It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Resolution introduced to Threaten Obama Impeachment

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Resolution Threatens Obama Impeachment

A resolution introduced by Representative Walter B. Jones (R - NC, 3rd District).

If POTUS Obama fails to seek authorization from Congress for the use of the U.S. military,
he may face impeachment.

This apparently was triggered by comments the other day by
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

The comments seem to suggest that The White House will seek "international" approval
before Congressional approval.

The comments can be taken two ways however.


March 13, 2012


If Obama works with the United Nations and NATO against Syria and does not seek authorization from Congress for the use of the U.S. military, he may face impeachment, according to a resolution introduced by Republican Representative Walter B. Jones Jr.

“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,” the resolution states.

Jones introduced his resolution after Obama’s Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told Senator Jeff Sessions during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week that they would seek “international permission” to attack Syria. Congrerss would not be consulted, but merely informed of the decision.

“Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would… come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here,” Panetta told Sessions.

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” the senator from Alabama replied, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Tricky Language ?




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Impeachment has been attempted with the past few presidents for varying reasons...

This time I think we can all agree, no matter what ones political affiliations, this is a damn good reason!

There are countless other reasons to impeach the sitting president.

This resolution just reminds fugger in chief to watch himself this time round.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I'm waiting for the " They wouldn't do this if he were white" comments.
Seriously though, that takes a lot of (blanks) for a defense secretary to sit there and say we're getting international approval without going through congress first.
But then again they did the same thing with libya.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Why impeach him for this? Now?

The Constitution states a President must get Congress' approval for a declaration of war. The problem came to a head with Libya in which Obama decided to play semantics and claim it wasn't really a war.

If it quacks, it's a duck. We spent more than 16 million dollars per DAY in Libya, killed scores of people, and bombed the he'll out of much of the country. But.....that's not a war?!

We don't need more laws, we need a President willing to follow them.

So long as Executive Orders exist, Obama has shown he is more than willing to use it to his advantage each and every time. This would still allow him to override Congress. Not to mention his definition of war apparently is rather fluid.

He should have been impeached IMO when he killed al-Alawki (the US citizen in Yemen) and further authorized the killing of any US citizen deemed a "terrorist". He should have been impeached over Libya. He should have been impeached when he unilaterally decided to send drones to Yemen. He should have been impeached when he flat out bribed politicians with money for their state if they voted for Obamacare.

None of that mattered to Obama or Congress based on the fact nothing was done.

As I said above, we don't need more laws, we don't need more committees, we don't need more government czars.....we need a President willing to abide by the laws already in existence.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Clinton was impeached yet he remained in office because the Senate wouldn't follow through on the House charges. The only way to get rid of this tyrant is for someone find the balls to file criminal charges and make them stick. Go Sheriff Joe!



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Chance321
 


The difference is Obama stated with Libya he didn't need Congressional approval. This time the Military with a entire group made up of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chief of Staff and others. Simply announced that although the Congress delegates the financing, selects the officers, and declares their wars. They are not in charge The UN is who they work for their boss is now Ban Ki-moon Secretary General. This is and should be shocking to everyone. Our military no longer works for the American people. They no longer act for the US. According to them they are working for a foreign power. Congressional idiots just put into place under the NDAA martial law. Now the Military Industrial Complex have admitted they are foreign invaders. They have declared the US a battle ground and the military is a foreign power. If anyone has kept up with the atrocities being committed by this same Military Industrial Complex. Do you actually believe we will be treated any different?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by redrose123
 


Scary isn't it?
Sorry for the one line.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
For the umpteenth time, this isnt about obama. It is a general bill, and could not be used to impeach him retroactively, even if the bill were to pass, which it likely wont.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


But the thing is, at least in my opinion Clinton wasn't what I'd call dangerous, obama is, obama scares me, because nobody seems willing to stand up to him and say no.
As for Sherrif Joe, well I hope he's surrounding himself with people he can trust after Mr. Breitbarts "heart attack".



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by redrose123
 


Scary isn't it?
Sorry for the one line.


Excuse me Chance32, but I'd suggest it is TERRIFYING....

To think we could have four more years of blatantly ignoring the laws and to quote the President's own words, "under the radar" is a method of deceit he states he chooses.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Then when a Republican or conservative is in office aide him endlessly to trample
all over liberty and the constitution


Great plan!



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I still cant believe there are people out there who still dont see the criminality in this administration.

Either they are as blind as the guy in Robin Hood, or they are just too attatched to their capture; in which I think theres a disease named after .



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join