• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why doesn't the House of Representatives draw up impeachment articles against Obama?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
boomerang said:
After the fact - gotta love that!
Click to expand...
That is the whole purpose of the war powers resolution. So that the president tells congress after the fact. Imagine what it would we be like if we were invaded and the president had to wait 48 hours before the fact in order to defend ourselves?
 
dullard said:
That is the whole purpose of the war powers resolution. So that the president tells congress after the fact. Imagine what it would we be like if we were invaded and the president had to wait 48 hours before the fact in order to defend ourselves?
Click to expand...

Even under a strict interpretation of the constitution the united states would be able to defend ourselves when we are attacked. If planes are shooting and bombing us the president would be able to order guns to fire back at the planes for example.

Note even after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor FDR went to congress in order to declare war on Japan.
 
dullard said:
There was a vote in congress, but it wasn't a vote that declared war. It authorized military force, but it didn't actually declare war. Subtle difference, yes. But since this thread is about subtle differences, I thought that I'd throw it in.
Click to expand...

Yes it did, the SCOTUS ruled it so. I think it was in the Hamdi trial. (Edit: Could've been the Padilla case too)

-----------------------

And SCOTUS has also already ruled that in the event of an attack or iminent danger, it is well within the Constitutional authority of the President to take military action; in fact, his Constitutional duties require it.

---------

I'm kind of curious about this whole '90 day' thingy. I may not agree with many of Kucinich's policies, but I've never thought him a dumb@ss. If he thinks Obama's action was unconstitutional I've gotta wonder if the 90 rule actually applies in this situation.

Fern
 
Last edited:
Fern said:
Yes it did, the SCOTUS ruled it so. I think it was in the Hamdi trial.

-----------------------

And SCOTUS has also already ruled that in the event of an attack or iminent danger, it is well within the Constitutional authority of the President to take military action; in fact, his Constitutional duties require it.

---------

I'm kind of curious about this whole '90 day' thingy. I may not agree with many of Kucinich's policies, but I've never thought him a dumb@ss. If he thinks Obama's action was unconstitutional I've gotta wonder if the 90 rule actually applies in this situation.

Fern
Click to expand...
Just so we don't have this stupid debate anymore, Congress should always authorize force against another nation by stating "We declare war on . . ." You get that many lawyers together and it's impossible for them to plainly state anything, they want plausible deniability.

I've always thought of Kucinich as a dumb ass, and this stunt plays into that nicely. Obama did exactly what all recent Presidents did, which is already thoroughly adjudicated and arguably necessary due to the fast pace of modern warfare. He is required to notify Congress, and he did. (My slight respect for the Messiah would have increased had he the balls to go on Jon Stewart and say "Yo, Congress, turn on CNN. There's some shit goin' down you need to see.)

Nothing impeachable here. If Congress decides to reign him in, no problem by me. If Congress decides to give him some rope, no problem by me. I can support a mission to support our allies by doing those things they cannot do for themselves, but it's not as if American national interests are on the line.
 
jonks said:
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
Click to expand...

The Congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq was determined to be a declaration of war. There is no 'magic' language required for a declaration of war. IIRC, it came up in one the captives trials. In times of war Congress can also give the President the authority to suspend habeus corpous. While they did rule the resolution constituted a declaration of war, they found that Congress did not explicitly (as required by the Constitution) also extend the ability to suspend HC.

Fern
 
werepossum said:
-snip-
I've always thought of Kucinich as a dumb ass, and this stunt plays into that nicely. Obama did exactly what all recent Presidents did, which is already thoroughly adjudicated and arguably necessary due to the fast pace of modern warfare. He is required to notify Congress, and he did.
Click to expand...

A little hasty, and preliminary research into the War Powers Act.

Not quite sure this action meets the qualifications as specified in #'s 1-3:

Section 1541

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces
Click to expand...

Link to legal site:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html

Not sure this would meet the requirements of Section 1542 either.

The notice Obama sent to Congress appears to be required by Section 1543.

On the face of it Kucinich seems to have a case. However, the courts may have interpreted this statute more liberally, but I don't feel like digging any further.

Obama isn't going to be impeached over this. Even if he were, they wouldn't do it while we're still involved in hostilities.

Fern
 
Last edited:
"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." Barack Obama, 2007.


I hope this just sealed the 2012 re-election fate.
 
Anyone remember we are a signator to the UN charter. This is a UN operation which gives the President express authority to participate.
 
Hamilton deemed the Senate to "exclusively possess the power of declaring war.” The President has the responsibility to address the State of the Union. A Presidential War by its very definition is unconstitutional, as are preemptive wars. They are antithetical to republics and democracies and common under monarchies. Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence might have never existed.

The problem is that the War Powers Act isn't a legal document as much as political treaty. The onus is on Congress to take responsibility, politically dispute this being a police action, and perhaps defund. Though, why would they when the War Powers Act sole authority was to deflect accountability from Congress? If the Libyan War fails, Hillary Clinton has been set to accept the criticism for the decision, not Congress.

Instead, Americans should be fighting to restore Congress' rightful duty as a check on presidential power despite any history to the contrary. I would argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Furthermore, we should be fighting to restore Congress' sole control over money creation, against the waging of monetary wars.
 
HomerJS said:
Anyone remember we are a signator to the UN charter. This is a UN operation which gives the President express authority to participate.
Click to expand...

Well the thing is you see, is we live in the United States and the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it makes no mention of the fuckin UN! So who gives a shit what they say in regards to war?
 
Matt1970 said:
Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
Click to expand...
LOL Which establishes him as holding a law degree and a strong left bias . . .

HomerJS said:
Anyone remember we are a signator to the UN charter. This is a UN operation which gives the President express authority to participate.
Click to expand...
I do not believe this is true. A treaty can give us certain legal obligations, but cannot give extra-Constitutional authority. Regardless, remember that under an extant UN resolution we also had authority to reopen hostilities with Iraq under certain conditions, which no one would deny had been fulfilled.

You cannot claim UN resolutions give legitimate authority to Democrat Presidents but not to Republican Presidents.
 
HomerJS said:
Anyone remember we are a signator to the UN charter. This is a UN operation which gives the President express authority to participate.
Click to expand...

On behalf of the UN yes...WITH CONSENT OF HIS PEOPLE. If the people tell the president "No" then he has no authority to do anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top