Obama Impeachment Bill Now In Congress!
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.”
- Dental Implant WarningsWhat You Should Know Before Getting Dental Implants. Read Expert Advicesymptomfind.com/CosmeticDentalCare
- Don't Invest in the DinarMajor Revaluation Imminent… BUT It's Not Our Top Pick. This One Is…WallStreetDaily.com/Top-Currencies
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.”
“Well, I’m
almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard
you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll
come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek
congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big
[deal].”
Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.
Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.
“Well, I’m all
for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea
that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the
United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They
can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required
to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the
president and the law and the Constitution.”
The exchange itself can be seen below:
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be itResolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment