Bill introduced. Acts of war without congress' approval impeachable high crime

Bill introduced. Acts of war withou congress' approval impeachable high crime

thomas.loc.gov

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against th

(visit the link for the full news article)

Help me get this bill to go viral. Likely it won't work retroactively against Obama, but we need this bill to prevent a new Libya style debacle.

We do not vote for the UN, why should they have an authority to direct our men and women in the armed services.

This came after panetta's treasonous comments that they only need the international communities say so, and that they can choose whether or not to even consult congress.

I don't have Facebook, but this needs to be plastered all over it. People need to call their representatives and senators (as I have) to stress that if they don't want to become ceremonial, they need to support this bill

If they can declare war without congress, what else are they capable of?

thomas.loc.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)

FINALLY SOMETHING GOOD!!!!!!!!!!

So happy right now

But it probably won't pass, knowing our congress.

This is all bullcrap. We do not need a law to do this, it is an utter waste of time and money. We already have the infrastructure in place to handle things like this, it is called The Constitution. Enforce it damnit!!!!

Finally a good bill that actually makes sense. Wish this was in place during the Clinton and Bush years.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


If they care about their power, or truly believe in "checks and balances" this needs to be passed.
The fact that we have to introduce legislation reiterating what is already law speaks volumes.

This is great news, and it must be passed. The ball is in their court now, we'll see what happens

reply to post by Skewed


I totally agree. It's law, we shouldn't need this bill, but apparently we do. I'll stand behind it because there are tomes upon tomes of pointless laws. This one is actually a good one


i]reply to post by JesusChryslerSupercar

Bush got congressional approval. He didn't do it because the UN and security council told him to. Whole different issue, good try though

reply to post by Monsatan


I agree this needs to be passed. But since you deemed it necessary to take a stab at Obama for Lybia, its only fair I remind you that George W Bush was guilty on more occasions than Obama of the same.

Now here is a bill in Congress that I can get behind! Hmm... Sounds like I'll be making phone calls and sending Emails again on the off chance this gains traction and goes anywhere.

Of course it then has to pass round 2 and a Presidential Veto Override with the current crop of members and party control. Should be interesting...but I will sure be a cheerleader for it!

reply to post by Monsatan

Nice catch!
(S&F)

Will look to see if this grows legs!

I have my doubts, however. Congress has as much backbone as a pureed jellyfish.

on the longshot it did actually pass... is anyone stupid enough to actually believe it would be enforced and the criminals in office removed and put on trial for their crimes against humanity.

just one more way to sucker the fools and idiots to support the wars and send their kids off to murder and die for the state...

Congress has all the power it needs to stop this already. Another law is not necessary. What is necessary is a Congress with the balls to utilize it's already formidable powers. Those powers? The purse-strings.

The President does have the power, as commander in chief, to wage a war. Congress has the power to stop him by cutting off funding...

This proposed law does nothing save add further bloat to an already overly bloated book of laws.

I doubt this would get past the Supreme Court, as it directly attacks the Presidents roll as Commander in Chief.

reply to post by JesusChryslerSupercar


I don't find myself in a position defending Bush very often, nor do I enjoy it but technically, he did consult congress each time. Congress did not declare war but they did give him permission. I don't support what Bush did and you may think I am splitting hairs but I think it is important to know the difference in what Obama has done.

Obama is the first president to not only not even consult congress to go to war but explicitly deny the fact that he even has to go to congress for any authority. Now all that is needed is a UN resolution or a NATO decision. Obama has taken Bush's example and gone about a mile further. I remember Obama saying he in part, didn't consult congress because he wanted to legitimize the UN and UN authority.

I don't give either a pass and it is not about left/right. They are both screwing us. Keeping points on who is worse isn't helping anyone. They are both evil and doing wrong, it is important to know exactly why though.

It is called incrementalism... each puppet president takes it a step farther.

For anybody that hasn't seen it yet, this is the video where Gen. Dempsey & Leon Panetta’s testimony prompted Walter Jones to introduce this bill:



Start at 3:27 to hear Panetta on whether they need any Congressional approval.

It gave me chills. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I mean, I knew they thought that way but to admit it? Wow. Just shows how little they are really worried that anybody will do anything to stop them.

Originally posted by seagull
Congress has all the power it needs to stop this already. Another law is not necessary. What is necessary is a Congress with the balls to utilize it's already formidable powers. Those powers? The purse-strings.

The President does have the power, as commander in chief, to wage a war. Congress has the power to stop him by cutting off funding...

This proposed law does nothing save add further bloat to an already overly bloated book of laws.

I doubt this would get past the Supreme Court, as it directly attacks the Presidents roll as Commander in Chief.

yes but i believe they have to wait 60 or 90 days to cut funding, so this bill may actually do some good.

Originally posted by seagull
Congress has all the power it needs to stop this already. Another law is not necessary. What is necessary is a Congress with the balls to utilize it's already formidable powers. Those powers? The purse-strings.

The President does have the power, as commander in chief, to wage a war. Congress has the power to stop him by cutting off funding...

This proposed law does nothing save add further bloat to an already overly bloated book of laws.

I doubt this would get past the Supreme Court, as it directly attacks the Presidents roll as Commander in Chief.

Would you like to write a letter with me and put into question their intestinal fortitude regarding this matter?

reply to post by Skewed


I didn't say they would... I said they have the power... There is a difference.

Not a one of them serving in Congress have the political will to buck the President... Those days are gone, and have been gone since the nineteenth century. Early nineteenth century. When Hamilton, Madison, etc... were still alive and kicking... Their likes are not among us these days...though some, such as Gingrich have deluded themselves into believing they are Madison reborn.

ETA: I'll be happy to write the letter with you, though... Who knows, right? They might actually be embarrassed enough to actually act...

Though that seems unlikely...

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


I believe you are correct...it is ninety days, I think. To give a President leeway to act, but not unilaterally for the length of an actual war...

reply to post by seagull


Wrong, he cannot declare war. He cannot even sign treaties without the senates consent with a 2/3 vote

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

www.usconstitution.net...

And for the war powers act (which says the president cannot wage war as well without approval) this is still on the books, but doesn't say the president can be impeached for breaking this resolution, as this new bill says


en.wikipedia.org...

You can screem impeachable, high crime, and treason all you like but until americans are ready to risk life and limb as they have done in the past to make sure the law is upheld then it's all hot air.

Look how bankers are allowed to get away with murder today and leave americans to pick up the bill or Bush and his WMD lies without even looking at 9/11

Voting red, blue, black white or pink is not going to change a dam thing, your at the right weight for the market so please line up and get aboard the lorry else I'll have to send my dog to speed you all up before any little sheep starts to think about a stamped.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

While seemingly a good bill this will never pass. Neither party is going to be willing to hamstring future Presidents with this. Probably intended to curtail further saber rattling with Iran which is a good idea. But once you take into consideration that of the four Republican primary candidates three have all but promised war with Iran it becomes clear this will fail to have the support necessary to override a Presidential veto. A veto which is sure to happen because a sitting President is not going to be for limiting the Executive branch.

reply to post by Master_007


And you can scream violent revolution all you want, but the ignorant masses will turn against you claiming homegrown terrorism because they don't know who the real "bad guys" are

Baby steps mate

reply to post by KeliOnyx

Then the congress hamstrings themselves. Maybe if they see that they will lose their power, they will think about passing it. Or maybe we will just continue to hamstring the constitution and eventually end up with a dictator with no regard to law and people will forget that at one time the president did not have the power to do whatever strikes his fancy. Maybe they will even forget the meaning of checks and balances