Obama is close to being Impeached

Status
Not open for further replies.
Date sort Score sort
Impeachment is the trial. Congress voted to impeach President Clinton and they then had the impeachment trial where he was found not guilty. Whereas Johnson was impeached and found guilty. Nixon certainly would have had an impeachment trial but he resigned before anything could occur.
 
So, Congress is arguing that he is violating the constitution even though Congress gave blanket authority to the POTUS to decide what wars are necessary after 9/11?
And the US military has been committed to NATO since 1949. Several times the US military has been to war under the request of NATO, with no input from Congress.

Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress handed President George W. Bush blanket authority to make war, and the battlefield has since been classified as anywhere in the world, even on U.S. soil. Both the Afghan and Iraq wars were launched under this authority, and President Obama continues to claim the same executive power to carry on theaters of conflict in other regions.
Similarly, Congress committed the U.S. to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. Following the 9/11 attacks, troops were deployed under NATO authority following a United Nations resolution which declared the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to be in breach of the U.N.’s terms. Congress did not specifically authorize those invasions, but Republicans were adamantly supportive of the president.


So.....it looks like Congress needs to make up their minds. You can't pass a law giving the office of the President the power to declare war (War Powers Act post 9/11) and then try to pass a law saying that it is an impeachment offense to declare war
 
Last edited:
yes, but it would not be him being impeached for things that he is doing now. He would be liable for actions taken after the law is passed. So, if he invades Syria tomorrow, he can't be impeached because the law at the point is the War Powers Act.
Now, if the new law took effect tomorrow then he could be tried under that law. But, in true political fashion, that isn't what they are saying they want to accomplish with this law.
 
Ferrret said:
Impeachment does not mean removing the sitting President from office. It's a formal accusation of criminal activity against a government official.
After impeachment is approved a trial can commence, and if he's not found guilty of anything that warrants removal from office he will serve out the rest of his term.
We've had two Presidents impeached in the past and neither one was booted from office.
Click to expand...


The House has the power to declare an impeachment. Again, all it means is that a government official is accused of criminal activity while in office. The Senate presides over the trial in which the actions of the accused are examined to determined if a crime was committed.

Neither Clinton nor Johnson were found guilty of their crimes after being accused. Johnson was acquitted by a single vote and remained in office. The act he was accused of violating was considered murky and later repealed under another President.

The House can vote to impeach Obama if they want. If they think he has committed a crime then by all means set the formal accusation and start the trial.
 
Quote: That's not how it works.

Congress authorized Bush to "use force".in Iraq

There is no "blanket authority" for any other actions without further Congressional approval.
Obama can start actions, but has to get approval within 60 days, or withdraw all forces within 30 days after that.

He has not done any of those things regarding Libya

Read about the "War Powers Act"
 
Last edited:
chickened said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...23_1_libya-war-war-powers-act-moammar-gadhafi

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...-Filed-Against-Obama-for-Illegal-War-in-Libya
Click to expand...


OH MY!!! a news article that is almost one year old about Lybia. Obviously no longer even slightly relevant. AND an article from "Dot Magazine" who famously said that the report that Bin Laden was killed was really false and a conspiracy. Dot Magazine is not for real...it is entertainment similar toi reading George Orwell.

Please, where are Redhen, Imp and Bunnylady when they are really needed!!!???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jujub41482
Chickens that Could Affect an Iowa Election!
Replies
1
Views
976
dirtychick
dirtychick
Acre of Blessings
Dangerous animal virus on US Mainland
Replies
2
Views
526
PAChickenChick
PAChickenChick

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom