Impeach Obama Over Syria????

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Impeach Obama Over Syria????

Ignorant idiocy.

In order for a president to be subject to impeachment, there must be objective, documented, tangible evidence a crime was committed.

A president’s use of military force absent Congressional approval does not constitute a ‘crime,’ as there exists no case law determining that the use of military power absent Congressional approval is either ‘illegal’ or ‘un-Constitutional’:

The…political question doctrine…[is] the belief [that] the courts should leave [military] resolution to the political branches. In recent decades, the courts have not reached the merits in any war powers controversy, and the political question doctrine has been a frequent rationale for abstaining…

A second ground on which courts dismiss war powers cases is standing. Under longstanding doctrine, to bring a legal action one must suffer concrete, personal injury that can be traced to the challenged violation of the law. In war powers cases, individuals who can allege such injury are few…

Finally, the doctrine of ripeness recently has taken on an enlarged role in blocking access to the courts to challenge war powers abuses. Ripeness relates to timing; a case is considered not ripe for review if its factual development would make judicial resolution premature. In war powers cases, this can mean that a case is not ripe unless actual “adverseness” arises between Congress and the president. Dellums v. Bush is an example.22 In it, 56 members of Congress asked a federal district court in 1990 to issue an injunction ordering the president not to use offensive force against Iraq without prior congressional consent. The court declined. “It is only if a majority of the Congress seeks relief from an infringement on its constitutional war-declaration power, ” the court held, “that it may be entitled to receive it.”23

A Conveniently Unlawful War | Hoover Institution

Consequently, absent a ruling by a Federal court that a president’s unilateral authorization of military force is ‘un-Constitutional,’ there exists no grounds for ‘impeachment.’

 

[kidrocks]

If you're against Assad then you're for the terrorists.

And if you are an Assad lover (which no doubt you are) than you are for a dictator/terrorist whom likes to toast his own people.

 

[theHawk]

obama is not getting congressional approval and says he doesn't need it if he has UN approval. He's not getting UN approval and says he doesn't need it because he has the approval of the public. He damn sure doesn't have that. He said he doesn't need it because he has arab allies. He has no arab allies.

This is a horrendous mess because we have a madman as president. It's not that he should be impeached. The entire regime needs to be changed.

Funny how 10 years ago the right wing was so eager to go to war over WMD's that were used over 20 years ago. Or it would be funny if so many people weren't dead over it.


Fucking hypocrites.

Its funny how 10 years ago the leftists were so against going to war orver WMD against a country that had not attacked us.

At least then Bush had the support and approval of Congress, to include Hilary and Kerry and other D-bags.

Obama doesn't have the support of anybody, except his lapdog liberal base like the D-bags on this board.

Fucking hypocrites.

 

[kidrocks]

obama is not getting congressional approval and says he doesn't need it if he has UN approval. He's not getting UN approval and says he doesn't need it because he has the approval of the public. He damn sure doesn't have that. He said he doesn't need it because he has arab allies. He has no arab allies.

This is a horrendous mess because we have a madman as president. It's not that he should be impeached. The entire regime needs to be changed.

Funny how 10 years ago the right wing was so eager to go to war over WMD's that were used over 20 years ago. Or it would be funny if so many people weren't dead over it.


Fucking hypocrites.

Its funny how 10 years ago the leftists were so against going to war orver WMD against a country that had not attacked us.

At least then Bush had the support and approval of Congress, to include Hilary and Kerry and other D-bags.

Obama doesn't have the support of anybody, except his lapdog liberal base like the D-bags on this board.

Fucking hypocrites.

Obama has the support of McCain and most of the GOP. You lose again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Funny how 10 years ago the right wing was so eager to go to war over WMD's that were used over 20 years ago. Or it would be funny if so many people weren't dead over it.


Fucking hypocrites.

Its funny how 10 years ago the leftists were so against going to war orver WMD against a country that had not attacked us.

At least then Bush had the support and approval of Congress, to include Hilary and Kerry and other D-bags.

Obama doesn't have the support of anybody, except his lapdog liberal base like the D-bags on this board.

Fucking hypocrites.

Obama has the support of McCain and most of the GOP. You lose again.

True.

Obama’s position on Syria is traditional republican neo-con, where opposition to the president is purely partisan.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's unconstitutional to wage war on another country without the US Congress declaring war, so impeachment is justifiable. Too bad the GOP House is filled with pro-war crazies. They finally have a legitimate reason to impeach, and they won't do for that reason.

Well, what Obama did in Libya was an impeachable offense on it's face. Did I hear any of you whining about that? Absolutely not.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Its funny how 10 years ago the leftists were so against going to war over WMD against a country that had not attacked us.

At least then Bush had the support and approval of Congress, to include Hilary and Kerry and other D-bags.

Obama doesn't have the support of anybody, except his lapdog liberal base like the D-bags on this board.

Fucking hypocrites.

Obama has the support of McCain and most of the GOP. You lose again.

True.

Obama’s position on Syria is traditional republican neo-con, where opposition to the president is purely partisan.

It's so telling how you liberals turn on him like a pack of rabid wolves. It's a real exposé. You let him get by with so many other violations of the Constitution, but when it came to war, you let him slide for a while until he got serious enough to attack or invade a country... so is this what you expected when you voted for this man? TWICE?

 

[Two Thumbs]

If the President goes to war without getting an OK from Congress...."I will make it my business to impeach him!!!"

Joe Biden



1. "Chuck Todd: Obama Avoiding Congress Because ‘Isolationists’ May Block Attack on Syria"
NBC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd told the hosts of MSNBC’s The Cycle warned that President Barack Obama may believe that seeking congressional authorization to attack Syria in the coming days would be counterproductive. "
Chuck Todd: Obama Avoiding Congress Because ?Isolationists? May Block Attack on Syria | Mediaite





Meanwhile, on the other side of the moon.....
"About.....face!"

2. "November 29, 2007 5:03 PM
PORTSMOUTH — Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.

Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.

Related content

Video:


"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.

Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president."
Biden: Impeachment if Bush bombs Iran | SeacoastOnline.com




In a related story.....



3. "Another indication of the subservience of the communists to a foreign government can be seen during WWII. At the behest of the Commintern, as the archives reveals, the American Peace Mobilization committee was formed in April of ’41. It’s function was to support the Soviet line, bring progressives aboard, protest against the lend-lease program to aid Britain…they paraded in front of the White House, chanting “FDR is a fascist, …he’s starting a war!’ They managed to dupe the easiest group to dupe: progressive pastors. The NYTimes article at the time said “Clergyman Group Opposes War Aid!’

a. In mid-protest, on June 22, 1941, they became pro-war! The Germans had broken their agreement with the Soviets, and invaded Russia! Suddenly the group was for lend-lease, and FDR wasn’t a fascist…and they changed their name to American People’s Mobilization."
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century"

Joe was against it before he was for it

Now that the D is in charge, killing for no good reason is ok.

 

[theHawk]

Funny how 10 years ago the right wing was so eager to go to war over WMD's that were used over 20 years ago. Or it would be funny if so many people weren't dead over it.


Fucking hypocrites.

Its funny how 10 years ago the leftists were so against going to war orver WMD against a country that had not attacked us.

At least then Bush had the support and approval of Congress, to include Hilary and Kerry and other D-bags.

Obama doesn't have the support of anybody, except his lapdog liberal base like the D-bags on this board.

Fucking hypocrites.

Obama has the support of McCain and most of the GOP. You lose again.

Show us the votes. How can he have the support of the GOP if he doesn't bother getting authorization from Congress?

 

[editec]

No.

I don't think we can impeach Fearless Leader over what he's done in connection with Syria so far.

He is within his rights and within his powers, entrusted to him by the Constitution, as granted by The People.

Mind you, I think he's wrong for pursuing this, and wish he would not, but, he isn't violating the Constitution at-present nor doing anything different than what several other POTUS have done over time, in engaging in warfare under the aegis of his powers as CINC.

There a probably a half-dozen other things that could be used to drum-up Impeachment Charges, but I'm not sure that this Syria business is it.

The POTUS can be impeached for high crimes and "misdemeanors" Kondor.

What that basically means is that a POTUS can be impeached whenever enough people in the HoR decide they want to impeach him or her.

Impeachment is a POLITICAL process, not a legal one. Misdemeanor in this case basically means any bloody thing they want it to mean.

 

[JoeB131]

obama is not getting congressional approval and says he doesn't need it if he has UN approval. He's not getting UN approval and says he doesn't need it because he has the approval of the public. He damn sure doesn't have that. He said he doesn't need it because he has arab allies. He has no arab allies.

This is a horrendous mess because we have a madman as president. It's not that he should be impeached. The entire regime needs to be changed.

Actually, all he has to do is get NATO involved, which is what they did in Kosovo and Libya.

That horse got out of the barn a long time ago.

Incidently, I do think going into Syria is a bad idea.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama has the support of McCain and most of the GOP. You lose again.

True.

Obama’s position on Syria is traditional republican neo-con, where opposition to the president is purely partisan.

It's so telling how you liberals turn on him like a pack of rabid wolves. It's a real exposé. You let him get by with so many other violations of the Constitution, but when it came to war, you let him slide for a while until he got serious enough to attack or invade a country... so is this what you expected when you voted for this man? TWICE?

I didn't vote for him Twice. I voted for McCain in 2008, and I only voted for Obama this time because you twits nominated a Mormon.

But on that point, you see this with Democrats all the time. And sometimes Republicans.

They talk all this shit on the campaign trail and they govern quite differently.

Again, I think bombing Syria is a terrible idea, because there's no good result. Either Assad wins and kills a bunch of people or the Jihadists win and we have a new Afghanistan in Syria.

But once we made it policy that if he used chemical weapons, there would be consequences, we kind of got stuck in a trick bag.

 

[Moonglow]

Let's face it, this great christian nation, you know that one under God, loves war.

 

[Black_Label]

So Obama is acting like a republican and the right wingers are throwing a pissy fit?

 

[JoeB131]

So Obama is acting like a republican and the right wingers are throwing a pissy fit?

Obama Derangement Syndrome- Opposing Policies you previously supported when the Black Guy Does It.

 

[hortysir]

So Obama is acting like a republican and the right wingers are throwing a pissy fit?

Can you link/quote a poster throwing a "pissy fit"?

Pointing out Dembulb hypocrisy doesn't count

 

[Dot Com]

do you understand the difference between approval and declaration?

approval? From the T-Party hostage held, gerrymandered, House Surely you jest?

McCain wants Obama to invade Syria, what the fuck makes you think Congress wouldn't approve it if Obama made a case for a more limited response?

Put down the kool aid and remember that whatever the President is for, the Repubs are against. They haven't broke that maxim in 5 yrs on anything worth mentioning or w/o having some strings attached that benefited the rich. Try again.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What is it, 9% approval of the public to invade Syria, that's some public approval Obama!

So he's going to invade? Like Bush and the Republicans invaded Iraq?

After being given authority, twice, by Congress.... matter of fact, Congressional Dems demanded a second vote.. and they still voted "yay".



You're so clueless.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

approval? From the T-Party hostage held, gerrymandered, House Surely you jest?

McCain wants Obama to invade Syria, what the fuck makes you think Congress wouldn't approve it if Obama made a case for a more limited response?

Put down the kool aid and remember that whatever the President is for, the Repubs are against. They haven't broke that maxim in 5 yrs on anything worth mentioning or w/o having some strings attached that benefited the rich. Try again.

 

[shintao]

What is it, 9% approval of the public to invade Syria, that's some public approval Obama!

So he's going to invade? Like Bush and the Republicans invaded Iraq?

After being given authority, twice, by Congress.... matter of fact, Congressional Dems demanded a second vote.. and they still voted "yay".



You're so clueless.

They were stupid to have ever granted him that power. Lets review what power that was, as are current president still has that power without limitation in the terrorist war.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

Preamble Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 - Short Title This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

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

Iraq Time Line
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline