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.
Originally posted by severdsoul
I am not sure how true these articles are,
Weekly World News? Really? I think you're in for a disappointment!
Originally posted by severdsoul
I am not sure how true these articles are, but its a step in the right direction.
Originally posted by muse7
If it didn't happen to Bush its sure as hell ain't happening to Obama.
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)
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)
He was impeached, though.
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.
The Republicans want to know how President Obama was able to use military force in Libya last year.
(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.