[Sev]

This is an interesting turn of events.


Declares president's use of military without approval 'high crime, misdemeanor'
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-imp...s/?cat_orig=us
Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/our-choic...-dictatorship/ , former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...H.CON.RES.107: in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

Get the bumper sticker that tells everyone to Impeach Obama!

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “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.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “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].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=5zNwOeyuG84

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

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.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Daily Poll.

[cuejoey]

Sev......................obunga bad..

[berlowmj2]

Privatize the Pentagon. Its under corporate control anyway.

[onepocketron]

Why am I not surprised? Instead of doing something important like tackling the debt, they go after shit that has no chance. If only ALL the morons in congress would focus on important things, instead of trying to "score points". And folks wonder why we are in the shits.

[LWW]

Originally Posted by onepocketron

Why am I not surprised? Instead of doing something important like tackling the debt ...

Removing Obama from office is key to that goal.

[Sev]

Originally Posted by onepocketron

Why am I not surprised? Instead of doing something important like tackling the debt, they go after shit that has no chance. If only ALL the morons in congress would focus on important things, instead of trying to "score points". And folks wonder why we are in the shits.

Did you watch the video?
Ugot posted it last week. They are trying to find a way to allow military authorization outside constitutional constraints. More so by the fact that they want its authorization by non US entities.
That should be a major concern to everybody.

[avmaster]

Originally Posted by Sev

Did you watch the video?
Ugot posted it last week. They are trying to find a way to allow military authorization outside constitutional constraints. More so by the fact that they want its authorization by non US entities.
That should be a major concern to everybody.

The Constitution is inconvienient to these folks. Pannatta's statements were rather amazing..................

[Sev]

Originally Posted by avmaster

The Constitution is inconvienient to these folks. Pannatta's statements were rather amazing..................

They set the stage for the military going rogue.

[Casual Observer]

Originally Posted by berlowmj2

Privatize the Pentagon. Its under corporate control anyway.

We should privatize a LOT more than the Pentagon.
Then fire a million bureacrats...

[ChopStick]

Not that crap again. Do we really want Nancy, Maxine, Barney and Harry in control of the military?

[Sev]

Originally Posted by ChopStick

Not that crap again. Do we really want Nancy, Maxine, Barney and Harry in control of the military?

I'd like to see them navigate a live fire course.
They'd be down range of course.

[onepocketron]

Originally Posted by Casual Observer

We should privatize a LOT more than the Pentagon.
Then fire a million bureacrats...

Yeppers, I gotta agree with you there. Privatization with no benifits from the government. Get the benifits from the contractor/employer, not the tax payer.

[onepocketron]

Originally Posted by Sev

Did you watch the video?
Ugot posted it last week. They are trying to find a way to allow military authorization outside constitutional constraints. More so by the fact that they want its authorization by non US entities.
That should be a major concern to everybody.

My point is that it's a futile exercise. No way the Senate, which is democratically controlled, will be on board. It has about as much chance as the Clinton impeachment in my view, Zero.

[Casual Observer]

Originally Posted by onepocketron

My point is that it's a futile exercise. No way the Senate, which is democratically controlled, will be on board. It has about as much chance as the Clinton impeachment in my view, Zero.

He needs to be impeached by the voters on the 2nd Tuesday of November, 2012!
Congress needs to get out of the way. We're the ones most harmed by him and we need the right to resolve it ourselves!

[Jimmy M.]

Originally Posted by Casual Observer

We're the ones most harmed by him and we need the right to resolve it ourselves!

The only problem is, voting him out doesn't give us that right. It only sticks some other jackass in office. In 4 years, you'd hear the Democrats moaning about getting the country "back on track".

The two parties are simply playing a giant game of ping pong ... and we're the ball.