Printable View
Obama Impeachment Process Started
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuu7m...layer_embedded
Mar 9, 2012
Link to H.Con.R 107:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:
Finally someone has done what others have talked about for a long time! Started the impeachment process on the dictator of the United States!
Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)
H.CON.RES.107.IH
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TONext Hit Forward New Bills SearchPrev Hit Back HomePageHit List Best Sections Help Contents Display
Print Subscribe Share/Save
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.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...:H.CON.RES.107:
Slim Shady the Long Legged Mack Daddy went ROGUE ....... AGAIN
Ron Paul Responds To Comments By Defense Secretary
Submitted by emalvini on Fri, 03/09/2012 - 13:53
Ron Paul 2012
California
Ron Paul Responds To Comments By Defense Secretary
“THE RECENT STATEMENTS BY DEFENSE SECRETARY PANETTA ONCE AGAIN ILLUSTRATE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE RULE OF LAW AND OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION”
LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Today Congressman and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement in response to comments by Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta regarding military options in Syria. See comments below.
“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent statements once again illustrate the Obama administration’s blatant disregard for the rule of law and our Constitution.
“For President Obama’s head of the Defense Department to state that international permission, rather than congressional approval, is what would be needed as a legal basis to initiate a no-fly zone over Syria flies in the face of the guidelines established by our Founders.
“There is no issue more serious than war. And make no mistake, establishing a ‘no-fly zone’ is in itself an act of war.
“Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress – not the President – the authority to declare war.
“This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control Executive Branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a congressional debate.
“But such actions should no longer come as a surprise. During the conflict in Libya last year, we saw exactly what this President thinks of following the rule of law. President Obama consulted NATO, the United Nations, and the Arab League for permission and authorization to use US military force against Libya. But he utterly ignored the one body that has the legal authority to grant that permission—the U.S. Congress. That was, and still is, unacceptable.
“This is a complete 180 from what we once heard when Obama was seeking the presidency, as he spoke passionately about the abuses of the Bush Administration in violating the War Powers Act. But, like many candidates, the rhetoric did not match the disappointing reality of what he would do as President.
“I have fought my entire political career for greater transparency, greater accountability, and strict adherence to the Constitution. If elected President, I pledge to always maintain the sovereignty of the United States and remain faithful to our rule of law.”
Ron Paul Responds to Comments by Defense Secretary*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
Ron Paul Responds To Comments By Defense Secretary | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012
Resolution Calls for Impeachment if Obama Does Not Seek War Authorization from Congress
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 8, 2012
Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, has introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to prevent Obama from starting another war without authorization from Congress. The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on March 7.
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.c...380971cl-8.jpgObama has violated article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution.
Obama’s unconstitutional decision to involve the U.S. in the illegal attack on Libya without the consent of Congress motivated at least some members of the House of Representatives to demand an explanation. On June 3 of last year, the House passed a resolution demanding that the president provide an explanation to the American people, a request that was ignored by Obama and his administration.
Rep. Jones’ resolution states that 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.
It will be interesting to see if the resolution makes it out the Committee on the Judiciary. It was virtually ignored by the corporate establishment media.
The resolution reads as follows:
“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.”
Read the full text here
» Resolution Calls for Impeachment if Obama Does Not Seek War Authorization from Congress Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Not likely!Quote:
Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7
Obama impeachment bill now in Congress
Declares president's use of military without approval 'high crime, misdemeanor'
Published: 7 hours ago
by Drew Zahn
Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."
http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/02/120...a2-340x170.jpg
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, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 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.”
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 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.If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Daily Poll.
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.
Obama impeachment bill now in Congress
Déjà Vu: Obama's Military Actions in Syria May Be ImpeachableNew American
Written by Raven Clabough
Friday, 09 March 2012 15:00 On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Obama administration would seek “international permission” before engaging in war in Syria. Besides the possibility that it is merely a ruse — as there is growing evidence that the United States may already be covertly involved in Syria’s war — for the United States to seek permission from other nations to go to war is unconstitutional. For that reason, Representative Walter Jones (R-N.C., left) has just introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107, calling for the impeachment of the President if he declares war without congressional approval.
Jones's resolution, which calls upon the U.S. House — with the Senate concurring — to prevent President Obama from starting yet another war without Congress declaring war. HCR 107 states:
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.
The Obama administration has openly rejected the constitutional requirement of seeking congressional approval for U.S. military engagement.
"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."
The Obama administration has previously violated the Constitution in electing to involve the United States in an attack on Libya without congressional consent, prompting some members of the U.S. House to issue a resolution demanding that the President explain his reasons for such a decision. The resolution was ignored.
The Ohio Democrat told Raw Story, “President Obama moved forward [militarily against Libya] without Congress approving. He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.”
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) declared at the time that President Obama’s approval of air strikes against Libya was officially an “impeachable offense.”
Kucinich has been relatively consistent on the issue of unconstitutional wars, as he indicated his desire to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for similar actions in leading the United States into war against Iraq.
Ironically, in 2007 Obama adhered to a philosophy similar to that of Kucinich, when as a Senator he 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.”
Since taking office, however, President Obama’s views of the so-called War on Terror seem to have changed dramatically. Yahoo's Associated Content observed:
Barack Obama has been obliged to renege on a number of his campaign promises surrounding the War on Terror.
Besides keeping the prison at Guantanamo open, he has not made a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, has actually increased troop levels in Afghanistan, and has stepped up drone strikes in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. The joke is that Obama has killed more terrorists in the two years of his presidency than George W. Bush did in all eight years of his.
In fact, critics note that President Obama has exhibited all the qualities worthy of a neoconservative’s praise. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has hailed many of Obama’s hawkish decisions, explaining, "I think he's learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he's learned from experience.”
The discussion of a possible Obama impeachment was revisited following the targeted killing of American-born al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki last September, with no charges being brought.
Texas Congressman and GOP presidential contender Ron Paul has observed that because of the President’s “flouting” of the law in the murder of al-Awlaki, impeachment is possible.
Ben Johnson of White House Watch wrote of the assassination of al-Awlaki:
Although federal agents have sought al-Awlaki since the Clinton administration, and the Authorization for the Use of Force passed following 9/11 allows the president to kill anyone he “determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,” al-Awlaki’s birth in the United States has many debating the proper interplay between national security and civil liberties.
According to Rep. Paul, the assassination of an American citizen, regardless of the reason, "continues" and "accelerates" the "slip toward tyranny.” He added, "I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction. We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”
Paul warned attendees at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, that permitting targeted killings of American citizens without proper due process could set a dangerous precedent:
Al-Awlaki was born here. He is an American citizen. He has never been tried or charged for any crimes. If the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating who he thinks are bad guys I think it’s sad. What would the people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn’t assassinate him. We were pretty certain that he had done it. And they put him through the courts and they executed him.
Similarly, blogontherun.com wrote, “When the president of the United States can singlehandedly order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without charge or trial, we’re not just on the slippery slope toward dictatorship, we’re in free fall.”
Paul added that virtually every U.S. President during his own terms in Congress had committed impeachable offenses. “I just said almost every President I’ve known I’d probably have to vote for impeachment, because there’s very little respect for the Constitution, and certainly there’s no respect for the Constitution [if they’re] assassinating American citizens.”
Ironically, Panetta callled upon the Constitution in his defene of the President’s decision to seek international approval for military intervention in Syria. "When it comes to the national defense of this country, the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country and we will,” he declared.
He did not explain how U.S. military intervention in the Mideast country of Syria is acting in defense of the United States or where in the constitution authorization for such executive branch action is found.
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.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xkJF2Zg7CM...each+obama.jpg
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 2008), 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":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aecXpZPhrrM&feature=player_embedded
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
http://personallibertycom.files.word...313_image1.jpg
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84&feature=player_embedded
Congressional Irrelevance : Personal Liberty Alerts=
Quote:
Originally Posted by Congress
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!
http://dailypaulradio.com/radio/wp-c...mp3_button.png
Ron Paul Senior Advisor Bruce Fein talks Impeachment Resolution and Republican Convention Outlook | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012
http://www.conservativeactionalerts....es/CAALogo.png
http://www.conservativeactionalerts....etta-RM-lg.pngObama 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.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.
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.
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,
http://news.dienerconsultants.com/ci...7136/wgsig.gif
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
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