• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Kerry: Obama Can Bomb Assad Even If Congress Votes No

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If Congress votes no to action in Syria, and President Obama goes ahead and bombs anyway, he may very well be the third President Impeached by the US House of Representatives, but more worrisome, is that he may actually be the FIRST US President to be Impeached and then actually convicted and removed from office by the US Senate sitting in Jury.

Read this article, then let me know if you agree:

John Kerry: Obama Can Bomb Assad Even If Congress Votes No

A Constitutional Crisis, like no other, would ensue.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,832
Reaction score
33,964
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When Obama violated the 90 days on that resolution, he simply claimed authority via the enforcement of a treaty. So there are at least two legal ways for him to do what he wants regardless of congress.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When Obama violated the 90 days on that resolution, he simply claimed authority via the enforcement of a treaty. So there are at least two legal ways for him to do what he wants regardless of congress.
That ignores the Constitutional Crisis I referred to.

If Obama had not gone to Congress, and Congress did not vote, the War Powers Act would have supremacy. However, once the President goes to Congress, and they vote, the US Constitution has supremacy via Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; ...

And make no mistake, bombing another country is an act of War.

So, once Congress votes, that's the last, conclusive and undeniable word. The law as prescribed in the Constitution, which is superior to all other laws. If that wasn't true, there would be no need for the SCOTUS to review laws for Constitutionality such the ACA, or Voting Rights Act, or...
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,832
Reaction score
33,964
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

It doesn't matter if he's gone to congress first or not. It's not like they're gonna pass a "No doing anything about Syria" bill.


Huffington is a stupid website, I hope you learn from this.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,637
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

It doesn't matter if he's gone to congress first or not. It's not like they're gonna pass a "No doing anything about Syria" bill.


Huffington is a stupid website, I hope you learn from this.

You think Congress will vote a military strike?


PS:
I read Huffington once in a while and can't really place them. But they do not seem up to The Hearald Tribune or Washington Post.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,832
Reaction score
33,964
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

You think Congress will vote a military strike?
Yes, I think so but that's not relevant to the topic. Unless congress passes a "no action in Syria is allowed" bill (which is not on the table), then Obama can still cite the WPR or treaty obligation as legal means of doing as he likes.

PS:
I read Huffington once in a while and can't really place them. But they do not seem up to The Hearald Tribune or Washington Post.
It's a fringe "us vs. them" website dedicated to demonization and misinformation, a liberal version of Town Hall.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

That ignores the Constitutional Crisis I referred to.

If Obama had not gone to Congress, and Congress did not vote, the War Powers Act would have supremacy. However, once the President goes to Congress, and they vote, the US Constitution has supremacy via Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; ...

And make no mistake, bombing another country is an act of War.

So, once Congress votes, that's the last, conclusive and undeniable word. The law as prescribed in the Constitution, which is superior to all other laws. If that wasn't true, there would be no need for the SCOTUS to review laws for Constitutionality such the ACA, or Voting Rights Act, or...
"High Crimes and misdemeanors" are not defined in the Constitution and Congress can impeach a President for any reason they so desire despite what armchair commentators would have you believe. The House issues the articles and the Senate holds the trial. There is no judicial review in Presidential Impeachments. It is an unique legislative power checked only by the electorate. It is a subject that was researched extensively by, ironically enough, Gerald Ford before he became President who was charged with the task in anticipation of possible impeachment proceedings against Nixon.
 

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Yes, I think so but that's not relevant to the topic. Unless congress passes a "no action in Syria is allowed" bill (which is not on the table), then Obama can still cite the WPR or treaty obligation as legal means of doing as he likes.



It's a fringe "us vs. them" website dedicated to demonization and misinformation, a liberal version of Town Hall.
Huffpoo is for people who like their news without actual content, and details. Only headlines.
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

He's asking for their approval, not permission. I don't know why he's even bothering, except for political reasons, since he clearly intends to go thru with it.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

If Congress votes no to action in Syria, and President Obama goes ahead and bombs anyway, he may very well be the third President Impeached by the US House of Representatives, but more worrisome, is that he may actually be the FIRST US President to be Impeached and then actually convicted and removed from office by the US Senate sitting in Jury.

Read this article, then let me know if you agree:

John Kerry: Obama Can Bomb Assad Even If Congress Votes No

A Constitutional Crisis, like no other, would ensue.
Candidly, I would be shocked if Obama did anything after a negative vote from Congress. The USC is very important to this man.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

And make no mistake, bombing another country is an act of War.
Vietnam. Kosovo. Libya (x2; 1986 an 2012). Pakistan. Probably a lot more I'm not thinking of. We bomb countries we aren't at war with.
 

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When Obama violated the 90 days on that resolution, he simply claimed authority via the enforcement of a treaty. So there are at least two legal ways for him to do what he wants regardless of congress.
The War Powers act does not apply here, it really didnt apply to the Libya situation either but he got a free pass on that because our politicians have no spines and were scared to be called racists for doing anything that might even seem to be in disagreement with the first White-African American President.

Syria is no imminent threat to the US.

In order to invoke the War Powers Act the President (any President) needs to prove the immanency of the threat.

Obama would never be removed from office, the Democrat controlled Senate would make sure of it.
 

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

He's asking for their approval, not permission. I don't know why he's even bothering, except for political reasons, since he clearly intends to go thru with it.
I think you may be right, I think no matter what Congress or the American people say he will attack anyway.

Thats what happens when we have a man in office that thinks that the Constitution does not apply to him.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,102
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Vietnam. Kosovo. Libya (x2; 1986 an 2012). Pakistan. Probably a lot more I'm not thinking of. We bomb countries we aren't at war with.
You forgot Serbia, Laos and Cambodia.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,223
Reaction score
12,102
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

You forgot Serbia, Laos and Cambodia.
Yemen, Sudan, Colombia, Somalia and a ton of other countries most likely..
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Not gonna happen. Impeachment on this subject is pure politics. Obama going to congress was for political cover but it's 50/50 whether he does it against congress. War powers act is clear on this and if someone wants impeachment they're going to need to come up with something better.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,832
Reaction score
33,964
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

The War Powers act does not apply here, it really didnt apply to the Libya situation either but he got a free pass on that because our politicians have no spines and were scared to be called racists for doing anything that might even seem to be in disagreement with the first White-African American President.

Syria is no imminent threat to the US.

In order to invoke the War Powers Act the President (any President) needs to prove the immanency of the threat.

Obama would never be removed from office, the Democrat controlled Senate would make sure of it.
That's BS. The WPR can be invoked for basically any reason. There is no requirement to prove imminent threat to the US itself. Further, Obama cited treaty enforcement - not the WPR -for his actions regarding Libya. Either of those excuses work just fine even after congress votes not to intervene.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Vietnam. Kosovo. Libya (x2; 1986 an 2012). Pakistan. Probably a lot more I'm not thinking of. We bomb countries we aren't at war with.

You completely missed Beau's point. The very act of bombing a country, IS an act of war, regardless of what you want to call it.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

If Congress votes no to action in Syria, and President Obama goes ahead and bombs anyway, he may very well be the third President Impeached by the US House of Representatives, but more worrisome, is that he may actually be the FIRST US President to be Impeached and then actually convicted and removed from office by the US Senate sitting in Jury.

Read this article, then let me know if you agree:

John Kerry: Obama Can Bomb Assad Even If Congress Votes No

A Constitutional Crisis, like no other, would ensue.
The Senate will not vote to convict.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

You completely missed Beau's point. The very act of bombing a country, IS an act of war, regardless of what you want to call it.
No matter what I want to call it? The Government doesn't call me to ask me what to call military actions. USA does a lot of overt and covert things that are not called war. I listed some. If that list offends your delicate sensibilities; contact your congressman or complain to your parents. Whining to me doesn't do anything.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Thats what happens when we have a man in office that thinks that the Constitution does not apply to him.
Silly assertion. He knows the USC applies to him, knows everything there is to know about the USC, and is doing what he thinks is best for the country. Everyone knew Obama and Romney when it was time to vote and they picked the guy. The complaints are just armchair quarterbacking by malcontents and it has to be viewed in that context.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

No matter what I want to call it? The Government doesn't call me to ask me what to call military actions. USA does a lot of overt and covert things that are not called war. I listed some. If that list offends your delicate sensibilities; contact your congressman or complain to your parents. Whining to me doesn't do anything.
Dropping bombs on a country is an action of war! Period. It's not an action of love and peace or a wake up call for tea and crumpets. This is missing you somehow.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Dropping bombs on a country is an action of war! Period. It's not an action of love and peace or a wake up call for tea and crumpets. This is missing you somehow.
Military action <> war in every case. Your definition is merely YOUR definition and not how the real world works. A war is when Congress approves a declaration of war. Otherwise it's merely a military action or armed conflict and at the POTUS discretion. What went profoundly wrong during your time in academia that your social studies teachers didn't cover these important details pertaining to the USC. When I was growing up in the late 60's the teachers spent quite a bit of time discussing Vietnam. Were you just not curious? That's OK if you weren't. I know there were probably some kids that were more into Barbie and Ken when the rest of us were playing with GI Joe.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

Military action <> war in every case. Your definition is merely YOUR definition and not how the real world works. A war is when Congress approves a declaration of war. Otherwise it's merely a military action or armed conflict and at the POTUS discretion. What went profoundly wrong during your time in academia that your social studies teachers didn't cover these important details pertaining to the USC. When I was growing up in the late 60's the teachers spent quite a bit of time discussing Vietnam. Were you just not curious? That's OK if you weren't. I know there were probably some kids that were more into Barbie and Ken when the rest of us were playing with GI Joe.
When Japan bombed us at Pearl Harbor, it was an ACT of war. Our blockade of their fuel lines prior to, was an act of war, that's all Beau was trying to point out to you and that's all I was saying as well.
 

Snappo

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
376
Reaction score
57
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: The Third Presidential Impeachment - The Beginning

When Japan bombed us at Pearl Harbor, it was an ACT of war. Our blockade of their fuel lines prior to, was an act of war, that's all Beau was trying to point out to you and that's all I was saying as well.
I would totally agree with you that military aggression causes wars. I was just saying it's not war until Congress says it's war.

I'm really not all that worried about Syria. I just don't see that Russia can do anything and I don't see USA doing much unless Syria gassed Israel (which would be suicide). I'm actually bummed that we would back Al Qaeda, but I kind of look at it like a stickball game at the park. Russia got to pick first so we had to pick the fat kid in the back because he was the only one left. I think Russia and USA are just looking at Syria as a profit opportunity (weapons sales now and eventually rebuilding contracts). I don't think we really care about arab muslims.
 
Top Bottom