Kucinich Wants to Impeach Another President; Guess Which One
posted at 2:38 pm on March 20, 2011 by Howard Portnoy
If there has been a constant theme running through the first two years of the Obama presidency it is the administration’s abiding disdain for the Constitution, which it seems to view as a troubling, antiquated irrelevance. When the Attorney General issued a directive to his department that they treat white victims of voter intimidation differently from cases involving “his people,” the administration didn’t bat an eyelash.
The president—himself a former lecturer on constitutional law—has demonstrated little patience with that aging document, which fails to include an “empathy clause” protecting unwed expectant teens while unreasonably (in his view) continuing to grant American citizens the right to bear arms.
One has to wonder, therefore, why liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives are up in arms (bad metaphor choice) over Obama’s latest constitutional override in ordering missile strikes against Libya without congressional authorization. A group that includes such hard-left members as Jerrold Nadler (NY), Maxine Waters (CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Barbara Lee (CA) took part in a conference call on Saturday in which they voiced strenuous objections to these actions. Kucinich, arguably the most radical of the bunch, went so far as to broach the subject of impeachment.
The call came after the Pentagon reported that U.S. warships had fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli.
The organizer of the call was Rep. John Larson (CT), fourth-highest ranking Democrat, who stated:
They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress. They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground … [when] there are Tomahawks in the air.
The White House for its part has struggled feverishly to put out a cohesive narrative over the last 48 hours portraying Obama as gradually recognizing a need for decisive action against Muammar Gaddafi and his forces after initially opposing any involvement in a Libyan campaign. It may prove to be a hard sell with so much having been written about Obama’s week-long catatonia in the face of a Libyan humanitarian crisis, especially now that so many of his first-round picks in the NCAA are losing.
The question for those House members opposed to the Libyan airstrikes is what, if anything, they can do to pull the plug on the operation. One possibility is to draft an amendment requiring withdrawal of U.S. forces within 60 days if the president lacks congressional approval under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but such a bill would be unlikely to pass.
In the meantime, there is growing unrest among Democrats on Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan conflict. Alienating his liberal base could be a thorn in the president’s side as he gears up for his 2012 reelection campaign.
- BREAKING: U.N. resolution to impose Libyan no-fly zone passes
- Obama’s next move on Libya could make or break his presidency
- Obama votes “present” on crises in Japan, Libya, at home
- The “Empathy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution
- Explosive hate-filled video suggests Justice Department bias in voter intimidation case
Recently in the Green Room:
- Real question: Does Obama’s budget fund overseas abortions to protect endangered animals?
- Photo of the day: Crimea now belongs to Russia, at least on Russian propaganda TV
- Vatican: Pope Francis wasn’t talking about same-sex relationships; Update: “Civil unions” explained
- RNC ad: Crying infant greets Obama’s new debt-laden budget
- Update: Grayson dismisses ‘erratic’ wife after abuse allegation