Bill introduced to impeach Obama in the event of non-congressional declaration of war

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Good gravy.


An American military attack on Syria could effectively lead to the impeachment of President Barack Obama. Congressmen say that any war without congressional authorization would be “unconstitutional”.

Republican Representative Walter B. Jones Jr. has come up with the resolution demanding Obama’s impeachment in case his administration starts another military action without the approval of Congress. This came as a reaction to the American Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announcing that in order to carry out the offensive, the US military needs permission from the UN and NATO alone.

Jones’s resolution states that the prime authority to rule on the attack is the US Congress, but not international bodies be it NATO or UN.

“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,” Jones’s resolution said.

In an exchange which occurred at the session of the Senate Armed Services Committee, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that in case Obama administration decides to strike Syria, it would merely “inform” Congress after the decision has been made.

“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 said. “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.”

Responding to Panetta, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions said he was “breathless” to hear the statement.

“I am all for having international support, but I am 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 is required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the constitution.”

The Obama administration has allegedly started a fresh discussion on a possible military strike on Syria with its allies, the Washington Post reports. American officials have yet to confirm the report, saying that at this point they rule out military involvement in Syria’s internal conflict. There are reports that British and Qatari troops, as well as the CIA and Mossad, are already covertly involved with the Syrian conflict.

I think this is silly. It will certainly be defeated in the Senate if it even escapes the house. When was the last time we had a congressional declaration of war anyway? Did Bush get it with Iraq (I honestly don't know)?

I do think Panetta's comments about the international legality of war were dumb, though.

EDIT: How do I correct a typo in the thread title? Meant to say "event" not "even" obviously.
 
Last edited:

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
I can see both sides of this. If we want to put Syria on notice, Obama should ask the Senate for a proper declaration of war. We could endlessly debate this as the situation develops. If Syria finally steps over the line, then a vote will be called. The American people should be heavily involved in the decision to go to war.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
I can see both sides of this. If we want to put Syria on notice, Obama should ask the Senate for a proper declaration of war. We could endlessly debate this as the situation develops. If Syria finally steps over the line, then a vote will be called. The American people should be heavily involved in the decision to go to war.

I dunno. I think the term impeachment is thrown around too easily. It shouldn't be.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Good gravy.





I think this is silly. It will certainly be defeated in the Senate if it even escapes the house. When was the last time we had a congressional declaration of war anyway? Did Bush get it with Iraq (I honestly don't know)?

I do think Panetta's comments about the international legality of war were dumb, though.

WWII was the last "declared" war.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,475
136
I'm glad to see the Iraq War pimping Freedom Fries guy is on the case against executive overreach on war powers.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The reason they are doing this is because Obama said that shooting tanks, killing soldiers, and blowing up buildings was not considered military hostilities so the War Powers Act did not apply (referring to Libya). Since he flaunted that law, they are now trying to slap him for it.

It is silly, they should have impeached him over the War Powers Act violation instead. If nothing else, it would have made it to the Supreme Court so they could rule on the legality of said law.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
I'm glad to see the Iraq War pimping Freedom Fries guy is on the case against executive overreach on war powers.
In his defense, the Iraq war was brought before Congress and approved, although not as a formal declaration of war. But we've also had military actions with no Congressional approval, most notably in Korea and Bosnia. I don't think it's a negative thing to come up with some definitive rules about who has the authority to send American troops into battle; I think that threatening impeachment is foolish, however.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,671
52,475
136
I entirely agree that the whole 'executive branch ignoring Congress' war powers' thing is horrible, I just question the authenticity of this guy's movement against it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
In his defense, the Iraq war was brought before Congress and approved, although not as a formal declaration of war. But we've also had military actions with no Congressional approval, most notably in Korea and Bosnia. I don't think it's a negative thing to come up with some definitive rules about who has the authority to send American troops into battle; I think that threatening impeachment is foolish, however.

Let's not change history. That's not what happened.

The Bush administration said they were asking Congress for the authorization for use of force for one reason and only one reason - leverage to get Saddam to accept inspectors.

Bush told Congress clearly that it was not a 'vote for war' and that he'd come back to Congress for authorization again if he wanted to go to war.

Then when he broke that promise, what could Congress do? complain he lied? They did. Big deal, once the shooting started people didn't care to hear that. Support the troops!

That's also why they timed the vote two weeks before the election - a 'no' vote was called a 'vote against inspections' and could greatly hurt them in the election.

You can read the speeches by various members of Congress where they said their vote was based on that promise it was not a vote for war.

Funny thing is, after the vote, Saddam did allow the inspections, which were finding no WMD.

If Bush had let them finish, find no WMD, and not go to war, he could have looked pretty good for his 'leadership' on the issue.

But that's not what happened of course. As the inspectors were findign no WMD, the Bush administration panicked that if they finished - which they'd do in a couple months - without finding any the justification for war would be removed, and so they moved up the war schedule and ordered the inspectors to leave Iraq in the middle of inspections.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
For what it's worth, it does seem clear that the founders' intent for Congress to be the deciders about when the US would enter a conflict seems to have been undermined.

It doesn't help that presidents get huge popularity increases helping their power when they're 'war presidents', as Bush noted.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,824
2,613
136
What happened to partisan politics stopping at the water's edge? This idiot is enabling Syria's current ruler as much as Russia is. Yeah let's tie the President's hands so we can ensure the continued rule of this despot.

I wonder if this clown is one of those arguing we should have already invaded Iran.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
EDIT: How do I correct a typo in the thread title? Meant to say "event" not "even" obviously.

When you edit the OP, at the bottom of the text box there's a "Go Advanced" button or something like that. Clicking it will allow you to edit the thread title.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,517
8,588
136
Democrats should stand up for some sort of reaffirmation of their role in declaring War, lest the next Republican President takes a vacation in Iran or Syria.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
This is a good test to see whether the House Republicans hate Obama more than they hate non-intervention. I'm willing to bet that they hate non-intervention more.

Walter B Jones is one of the few Congressmembers who doesn't completely suck left nut.
 

ky54

Senior member
Mar 30, 2010
532
1
76
The difference between Bush in Iraq and Obama in Libya is Bush had an authorization of use of force from Congress and Obama neither sought nor had any Congressional support. If I'm not mistaken the WPA says the president can do as he pleases for either 60 or 90 days before Congress can cut off it's funding. What Obama did in Libya does the reveal level of hypocrisy on both sides when it came to use of force with each side flipping depending on whether there was a D or an R behind the president's name.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Democrats should stand up for some sort of reaffirmation of their role in declaring War, lest the next Republican President takes a vacation in Iran or Syria.

Nothing they do is binding on a future congress. Democrats already passed the War Power Act, which every president has said they do not accept.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Let's not change history. That's not what happened.
Craig, don't get me wrong; I never supported the Iraq war, I always thought the justifications given were specious at best and I feel that the entire situation could easily have been avoided if anyone had been in the White House who wasn't consumed by the desire to go to war with Iraq, regardless of what the WMD findings may have been. It was laughable and disgusting that Democrats felt they had to vote for the measures based on it being election season, which is just one more reason that our political system is beyond broken. But the point is Bush did have the tacit approval of Congress, even if it was under false pretenses. The Secretary of Defense coming out and saying the President doesn't need approval to use troops is a little bit frightening; how would you feel if this had happened under Rumsfeld and Bush instead of Panetta and Obama? I'm guessing you'd be against it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Craig, don't get me wrong; I never supported the Iraq war, I always thought the justifications given were specious at best and I feel that the entire situation could easily have been avoided if anyone had been in the White House who wasn't consumed by the desire to go to war with Iraq, regardless of what the WMD findings may have been. It was laughable and disgusting that Democrats felt they had to vote for the measures based on it being election season, which is just one more reason that our political system is beyond broken. But the point is Bush did have the tacit approval of Congress, even if it was under false pretenses. The Secretary of Defense coming out and saying the President doesn't need approval to use troops is a little bit frightening; how would you feel if this had happened under Rumsfeld and Bush instead of Panetta and Obama? I'm guessing you'd be against it.

I understand your comments, and I'm not saying you intentionally revised history.

Rather, it's all too easy for the important part of the history where the Bush administration lied to Congress about this 'not being a vote to war' to be forgotten and history to be revised to simply 'Congress voted to approve the war, though it wasn't a formal declaration of war'. That would be awfully nice for the Bush administration to forget their actions.

My understanding is that every president's position has been that they do not need Congressional authorization to use troops, Obama like every other.

The debate is at what point the conflict reaches a need for Congressional authorization.

At some point Congress can pass a bill saying 'no funds will be used for war', as they finally did years into Vietnam, and with Nicaragua under Reagan.

Of course Reagan caused a constitutional crisis by ignoring the law.

As to your last question, I support some presidents' policies and not others, but it's not clear I change my position on the law depending who is president.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
We live in the 21st century of war my friends. Enemies have become unknown unknowns, in the best of scenarios they are known unknowns. We cannot wait idly by while congress deliberates whether to declare war (a very 18-19-20th century thing, much like snuffboxes and wearing wigs to formal events). The President needs the power to act quickly and strike fast, with the full power of the United States Armed Forces at his fingertips. Quite frankly Panetta informing Congress is an unneeded courtesy, they can just pick up the morning paper after Obama finished saving both democracy and our freedom.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Panetta said before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

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.

It's a sad day when the Secretary of Defense and the president look to the UN and NATO for permission rather than their own Congress which also happens to be the constitutional thing to do. The Constitution - this president wipes his ass with it. WPA or not the Constitution is quite clear on the matter and only Congress can declare war.

Finally someone in Washington showing a little backbone. Too bad nothing will become of this bill.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
We live in the 21st century of war my friends. Enemies have become unknown unknowns, in the best of scenarios they are known unknowns.

What do you mean? Name is known, "Barack Obama". Address is known, "1600 Pennsylvania". Religion is known, "Muslim". Economic ideology is known, "socialist".