Could This Lead to Impeachment?

Then, I guess, there's no real point in going to Congress.

"Imagine, if you will, that I am an idiot.
Then, imagine that I am also a Congressman.
But, alas, I repeat myself."

-- Mark Twain

I think that the war powers act of 1973 will be declared unconstitutional, so no impeachment. If congress does not want Obama to do something, they need to cut off funding for it.

The whole idea that the president needs to get approval before doing something with the military is bad, imho - Obama's mistake in Libya was in taking too long in the beginning getting Arab league and NATO approval, he should have just marched in without asking anybody.

That would be nice. But you're dreaming.



Now you're really dreaming. I think Congress actually wants to approve this. They just want to go on record as being for the war. Until it goes bad then they'll claim they were misled and say they're really against it.



The whole idea that a president could do whatever he wanted with the military would erase one of the final distinctions between him and a king or dictator. Having the power you suggest is downright frightening.

As I understand the "imminent threat" language it should be inverted...giving the President the power to act if there is an imminent threat...not in the absence of one. That's where we get into trouble.



First, the President should be getting a "permission slip" to go to war.

Second, there's nothing that says the declaration of war from Congress needs to happen publicly in advance of a military action. But it should be made public immediately afterwards if secrecy is a concern.

Third, why is there a need for secrecy here? We're not talking about actual military tactics and form of military action...merely the decision to use military action.

Fourth, once at war, yes he's the Commander-in-Chief and doesn't need to be micromanaged by Congress. Which I think was the whole point of this structure. Congress operates as a check to an imperial Presidency and his or her fetishes for military adventurism. The President, once authorized, doesn't have to deal with Congressional meddling and micromanaging.

I view the constitutional structure that was created as a declaration of what the rest of the world could expect from the US: 1) We will publicly declare war against an enemy as determined and deliberated by a wider deliberative body...rather than capriciously by a single individual (or small cabal of hawkish individuals)...but...2) when do decide to act, there will be one single person with the authority and responsibility for executing with success and decisiveness (individual character flaws aside.)

In my view the President today has way, way too much power. This is only one example (though it is a big one.)

Would you clarify what you don't agree with exactly?



I disagree. non-"full blown", non-"extended" conflicts have a way of becoming full-blown, extended conflicts.



This might be a question of semantics more than anything.



Yes. I would like to see the president's power much more limited, especially when committing to war.



Why? Where? When?



Ahh an oldie but a goodie. The old "the world is different now" and the "constitution is antiquated and out of date" argument.



I'll try to remember that if anyone starts raining down cruise missiles in my town.



Apparently.



Apparently.

The checks and balances that existed to limit the power of any of the three branches of government were upset when the "war on terrorism" started, to the extent that the executive branch now has a severely overbearing influence. When Obama was inaugurated, there was hope (!) that these checks and balances would be returned, if not completely to normalcy, but trending towards that. But no, Obama has made a bad situation worse. Once power is assumed, it is never voluntarily given up. If this trend continues, how much more power could be assumed by the executive branch in order to qualify it as a quasi-dictatorship?

Anyway, re. impeachment. I have an acquaintance here who is a constitutional lawyer, and it is of his opinion that the Obama Administration's breach of the War Powers Act is an impeachable act. But in addition, so many legal technicalities would likely be heaped upon any impeachment attempt that it would probably fade away, even if the case was pretty solid.

But, hey, give it a go. I'd welcome impeachment proceedings.... it would mean that Obama would likely become a one term president.

Like Clinton was?

Clinton had already been re-elected for his 2nd term in 1996. The Lewinsky episode was in 1998.

You're right, my bad.

It's always been a mystery as to why sex "scandals" are given so much obsessive attention by the corporate media, and in contrast, other far worse and far reaching matters, re. administrations/politicians (regardless of party affiliation) are often roundly ignored. There's enough sex in the media to keep anyone distracted, from the soft pornographic staple of the advertising industry, to the hardcore smut which is ubiquitous on the internet(s).

Whats the big deal with with politicians' private personal indiscretions, and our out-of-control addiction to making these matters causes for public concern? In Europe, where the public tend to intuit what goes on in the "corridors of power" without making a big song and dance over it, here in the US, we're like school kids giggling while clandestinely poring over well thumbed copies of Playboy, in which some of the pages are stuck together.

It's almost as if we here are pretending that we are so to be oh so very moral, and when someone commits a sexual faux-pas, we pretend to be oh so shocked!

When will we ever grow up?

Like Sarah Palin's emails?

Yet another distraction... a storm in a teacup, of little more than zero *real world* significance.

Similarly, the so-called wikileaks data-dumps which so many politicians and the diplomatic community (!) were fretting about, over which the weasel media were getting their soggy panties all twisted. Everything in those "so-called leaks" by that TOOL known as Julian Assange, were in the public domain; anyone who had the time to do the research could have unearthed any of it.

The wikileaks affair was yet another case of "limited hangout", in which people were led to believe that these documents were secret, and great damage had been caused by their release. Nothing in those wikileaks has led to any outings, scandals, criminal proceedings, firings, or anything of significance.

It worked just as intended, to keep the public under some kind of illusion that the powers-that-be are generally well behaved and tend to stay within the law.

So why is Bradley Manning being held without due process? If the information he gave to Wikileaks was in the public domain, why go after Manning and Assange?

That's exactly my point. Firstly... to create the false impression that Assange and Manning's actions were damaging, and secondly (re being held without due process): just because they can.

We could speculate ad nauseam, but if Assange wanted to do some damage resulting in some heads rolling, he would release material that warranted such punishment/action. But no... all his "leaks" are mere fluff... harmless, irrelevant, trivia.

My speculation: Whoever supplied (Assange) with this material appeared to have been careful to exclude anything of relevance... and Manning was probably an unfortunate fall guy/patsy. He now has no choice but to plead guilty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/wo...wers.html?_r=1

Clinton was impeached for being forced into trying to save his marriage by telling a lie, after being set up.

This breach of the war powers act (imho) is far worse... but no sex scandal is involved, and both democrats and republicans are equally under the control/behest the "war party". Obama will probably get off.