http://www.sott.net/article/265777-Impeachment-congress-fires-opening-shot-across-Obamas-bow


John Walsh
Information Clearing House
Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:30 CDT
Print

"Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in "hostilities." In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:..."President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya - which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration - without prior congressional authorization.'"

"We view the precedent this opinion sets, where "national interest" is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional."

Text from letter of Rep. Scott Regall (R, VA) to Pres. Obama
Signed by 140 Reps, including 21 Democrats

The letter of Scott Regall (1) to Barak Obama has exploded on the scene with its opening words:

"We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

"While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate - and the active engagement of Congress - prior to committing U.S. military assets. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution."

With these perhaps historic words the Congress has begun to claw back its Constitutional right to decide issues of war and peace. Significantly the letter comes from a Republican lawmaker, and it is clearly a tribute to the leadership of the libertarians in the Republican Party, most notably Ron Paul, Justin Amash and Rand Paul.

But the situation is grave enough, possibly leading on to a World War, that 21 Democrats have challenged the President and their Party bosses to sign the statement. They are moving beyond partisanship as Ron Paul did in challenging George W. Bush on the war on Iraq.

If that were all that the letter said, it would be momentous enough. But the statement goes further and labels Obama's cruel war on Libya as "unconstitutional," because it was done without so much as a nod to Congress. In the end no lawyer and no court, not even the Supreme Court, can overrule Congress when it decides what to do when it considers a serious presidential action as "unconstitutional." In Libya Obama usurped the powers of Congress. If Congress takes the next step and determines that such an action rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," then it is an impeachable offense.

It is not hard to see the implications of the warning to Obama that the Representatives are issuing in raising Libya. If Obama attacks Syria, that will be the second offense, greatly strengthening the case for impeachment.

The implied threat of impeachment is of utmost importance because the President, long become an Emperor, will heed no warning unless it is backed by threat of punishment.

So far so good. But unfortunately Rep. Barbara Lee did not sign Rigell's letter but instead drafted another and circulated it (2). Crucially this letter carried no mention of the Libyan war and the violation of the Constitution it represented. It garnered an additional 22 signatures, all Democrats, over and above those who signed onto Rigell's letter. (At least one Republican Congressman's office stated that they received no Dear Colleague letter from Lee on her letter so perhaps it went only to Dems.) This is very disturbing since back in the day of the Iraq war, Barbara Lee led resistance to Bush and backed John Conyers's promise of a impeachment hearings for Bush in 2006, a promise Conyers promptly broke on getting re-elected. Now in the age of Obama, is Lee changing from an opponent of war into a partisan hack? This writer contacted Lee's Washington and California offices seeking clarification. But the staff was unwilling to comment and the communications staffer did not return either an email or phone call.

In one way Obama's assault on Libya and now on Syria is worse than George W. Bush's war on Iraq. Bush at least took the time to lie to Congress. But such a lie to Congress is an indictable offense, and the lie is easily demonstrable if Congress marshals the likes of a Watergate hearing. So an impeachment move against Obama is also an opening for a move to indict Bush. And perhaps the unconstitutional assaults of Clinton on Sudan and Yugoslavia will be revisited. One can only hope.

It is time for all antiwarriors to champion the idea of impeachment and push for it now. The slogan might well be, "Impeach Obama. Indict Bush." It will not happen unless we demand it. And if we do not, we are acquiescing to endless war and possible disaster for the world.

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com - He is a founding member of ComeHomeAmerica. The CHA statement of opposition to the Syrian intervention can be seen at the web site just cited.

(1) Rep. Scott Regall's letter
(2) Rep. Barbara Lee's letter


Comment: What if enough Americans contacted their representatives NOW, and demanded that Obama be impeached (and Bush indicted) for his crimes against humanity, which he perpetuates in their names, when in fact the American people are against such bloody wars and tired of being hated around the world for their president's unconscionable actions. Who knows, maybe hundreds and thousands of lives will be saved!

-- Even if Obama gets Congress' approval to strike Syrian targets, he might still violate international law. Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a president can initiate an attack as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. But that's a U.S. law. The United Nations' charter generally doesn't allow countries to attack other nations unless in self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council -- neither of which is the case in Syria.

-- Congressional approval wouldn't solve the problem with international law, a senior administration official said, but it would enhance the legitimacy of military action.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/02/world/syria-developments/

Russia - which, alongside China, supports the Syrian government - has challenged the US to present its evidence, with President Vladimir Putin describing claims the government was behind the attack as "utter nonsense".

Russian officials instead suggest Syrian rebels were behind the attack to try to provoke the international community to respond with military action.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399

Why is it, Russian logic makes sense and Hussein logic comes across like a snake oil sales pitch?

Look what Horsey-Face had to say!

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/kerry-obama-attacking-syria-he-has-right-do-no-matter-what-congress

Kerry on Obama Attacking Syria: 'He Has Right to Do That No Matter What Congress Does'


(CNSNews.com) - On three national television programs on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry repeated an argument President Barack Obama had made on Saturday when Obama announced that he wanted Congress to authorize him to use military force in Syria.

The president does not need authorization from Congress to initiate acts of war, Kerry said.

“He has the right to do that no matter what Congress does,” Kerry said on CNN’s “State of the Union. “That is his right and he asserted that in his comments yesterday.”

“The President has the right and he has asserted that right that he could do what’s necessary to protect the national security of the United States at any point in time,” said Kerry.

The secretary of state made the same argument on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I said that the President has the authority to act, but the Congress is going to do what’s right here,” Kerry told host David Gregory.

Kerry also made the argument on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopouos."

“The President has the right--as you know, George,” said Kerry. “The President of the United States has the right to take this action, doesn’t have to go to Congress, but he does so with the belief – and this is why I think it’s courageous--the president knows that America is stronger when we act in unity.”

In a speech delivered in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday, Obama first said that he had decided to take military action in Syria. Then he said that he had also decided to seek congressional authorization for that action. Then he said that he did not need congressional authorization, and could unilaterally order the U.S. military to take action in Syria without congressional authorization.

“Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Obama said in his Saturday speech.

Then Obama said: “I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.”

Then Obama said: “Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

When the Constitutional Convention considered the constitutional language governing the war power in August 1787, the draft language presented to the convention said that “Congress shall have the power … to make war…”

According to the notes of the convention that James Madison kept that day, Elbridge Gerry and Madison himself "moved to insert 'declare,' striking out 'make' war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks."

Roger Sherman of Connecticut agreed with this language, saying the “Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.”

Gerry himself said he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war;” and George Mason indicated his support for the Madison-Gerry amendment, saying he “was agst giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it.”

George Washington, who commanded the American army during the revolution and who presided over the Constitutional Convention, governed according to Madison’s and Gerry’s understanding of the constitutional language they had proposed—and that the convention had approved and the states had ratified—when he served as the nation's first commander in chief.

Washington did not believe the Constitution authorized the president to order military action without congressional authorization unless it was necessary to “repel sudden attacks.”

“The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress,” President Washington wrote in 1793, “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."

After Obama gave his speech on Saturday saying that he would seek congressional authorization to attack Syria--while insisting he did not need congressional authorization to attack Syria--the House Republican leadership (including House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and House Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rogers) issued a statement saying that "the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress."

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress," said the Republcan leaders. "We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised. In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people."

Wut da hail?

Sumbudy wan kang Hussein to git permission?

UDDERly absurd!

HARRUMPH!

Senator Ted Cruz is among the Republican lawmakers whose constituents have recently pressured them to impeach President Obama. He said it was "a good question." (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
There’s a hot new idea sweeping the conservative grassroots: impeaching the president.

Republican members of Congress home for the August recess have been pressured by their constituents on the subject at town halls across the country. Indeed, if Democrats thought that President Obama, having produced his original birth certificate and gotten himself easily reelected, might have finally put to rest the right-wing conviction of his illegitimacy, the opposite seems to have occurred: In certain conservative precincts, the determination to oust him is stronger than ever.

At a meeting of a local Republican club in Michigan last week, a woman asked Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, “Who is going to stop Obama from everything that he’s doing against our Constitution?”, while a man chimed in, “Articles of impeachment!” Bentivolio responded, “If I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true. I feel your pain.” But, he said, he didn’t have the evidence.

At a town hall in Texas, Rep. Blake Farenthold was confronted by a constituent with a dossier she said proved Obama’s birth certificate was fraudulent. Farenthold said it’s “a question that I get a lot: If everybody’s so unhappy with what the president’s done, why don’t you impeach him?” The congressman said there were probably enough votes in the House, but impeachment would die in the Senate.

In Muskogee, Oklahoma, the question was posed to Senator Tom Coburn, who said that while he called Obama a “personal friend,” he considered the administration to be lawless and incompetent, and “getting perilously close” to impeachability. In Conroe, Texas, Senator Ted Cruz said a query about impeachment was “a good question,” but just not realistic; he later told National Review, “That’s not a fight we have a prospect of winning.”

The impeachment activists are undeterred by the lawmakers’ reluctance, however. The website overpasses.org records impeachment “rallies” -- often a few people with posters waving at highway traffic from above -- in 17 states.

This week, the movement stands to get a shot in the arm with the release of a new book, Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office. Co-author Aaron Klein, a reporter for the website WorldNetDaily, says preorders of the book by retailers and book clubs were “approaching six figures” prior to its release Tuesday, and the publisher plans to deliver copies to the offices of members of Congress shortly after they return to Washington on September 9.

WND is known for its pursuit of the birth-certificate non-issue, but Klein, a radio host whose other books include The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists, said no space is devoted to birtherism in his book. Its aim, despite the title, is not to advocate impeachment, he claims, but to dispassionately lay out the potential grounds. “I’m trying to present the case journalistically and allow the public to decide,” he said in an interview. “I personally think, yes, there is a strong case for impeachment proceedings on multiple fronts.”

Klein insists this is not a partisan endeavor -- he calls himself an independent and quotes the ACLU and the lefty antiwar group Code Pink in his book, which focuses on alleged overreaches of executive authority. “This is about individual liberty. It’s about the rule of law,” he said. “It’s about whether the separation of powers means anything or not.” While Klein wasn’t on the case when George W. Bush was in office, he says many of the Obama Administration’s alleged national-security offenses might have applied then, too.

For now, the impeachment movement is too fringe even for the likes of Cruz, the capitol's chief boat-rocker. But I was curious: What does Klein’s case for impeachment consist of? There’s a lot in the book, he told me, but he gave a few examples. The constitutional standard for impeachment is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Klein's claims fall under the second two categories.

* Obamacare: Klein describes a number of arguments involving the health-care legislation, with the crux being that Obama committed a crime against his office by bypassing Congress in some way. "An obvious response is that the healthcare legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court," he noted. "But the book reports the White House has been hard at work changing the implementation of key sections of Obamacare without Congressional oversight."

* Immigration: Did Obama’s executive orders and interagency directives usurp Congress’s legislative authority? “President Obama has bypassed Congress, which has legislative authority for setting immigration policy in America,” Klein says. Last summer’s temporary reprieve for young undocumented immigrants, for example, “seems to be de facto amnesty without congressional approval.”

* Benghazi: In the attack last fall that killed four diplomatic workers, Klein sees a new version of the Iran-Contra scandal, claiming his original reporting has uncovered arms trafficking that wound up in the hands of al-Qaeda fighters.

* Fast and Furious: “I would think it would be very easy to argue that sending weapons deliberately with the intention of getting them in the hands of the drug cartels is a very clear violation [of the law], especially since it resulted in the murder of a U.S. border agent.”

* Surveillance: Klein claims to have uncovered much of the expansive surveillance regime that’s now coming to light; his book went to press before NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden went public.

* The Libya campaign: “There’s a chapter that questions whether the entire campaign was unconstitutional. We don’t conclude it was or wasn’t; we present both sides of the debate.”

* Bribery: “There are a lot of questions about stimulus-bill money that went to campaign donors. There’s money that went to different green companies that some of the top leaders then popped up as members of the Obama administration.”

Klein says its careful, investigative, nonpartisan approach distinguishes his book from the various Tea Party email forwards and impeachment petitions that offer a laundry list of conspiracy theories. His book even debunks some claims, such as the allegation that the Department of Homeland Security is buying ammunition in bulk.

To the Obama Administration, such claims are simply further proof of the wild-eyed intransigence the president faces. To Republican lawmakers who’d like to present a constructive face for the party, they’re a nuisance. But Klein’s book is only likely to bolster the conviction of the impeachment-seeking conservative grassroots. The passion for ousting Obama may be here to stay.


www.TheAtlantic.com

i think the "race" and "republican" cards have been worn out as excuses, people are starting to see the true barry...

Thank you, Ms Toodygirl5.

That was a great article.

Hopefully, Congress will act soon to impeach.

Well done.

Impeachment: Not



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

Monday, Aug 19, 2013 11:43 AM UTC


GOP’s secret fear: House majority is in trouble
Top Republicans are increasingly concerned that their unpopularity and incompetence could soon cost them the House
By Brian Beutler


John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Michele Bachmann (Credit: AP/Susan Walsh/Reuters/Jonathan Ernst/Joshua Lott)

If you listened closely last week, you heard the unmistakable sound of the air of certainty seeping out of a bubble of conventional wisdom. For months — in some cases, years — political junkies have held the notion that the GOP’s House majority was semi-permanent as an article of faith. Times change.

After the elections in November, the GOP’s hold on the House was almost universally thought to be unshakable, at least in the coming midterms, possibly through the end of the decade. Republicans had used the huge gains they made in 2010 to redraw the congressional map in a way that made their majority immune from referendum. Democrats won the popular vote for the House by over a million ballots in 2012 and didn’t come close to recapturing it. The economy could soar, Republicans could spiral out of control, and the Democrats would still have a hard time winning back the House before the next census in 2020.

Nothing’s changed about the map in the past 10 months, and the country’s as polarized as ever. But suddenly Republicans aren’t so confident that their majority is all that durable. Or to put it less charitably, the party worries it’s so rudderless and unpopular that it might blow what everyone believed to be a rigged game much sooner than expected.

In three different stories, four reporters with strong Republican sourcing detected a specter of doubt haunting the GOP. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York distilled it most clearly.

“Behind the scenes — in whispered asides, not for public consumption — some Republicans are now worried that keeping the House is not such a done deal after all,” he wrote. “They look back to two elections, 1998 and 2006, in which Republicans seriously underperformed expectations, and they wonder if 2014 might be a little like those two unhappy years.”

Expectations-setting is a timeless sport in politics, and everyone who covers politics knows it when they hear or read it. An aide breathlessly bemoans the odds against his candidate, the candidate mumbles that his debate opponent is a silver-tongued prince of the spoken word.

None of these stories has that quality. They all betray genuine anxiety about the party’s inability to extend its appeal beyond an impassioned but isolated conservative constituency, and the internal problems that have prevented Republicans from executing an agenda or otherwise demonstrating the capability of governing.



www,salon.com

So. Which one did you REALLLLY mean to post?

Both! Many are wishful thinking about Impeachment, so far
have Not enough to do that.

The passion for ousting Obama may be here to stay.

'He Has Right to Do That No Matter What Congress Does'



Okay Obama, put on your fatigues and boots and go on over there and shoot someone.

Just don't ask anyone else to do it.

There aren't enough votes.

All of this talk about impeachment is futile.

Do the people who demand impeachment even understand what it is?

An impeachment is a political indictment, a formal accusation by a political body that a public official has done something worth of being removed from office.

An impeachment by itself does not remove anyone from public office. Bill Clinton was impeached, and yet, he remained POTUS until his second term expired.