Profile image
475
0
By BARRACUDA (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now: 29
Last Hour: 481
Last 24 Hours: 5,330
Total: 5,330
An Impeachment Warning To Obama
Saturday, September 22, 2012 19:16
Share
inShare2
0

September 22, 2012 “Information Clearing House” – Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC) held a press conference, Sept. 21, in Rayburn B-318, to discuss House Concurrent Resolution 107. Rep. Jones was joined by a group of senior retired military officials, constitutional lawyers, and congressional co-sponsors, to discuss HCR 107 (the bill to send an impeachment warning to Obama), which currently has 11 cosponsors.

This bi-partisan resolution, introduced in March of this year, reasserts the power of Congress to declare war, and states that any President who circumvents Congress, unless the United States is attacked, will face an article of impeachment.
Speakers at the press conference included:

Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC)

Bruce Fein, specialist in constitutional and international law, Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan, author, “American Empire: Before the Fall”.

Lt. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (USA.Ret), former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell (2002-05) Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, author of “Operation Dark Heart”, exposed the Pentagon data mining program known as Able Danger, and uncovered two terrorist cells involved in 911.

A statement of support from Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), who served as the Chief of Staff and later as the Commander-in-Chief of the Central Command, was also read.

======
Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)
H.CON.RES.107.IH

H.CON.RES.107 — 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… (Introduced in House – IH)




HCON 107 IH

112th CONGRESS

2d Session



H. CON. RES. 107

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

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.

we will see if this is another presidential first

(not sending troops without congressional authorization, for that has been done several times before, but IMPEACHMENT for doing so,,,)

i don't really think it means anything, it's classified as a misdemeanor... not sure why, tho... seems like murder is a felony for everyone else...

I think of murder as a victim / pursuer situation

not a pursuer/pursuer situation

murder-unlawful killing of another person...

well there you go,, war is not unlawful

in fact taxpayers pay for the training and weapons to make more efficient killers where war is concerned,,,

i guess you didn't read the OP... that was the whole point of this post...he did it without congressional approval, hence-illegal...

well, I guess thats up to the professionals to determine,,,(if it was illegal)

What they are doing is a decent start.

A bit late and may be doing it so they keep their careers come their election day.

Now. Watch the 'you is a racist' remarks start flying.

someone is truly obsessed

anyhow

some law

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.






(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1)into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2)into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3)in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A)the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B)the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C)the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.



there was no 'decleration of war'

there was introducing troops into hostilities

and the time period was followed,,,

I watched the movie 2016 today on YouTube. Interesting stuff.

there is also legal precedent, approved by the ATTORNEY GENERAL at the time

when Clinton authorized air strikes in yugoslavia (march 26, 1999)


I just dont think this act will now, suddenly, become impeachable

If you think about it Mr Mightymoe, will you keep us updated on the impeachment progress.

yes, Dsouza and Moore are two of the great (video editors) pundits of the past two decades

they both do 'interesting' stuff,,,

i'm sure they know what they're doing, maybe...

not on any mainstream news site yet, but we'll see...

there is really no telling, Im no expert myself , the laws have to be 'interpreted' and the interpretation agreed upon

I just realize there is precedent for the action taken against Libya, and curious to see if said action once already approved will now be impeachable,,,

Our government impeached Bill Clinton over a blowjob. 65 million dollars spent on that. What a slap to the face of the American people. We have real issues and problems.

right? but there was no precedent to stop them

and they could never get away with impeaching him for a 'blow job' so they put him on the spot and he 'lied' about 'sexual relations'(the definition of which is still debated) which exposed him to the charge

the charge was lying under oath, and there was no precedent to say that activity was ok,, unlike this decision over Libya, which was precedented by Clintons decision over Yugoslavia

and even though nothing said it was 'ok', even clinton was acquitted (apparently a majority didnt believe he lied regarding 'sexual relations')

All our presidents have conducted some secret CIA covert operations, overthrowing of governments etc. They should all be impeached according to the original poster.