Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama impeachment bill now in Congress
WND ^ | March 10, 2012 | Drew Zahn

Posted on 03/11/2012 1:40:07 PM PDT by RobinMasters

Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: drudge; foreigncontrol; impeachment; nwo; un; warpowers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 last
To: capt. norm

“Voting him out is faster, neater and won’t cause too much fuss.”

Really? At the moment, the odds of that are NOT looking good.

But it’s certain we can’t survive a second term of the Wan.


61 posted on 03/11/2012 11:13:59 PM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Clinton was impeached by the House, but the Senate didn’t support it.


62 posted on 03/11/2012 11:17:10 PM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: llandres

Correct because Clinton had been convicted of a crime.


63 posted on 03/12/2012 7:10:52 AM PDT by svcw (CLEAN WATER & Education http://www.longlostsis.com/PI/MayanHelp2012.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: llandres; All

“So I ask - what are ALL these Repubs so afraid of??? This is our republic at stake - and don’t they realize that most of their constituents are crying out for something to be done to stop BHO???”

Their salaries and perks are HUGE.....their pensions INSANE!
Face it.....they arranged for themselves to become The Ruling Class.....they no longer care about us. 4 or 5 good men out of hundreds won’t cut it!


64 posted on 03/12/2012 9:20:39 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; sickoflibs; BillyBoy

That pus bag.

Anyway, I would surmise this is just a stunt by the RINO to further his primary chances.


65 posted on 03/13/2012 3:50:33 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; MitchellC; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; RygelXVI

Oops, I meant that the *1992* lines were declared unconstitutional (and judges drew new lines for 1994).


66 posted on 03/13/2012 5:33:40 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson