaps impeach. Instead, it gets shelved. Not because of a cover up, but because a lack of evidence and a mountain of rhetoric. You expect our Congress to be like so many internet nutters, that they'll listen to rhetoric, or a youtube video, and impeach the president. I wouldn't have moved forward with Paul's rhetoric on Clinton either, on the same basis, so it's not that I'm a hack for either side.

And talk about a hall of fame lineup, look at Kucinich and the sponsors of the bill. Lifelong nutters, facts aside, or lack of.

Well, honestly, few countries call their own war fouls. that's sort of the whole problem, is that people don't take action that they feel is wrong and unjustified, they just don't. We all feel like we're doing the right thing, or are at least justified in what we are doing.

As to the point in the video, yes, we ask for international permissions, and usually before we ask for congressional approval, but I think the reason it's being sought first is that we're trying to be polite about it. Asking the country we're going to after we've already decided that we're going to take action is sort of problematic. Honestly, we're basically trying to be polite, but I do see where the problem is with it. We can't be sitting around beholden to other countries, while checking with our own country as an afterthought.

As for the military's end of things, honestly? We pretty much go wherever the higher ups tell us, so our end of that is extremely limited in its role, and it's supposed to be. The whole thing of 90 days is there specifically to make it so we don't have to stop by Congress every time something requires a military action, but yeah, that's gonna get abused at times. It's not carte blanche to do a series of 90 day wars to keep getting around Congress, either.

[jimnyc]

Well, honestly, few countries call their own war fouls. that's sort of the whole problem, is that people don't take action that they feel is wrong and unjustified, they just don't. We all feel like we're doing the right thing, or are at least justified in what we are doing.

As to the point in the video, yes, we ask for international permissions, and usually before we ask for congressional approval, but I think the reason it's being sought first is that we're trying to be polite about it. Asking the country we're going to after we've already decided that we're going to take action is sort of problematic. Honestly, we're basically trying to be polite, but I do see where the problem is with it. We can't be sitting around beholden to other countries, while checking with our own country as an afterthought.

As for the military's end of things, honestly? We pretty much go wherever the higher ups tell us, so our end of that is extremely limited in its role, and it's supposed to be. The whole thing of 90 days is there specifically to make it so we don't have to stop by Congress every time something requires a military action, but yeah, that's gonna get abused at times. It's not carte blanche to do a series of 90 day wars to keep getting around Congress, either.

I've got little argument with what you wrote. I agree that most countries won't police themselves concerning war matters. Nonetheless, we do have guidelines set forth that must be followed and guidelines set forth to keep things in check if things run afoul. But whether you leave it to congress, a committee, judges or the people themselves - you're always going to have differences and some are always going to say that the system in place is no good and someone got away with crimes, or someone was wrongly convicted/impeached/censured.

But this is the system we have, which is sure as shit better than every other country in the world, IMO. Our congress people have the ability to bring charges forth and congress can debate/vote on the matters and take appropriate actions. Some will bellyache no matter which way they go.

But like I stated earlier, I think the proof would need to be 100% irrefutable to impeach or lay charges on the POTUS. I don't see the Kucinich bill having enough strength to convict a sitting president.

[revelarts]

they are just coming out and saying it.
"The Prez will attack anyone we want and we'll let you congress folks know about it later."
"LIKE in Lybia", were we were an Aggressor. never attacked but joined a foreign civil war.

the international permission he's looking for is to Attack, not defend. he needs it becuase Attacking another nation is A war crime. plan and simple.
they have to collect enough other nations to gang up on a Non-aggressive nation, float an excuse and get a permission slip as legal cover from international prosecution and possible legitimate counter attack.

where Eisenhower when you need him:
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

... Why has no one from congress or past administrations been charged with crimes for going to war? According to you, the USA has committed "war crimes" nearly 200 times.
.

how many will it take for you to agree with the point Jim?
hmm?
Bush Had a bill of impeachment against him for war Crimes while he was in office put up by Dennis Kucinch, He read each Count out on the floor but your good buddy Pelosi and other democrats said they didn't think it was a good idea at the time.
Ron Paul On impeaching Clinton over Sudan Bombing 1998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA
I post more detail you siad you didn't see it. i posted the quotes, you called it nutters, I posted info about how REAGAN, BUSH I, CLINTON, BUSH II and now OBAMA have been charged by members of congress for violations of war powers.
NOW, As I guessed, Jim just raises the bar again or switches his tacit, NOW Jim says what sounds like to me.

"well, Just Because impeachment charges and lawsuits were brought it doesn't really mean anything, Unless I agree it is a valid case. Politics you site don't matter, it's just all bad cases. You can't just accuse the king of the free world of anything he the president that's why."

did i predict that response? in my "rant". not to put words in your mouth though.


Rev, just bringing forth charges of impeachment doesn't mean it carries any weight. Many, many, presidents have had this done to them. It's almost a matter of practice to try and impeach, but very, very few times has it truly been taken seriously.

Now, you referred to "war crimes" initially, and I just don't see it anywhere, so let's shelve the talk of war crimes, at least until you produce legislation charging them with such. I think there's a big difference between impeachment and war crimes, a very big difference.

..
Do I think the President is above impeachment, or charges of war crimes? Nope, not at all. I just think the proof needed would need to be dead on and irrefutable.
:facepalm99:
I thought it was "beyond reasonable doubt", even for leaders of the free world , unless there's separate standards for those in gov't hmm. but You didn't read all of the articles of impeachment Jim , you didn't or you just see what you want to buddy. War crimes are mentioned there and as I stated at the start. For a nation to attack another nation that has not attacked it, is a war crime. That's treaty the U.S. signed since ww2. It was 1 of the crimes Germany's leadership was charged with at the Nuremberg Trails.



UN Charter, 1945, Art. 2.<.em> (4). All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Art. 39. The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken . . . to maintain or restore international peace and security. . . . Art. 51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security....



Preemptive war is a war crime.

the General and SODefense state in the video that they want to get "permission" from the international community becuase if there is no attack on the U.S. we have committed a war crime.



Most war crimes fall into one of three categories: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and traditional war crimes. Crimes against peace include the planning, commencement, and waging of aggressive war, or war in violation of international agreements. Aggressive war is broadly defined to include any hostile military act that disregards the territorial boundaries of another country, disrespects the political independence of another regime, or otherwise interferes with the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state. Wars fought in self-defense are not aggressive wars.

Following World War II (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/World+War+II), for example, the Allies prosecuted a number of leading Nazi officials at the Nuremberg Trials (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuremberg+Trials) for crimes against peace. During the war, the Nazis had invaded and occupied a series of sovereign states, including France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Austria. Because those invasions were made in an effort to accumulate wealth, power, and territory for the Third Reich, Nazi officials could not claim to be acting in self-defense. Thus, those officials who participated in the planning, initiation, or execution of those invasions were guilty of crimes against peace.

Hermann Göring, chief of the Luftwaffe (the German Air Force), was one Nazi official who was convicted of crimes against peace at the Nuremberg trials. The international military tribunal presiding at Nuremberg, composed of judges selected from the four Allied powers (France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States), found that Göring had helped plan and carry out the invasions of Poland and Austria and had ordered the destruction of Rotterdam, Holland, after the city had effectively surrendered....


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/War+Crimes


Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945

There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
The definitions under which we will try the Germans are general definitions. They impose liability upon war-making statesmen of all countries alike. If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure.

This, too, is the first time that four nations with such different legal systems have tried to knit their ideas of just criminal procedure into a cooperative trial. That task is far more difficult than those unfamiliar with the differences between continental and Anglo-American methods would expect. It has involved frank and critical examination by the representatives of each country of the other's methods of administering justice. Our discussions have been candid and open-minded....


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imt_jack02.asp

All of the dodging and excuse making not reasonable, it's petty flag waving not justice not law not treaty and not constitutional.

[jimnyc]

Going to act like a raving lunatic again when someone disagrees with you? :lol:

These were lame attempts to get a bill through for a vote, where they couldn't even get there, not even with their own parties. This isn't raising the bar, this is stating that there is nothing to raise, as there's no reason to. Kucinich's bill was lame, hence it ended coming up lame. Knowing that the bill lacked facts doesn't mean I am raising the bar. Just because this crap CAN be introduced into congress, doesn't automatically mean the accused is guilty. Kucinich stood in front of congress as an anti-war anti-Iraq advocate more than anyone else in congress. He's entitled to sponsor a bill and seek co-sponsors. Not a lick of it means Bush was guilty. I can't help you that congress didn't see enough evidence at the time to move the bill forward, but I also don't think that automatically screams conspiracy. But then again, you see a conspiracy in almost everything our government is involved in.

[jimnyc]

"well, Just Because impeachment charges and lawsuits were brought it doesn't really mean anything, Unless I agree it is a valid case. Politics you site don't matter, it's just all bad cases. You can't just accuse the king of the free world of anything he the president that's why."

did i predict that response? in my "rant". not to put words in your mouth though.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you just didn't place words in others mouths right from the beginning, then you wouldn't have to make a half assed attempt at making it clear that you wrote the stupid shit yourself? Dead serious, Rev, that's got to be NO LESS than like 30 times that I have seen you attribute quotes to me falsely. This one you made a lame attempt to clear up, but still attributed a quote to me that is asinine. It's a cheap tactic when debating, as someone reading a thread out of order, could potentially read your crap and think I really did write it. I see little difference between that, and actually quoting someone and then altering within the quote tags. Lame is lame. Whether you agree with them or not, let MY words do my talking.

[logroller]

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you just didn't place words in others mouths right from the beginning, then you wouldn't have to make a half assed attempt at making it clear that you wrote the stupid shit yourself? Dead serious, Rev, that's got to be NO LESS than like 30 times that I have seen you attribute quotes to me falsely. This one you made a lame attempt to clear up, but still attributed a quote to me that is asinine. It's a cheap tactic when debating, as someone reading a thread out of order, could potentially read your crap and think I really did write it. I see little difference between that, and actually quoting someone and then altering within the quote tags. Lame is lame. Whether you agree with them or not, let MY words do my talking.
Fair enough. Lame is lame and Facts are facts--if you ask me the main reason Congress didn't go forward with Bush's impeachment was because they failed their due diligence to actually read the intelligence memos themselves, relying instead on the Bush Administration's assessment.

For the record Jim, do you believe that the reasoning in the Iraq War Resolution was the sole consideration that Bush used in justifying the action, and that securing oil interests in the region, to the unparalleled benefit of companies affiliated with the administration, was nothing more than serendipity?

[jimnyc]

Fair enough. Lame is lame and Facts are facts--if you ask me the main reason Congress didn't go forward with Bush's impeachment was because they failed their due diligence to actually read the intelligence memos themselves, relying instead on the Bush Administration's assessment.

For the record Jim, do you believe that the reasoning in the Iraq War Resolution was the sole consideration that Bush used in justifying the action, and that securing oil interests in the region, to the unparalleled benefit of companies affiliated with the administration, was nothing more than serendipity?

Well, the senate intelligence committee, lead by Democrats in the lead up to the war, were likely privy to much more than that, as they were continually briefed by the intel agencies, and they came to the same conclusions. As did intel agencies from around the world. If someone took advantage of this, it wouldn't surprise me. But do I think the intel was "cooked" so that this could happen? No. It would have had to have been cooked around the world, and involve every domestic and international intel agency, and quite a bit of bi-partisan committees.

But if I found out tomorrow that someone took advantage of the intel, or invasion, and made money from it - it wouldn't be surprising in the least.

[DragonStryk72]

I've got little argument with what you wrote. I agree that most countries won't police themselves concerning war matters. Nonetheless, we do have guidelines set forth that must be followed and guidelines set forth to keep things in check if things run afoul. But whether you leave it to congress, a committee, judges or the people themselves - you're always going to have differences and some are always going to say that the system in place is no good and someone got away with crimes, or someone was wrongly convicted/impeached/censured.

But this is the system we have, which is sure as shit better than every other country in the world, IMO. Our congress people have the ability to bring charges forth and congress can debate/vote on the matters and take appropriate actions. Some will bellyache no matter which way they go.

But like I stated earlier, I think the proof would need to be 100% irrefutable to impeach or lay charges on the POTUS. I don't see the Kucinich bill having enough strength to convict a sitting president.

Really, how many other country's systems have you looked at Jim? Blindly spouting that the US is the best is no help to the system. Rome was pretty proud of itself, as was every other great fallen empire that's come before us. If we are not calling into question whether our system is properly holding up its standards, then no one will. This idea that the government will just call its own fouls is entirely against the way we set things up. Our Constitution specifically distrusts government, hence why it puts stricture on them as opposed to the people.

By the standard you're espousing here, it seems like you're saying we shouldn't prosecute any crimes, anywhere, because of course some guilty will go free, and some innocents will get wrongfully convicted, and some will bellyache regardless. I mean better that, than to question and seek to improve things.

[jimnyc]

Really, how many other country's systems have you looked at Jim? Blindly spouting that the US is the best is no help to the system. Rome was pretty proud of itself, as was every other great fallen empire that's come before us. If we are not calling into question whether our system is properly holding up its standards, then no one will. This idea that the government will just call its own fouls is entirely against the way we set things up. Our Constitution specifically distrusts government, hence why it puts stricture on them as opposed to the people.

By the standard you're espousing here, it seems like you're saying we shouldn't prosecute any crimes, anywhere, because of course some guilty will go free, and some innocents will get wrongfully convicted, and some will bellyache regardless. I mean better that, than to question and seek to improve things.

I'm quite familiar with the governments and how they operate in many countries throughout the world, so I'm not tossing things out there blindly. Can you name a handful of governments that have better checks and balances in place, and a Constitution, than we have here in the US?

I have no idea at all why you would think I stated ANYTHING even REMOTELY to not prosecuting crimes. I simply said that no matter where/how the decision is made, some will always bellyache. But that doesn't mean at all that I would expect them to simply ignore it because of the bellyachers. I think ALL crimes should be prosecuted and ALL evidence looked at. And the same with ANY district attorneys office throughout the nation, if they don't feel there is enough evidence to move forward, they don't. But if there's enough, prosecute away.

[revelarts]

Walter Jones, Republican,

wants to clear up the matter for those that have a problem reading the Constitution honestly.

proposed bill/resoltion


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.



Continue reading on Examiner.com Congressman Walter Jones moves to impeach Obama - Charlotte Libertarian | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-charlotte/congressman-walter-jones-moves-to-impeach-obama#ixzz1paUu3dQK) http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-charlotte/congressman-walter-jones-moves-to-impeach-obama#ixzz1paUu3dQK


will the willy nilly congress have the fortitude to go through with it? I doubt it.

[ConHog]

Walter Jones, Republican,

wants to clear up the matter for those that have a problem reading the Constitution honestly.

proposed bill/resoltion

will the willy nilly congress have the fortitude to go through with it? I doubt it.

The proposed bill is unconstitutional. The President has command of the military, not Congress. They merely have the right to declare war. 159 military actions, and only 5 declared wars in our history.

[revelarts]

The proposed bill is unconstitutional. The President has command of the military, not Congress. They merely have the right to declare war. 159 military actions, and only 5 declared wars in our history.


so whats the difference between a war and a military action Con?
and show me military action executive power in the constitution please i missed it.

[ConHog]

so whats the difference between a war and a military action Con?
and show me military action executive power in the constitution please i missed it.

The difference is obvious. One is a declared war, one is not. Can you show where in the COTUS the government is forbidden from military action without a declared war? Because if you can there are a bunch of Presidents who are in trouble.

[revelarts]

The difference is obvious. One is a declared war, one is not. Can you show where in the COTUS the government is forbidden from military action without a declared war? Because if you can there are a bunch of Presidents who are in trouble.
"The difference is obvious. One is a declared war, one is not."
Exactly, that's the point. the president can't legally make war without congress declaring it.


You won't find in the COTUS that the government is forbidden to provide health care or puppies for every child or nail polish for girls.
The COTUS is not written as a blank check to each branch. Or written to tell the gov't what it can't do but what powers/authority each branch is granted. It gives a few prohibitions to gov't for extra clarity but if it's not granted by the people in the COTUS then the prez doesn't have it.

so yes a bunch of Presidents are in trouble.

[ConHog]

"The difference is obvious. One is a declared war, one is not."
Exactly, that's the point. the president can't legally make war without congress declaring it.


You won't find in the COTUS that the government is forbidden to provide health care or puppies for every child or nail polish for girls.
The COTUS is not written as a blank check to each branch. Or written to tell the gov't what it can't do but what powers/authority each branch is granted. It gives a few prohibitions to gov't for extra clarity but if it's not granted by the people in the COTUS then the prez doesn't have it.

so yes a bunch of Presidents are in trouble.

rev, not every military engagement is war. Thus not every military engagement requires a declaration of war, thus not every military engagement has to be voted on by congress. so no a lot of Presidents are NOT in trouble.

[jimnyc]

I'd be curious to see a list of the presidents involved in the 159 "military actions". And also, why hasn't congress or any other authority brought forth charges of any kind for those who have apparently overstepped their authority. Count 'em up for me Hog!!

[ConHog]

I'd be curious to see a list of the presidents involved in the 159 "military actions". And also, why hasn't congress or any other authority brought forth charges of any kind for those who have apparently overstepped their authority. Count 'em up for me Hog!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

[jimnyc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Hell, I could have done that! Now add them up bastard, and give me a total number of presidents who exceeded their powers, and list them! :laugh:

[ConHog]

Hell, I could have done that! Now add them up bastard, and give me a total number of presidents who exceeded their powers, and list them! :laugh:

Okay, are you ready?

The total number of Presidents who have exceeded their power by declaring war is...........


wait for it.......................


































i said wait for it ...................................








































zero

[revelarts]

I'd be curious to see a list of the presidents involved in the 159 "military actions". And also, why hasn't congress or any other authority brought forth charges of any kind for those who have apparently overstepped their authority. Count 'em up for me Hog!!

:facepalm99:

[revelarts]

Hell, I could have done that! Now add them up bastard, and give me a total number of presidents who exceeded their powers, and list them! :laugh:


Okay, are you ready?

The total number of Presidents who have exceeded their power by declaring war is...........

wait for it.......................

i said wait for it ..................................
zero
:laugh:<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ejvyDn1TPr8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

"... but when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal..."

[jimnyc]

:facepalm99:

Why the smiley? It only stands to reason that if a president oversteps his authority, that congress or other committee's would step in to investigate, impeach or take some sort of action, no? Surely if they can investigate a president for a blow job, or lying, then they can do so for one that supposedly starts a "war" without appropriate authorization?

[jimnyc]

"... but when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal..."

So congress and anyone else with authority just sit back and ignore any laws that are broken? Or the constitution being ignored? While the president MAY think he is above the law, are you saying that every congress since the beginning of these 159 conflicts has also ignored the president overstepping his authority?

[revelarts]

Why the smiley? It only stands to reason that if a president oversteps his authority, that congress or other committee's would step in to investigate, impeach or take some sort of action, no? Surely if they can investigate a president for a blow job, or lying, then they can do so for one that supposedly starts a "war" without appropriate authorization?


Getting that tooth taken care of has made you senile. Look at page 2 and 3 of this thread, we've already covered this man.
You seem to think everyone who tried to impeach or bring charges in court are "nutters" partisan or don't have %110 irrefutable, unignorable, video tape proof and a signed confession against the king of the free world or some such similar ideas.

[ConHog]

So congress and anyone else with authority just sit back and ignore any laws that are broken? Or the constitution being ignored? While the president MAY think he is above the law, are you saying that every congress since the beginning of these 159 conflicts has also ignored the president overstepping his authority?

I think he's just confused, maybe purposefully, about the definition of war. I see no real explanation for not understanding that not every military engagement is a war. Hell, we were in Vietnam from 1958 until 1973 and war was never declared. I guess JFK,LBJ,Nixon,and Eisenhower were all guilty of illegally declaring war even though war was never declared.......

[jimnyc]

Getting that tooth taken care of has made you senile.

Have a nice day, Rev.

[jimnyc]

I think he's just confused, maybe purposefully, about the definition of war. I see no real explanation for not understanding that not every military engagement is a war. Hell, we were in Vietnam from 1958 until 1973 and war was never declared. I guess JFK,LBJ,Nixon,and Eisenhower were all guilty of illegally declaring war even though war was never declared.......

With all of the congresses over the years that these 159 conflicts took place, I'm guessing there were thousands and thousands of congressmen and women who were involved in ignoring the constitution, or in dereliction of duty for not doing their jobs when the president overstepped his authority. 159 chances at "protecting the constitution" and our congress/president has failed us 159 times. Odd that not even one of these conflicts has ended up with an impeachment or similar.

[ConHog]

With all of the congresses over the years that these 159 conflicts took place, I'm guessing there were thousands and thousands of congressmen and women who were involved in ignoring the constitution, or in dereliction of duty for not doing their jobs when the president overstepped his authority. 159 chances at "protecting the constitution" and our congress/president has failed us 159 times. Odd that not even one of these conflicts has ended up with an impeachment or similar.

I guess Rev is just smarter than 200 + years worth of politicians and Constitutional scholars.

[revelarts]

I guess Rev is just smarter than 200 + years worth of politicians and Constitutional scholars.

not smarter just more honest.

[ConHog]

not smarter just more honest.

Well , saying your more honest than politicians isn't saying much at all. :laugh:

Seriously though , wouldn't one think that , for instance, a Republican controlled Congress would impeach a Democratic President for invading say Vietnam if the President violated the COTUS when he did so? I happen to believe the answer is yes, they would.