Obama administration in voilation of the constitution with Libya attack, Impeach?

Impeachment is it seems the only option. The POTUS must be removed from office if he is in violation of his oath to defend and protect the constitution. Is this not the case here? Constitutional scholar my behind. This man is acting under UN resolution without even cursory congressional approval as his predecessors did for the Iraq and Afghan wars. I think that the case is clear here. Impeachment and removal from office is the only option at this point. The rule of law will prevail.

Thought I should add this link. www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

If I remember correctly from my civics class in high school 4 years back, the President can at any point in his/her term can dispatch the military under conflict status, where 30 days after they arrive it is brought to the congress for a vote of war escalation and then we'd be there until "the job is done" which nobody knows.

Well, thats what I was taught in schoo. Seems to me that even my Poly Sci class in my freshman year in college backed that.

reply to post by crookedj0k3r


Not without a clear threat to the nation. These rebels also fought against the US in Iraq as Al-Ciada in Iraq. I do not buy that one. Not one little bit.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that lists the power to declare war, and this power is placed solely in the hands of Congress.

In all honesty, many a thread could have been started the same way "________ administration in violation of the constitution with________ attack, Impeach?" The fact is that there is nothing that can be done, and those that have the power to change it will not.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


At least other past presidents have sought and won congressional approval for their war actions. Obama did not even seek it as did previous presidents. What can be done is impeachment of the POTUS.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


Who does the American President work for? Does he work for the UN? The G7? or does he obey the rule of law of the nation for which he is elected to lead? It seems simple to me. He is in violation of his oath and the law of the land of the United States of America. There is no other argument needed for impeachment here.

Before Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq, he asked the question, to seek clarification as to what his options were, under the constitution of the United States and the various laws, on what he could and could not order the US military to do. The precedent was already set, by a previous time, under President Ronald Regan, that the President could use the military for 90 days, without permission of the US congress, to engage in armed conflict. Under those precedents and any US president has that right and authority to use the military in any armed conflict, if it falls into a certain category. One of those categories being, in the event of dealing with terrorist activities, to include doing a preemptive strike, or in retaliation of terrorist activities. The government of Libya has admitted, that it ordered the Lockerbie bombing that downed a plane, killing people, including citizens of the United States. It came from Mummar Quadaffi, and thus he should be brought to justice. However, right now, it is being led by member and associate members of NATO and we are obligated to follow such, along with a UN resolution, that was voted on, and approved, those who could have stopped such did not, or vote against such. So it is not an impeachable offense, as long as he gets congressional approval before the time runs out on such. If he does not, then he can be held accountable and would have to answer for it, if he does, then he will be acting within full limits of the law.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


You do know that thew leader of the Libyan rebels has admitted to fighting against Us forces in Iraq don't you? If our bombing raids against Libyan forces were in support of Al-Ciada in Libya how do you feel about the president's actions in that instance?

Eh the U.N. voted for it, and the U.S. was one of the countries that approved. I don't think the U.N. rep would've voted Yay if the Congress was thinking Nay.

Impeach him for this... Impeach him for that. Hell I voted for the guy, we should impeach him sure, but we're running out of reasons if your resulting to this. Any unstable country holds direct threats to America, especially if they have any black wells. I need that stuff, my 4 wheelers don't run on caviar wishes and champagne dreams. Get outa here with this.

U.N. Council Resolution
en.wikipedia.org...

The Douche-Bag Dictator
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by crookedj0k3r


We have plenty here if we wanted to drill for it. The Us is afloat with it and if we chose to we would out produce the ME. I think the powers that be would like us to get rid of the imports first then they will activate their wells. That does not matter much really. There is clear constitutional grounds for impeachment with this. Clearly international law was the basis for this military action no US constitutional law. Congress was not even consulted.

Well better get a pitchfork and form a posse.

I'm running with the poster above who put "______________ administration in violation of the constitution with ____________, Impeach?"

I fell off my dinosaur laughing lol, that was good.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty fair fighting conservative and disapprove of my vote for the man and disapprove what he's done/not done/lied about. In all, I voted for him. I cannot go back to the ballot box and retrieve my vote. I don't think anyone should cast the first stone at the man because he some how failed parliamentary procedures for supporting a resolution our U.N. Council Diplomat voted for.

I'm running out of food for thought here, good luck standing in line behind the birthers. Pretty soon we'll have to take numbers on things to impeach this President for. Heaven have mercy on what the next President will get round-housed over. Especially with the 2012 coming around the corner.

Bush didn't seek approval from congress before he went into Iraq

2nd line

60 days, since 1979 as I recall. He must be in council with the congress and submit to the will of congress after 60 days. Also, being a UN authorized action which was not initiated by the US but in which the US is agreeing to partake invokes membership agreements of the UN. With NATO taking the reigns here there will be another layer of treaties to consider as well.

I believe this very thing is what has convinvced NATO to step in to the leadership role as a matter of fact.

"If you want our capabilities in Lybia, you'll have to take the lead because my congress will not allow our forces to remain otherwise..."

For the same reason they were dumb when they were about Bush, these 'impeach obama' debates are a waste of time and attention. It aint gonna happen.

Get over it

Originally posted by Fiberx
60 days, since 1979 as I recall. He must be in council with the congress and submit to the will of congress after 60 days. Also, being a UN authorized action which was not initiated by the US but in which the US is agreeing to partake invokes membership agreements of the UN. With NATO taking the reigns here there will be another layer of treaties to consider as well.

I believe this very thing is what has convinvced NATO to step in to the leadership role as a matter of fact.

"If you want our capabilities in Lybia, you'll have to take the lead because my congress will not allow our forces to remain otherwise..."

edit on 25-3-2011 by Fiberx because: (no reason given)

Good so my memory is not failing as fast as I thought it was.

Apparently Canada is taking the charge on this. Finally, America can sit one out. Almost.

reply to post by crookedj0k3r


Indeed. I think it's funny that mostly Bush supporters of the past are now screaming for blood. Bush literally commited both national and international crimes and now a Democrat should be hung even while playing by the rules. It's freakin hilarious and exactly what one should expect from the type of minds that supported Bush's wreckless attitude.

Obama ain't no rose, but he inherited a S41t storm of failure from Bush and it's a miracle that we have been able to maintain any bit of respect on the global stage. He's got more problems than he can shake a stick at and he is playing right by skirting the edge of this pathetic mess we call the Middle East.

The reality he faces is this.. If we act, it's ALL our fault, no matter what. Even if we "win", whatever isn't perfect is a good enough reason for jihad...

If we DON'T act, we are at fault again.. because only we could have helped and we should have helped when we had the chance... Jihad again.

Until we get rid of outdated, medieval religions, we are all F'd in the A. For real.

Give the guy some slack!

There hasn't been a congressional declaration of war since WW2. We've had decades of military intervention since then, no president has been impeached over it. Reagan flew air-strikes against Libya back in '86, no impeachment. Bush drafted a handy piece of legislation that allows the president to go after any nation connected to terrorism. The neo-cons that created this loophole are now hypocritically complaining about Obama.

Talk about your flip-flops (from Ed Schultz):

This is what former FOX contributor Newt Gingrich said on March 7th.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS: What will you do about Libya?

NEWT GINGRICH ®, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Exercise a no fly zone this evening. We don‘t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we are intervening. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it.

So on March 7, Gingrich is pushing publicly for the US to enforce a no-fly zone.

Then from comments he made this past week (March 23):

GINGRICH: I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Gadhafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region that we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Complete flip-flop, in fact most of the talking heads over at Fox "news" are guilty of it on this Libya position.

The ONLY person who has been consistent on the issue has been Kucinich, he filed suit against Bush for how he circumvented the constitution to get us into Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan, and he's formally complained about how Obama has initiated the air-strikes in Libya.

I think this is defined as a security or police action. Also, the 30 day grace period works here , and if he passes it off to the UN within the 3o days, which he is, its a non starter. Since there are a couple million US troops in that region, he might be able to press the issue of it being for US citizen security. But I think the main point is, since Bush was allowed to walk without impeachment, and he did several violations that were impeachable, I doubt you will see Obama , much less any future president impeached. Not unless they publicly murder a wealthy CEO or something. Beyond that I think the powers that be have pretty much made Impeachment a term used at election time and nothing else.

what I find funny here is that if a republican president had done this, republicans would be jumping for joy. But its a democrat, so republicans are crying for impeachment, and vise versa. Its political, that is all. Just look at what the FPI ( once known as PNAC ) wants , and you know that they like what Obama did. In fact, they dont think he did enough. They want him to pull an Iraqi type invasion like they had Bush do.
www.foreignpolicyi.org...

Yeah, Lybia 1986, Grenada, Panama... al executed without prior Congressional review/consent. This is nothing new. I certainly don't agree with this imperial-style activity, but I would never expect anything like impeachment to actually happen.