Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

On Monday March 11, 2013, Congress is reportedly beginning impeachment proceedings against Barack Ob

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Sorry mods, i didnt see this posted, and hope its in the right catagory.

Members of Congress are reportedly beginning impeachment against Barack Obama based on the grounds of unauthorized military use in Libya and Syria. Congress is also looking at his involvement in Fast and Furious.

According to Congressional representatives Barack Obama has violated the rules set that clearly state that the President must seek Congressional approval before using military force. Now he says it was OK because he had international support. But how does that make it okay? They aren’t our Congress. They don’t determine what is right or wrong for us.

Sources close to aides in Congress say the law clearly states “any use of military force by Obama without explicit consent and authorization of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.”

The Republicans want to know how President Obama was able to use military force in Libya last year.

Republicans are pushing a resolution through Congress, which has been highly underreported by mainstream media, to look into further actions to be taken upon the President. Since it explicitly states in the Constitution that the President must ask permission from Congress to use military forces in another country, sources say there is clear cause for impeachment.

While an impeachment can be a strain on our country and may not be necessary in an election year – Republicans are still moving ahead with it.

“The days of Czars and Executive orders in order to sidestep Congress should end and if it takes an impeachment to do that it is something I and many other Americans would support,” said a prominent Republican Congressman.

“We have a President who believes our Constitution is just a ‘historical document’ that is not fit to determine how our country is ran anymore,” said the Congressman.

Democrats, obviously, are opposing the impeachment effort by sources close to Republican leaders say that they are “moving full speed ahead” because “we need something to keep us busy until the election.”

I got this from FB

But searched and found many other links.
weeklyworldnews.com...
thepoliticsforums.com...!
www.aesopsretreat.com...

I am not sure how true these articles are, but its a step in the right direction.
Should be interesting to watch and see how things develop.
Although honestly i dont see anything coming of it. But we shall see.




posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
they couldn't impeach clinton because the dems had the senate (or the house)

ditto for obama, they won't get the votes to impeach him

they know this, this is just political grandstanding (if it's true in the first place)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
If it didn't happen to Bush its sure as hell ain't happening to Obama.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
WWN is not the most reliable source for facts. I'll have to wait and see if more news outlets pick up on this before making a decision. Love to see it happen, but very skeptical it ever will.
All links eventually lead back to the story from WWN, so I think we can call this a hoax.
edit on 6-2-2013 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I do not think those claims hold any water.

I honestly think this is just saber rattling from the right to distract from the issues at home that need to be addressed. I heard this being talked about on the radio today and one of the experts on the matter quoted some 200 year old legislation that dismissed the entire notion.

Afghanistan comes to mind but before that there have been several presidents that have ordered strikes without congress. Think about it McCain was upset that we didn’t take a larger role in Libya. If impeachment was possible they would have tried it before the election.


After checking the sources better I call this as not credible.
edit on 6-2-2013 by Grimpachi because: spelling



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by severdsoul
I am not sure how true these articles are,


have a look at the other stories on the same page....
BAT BOY: GOING MUTANT
SELENA GOMEZ PREGNANT WITH BIEBER'S BABY
FACEBOOK WILL END ON MAY 15th, 2013!
HOW TO SELL YOUR SOUL TO THE DEVIL
ALIEN SPACESHIPS TO ATTACK EARTH IN MARCH 2013!

and this one, which we all seemed to have not noticed

EARTH TO COLLIDE WITH NIBIRU ON DECEMBER 21, 2012!



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by severdsoul
I am not sure how true these articles are, but its a step in the right direction.
Weekly World News? Really? I think you're in for a disappointment!



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by severdsoul
 


I would like to know the names of the congressmen who want this action to take place.

So far to me ....it is all rumors. I am not satisfied with the (supposed proof) given.

The information given is just too vague and not specific enough for me.

I guess when March 11, 2013 comes around; I will know.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Better odds on SELENA GOMEZ PREGNANT with Bat Boy's baby....than the story in the OP.

Des



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Considering the morons the people who send money to televangelists elected as republicans to the house, I am not surprised.

This is probably the worst house of reps ever elected.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
If it didn't happen to Bush its sure as hell ain't happening to Obama.


bush did not get impeached, because congress voted for both wars.

read a book.
or
at least use google.

and no, obama is not going to be impeached.

edit on 6-2-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
This prez needs to go,. with no doubt
But if they couldnt see the fake BC,. this wouldnt happen either



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 


I was kind of worried about that myself, no real news site i could find
was covering it yet.
I'll keep a eye on it, but not so sure this is all real yet.

I have to agree, i dont see anything coming from this.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
they couldn't impeach clinton because the dems had the senate (or the house)
ditto for obama, they won't get the votes to impeach him
they know this, this is just political grandstanding (if it's true in the first place)


William Jefferson Blythe III (Bill Clinton) was impeached.

Only the house of representatives can impeach, and they did, for grand jury perjury. After an impeachment the senate holds a trial to convict then proceedings for removal from office. The senate did not convict so he was not removed from office.

He was impeached, though.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er

Originally posted by muse7
If it didn't happen to Bush its sure as hell ain't happening to Obama.


bush did not get impeached, because congress voted for both wars.

read a book.
or
at least use google.

and no, obama is not going to be impeached.

edit on 6-2-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)

WTF. I was sure they didn't authorize the wars. I did look it up though and it seems they did. I know for a fact that tons of people were making a big deal out of how Bush invaded them illegally. WTF? Either someone's changing history, or it's one of those time slips.
edit on 6-2-2013 by Ghost375 because: figured out the word



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 



He was impeached, though.


And the house that impeached Clinton currently stands as the biggest bunch of scumbags to ever control the house.

A bunch of bums.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


No, Congress got on board.
Remember Bush and Co. knocked down a few buildings to convince them to sign up.

edit on 6-2-2013 by ajay59 because: to amend



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by severdsoul
 



I did read rumblings about this on other sites then those you have posted, but that was a couple weeks ago and I don't remember where.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

COMMENTARY | A North Carolina congressman warned President Barack Obama that any military intervention in Syria without congressional approval might result in impeachment proceedings. I doubt the bill will advance beyond the House, but at least the president has been warned.

Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced a bill in the House on Monday that would require congressional approval of any military action in Syria. Failure to obtain that permission would be an impeachable offense under Jones' bill, The Daily Caller reported. Whether it's election year politicking or a genuine attempt to preserve the congressional war prerogative is anyone's guess.

Obama isn't much different than other presidents. He has widely interpreted his role of commander-in-chief to allow him to conduct military engagements without congressional approval so long as he avoids an all-out war. All of Obama's immediate predecessors were equally guilty of doing exactly the same thing.

The Founding Fathers didn't intend for the chief executive to conduct undeclared wars, that is why they specifically gave Congress the right to declare war and fund the armed forces. But in a modern world, not every conflict is a war. Some are military engagements to avoid an all-out war. And let's be honest, presidents know how to press Congress into a corner when it comes to funding the military. Any congressman foolish enough to deny fighting men and women the equipment they need would be run out of office by the voters.
news.yahoo.com...
Just last year Congress debated a similar proposal when the House argued about authorizing action in Libya or cutting off funding, The Nation reported. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, argued a president cannot unilaterally commit U.S. military forces and use assets previously appropriated by Congress to pursue an undeclared war. That went the same path as every other attempt at enforcing the War Powers Act has over the past 40 years.


This is the article I read.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   


The Republicans want to know how President Obama was able to use military force in Libya last year.


Well the republicans may want to check their own legislation, particularly the War Powers Resolution.

50 USC § 1541 - Purpose and policy




(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation



The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Now number 3 is the most important because the President could twist it around to say it qualified under this section. There's no set definition of this particular clause in any great detail.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join