Should Obama now be impeached?

[BJJ-Blue]

Obama himself makes the greatest argument for his own impeachment:

“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 Dec 20, 2007

“In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.” Barack Obama Dec 20, 2007

In a followup question in its December 2007 interview, the Boston Globe asked Obama if the Constitution gave the president the power to disregard a congressional statute putting some type of limit on the way troops could be deployed. Here, too, Obama deferred to the constitutional authority of Congress.

“No, the President does not have that power,” Obama told the paper. “To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”

Source:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...ave-power-unde

Dennis Kucinch (D-OH) thinks so too:

"Here it is, and I'm gonna read this and then I'll tell you who said it. "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." Now, that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20th, 2007. We've got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and President Obama didn't do that."

And so does ultra-leftist Ralph Nader:

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts, that the Obama administration is committing war crimes -- and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."

I give Nader and Kucinch props for being consistant here. Of course you do have to marvel at the audacity of the community organizer though.

[wenshu]

u·ni·lat·er·al/
Adjective: (of an action or decision) Performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others: "unilateral nuclear disarmament"

The Council then adopted resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions

[goju]

i would like to see him get the boot

[David Jamieson]

Obama himself makes the greatest argument for his own impeachment:

how so? you never did add that part.

“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 Dec 20, 2007

That is indeed correct as it is written. In short, he says the president doesn't have the power to declare war where there is no threat to the american nation.

“In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.” Barack Obama Dec 20, 2007

....again he is correct and his sentiment is noble as well.

In a followup question in its December 2007 interview, the Boston Globe asked Obama if the Constitution gave the president the power to disregard a congressional statute putting some type of limit on the way troops could be deployed. Here, too, Obama deferred to the constitutional authority of Congress.

“No, the President does not have that power,” Obama told the paper. “To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”

Ok, I follow. So, what is wrong with that?

Source:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...ave-power-unde

ok

Dennis Kucinch (D-OH) thinks so too:

"Here it is, and I'm gonna read this and then I'll tell you who said it. "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." Now, that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20th, 2007. We've got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and President Obama didn't do that."

How did he not follow teh constitution? How about some context?

And so does ultra-leftist Ralph Nader:

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts, that the Obama administration is committing war crimes -- and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."

Nader is anti war and believes that his tax dollar should never be spent on bullets for war that is not entirely defensive.

I give Nader and Kucinch props for being consistant here. Of course you do have to marvel at the audacity of the community organizer though.

Kucinich is a very interesting and very smart man. If I had more context to determine what the point was that Obama faltered on constitutionally to the point of wanting impeachment, then I would listen to that.

Otherwise, this is a bunch of rally call sound bytes with no real context.

[BJJ-Blue]

Man, you're a piece of work.

That is indeed correct as it is written. In short, he says the president doesn't have the power to declare war where there is no threat to the american nation.

No, the community organizer said "military action". In English. He did not say anything about declaring war.

....again he is correct and his sentiment is noble as well.

What?!?!

How did he not follow teh constitution? How about some context?

Context? Hello!!!! Kucinich cited the date the community organizer made the quote! And he also clearly stated how he felt the commnity organizer did not follow the Constitution.

Otherwise, this is a bunch of rally call sound bytes with no real context.

It appears "context" is the buzzword of the day.

Face it, the community organizer has one set of rules for George Bush and another set of rules for himself.

[Drake]

Actually, the President has always had the authority to act. Gulf of Tonkin, folks, was the last great debate we had on this. This is right up there with people calling the invasion of Iraq illegal, and Fmr Pres Bush a war criminal. Read and understand the laws and resolutions. Nothing illegal has been done.

[David Jamieson]

1bad, you never did say how he was doing something wrong.
You merely reiterated that you thought he was.

What exactly is it that he said that is unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment but more importantly than that, because you've quoted the part you believe to be an impeachable offense, why not enlighten me as to why what is said there is impeachable?

[Syn7]

cause he's a community organizer...


he thinks that the UN resolution wasnt enough, he figures congress should have sanctioned it if there wasnt a direct threat to american sovereignty... just a guess, but what else could he mean? traditionally its congress that declares war... but then its easy enough to call this anything but a war... korea and vietnam werent even wars... korea was a police action because they were under the auspices of the UN... and what was it they called the vietnam war? they were there in an advisory capacity or some sh1t like that... shouldnt be too hard to look up tho...


i love how guys like kucinich and nader are only credible to bjjblue when they are supporting his point of view at the moment... next week their opinions will be sh1t again... but today, coz they say something he likes, they are credible... classic...

[BJJ-Blue]

Gotta clear up some misconceptions here.

First off, imo the community organizer should not be impeached. He had every right under the Constitution to do what he did. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. It's his blatant hypocracy I take issue with. He CLEARLY pointed out things Bush did that he felt were not within his power to do, then he did the EXACT same thing! Right or wrong, it's hypocritical.

Second, I never said Kucinich or Nader were not 'credible'. They are both wrong politically, but they are still credible people. Kucinich and Nader are both very honest about who and what they are. Do I usually disagree with them, yes. And this time I still do! That's consistency. I do not feel the community organizer should be impeached, yet those 2 do. Of course according to his own words, the coommunity organizer acted outside the the powers given him under the US Constitution.

[Syn7]

can you name one president that hasnt been a hypocrite??? show me a president and i'll find you one of their bold faced lies... and dont say reagan, coz the only cat with more recorded lies is nixon...

[Drake]

Gotta clear up some misconceptions here.

First off, imo the community organizer should not be impeached. He had every right under the Constitution to do what he did. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. It's his blatant hypocracy I take issue with. He CLEARLY pointed out things Bush did that he felt were not within his power to do, then he did the EXACT same thing! Right or wrong, it's hypocritical.

Second, I never said Kucinich or Nader were not 'credible'. They are both wrong politically, but they are still credible people. Kucinich and Nader are both very honest about who and what they are. Do I usually disagree with them, yes. And this time I still do! That's consistency. I do not feel the community organizer should be impeached, yet those 2 do. Of course according to his own words, the coommunity organizer acted outside the the powers given him under the US Constitution.

Yeah, while not illegal, he DID sort of step on his own poncho there. Gotta be careful what you say, because that sort of stuff can come back to bite ya. Fmr Pres Bush had to make a lot of tough decisions that he knew would be unpopular, and the opposition capitalized on it.

It's not so easy now that you are in the hot seat, is it, Mr. President?

[Syn7]

no matter what youre gonna take heat from the other side... right or wrong, they'll find something to b!tch about...



i was just reading the news... looks like pawlenty is officially exploring a bid now... lol... whatever the fukc that is.... throw ur hat in or stfu... i love how he's using stock getty footage to show his multicultural support... a la newt, haha... that sh1t always makes me laugh... to me, thats almost like lying... republicans and democrats are both so ridiculous for such different reasons... but that pawlenty cat is a halfwitt... i love how as gov he teams up with napolitano to promote green energy and climate change solutions... he called for congress to cap greenhouse gas pollution... now that he's trying to run for potus, of course he's just anti everything green now... hows that for a hypocrite, huh??? heres his driect quote when called on it. "yeah, it was a mistake. it was stupid. i was wrong. i changed my position."... whoops... are we really supposed to believe that he has changed his view for any other reason than to get support from big donors and neo cons??? thats some transparent sh1t right there... and then theres newt, he made that ad with pelosi about climate change... but now that he's kinda sorta running, he calls obamas environmental policies a "war on american energy"... strong words for somebody that went on tv and said otherwise not so long ago...


IMO obama is one of the worst presidents in history... the only thing that needs to be figured out at this point is whether he's a manipulative lying sack of sh1t, or just a pathetic gutless no backbone having sad excuse for a man... either way, they guy is a huge failure...

[David Jamieson]

Near as I can tell, hypocrisy is not grounds for impeachment and is the hallmark of all politicians.

[Syn7]

blue said he was a hypocrite but shouldnt be impeached... and kucinich didnt say he should be impeached but didnt say it was for hypocracy...

im not feeling your response DJ... aside from the hypocracy being the norm part...

[David Jamieson]

This thread = noise:signal = 1:0

I don't think Obama should be impeached. There's no grounds for it really reading through this stuff.

..seems like an empty bun just thrown out there to generate words like "impeach" at the same time as "Obama". lol