Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I seem to recall liberals called for war crimes for engaging in Iraq even with consent of congress. Libya certainly qualities since Obama never consulted congress. Now he wants to act outside of UN against a nation who has not attacked US. Enforcing war crimes is not our job without UN. Even no NATO nation was attacked in Libya or in this instance. Iraq actually broke the cease fire terms in rejecting inspectors at least.no US citizens to rescue either. Wnder why reasoning they will use because otherwise is illegal act of war.
It seems that the Republicans need a refresher course on what exactly a President can be impeached for. Nothing Obama has done, is reason for impeachment.
what??f course he has
he is not king no matter how much he wants to be
he has gone over congresses head how many time he swore to uphold the office of the president
and he has broken several laws I think he will be brought up on impeachment charges it is a matter of time
he is to uphold the law NOT pick and choose which laws he will honor
personally I cant wait to see it
If Obama is, against all odds and rationality, impeached, then Joe Biden gets the job.
Then Joe will run in 2016 as an incumbent President. Adios Republican White House for another 4 years, and Biden can run again in 2020, once again as an incumbent. Since an incumbents' odds of winning are always greater than a challenger, Biden will govern until 2024.
By then, the Repubs will have been out of power for 16 years, and an entirely new crop of politicians will be on the scene in both parties.
Sounds brilliant to me. Either way, the Democrats win, and win, and win again. Stretching an 8 year Democratic administration to 16 years is a fair trade for losing 3 years of a President who still has a high favorability factor. It will make Joe's first election a skate around the park.
By the time the winning streak is over, so is the Tea Party, Limbaugh, Rove, and all the knuckleheads who wanted the impeachment. They will all be long gone by 2024.
Go for it!
Take a refresher course in Government 101.
To be impeached means that the House of Reps accuses you of a crime.
At which point the Senate with the SCCJ has a trial.
If found guilty they then determine a punishment which could be removal, it could also be merely a public scolding.
Impeach does not mean removed from office. It means accused of a crime. If found guilty of such crime...one of many possible outcomes is removal from office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Has the entire republican party gone mad, I had respect for Tom Coburn and on most issues he was a moderate but this looks like he has lost it.
Wednesday town hall meeting at Oklahoma's Muskogee Convention Center.
BuzzFeed reports Coburn said
impeachment is "not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical
precedent of what that means," noting that he feels there is a great deal of
"incompetence" in the Obama administration.
"I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration,
but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making
decisions," Coburn said.
"Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time," Coburn continued. "I
don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and
misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”
I am not for impeachment. But what he said is TRUE -- is it not.
Obama per his own words has violated the law and constitution. I don't think anyone can honestly argue that Obama hasn't violated the law at times. Obama is also incompetent (not a crime).
To be impeached means that the House of Reps accuses you of a crime.
At which point the Senate with the SCCJ has a trial.
If found guilty they then determine a punishment which could be removal, it could also be merely a public scolding.
Impeach does not mean removed from office. It means accused of a crime. If found guilty of such crime...one of many possible outcomes is removal from office.
I am not for impeachment. But what he said is TRUE -- is it not.
Obama per his own words has violated the law and constitution. I don't think anyone can honestly argue that Obama hasn't violated the law at times. Obama is also incompetent (not a crime).
"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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
He has made these comments on more than one occasion.
Obama then, with lawyers in the White House telling him it was illegal, Obama himself saying it was illegal in the past, and even a few elected Democrats saying it was illegal...deliberately avoided congress to use military action in Libya...
Mind you I am not saying that he should be impeached for this...but is this not illegal? Do you agree?
P.S. He then continued hostilities in Libya past 60 days without going to congress in violation of the war powers act. The war powers act was designed to prevent presidents from claiming military actions were national defense so that they could continually carry on military actions without congressional approval. Obama claimed that it wasn't a true hostility so that he could continue on past the 60 days in violation of the act. You have to admit, Obama is a very disingenuous politician.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 08-27-2013 at 07:49 PM..
And the phone tapping thing is not Obama's baby, it was put in place many years ago. Obama is guilty, though, of not doing away with it once becoming president.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
and it wasn't even phone tapping -- it was looking at numbers dialed. Moreover, it's hard to claim it was wrongdoing when the activity was approved by the FISA court, in accordance with law.
"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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
He has made these comments on more than one occasion.
Obama then, with lawyers in the White House telling him it was illegal, Obama himself saying it was illegal in the past, and even a few elected Democrats saying it was illegal...deliberately avoided congress to use military action in Libya...
Mind you I am not saying that he should be impeached for this...but is this not illegal? Do you agree?
P.S. He then continued hostilities in Libya past 60 days without going to congress in violation of the war powers act. The war powers act was designed to prevent presidents from claiming military actions were national defense so that they could continually carry on military actions without congressional approval. Obama claimed that it wasn't a true hostility so that he could continue on past the 60 days in violation of the act. You have to admit, Obama is a very disingenuous politician.
The problem is that if it is illegal, there is no penalty in the War Powers Resolution. Everyone really agrees that the Libyan action was a success -- it drove Quadaffi out of power and cost not one soldier.
"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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
He has made these comments on more than one occasion.
Obama then, with lawyers in the White House telling him it was illegal, Obama himself saying it was illegal in the past, and even a few elected Democrats saying it was illegal...deliberately avoided congress to use military action in Libya...
Mind you I am not saying that he should be impeached for this...but is this not illegal? Do you agree?
P.S. He then continued hostilities in Libya past 60 days without going to congress in violation of the war powers act. The war powers act was designed to prevent presidents from claiming military actions were national defense so that they could continually carry on military actions without congressional approval. Obama claimed that it wasn't a true hostility so that he could continue on past the 60 days in violation of the act. You have to admit, Obama is a very disingenuous politician.
I don't think the actions in Libya were perfectly legal but then neither have been our incursions into Pakistan and detaining supposed terrorists as was the case in Italy. Congress has been taken out of the picture , maybe we should go back to war declarations, at any rate it's not impeachable offense.
Impeachment is usually one particular offense, not like going to jail because you accumulated too many parking tickets. Rather than going through all the things that have gone wrong in the last 5 years tell me what in particular was deserving of impeachment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
