IMO, he's in clear violation of the law

[Craig234]

Presidents are effectively immune to the consequences of most unconstitutional actions. This could be settled definitively however that isn't really wanted by the majority of those who have the authority to act or their supporters.

If the War Powers Act is being violated then Obama can be impeached. It would be difficult to imagine a defense that would not involve the WPA. That would force a decision by the SCOTUS which ought to resolve the issue.

Impeachment over violation of the WPA has nothing to do with forcing the Supreme Court to do something. When it comes to impeachment Congress is the only judge.

 

[nonlnear]

Presidents are effectively immune to the consequences of most unconstitutional actions. This could be settled definitively however that isn't really wanted by the majority of those who have the authority to act or their supporters.

If the War Powers Act is being violated then Obama can be impeached. It would be difficult to imagine a defense that would not involve the WPA. That would force a decision by the SCOTUS which ought to resolve the issue.

I'm surprised to see you make such a claim about impeachment.

Impeachment over violation of the WPA has nothing to do with forcing the Supreme Court to do something. When it comes to impeachment Congress is the only judge.

Craig is right. SCOTUS has nothing to do with impeachment (except that the Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial - but that's only because the VP would be a worse choice given that he's part of the executive.)

Now if the President were to be charged after impeachment with something criminal, then the WPA would play into a defense - which would undoubtedly go up to SCOTUS. However at that point the impeachment would already be a done deal.

 

[Jaskalas]

So, let's look for a policy that would allow Libya, and not allow an irresponsible attack on Iran, that can be made law. That's up to Congress.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a chance Republicans will address that actual issue while they have the House. It's about the politics of attacking Obama.

Perhaps you can make a deal, throw the President to the wolves under the requirement that you sign legislation that ties a future president's hands and requires Congress to start wars.

You are correct, the GOP loves war and the leadership would not support it, but you'll have some conservatives who believe in limited government, you just have to bribe the rest.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Obama is deman. Oh, demand.

Play on words - nice

The reason I asked because semantics matter since the Constitution itself does not "demand impeachment, rather defines what the grounds for it and outlines the process once invoked. A literal reading of Article 4 section 2 would seem to allow a President to commit any crime and continue in office. I grant that is unlikely in egregious cases however"shall impeach" does not seem to be found in the Constitution. I just wanted to clarify if he meant "demand" in a legal or a moral sense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm surprised to see you make such a claim about impeachment.Craig is right. SCOTUS has nothing to do with impeachment (except that the Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial - but that's only because the VP would be a worse choice given that he's part of the executive.)

Now if the President were to be charged after impeachment with something criminal, then the WPA would play into a defense - which would undoubtedly go up to SCOTUS. However at that point the impeachment would already be a done deal.

I understand the process. I also understand likely consequences. To clarify- Congress impeaches the President for violation of the WPA. That is part of the process. The rub is that Obama could very likely contend that the proceedings are invalid because he's not violating the Act. Congress can convict if it likes and Obama can maintain his role as CIC is being properly exercised and that the conviction is an attempt to interfere with that obligation and therefore illegitimate. Stalemate.

What happens next?

 

[Carmen813]

Presidents are effectively immune to the consequences of most unconstitutional actions. This could be settled definitively however that isn't really wanted by the majority of those who have the authority to act or their supporters.

If the War Powers Act is being violated then Obama can be impeached. It would be difficult to imagine a defense that would not involve the WPA. That would force a decision by the SCOTUS which ought to resolve the issue.

Wouldn't the Senate technically have jurisdiction after an impeachment?

 

[Craig234]

I understand the process.

You don't.

I also understand likely consequences. To clarify- Congress impeaches the President for violation of the WPA. That is part of the process. The rub is that Obama could very likely contend that the proceedings are invalid because he's not violating the Act. Congress can convict if it likes and Obama can maintain his role as CIC is being properly exercised and that the conviction is an attempt to interfere with that obligation and therefore illegitimate. Stalemate.

What happens next?

No. Just as a criminal defendant can yell anything he wants about his rights being violated when the judge sentences him and it has no effect, it doesn't matter what the President says about impeachment being unfair or illegitimate, the Congress has all the cards. he's removed and can right a book arguing his point.

The Supreme Court has *no jurisdiction* to question whether the Congress's accusations are accurate, no matter how outrageous they are. If the Congress impeaches Obama for assassinating JFK and the Senate votes to convict, he's out and that's that. That's why the two impeachments that have happened were on hyped up charges - there's no check on Congress impeaching the president other than the voters voting them out next election.

There's no 'stalemate'. The only other thing the president could do would be violate the constitution, like use the military.

 

[Craig234]

Play on words - nice

The reason I asked because semantics matter since the Constitution itself does not "demand impeachment, rather defines what the grounds for it and outlines the process once invoked. A literal reading of Article 4 section 2 would seem to allow a President to commit any crime and continue in office. I grant that is unlikely in egregious cases however"shall impeach" does not seem to be found in the Constitution. I just wanted to clarify if he meant "demand" in a legal or a moral sense.

If I can speak for him on this, he meant the moral sense, the implied 'demand' not explicit. You are correct that the constitution has only an implied duty for Congress to impeach.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You don't.



No. Just as a criminal defendant can yell anything he wants about his rights being violated when the judge sentences him and it has no effect, it doesn't matter what the President says about impeachment being unfair or illegitimate, the Congress has all the cards. he's removed and can right a book arguing his point.

The Supreme Court has *no jurisdiction* to question whether the Congress's accusations are accurate, no matter how outrageous they are. If the Congress impeaches Obama for assassinating JFK and the Senate votes to convict, he's out and that's that. That's why the two impeachments that have happened were on hyped up charges - there's no check on Congress impeaching the president other than the voters voting them out next election.

There's no 'stalemate'. The only other thing the president could do would be violate the constitution, like use the military.

Would you like me to cite examples through history where the President has blatantly ignored the other branches of government and even threatened them and gotten away with it? I can start with FDR.

Let's look at something-

[SIZE=+2]The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:[/SIZE]
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

If the Congress impeaches Obama for assassinating JFK and the Senate votes to convict, he's out and that's that.

I believe that they can impeach Obama for anything, but can Congress remove someone based on a law which is unconstitutional?

Question- Can the Constitutionality of the WPA be challenged?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let me clarify something. This isn't a roundabout way of suggesting a means of removing Obama from office. It's about what can be done to force an opinion on the Constitutionality of the WPA. Congress won't do this. We're in hypothetical land. The SCOTUS has already ruled on limitations of Presidential authority and has expressed opinion on conflicts between Congress and the Presidency. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.

 

[Fern]

You should do better at checking things before posting. You simply don't know what the word means.

This^ was regarding "impeachment".

I'm going by info from this government site:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Would you like me to cite examples through history where the President has blatantly ignored the other branches of government and even threatened them and gotten away with it? I can start with FDR.

No, those examples have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Let's look at something-

I believe that they can impeach Obama for anything, but can Congress remove someone based on a law which is unconstitutional?

Yes. It wouldn't behoove them to do so politically probably, but nothing in the constitution stops them. As I said, you quickly run into constitutional crises when powers are abused.

Question- Can the Constitutionality of the WPA be challenged?

Yes - which has nothing to do with impeachment.

 

[Craig234]

This^ was regarding "impeachment".

I'm going by info from this government site:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm

Fern

Not enough info to know what you're talking about.

 

[Fern]

Now McCain and Kerry are pushing a bill to authorize Libya.

You'd think they would at least wait for Obama to ask for it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43480417/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Fern