Thread: Obama Impeachment Process Started

Sunday, March 11, 2012
Will A Sitting President Finally Be Held Accountable For High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Impeachment proceedings begin in the House and the Senate over Obama's brazen use of aggressive military force without congressional authority.



Image source
Eric Blair
Activist Post

Since 2005, Veterans for Peace and others have been calling for the impeachment of the sitting president for war crimes. After their demands to lawmakers to uphold the rule of law against Bush were largely ignored (except by Dennis Kucinich who introduced impeachment articles too late in 200, they renewed their effort to impeach Obama once he continued to bomb sovereign nations without congressional approval. Now, some lawmakers seem to have finally decided to take the rule of law and Separation of Powers seriously.

Obama will face impeachment over his failure to seek congressional authorization before launching offensive military action in Libya last year. Official impeachment proceedings have now been filed in both the House and Senate.

Last week, North Carolina Representative Walter Jones filed an Impeachment Resolution in the House H.CON.RES.107.IH stating; "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."

President Barack Obama becomes only the third sitting president to face impeachment following Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Johnson was impeached for illegally dismissing an office holder without the Senate's approval, and Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both were acquitted by the Senate.

Significantly, President Obama faces much more serious charges than his impeached predecessors and it's still unclear what legal defense he will use to diffuse the charges as the legal basis for his unilateral action has been inconsistent and vague from the beginning of the Libya assault.

Prior to military operations in Libya, the Justice Department advised the Administration on the legality of using unauthorized force in Libya in a 14-page memo titled Authority to Use Military Force in Libya, which states vaguely:

We conclude...that the use of military force in Libya was supported by sufficiently important national interests to fall within the President's constitutional power. At the same time, turning to the second element of the analysis, we do not believe that anticipated United States operations in Libya amounted to "war" in the constitutional sense necessitating congressional approval under the Declaration of War clause.

The memo goes on explain why the alleged situation on the ground in Libya was in U.S.'s national interest, cites previous times when the U.S. military was deployed without congressional approval and claims the mission was an international support mission with no deployed ground troops to justify their conclusion.

However, in no way were national interests under an "imminent" threat by hostilities in Libya as required by the War Powers Act, and supporting an international mission is irrelevant to the Act. Furthermore, Obama has maintained the legal defense that American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities even after hostilities exceeded the 90-day limit of unauthorized use of force afforded under the War Powers Act.

The New York Times quotes directly from the 38-page report Obama sent to concerned lawmakers after the 90-day deadline passed “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

Therefore, the Administration claims it wasn't a real military conflict that Congress should concern itself with. However, at the same time, the White House acknowledged that the cost to U.S. taxpayers was well over $1 billion for these non-hostile military activities.

Coincidentally, on the same day the impeachment resolution was filed, Obama's Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the Libya War did indeed constitute military combat, but claimed the legal basis for spending U.S. tax dollars on war rested in "international permission":



This impeachment comes on the heals of other Administration officials giving equally flimsy legal justifications for assassinating U.S. citizens without due process. Where, also last week, Attorney General Holder sought to clarify this tyrannical authority in a speech at Northwestern University by claiming "judicial process" was not the same as "due process" under the Constitution.

Yet, the Fifth Amendment clearly states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

And as Wikipedia defines due process:

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

The Obama Administration has clearly "offended against the rule of law," and it appears his only defense lies in somehow changing the definition of words. It's not a strong legal position to be in and it seems that, for the first time in history, a sitting president may be held accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.

See more articles by Eric Blair here


http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/...y-be-held.html



Sorry folks I just can't see anything happening here,,he is illegal and where has that gotten us, but "hope" springs eternal!!!

Congressional Irrelevance

March 14, 2012 by Bob Livingston



Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) appeared stunned during a March 7 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when first Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey and then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the Administration of President Barack Obama needed only an international legal basis to go to war, and Congress would be an afterthought.

What’s truly stunning is that Sessions would be surprised. Congress has been derelict in its duty for some time and has essentially allowed the President to function as an emperor. It ceded its authority after 9/11 when it allowed President George W. Bush to engage in the vaguely defined War on Terror and send American troops around the globe. Obama upped the ante in Pakistan and Libya and may be on the verge of doing so in Syria and Iran.

Congress has become a ceremonial body. Its 535 members are more interested in lining their own pockets and passing legislation to benefit the banksters and large corporations than in Constitutional governance.



Congressional Irrelevance : Personal Liberty Alerts=

Originally Posted by Congress

Now be a good boy, and try not to do that bad thing again. M.m.m.m...uah!

Illegal does as illegal is.

Mr. Obama is an enemy combatant seated in the highest office of power in the land.

Per the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (¶10), he is not a natural born citizen,
a Constitutional requirement - Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5 - for eligibility to the Office of President.

Barack Obama Sr. was a Brit! Barack Obama II was born a Brit! And he's NOT LEGIT!

Ron Paul Senior Advisor Bruce Fein talks Impeachment Resolution and Republican Convention Outlook

Submitted by Kurt Wallace on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 11:52

Bruce Fein Senior Advisor for Ron Paul 2012 campaign and author of Congressman Walter B Jones H. CON. RES. 107M joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Ron Paul Senior Advisor Bruce Fein talks Impeachment Resolution and Republican Convention Outlook’ to discuss the resolution’s purpose moving forward, the support for this legislation and Leon Panetta’s statement regarding whether or not the administration would even talk to congress prior to military action in Syria as impeachable. He also talks regarding the no clear winner scenario at the Republican National Convention.

Listen Here!





Ron Paul Senior Advisor Bruce Fein talks Impeachment Resolution and Republican Convention Outlook | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

Obama Impeachment Bill Introduced – TAKE ACTION

by Right March on March 15, 2012

Bill Introduced to Impeach Obama if Constitution Isn’t Followed for Declaring War — Click below to DEMAND Congress Pass HCR 107: https://secure.conservativedonations...mpeach/?a=2565
ALERT: Believe it or not, Barack Hussein Obama’s Defense Secretary has told Congress that they would seek “international permission” before engaging in war in Syria or elsewhere — NOT the Constitutionally-required declaration of war!

YOU READ THAT RIGHT: the Obama regime would ask for “international permission” instead of Congressional permission before intervening militarily in a country like Syria’s civil war — and according to the Defense Secretary, “whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress” is something they would “discuss as we decide what to do” about sending American troops to war!

THIS IS A BLATANT DISREGARD OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION — AND QUALIFIES AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE! We MUST force Obama to OBEY the Constitution’s requirements!

This is almost unbelievable! The Obama regime is admitting that they will IGNORE the U.S. Constitution, and go by what the United Nations, NATO, and other countries say instead!

According to The New American magazine, “Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey testified at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday that the Obama administration would seek ‘international permission’ before intervening military in Syria’s civil war.”

“Again, 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,” Panetta replied. “Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues I think we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here… If we are working with an international coalition and we’re working with NATO we would want to be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. That’s something that all of these countries would want to have — some kind of legal basis on which to act… If the UN passed a Security Resolution as it did with Libya, we would do that…If NATO came together as it did in Bosnia, we would rely on that…”

In other words, even though the U.S. Constitution, in Article I Section 8, REQUIRES the President to get permission from CONGRESS in order to use offensive military force… BARACK OBAMA DOESN’T CARE!

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was stunned by Sec. Panetta’s statements, telling him, “what I heard you say is, we are going to seek international approval and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek Congressional approval… 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. I don’t believe it is close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that is required to deploy the United States military is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.”

Thankfully, Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC) has introduced H. Con. Res. 107, 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.”

NOW WE MUST FORCE CONGRESS TO PASS THIS BILL, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA FROM DISOBEYING THE CONSTITUTION!

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, reads:

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.

As it stands, the Obama regime is openly rejecting the Constitutional requirement of seeking congressional approval for U.S. military engagement, and is looking only for “international permission” to send our troops where they want to send them.

The Obama administration has previously violated the Constitution in electing to involve the United States in an attack on Libya without congressional consent. But ironically, in 2007, Senator Obama declared, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

THAT would be the Constitutional position! BUT, since he became President, Obama seems to have changed his mind — as we’re seeing in his determination to IGNORE the Constitution and it’s requirements for a Congressional declaration of war.

WE MUST NOT LET BARACK OBAMA GET AWAY WITH TRAMPLING ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! TAKE ACTION NOW TO FORCE CONGRESS’ HAND!

Either the Constitution limits the president’s powers, or it does not. Either Barack Obama is required to get Congressional approval before going to war, or he’s able to ignore Congress and do what the “international community” (in other words, the UN and NATO) says instead.

THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS: OBAMA MUST OBEY THE CONSTITUTION, OR BE IMPEACHED! If we can FLOOD the offices of all of these Congressmen, demanding that they PASS this bill calling for the impeachment of the President if he declares war without congressional approval, we CAN put a stop to Obama’s TRASHING of the U.S. Constitution. But we need YOUR help. Send your Blast Faxes to every single U.S. Congressman and Senator NOW!

Sincerely,

William Greene, President
RightMarch.com

P.S. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) wrote recently in regards to Barack Hussein Obama’s actions, “President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. That must change.”

He went on to say, “That Obama can be voted out of office in eight months is not a reason to hold back on impeachment. Formal impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives would help alert the nation’s 120 million likely voters that more is at stake in Obama’s power grabs than Syrian human rights and contraception subsidies for college students.”

As Tancredo noted, the grounds for House impeachment proceedings have been laid by Obama’s own actions. A list of his unconstitutional and illegal actions “would embarrass any honest public official and makes Nixon’s Watergate cover-up look like a college fraternity house panty raid.”

IT’S TIME TO STOP BARACK OBAMA’S DIRECT VIOLATIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION! PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW!

RightMarch.com
Dept Code 7484
PO Box 94463503 #33585
Washington DC 20090-4463503

Paid for by RightMarch.com (Photo: SCOTT OLSON, Staff/REUTERS)

Obama Impeachment Bill Introduced – TAKE ACTION

Related: http://www.alipac.us/f19/obama-war-m...6/#post1286511

Does Obama deserve to be impeached? Yes. Is there any chance that he would be convicted by the Senate ( should the House vote for impeachment) ? The Democrats in the Senate will NEVER vote for conviction. The only way to get Obama out of office is for him to lose the election in November.

H Con Res 107

There's a mainstream media blackout of this.

Articles of Impeachment against Obama have been filed.

https://www.myelectedrep.com/bill/112/HCONRES107