PDA

View Full Version : " Liberal Democrats in Uproar over Libya Action,Kucinich Wants to Impeach."



megimoo
03-20-2011, 06:55 AM
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.),
Donna Edwards (Md.),
Mike Capuano (Mass.),
Dennis Kucinich (Ohio),
Maxine Waters (Calif.),
Rob Andrews (N.J.),
Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas),
Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del.
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
ďall strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the presidentís actionsĒ during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.


Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq ó only to be blocked by his own leadership ó asked why the U.S. missile strikes arenít impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didnít object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

txradioguy
03-20-2011, 07:48 AM
That list is a who's who of political Moonbats.

SarasotaRepub
03-20-2011, 08:18 AM
That list is a who's who of political Moonbats.

Oh Yea. These morons should all be shown the door. :rolleyes:

txradioguy
03-20-2011, 08:31 AM
Oh Yea. These morons should all be shown the door. :rolleyes:

Yeah but sadly they won't. I think if a nuke was dropped on D.C. tomorrow...that list above would be the only ones to survive.

fettpett
03-20-2011, 10:26 AM
while I agree they are a bunch of dumbasses, they do have a point of whether this is Constitutional or not, and that goes for all "Police Actions" that any President makes.

PoliCon
03-20-2011, 10:36 AM
while I agree they are a bunch of dumbasses, they do have a point of whether this is Constitutional or not, and that goes for all "Police Actions" that any President makes.

You do understand that there is precedent for military actions without the formal declaration of war going all the way back to George Washington himself right?

fettpett
03-20-2011, 10:39 AM
You do understand that there is precedent for military actions without the formal declaration of war going all the way back to George Washington himself right?

yes...doesn't mean that any of it was Constitutional, and thus why I said ALL Presidents that have used it.

PoliCon
03-20-2011, 10:44 AM
yes...doesn't mean that any of it was Constitutional, and thus why I said ALL Presidents that have used it.

And so you believe that the Founding fathers who sat in congress and on the Supreme court during Washington's tenure in office - the same men who wrote the constitution were wrong in being supportive of Washington? Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to say that you know the document better than the men who actual wrote it?

djones520
03-20-2011, 10:45 AM
You do understand that there is precedent for military actions without the formal declaration of war going all the way back to George Washington himself right?

The 1973 War Powers Resolution is what's in question here Poli.

It requires that the President gives 48 hours notice to Congress that he is taking military action, and any action lasting longer then 60 days requires a Congressional vote to continue sustainment.

fettpett
03-20-2011, 10:47 AM
And so you believe that the Founding fathers who sat in congress and on the Supreme court during Washington's tenure in office - the same men who wrote the constitution were wrong in being supportive of Washington? Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to say that you know the document better than the men who actual wrote it?

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Aliens and Seditions Act

PoliCon
03-20-2011, 10:52 AM
The 1973 War Powers Resolution is what's in question here Poli.

It requires that the President gives 48 hours notice to Congress that he is taking military action, and any action lasting longer then 60 days requires a Congressional vote to continue sustainment. If he failed to give proper notice under the law - which I'm sure he did - that's one thing. It's quite another to state that we cannot engage in military action without a formal declaration of war. Mind you - Did we sign a peace treaty with Tripoli when last we went to war with them? Or was it just an armistice?

PoliCon
03-20-2011, 10:53 AM
:rolleyes::rolleyes: Aliens and Seditions Act

which was opposed and fought against. Show me any action taken against the constitutionality of the Barbary wars for example.

fettpett
03-20-2011, 11:06 AM
which was opposed and fought against. Show me any action taken against the constitutionality of the Barbary wars for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.
In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."


Enterprise capturing Tripoli
The schooner USS Enterprise defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a fierce but one-sided battle on August 1, 1801.
In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed "An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers", authorizing the President to "... employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite ... for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas."[14]
The U.S Navy went unchallenged on the sea, but still the question remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with an increase in military force and deployment of many of the Navy's best ships to the region throughout 1802. The USS Argus, Chesapeake, Constellation, Constitution, Enterprise, Intrepid, Philadelphia and Syren all saw service during the war under the overall command of Commodore Edward Preble. Throughout 1803, Preble set up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets.

Jefferson went to Congress and asked for a deceleration of War, Congress just didn't give it to him, but authorized use of force.


There is a huge difference between going to Congress and asking for a Deceleration of War and not getting it (while authorizing use of force, which IMHO is splitting hairs). And a President TELLING Congress that he is going to use military
force.


Also, I was pointing out that the Founding Fathers were just as capable of passing and doing actions that were considered Unconstitutional.

PoliCon
03-20-2011, 11:15 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War


Jefferson went to Congress and asked for a deceleration of War, Congress just didn't give it to him, but authorized use of force.


There is a huge difference between going to Congress and asking for a Deceleration of War and not getting it (while authorizing use of force, which IMHO is splitting hairs). And a President TELLING Congress that he is going to use military
force.


Also, I was pointing out that the Founding Fathers were just as capable of passing and doing actions that were considered Unconstitutional.

Okay - I'm just making sure we're not engaged in another one of those "you must have a formal declaration of war" discussions.

fettpett
03-20-2011, 11:15 AM
Obama also said this in 2007

‎The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

SaintLouieWoman
03-20-2011, 11:16 AM
Yeah but sadly they won't. I think if a nuke was dropped on D.C. tomorrow...that list above would be the only ones to survive.

They're sort of like cockroaches!!! :eek::D

At least there's a nice little list to point out the nuttiest of the moonbats. Can you imagine the length of the list if Bush had done this?

PoliCon
03-20-2011, 11:17 AM
They're sort of like cockroaches!!! :eek::D

At least there's a nice little list to point out the nuttiest of the moonbats. Can you imagine the length of the list if Bush had done this? If it had been Bush - every democrat and all the Rino's too boot would have opposed him. But we simply must MUST remember - It's always OK when a democrat does it.