Its time to Impeach Obama.

[QUOTE="Acemaster27"]Its funny when those who normally favor war are suddenly against it when Obama decides to go to war.rcafan

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] :lol: No, Obama is in no way doing what Bush did...DroidPhysX

Lol? Bush launched a full out invasion....

Yes, he sent soldiers, it was an invasion. And he got approval from congress to use that military action. Obama is using military action, but he didn't get approval from congress. Even Democrats are going against what he did

Since WWII, congress has essentially deferred to the white house when it comes to engaging in war. I was watching Mitch McConnell (who is not the biggest Obama fan) talk about Libya a few weeks ago, and he was asked about what he thought the U.S. should, and he basically said that he had no issue with trusting Obama to make the right call on the situation.-Sun_Tzu-

This is a pretty true statement.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="superfive9"]

But Bush got congressional approval, Obama is doing the same thing Bush did (only not as big) and the only difference is that Bush got approval from congress to go to Iraq and Afghanistan

superfive9

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Out of curiosity, what is the section of the Constitution in question?

GabuEx

Article 1, Section 8.

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Article 1, Section 8.

Oleg_Huzwog

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] :lol: No, Obama is in no way doing what Bush did...SaintLeonidas

Never said we are invading Libya. And it is military action by the US, we are destroying Libyan anti-air defenses, we've launched missiles into their land. I support it and support Obama's decision, but he should've gotten permmission from congress

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Article 1, Section 8.

Oleg_Huzwog

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

Congress also confirms supreme court justices. But Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the Supreme Court Justice during Congressional recess. How come they didnt impeach Eisenhower?

This decision was made by the United Nations Security Council. Not the United States.

This decision was made by the United Nations Security Council. Not the United States.

broken_bass_bin

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

[QUOTE="broken_bass_bin"]

This decision was made by the United Nations Security Council. Not the United States.

DroidPhysX

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="superfive9"] He's not sending soldiers there, but he's taking military action against another country. By definition, Bush took military action against another country, but congress approved it

superfive9

Never said we are invading Libya. And it is military action by the US, we are destroying Libyan anti-air defenses, we've launched missiles into their land. I support it and support Obama's decision, but he should've gotten permmission from congress

Since WWII, congress has essentially deferred to the white house when it comes to engaging in war. I was watching Mitch McConnell (who is not the biggest Obama fan) talk about Libya a few weeks ago, and he was asked about what he thought the U.S. should, and he basically said that he had no issue with trusting Obama to make the right call on the situation.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

DroidPhysX

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

Congress also confirms supreme court justices. But Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the Supreme Court Justice during Congressional recess. How come they didnt impeach Eisenhower?

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

Once again he goes against the Constitution by not asking for approval of the congressto take military action against Libya. So why are people not caring exactly?

00-Riddick-00

You've been listening to Michael Savage, eh? I think people use the world "impeach" too much. I've been hearing about how every president should be impeached, from Clinton until now. I'm not a big Obama fan, but don't think he should be impeached. I have a feeling he wont be re-elected...then people can talk about how the next president should be impeached.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

Oleg_Huzwog

Congress also confirms supreme court justices. But Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the Supreme Court Justice during Congressional recess. How come they didnt impeach Eisenhower?

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]

Once again he goes against the Constitution by not asking for approval of the congressto take military action against Libya. So why are people not caring exactly?

Bubble_Man

You've been listening to Michael Savage, eh? I think people use the world "impeach" too much. I've been hearing about how every president should be impeached, from Clinton until now. I'm not a big Obama fan, but don't think he should be impeached. I have a feeling he wont be re-elected...then people can talk about how the next president should be impeached.

why do people even think this? obama has done so many things but people look to do anything to bash him on

Hasn't practically every president for the past half-century done this?

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Congress also confirms supreme court justices. But Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the Supreme Court Justice during Congressional recess. How come they didnt impeach Eisenhower?

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

fidosim

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

So the Supreme court can appoint And confirm its own judges?

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

So the Supreme court can appoint And confirm its own judges?

Out of curiosity, what is the section of the Constitution in question?

GabuEx

Its ridiculous the amount of hate obama gets in OT, kinda like rap music...wonder if there is a link lol

I'm from the UK and obama remains one of the US's only redeeming factor

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

DroidPhysX

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

Uh, no...

• Warren - confirmed by Senate Mar 1, 1954
• Harlan - confirmed by Senate Mar 16, 1955
• Brennan - confirmed by Senate Mar 19, 1957
• Whittaker - confirmed by Senate Mar 19, 1957
• Stewart - confirmed by Senate May 5, 1959

Link

Anyhoo, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Constitutionally, yes.fidosim

Section 2, clause 2:

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.

Looks like someone needs to brush up on constitutional law

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

Oleg_Huzwog

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

Uh, no...

• Warren - confirmed by Senate Mar 1, 1954
• Harlan - confirmed by Senate Mar 16, 1955
• Brennan - confirmed by Senate Mar 19, 1957
• Whittaker - confirmed by Senate Mar 19, 1957
• Stewart - confirmed by Senate May 5, 1959

Link

Anyhoo, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

You said that he didnt get congressional approval for the military strike. Well, presidents dont get congressional approval for ambassadors (i could have sworn for a supreme court justice, but grr) and appoint them to their positions w/o it. Why dont they get impeached?

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm wrong, the president has the power for recess appointments.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

I loath Obama but this is absurd.

BluRayHiDef

Why do you loath Obama?

Unfortunately, people are so used to getting lied to by their politicians that they now expect it.

Not just Obama, but just about every president deserves to get impeached. You don't become the president of the United States by being a good, honest person.

Jeez, a lot of this is PAINFUL to read. Just goes to show why arguing politics is futile because people obviously know little to nothing about law, government, policy, governmental action and foreign policy. There is NO reason right now to impeach Obama. Also, he is by no means a bad president. People just like to be butthurt I suppose.

I'm from the UK and obama remains one of the US's only redeeming factor

Zaibach

Despite giving Russia nuclear secrets of the UK.

But that's a different topic, I don't think Obama should be impeached but I do think there's a porblem of how he took action on Libya

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="broken_bass_bin"]

This decision was made by the United Nations Security Council. Not the United States.

superfive9

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

psychobrew

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

psychobrew

Section 2, clause 2DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

psychobrew

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

And Obama didn't start this war - Qaddafi did.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

SaintLeonidas

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

Pretty much this. I've found that it can sometimes be a mistake to assume that I understand what a person is talking about, and as such I prefer to make sure I know what a person's actual assertion is before replying.

You said that he didnt get congressional approval for the military strike.

DroidPhysX

I also said why he didn't need congressional approval. Refer to Article 6.

EDIT: flogging dead horse portion removed. Didn't see your edit.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

You said that he didnt get congressional approval for the military strike. Well, presidents dont get congressional approval for ambassadors (i could have sworn for a supreme court justice, but grr) and appoint them to their positions w/o it. Why dont they get impeached?

Oleg_Huzwog

I also said why he didn't need congressional approval. Refer to Article 6.

(and yeah, the Senate does confirm ambassadors)

I admited i was wrong on the previous post.:)

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

And Obama didn't start this war - Qaddafi did.

Well he did for the right reasons. Libya is attacking civilian targets, not military targets. The UN security council, which is headed by the United States warned them to stop. They didnt. So the council took military action like they said they would. Its not only the US who is taking military action against the Libyan aggressions. So please, stop pointing your finger at the US only...

MarineXXII

"The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly around the world. However, Russia's military chiefs say they have been monitoring from space -- and the pictures tell a different story. According to Al Jazeera and BBC, on February 22 Libyan government inflicted airstrikes on Benghazi -- the country's largest city -- and on the capital Tripoli. However, the Russian military, monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, says nothing of the sort was going on on the ground. At this point, the Russian military is saying that, as far as they are concerned, the attacks some media were reporting have never occurred. The same sources in Russia's military establishment say they are also monitoring the situation around Libya's oil pumping facilities."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TncgsS0FDWg

So why don't the western countries do anything against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down. Why not intervene? Because their personal interests aren't met however Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels.

Symbolically, the 19th of March was known to the Romans as Quinquatria. It marked the beginning of the war season where celebrations and sacrifices were made.

It was sacred to both Mars, the god of War, and was the birthday of the goddess Minerva.

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...



On March 20, 2003, President Bush launched the bombing of Baghdad at 5:50 Baghdad time. This lasted until March 21st. It was called "shock and awe" by the mainstream media. But, according to the mystery religion this date is known as the Eve of Ostara, more commonly known as the Spring or Vernal Equinox. Occultists worship the Goddess of the Earth, Gaea, on this day. The druids knew this date as the Spring Fertility Rites,the Day of Feast. The war was promptly ended on May 1, 2003 (day of "Mission Accomplished"). This date is known on the druidic calendar as Beltane,or Walpurgis Night. It was named after St. Walburga who is the pagan goddess of fertility. From March 20th to May 1st, the pagan ritual is to give blood to Earth and renew life to the goddess of fertility. What better time for them to declare a bloody war on the days of a ritual sacrifice and end it exactly when the pagan ritual ends. High ranking Freemasons practice occult ritual practices

Masonic handshakes -

Obama & Gaddafi

Sarkozy & Gaddafi

Blair & Gaddafi

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

rcafan

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

You're right. Niether was Afghanistan or Iraq, but you know what I mean.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

-Sun_Tzu-

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

And Obama didn't start this war - Qaddafi did.

Like Saddam started the war in Iraq?

Isn't Bush guilty of the same thing with the Iraq war? That's what Kucinich seemed to indicate in his impeachment documents against Bush.

Regardless, I'd like to see the rule enforced despite recent historical precedent. I'm not comfortable with the decision to go to war resting with one man.mattbbpl