Democrats catching impeachment fever?

posted at 2:00 pm on March 20, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

If nothing else, Dennis Kucinich is consistent.  He wanted to push articles of impeachment against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over the Iraq war, which his own party’s leadership squelched in the summer of 2008 — when Bush’s term had all but expired anyway.  Kucinich and John Conyers instead had to settle for “impugnment hearings,” which one witness called “slightly demented.”

Now we have another military action from another president, this one without the cover of a Congressional authorization to use military force, and Kucinich wants to crank up the impeachment process, pun most certainly intended:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

Technically, of course, Kucinich and other progressives are correct in that the Constitution doesn’t allow for Presidents to initiate military action without the involvement of Congress unless an immediate threat to American national security arises, the “clear and present danger” exception.  One Constitutional scholar put it best in 2007:

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.

We’d get a clarification from this source to determine whether this applies to the current situation, but he’s traveling through South America at the moment and isn’t terribly engaged on this issue.

Traditionally, though, consultations with Congress have sufficed in the past.  For instance, Congress didn’t specifically authorize Ronald Reagan to attack Libya in 1986 in Operation El Dorado Canyon, a retaliation for a terrorist bombing that killed American troops in Germany at a nightclub.  Reagan consulted Congressional leadership before ordering the attack, an act of war by any definition.  Presidents have conducted similar military actions without formal acts of Congress to authorize them, meaning it has a long precedent, even if it’s not necessarily a good idea.  According to the report and Kucinich’s own objection, Obama did consult Congress before engaging in Operation Odyssey Dawn.

It’s certainly amusing in a small manner to see Obama get hoist with his own petard, but Kucinich is just as silly as ever in suggesting that impeachment proceedings should start over that action.  Now, if we want to ask whether Obama should get called to Congress to account for his absence from the White House as he sent the American military into hostile action against Libya, that might be worth highlighting.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The actions of (and reactions to) the Osama Obama regime over the past two years have pretty well proven that, in Ed’s eyes, the impeachment bar is set so impossibly high that no one could reach it.

From Day One, the Traitor-in-Chief has used the Constitution as toilet paper, to the applause of his lefty buddyroos and the meek tut-tutting of so-called “conservatives.”

Should another violation, another show of disdain for the laws of the nation that elevated the Mohammedan Mouthpiece to a position incredibly far beyond his ability make any difference?

I’m guessing not.

MrScribbler on March 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM

I thought Congress was briefed before the attack? Other presidents have maintained the right to attack including Bush.

[sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM]

I’ll assume that was not snark but serious and presume you are not responding on the basis of the mistaken idea that I am harping about Obama taking this action without Congress’ authorization. I am not, and I do feel the action we are taking a proper one, if not a good one.

Have you read at least Sections 1541, 1542, & 1543 of the War Powers Act? If not, you can start here. It’s short and pretty clearly written.

Anyway, I’m not talking about attacking. I’m talking about consulting Congress and following the process set down in the War Powers Act which requires, regardless of other consulting circumstances, to submit, in writing, to the Speaker and President Pro Tempore within 48 hours, exactly what the Act defines.

Scuttle butt from anonymous sources reported by NYT, live reports from the UN by CNN, live-streaming from Brasilia by TOTUS, is not a substitute.

If you can show me where a report by others was not made, I’ll soften on this point, but I hardly think Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, or even Clinton didn’t dot their i’s and cross their t’s on this (though I do say that relying mostly on the basis of how much they cared about discharging their responsibilities as POTUS.)

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Anyway, I’m not talking about attacking. I’m talking about consulting Congress and following the process set down in the War Powers Act which requires, regardless of other consulting circumstances, to submit, in writing, to the Speaker and President Pro Tempore within 48 hours, exactly what the Act defines.

Well I would say that he may have done so, but I do know that congress was briefed. I don’t know what exactly that entailed or if he has bothered to alert them in writing. It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if he hadn’t as this administration has, from day one acted as if the rules do not apply to them. Well… actually even before day one, as the birth certificate issue illustrates.

Scuttle butt from anonymous sources reported by NYT, live reports from the UN by CNN, live-streaming from Brasilia by TOTUS, is not a substitute.

That unfortunately is all we have from this guy and he is being shielded by the media from any criticism.

If you can show me where a report by others was not made, I’ll soften on this point, but I hardly think Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, or even Clinton didn’t dot their i’s and cross their t’s on this (though I do say that relying mostly on the basis of how much they cared about discharging their responsibilities as POTUS.)

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

I suspect you may be right about this. It would be entirely consistent with how this administration operates. The ObamaCare ruling is a case in point.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

You’re not allowed to ask questions.

artist on March 20, 2011 at 3:42 PM

my bad

cmsinaz on March 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Don’t TEEZ me Ed. Please.

Roy Rogers on March 20, 2011 at 5:02 PM

This whole impeachment thing is media crapola.

Key West Reader on March 20, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Wrong Ed, Thomas jefferson showed that Article 2 powers are all that are needed for these type of engagements, see Barbary Wars also in Tripoli/Lybia

jp on March 20, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Crying for impeachment is silly. But I want to see the GOP and their pundits press this guy hard and consistently on his hypocrisy here. You can’t pull this kind of 180 and get away with it — especially when it was done NOT for the people of Libya, NOT for the cause of human rights, but for his own damn re-election prospects.

Rational Thought on March 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Silly? Silly is claiming you can read someones mind!

“especially when it was done NOT for the people of Libya, NOT for the cause of human rights, but for his own damn re-election prospects”

That’s an incredibly high bar even Carnac the Magnificent to achieve.
Judge by his actions, do not ascribe a solid rock hard motivation for those actions.
To do so would be Silly.

DSchoen on March 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Well I would say that he may have done so, but I do know that congress was briefed.

[sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM]

That “consultation” is ambiguous in the WPA, and likely deliberately so as far as initially. Surprise or haste are good reasons for not doing so formally in this regard, and, one or both of those reasons applied with Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. The MSM has reported that Obama convened a gaggle of Congresscritters to inform them, and I am happy with that.

It’s the follow up, like the ‘report in writing’, now that we are past the surprise/haste/yada is criteria is past, the proposed reasons for acting, etc, can all be hashed out and everything goes on the record. I think that is really important in light Administration’s push at the UN and also Bruce McQuain’s post from the Green Room. We need the “sense of Congress” as it relates to their opinions, so unintended and back door precedents aren’t set or claimed to be set.

And you are right to highlight Obama’s disregard for following the rules. It’s pretty much my reason for going nuts about wanting the report. It’s there and we should use it.

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Bombing Lybia without a Congressional declaration is not Unconstitutional, been proved since atleast Thomas jefferson they have authority under Article II

Some Originalist will argue the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional and violates a Presidents Constitutional Article II powers.

But yes, the Left are blazing hypocrites on the matter

jp on March 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM

[jp on March 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM]

To pick a nit, Jefferson having done it doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t unconstitutional. It can just as easily mean he acted unconstitutionally. I have no idea whether Jefferson himself thought he acted unconstitutionally, as he did with the Louisiana Purchase, where he admitted that his action was unconstitutional.

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 5:44 PM

I am slightly left of center, and I think Obama’s actions are worse than Bush’s. The main thing that makes him dangerous is that the left is unable to respond. That’s why I was hoping McCain would have won the election. He would have been no worse, and at least people would have mobilized against him. Obama is evil, and nobody cares.

There are many on the left who feel the same way. This is from 4 days ago, so the impeachment talk has nothing to do with the Libya action:

“So why not impeach Obama? I clamored for the impeachment of Bush. I say Obama is as bad or worse. Why am I such a corrupt hypocrite that I haven’t built a movement to impeach Obama? Well, I’ll tell you, as I’ve told people more times than I can count. Obama should be impeached and convicted and removed from office. Obama should be prosecuted for his crimes. So should his subordinates. So should his predecessor, his subordinates, and all corporate co-conspirators. The reason I can’t get 20 people into the streets to demand Obama’s impeachment (and if I did, they’d want him impeached for being born in Africa to aliens from Planet Socialism) is that nobody in Congress is even pretending to give a damn.”

dave742 on March 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Jefferson wasn’t the only one that did this, just the first…..Madison I believe did the same in the 2nd Barbary War and it happened in similar engagements later on.

The Founders reserved the 17th century language of nations to respectable nations, like Britian, France, Spain, etc., not Outlaw regimes such as Lybia. Also, after the International community Outlawed war after WW2 you will not see anymore “Declarations” out of fear said country would be in violation and they’d have a case in international court….

Here is an excellent debate at the Federalist Society on this subject between a Lefty Scholar and an Originalist….the Originalist makes the case for how the POTUS does not at all necessarily need any sort of approval Constitutionally:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp

jp on March 20, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Kucinich also wanted to impeach Bush . . . for him this is just another day in the office. These dirtbag liberals and leftists couldn’t care less about this nation because it’s all about their shining kingdom of Marxism/socialism.

rplat on March 20, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Did CRR ever post the Declaration of War?

CWforFreedom on March 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM

She’s over in Tirana right now looking for it.

That’s in Albania, you know.

Del Dolemonte on March 20, 2011 at 6:09 PM

It may be silly. Just as a floor fight in Charlotte would be silly. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to see it happen.

mike_NC9 on March 20, 2011 at 6:10 PM

dave742 on March 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM

I have to give CounterPunch props for calling out the Dems from time to time. They also called the Democrats in the Senate out who voted for “Bush’s War”.

However, they never called for them to be removed from office.

And why do I get this feeling that the author of this piece will totally forgive O’bama and vote for him again next November?

Del Dolemonte on March 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM

[sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM]

Hey, Sharrukin, wrt the last part about the report (and by extension, getting authorization after the fact) I happened to be reading Volokh Conspiracy just now and Somin (discussing this subject) notes:

For all the hoopla about the supposedly overwhelming growth of presidential power, presidents have in fact gotten advance or nearly simultaneous congressional authorization for almost every major military intervention the United States has undertaken since World War II. This was true in Korea, Vietnam, the two Iraq wars, and many other cases. Bill Clinton’s 1999 military action in Kosovo was the one time during that period when a president entered into a major conflict in the face of actual opposition by the majority in Congress.

That post links to another of his posts (in 2007) where he notes that included Grenada, Somalia, both Lebanons and Haiti.

A couple of things. One, I doubt he left out Panama or others because they didn’t but because it wasn’t an exhaustive list. Two, he doesn’t give sources but his saying so without having backup is a really low probability.

It’s kind of a surprise Clinton did get approval for Kosovo and acted anyway. I don’t remember that. Anyway, Clinton did do the reporting and seeking (the i’s and t’s); he just ignored them when he didn’t get approval. Still even that is the customary process.

Mostly for your info, in case you need back up in the next few weeks.

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Regardless of precedent or War Powers Act, the Constitution is clear: Congress declares war.

Are we at war in Libya? I don’t know, but I suspect the founders would consider war to be the clash of armies or navies (and in modern terms, include air forces).

So, perhaps we aren’t technically at war (yet?).

mockmook on March 20, 2011 at 6:41 PM

One has to wonder, exactly what does Soetoro have to do to warrant impeachment?

The bar is set so high, only Satan himself could possibly reach it.

Rebar on March 20, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Hey, Sharrukin, wrt the last part about the report (and by extension, getting authorization after the fact) I happened to be reading Volokh Conspiracy just now and Somin (discussing this subject)

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Thanks for that.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_09-2007_09_15.shtml#1189716517

or enjoyed strong congressional support without a prior formal vote, though often there was an authorizing vote after the fact (Korea, both Lebanon interventions, Grenada, Somalia, Haiti).

I wonder how long after the fact those authorizing votes took place?

My understanding is that each president has legally maintained that the War Powers Act does NOT limit their actions but have tended to follow it anyway.

I suspect that Obama won’t have much trouble getting authorization but we shall see. I certainly would like to see this question cleared up. This is something that the Supreme Court should have addressed long ago.

We live in interesting times.

sharrukin on March 20, 2011 at 6:48 PM

One has to wonder, exactly what does Soetoro have to do to warrant impeachment?

The bar is set so high, only Satan himself could possibly reach it.

Rebar on March 20, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Hey, he could murder someone on live TV and the Democrats would give him a pass. Look at how they treat Bill Clinton-the man committed a felony crime in office, and they still treat him like a rock star nearly 15 years after the crime. What a country!

Del Dolemonte on March 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Perhaps we won’t be at war until or unless Libya attempts to fight back against our navy or air force.

But, then we will be at war without Congressional authority.

Just another reason that Congress should have had to approve this mission before we undertook it.

mockmook on March 20, 2011 at 6:54 PM

It might be a good idea to take moment to reflect on the outcome of the two most recent examples of a President taking military action against a sovereign nation without specific Congressional approval: Reagen in Lebanon and Clinton in the former Yugoslavia. Lebanon result: disaster when the Marine barracks was bombed and the US withdrew in defeat. In Yugo – well, we’re still there and all that’s been achieved is establishing Kosovo as a Muslim European nation – one of whose nationals just murdered US servicemen in Germany. The best we can hope for in this ill advised endeavor is that it ends no worse than those outings.

Hucklebuck on March 20, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Hey, he could murder someone on live TV and the Democrats would give him a pass.

Del Dolemonte on March 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM

That’s a given, the real sad thing is – so would the republicans, too afraid of “bad press”, as if they get anything but anyway.

Rebar on March 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Dave742 – The Left is not “unable to responds” it simply won’t do so out of Obama love. That’s a big difference.

Hucklebuck on March 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Yes, he should be impeached for campaigning against this exact thing, even said so when it came to the Iranians, he should be impeached for being a hypocrite and a liar.

tinkerthinker on March 20, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Even the great Constitutional scholar Michael Moore has attacked Obama over this:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/michael-moore-attacks-obama-over-libya

jdawg on March 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Guys, not the first time that we had been to Lybia. Heck is almost a tradition for us to go the the shores of Tripoli. :)

El Coqui on March 20, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Democrats catching impeachment fever?

As opposed to eligibility fever?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on March 20, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

This is absolutely asinine to the point of being laughable! Since when do these democrat idiots give a d*** wether anything is constitutional?!!!!

Susanboo on March 20, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Oops! I mean “Whether” Forgot to preview!

Susanboo on March 20, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Is anyone (even these nutjobs) who is calling for impeachment seriously ready for President Joe Biden?

Biden the Buffoon was specifically chosen by Obama as his running mate for THAT purpose: Impeachment Insurance. He knew no one in their right mind would want that blithering idiot as President and was fully aware what he intended to do was patently Unconstitutional.

A stroke of minor brilliance, actually. (He said begrudgingly)

PJ Emeritus on March 21, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Obama got permission from the UN, therefore in his (Constitutional scholar) mind, it’s legal to initiate military action without Congress’ approval. Universal (UN) law trumps the US Constitution, doncha’ know?

Geministorm on March 21, 2011 at 10:56 AM

You have to wonder sometimes if Dennis Kucinich is Ohio’s way to pulling what amounts to the ultimate practical joke on the rest of the country.

pilamaye on March 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM

No fly zones are stupid. There are only 2 outcomes:

1 – it ends, and the people its designed to protect are killed at a later date.

2 – it doesn’t end, and it becomes a money pit that no one wants to continue; which forces #1 or a full blown invasion to end the reason for it in the first place.

This is exactly the crap that happened in Iraq. We had a no-fly zone for 10 years or something. It cost us nearly a trilion dollars over that period of time to keep ongoing. No one wanted to continue it, so the decision was either end it (ethnic cleansing here we come) or take Saddam out. The latter was the better choice.

lorien1973 on March 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM

And secondly, why are we protecting these libyans anyways? From what I understand, some of these people are islamic extremists; the same people we want to kill elsewhere in the world. It makes no sense.

Its far better to let everyone kill each other over there; they don’t bother us that way.

lorien1973 on March 21, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Democrats catching impeachment fever?

The terms, hoisting and petard, come to mind.

Speakup on March 21, 2011 at 1:20 PM

You have to wonder sometimes if Dennis Kucinich is Ohio’s way to pulling what amounts to the ultimate practical joke on the rest of the country.

pilamaye on March 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM

No, actually he’s our biggest national embarrassment. And considering he is in the company of Ted Strickland (who just got back from playing sock puppet for SEIU in Wisconsin), Lee Fisher (who loaned Ted to SEIU after having his own hand up his back for four years), and Sherrod Brown (who makes Jimmy Carter look almost… conscious), that’s a fairly high bar to get over.

However, I don’t have to apologize for Dennis the Menace. Since I’m down here in Fairfield County southeast of Columbus, the state capital, and he’s up in Cuyahoga County on Lake Erie, all I have to worry about is voting against the little weasel every time he runs for Governor, or Senator, or something like that.

cheers

eon

eon on March 21, 2011 at 4:46 PM

FYI,
What War Powers Does the President Have?
Dahlia LithwickPosted Thursday, Sept. 13, 2001, at 6:37 PM ET

George W. BushPresident George W. Bush characterizes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as “acts of war.” What legal and constitutional powers does the president have to declare war or to launch a military action against the terrorists?
PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND…REPRINTSSINGLE PAGE

Declaring War
The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power “to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal.” But Article II, Section 2 provides that “The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” While it’s clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don’t always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.

Declaring Less Than War
In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon’s prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.

Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to “use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council’s resolutions passed in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.” The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to “restore international peace and security in that area,” so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.

Shoot To Kill?
Executive Order 12,333 prohibits assassination. This does not have the force of law but is merely a presidential pronouncement that can be repealed, modified, or suspended at any time by the president himself. As of last night, Congress was openly discussing ending the moratorium on assassinations.

International Law
The U.N. charter was ratified by the Senate, and as such the president is bound by its terms. Nevertheless, the attacks on New York and Virginia are clearly war crimes under the U.N. definition. Moreover, Article 51 of the U.N. charter provides for the “inherent right … of self-defense if an armed attack occurs.” NATO also took steps toward approving military action yesterday, by invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, authorizing the use of force if it’s determined that this was attack from abroad against the United States.
.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies
and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Col.John Wm. Reed on March 21, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Obama got permission from the UN, therefore in his (Constitutional scholar) mind, it’s legal to initiate military action without Congress’ approval. Universal (UN) law trumps the US Constitution, doncha’ know?

Geministorm on March 21, 2011 at 10:56 AM
.
Ah No, this is a Hildabeast move, no doubt engineered by Slick behind the scenes in NYC.

Col.John Wm. Reed on March 21, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Since we are members we can pack heat and the UN will bless TEXAS, as if we need that?
Of course it might take us a couple of years to get the word back to the UN if at all.
Where is Katy when we need her?
24 Oct. 1945
Article 51
of the Charter of the United Nations

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Last updated: 01-Oct-2009 15:42

Col.John Wm. Reed on March 21, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Hey Dennis! Go ahead and introduce the bill. Watsa’ matter? You’re afraid it might pass? Bwaaaaaaahhhaaaa!

Mr. Grump on March 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2