Obama: impeachment proceedings have begun

Obama has told Congress that he does not need authorisation from them to start wars. Congressmen have filed resolutions for impeachment.

How many years ago did the U.S. and U.K. invade Libya?????? Now it is being picked up because it"s Election Time, say no more.

Panda wrote:

How many years ago did the U.S. and U.K. invade Libya?????? Now it is being picked up because it"s Election Time, say no more.

The earliest I can find is April 2011

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/GOP_lawyer_circulates_Obama_impeachment_articles.html?showall

A prominent libertarian constitutional lawyer and civil libertarian has drafted an article of impeachment against President Obama over his attack on Libya, throwing down a legal gauntlet that could be picked up by some Congressional Republicans

Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice and chairman of American Freedom Agenda writes in his 15-page argument of Obama's course that "Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."

Fein is a small-government conservative who worked on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and also called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and his work doesn't represent the Republican Party line. But it comes as some Republicans on the Hill, led by Senator Rand Paul, object vociferously to Obama's decision to strike targets in Libya without Congressional authorization.

"He's been more bold than any other president," said Fein, who said Obama has failed to secure congressional approval for his military action in a much more brazen way than previous administrations.

And this is what Obama said during the 2008 campaign:

http://perryvision.blogspot.com/2011/07/clear-case-for-obamas-impeachment.html

Barack Obama could not be more wrong about his claim that he needs no approval from Congress to engage our military in Libya (or anywhere else for that matter), and he knows it. In response to a question regarding war powers during the 2008 campaign, this president himself said the following: "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."

From the same article:

Obama is unquestionably impeachable. In fact, this has been the case since day 3 of his presidency, when he ordered a drone attack on Pakistan (a country with which we are not at war) that killed 28 people, several of which were reportedly children. But instead of being removed from office he was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace. Is there a better example of how completely upside down things have become in this perpetual warfare world?

Morning AnnaEsse


Fein is a small-government conservative who worked on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and also called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and his work doesn't represent the Republican Party line. But it comes as some Republicans on the Hill, led by Senator Rand Paul, object vociferously to Obama's decision to strike targets in Libya without Congressional authorization"

Clinton was impeached because of lying about his relationship with whatsername. Bush and Cheney were never impeached and if Obama is impeachable
why hasn't notice been served on him, he never sent troops to Libya or Afghanistan. This is obviously a Republican dirty tricks tactic in view of the Iran
and Israeli crisis.and that Obama took action to eliminate Bin Laden.As a President or Prime Minister I agree you should have agreement from all Political Parties if you take troops to war on a dispute which does not affect your own Country.

Panda wrote:
Morning AnnaEsse


Fein is a small-government conservative who worked on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and also called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and his work doesn't represent the Republican Party line. But it comes as some Republicans on the Hill, led by Senator Rand Paul, object vociferously to Obama's decision to strike targets in Libya without Congressional authorization"

Clinton was impeached because of lying about his relationship with whatsername. Bush and Cheney were never impeached and if Obama is impeachable
why hasn't notice been served on him, he never sent troops to Libya or Afghanistan. This is obviously a Republican dirty tricks tactic in view of the Iran
and Israeli crisis.and that Obama took action to eliminate Bin Laden.As a President or Prime Minister I agree you should have agreement from all Political Parties if you take troops to war on a dispute which does not affect your own Country.

Obama did not eliminate Bin Laden! Bin Laden died of natural causes some years ago. Bit of a coincidence that all of the navy SEALS who were involved in the alleged killing of Bin Laden were subsequently killed in a helicopter accident. There have been other coincidences: Donald Young, who was alleged to have had a gay relationship with Obama - shot in the head; men who were said to be accessing Obama's passport information - shot; Andrew Brietbart, on the day he was to have produced evidence that he said would have exposed Obama - died suddenly.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-impeachment-bill-now-in-congress/

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 exchange itself can be seen below: