A bit late in the game. Barry has done much damage.
But, if it will keep him off a ballot and we don't have to pay benefits after he's gone, it will be worth it.

Bill Text 112th Congress (2011-2012) H.CON.RES.107.IH


H.CON.RES.107 -- 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... (Introduced in House - IH)

HCON 107 IH

112th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. CON. RES. 107
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.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
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 it

Resolved 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vuu7ma4B8wY

Yeah well That is better then helping Ppl with no jobs or Helping the Human rights of the ppl of pine ridge but Hey let's get paid To impeach a prez...

problem is, no war was declared, and article four doesnt DEFINE what a high crime or misdemeanor is,,,,,


another problem is that army nor navy was used (nor 'states militia'), which under the constitution are the two branches he is EXPLICITLY commmander in chief of

it mentions nothing of the AIR FORCES which accompanied other UN forces,,,,,

Your examples given are some of the very reasons this is looooooong overdue. Then add the destruction of the constitution and bill of rights, claiming dictatorial power over the lives and freedom of American citizens, bowing to his king in Egypt, unconstitutional and treasonist position on UN concil.... need I go on?

The abuses and criminal acts are many.... my question would be "why has it taken so long for anyone to care?"

If Jones didn't think he had a strong case, I don't believe he would have filed impeachment proceedings. Maybe a lawyer here on ming2 has a professional opinion?

Article 4 doesn't..

But Congress has.

And to sum it up, the best way possible.

Rewind. 1970. A then Congressman, Gerald Ford said:

"..an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

This comment was in regards to the "unconfirmed" analysis of what constituted a "high crime and misdemeanor".

Somewhat relevant to his case. Andrew Johnson's impeachment.

Further note.

During Nixon's impeachment, let it be known that they did NOT cite him for tax evasion. Why? Because as they put it..

"This committee does not believe that is an impeachable offense."

well, I guess they will stop at nothing'

its still just as futile as the attempt to 'prove' he isnt american born or christian

I doubt most americans will support it, and Im twice as doubtful the Senate would get a two third majority needed to 'convict'

I also doubt whatever 'offense' they come up with would have a legal precedent as a high crime when committed by any other president in history


,,,,but whatever floats their desperate little boats,,


for there to be so much HATRED of this President that they go to such EXTREMES,,,,history continues to be written and its amazing to be a part of it

OBAMA 2012!

No offense to your Bama-psyche..

I honestly hope he doesn't get re-elected.
Not cause I have a vendetta or ill-feeling towards the guy.

But if he is re-elected, it will be more of the same from his surrounding political congress douches.

Meaning:

They'll be focusing more of arguing him whether his cause is good or not and be far more focused on removing him from office.

The other reason is:

Biden, or whatever that VP's name is.

He's a coward, an ***hole, and totally unfitting for his position let alone the presidency.
They impeach Obama, he becomes president..

..then we're really setting up to fail.

So many things do these congressmen need to actually focus on, but most of their attention just seems to be ticking of Obama anyway they possibly can. Whether impeach or argue. It's getting redundant and annoying.

I keep hearing this claim. How has THIS PRESIDENT specifically destroyed the Constitution or bill of rights?

How has this president specifically 'claimed' dictatorial power over american citizens? (If mentioning the NDAA, why wasnt the INITIATOR of said power George Bush endited, when he originally imparted that same power to the presidential office with the AUMF?)



Since when is a bow a HIGH OFFENSE (If mentioning Egypt, why would congress consider it a high offense when congress approves Egypts status as an MNNA to receive american military and financial benefit?)


What part of the constitution denies a President any part of the UN council?


,,,if the question is why has it taken so long for congress to be offended by such (longstanding) presidential powers,,,,,,,

I think I know the answer,,,,,,

on with making their 'example' of this President,,,,lol

so get rid of the Congressmen who are not doing their job

there are many opportunities to do so,,,,,

Let me get right on that.

xD

lol,,,well they did it over their 'obamacare' disapproval,,,didnt they?

people have to get active, use the power of their pocketbook and their voices to get things done ,, instead of continuing to let others be made into patsies,,,

Actually, as commander in chief all he can do without the approval of congress is position and move the military. He cannot open fire on another or another country......he can return fire if fired upon but not give the okay to fire or make war upon another.....

Alright, I agree.

I'll use your pocketbook and my voice. :D

who did he 'make war' on,,,?

dont military commanders give 'orders' to fire,,,,?

Commanders can only give such orders if:

1. Fired upon and has pre-approved OK to do so.
2. In times of already stated war.

They do but only with congressional approval to give the order to fire upon another......they need approval to give those orders....

is that in the constitution? I remember that a president cant 'declare war' without approval

I dont remember any of these other things though,,,,,

Harmony, you never watched war movies?
Top Gun even?

Even Pilots aren't allowed to engage an enemy plane without giving them a warning while contacting and going through the proper channels.

Only time this differentiates is when, said plane, comes under attack and has received no response; this is then deemed "self defense" and is pre-OKAY'd.

Not sure about "constitution" but that's how it is in the military.

Even during war. A commander will receive orders from a higher up, who received his orders from a higher up.

Someone at the highest level gives out an "objective".
That "objective" is handed down through the channels.
Eventually it reaches the "on site" commander.
He devises the plan/strategy to seek this "objective".
Anything that derives and/or is marked as "extra" from this original objective, is called in.

Ex.

Objective - Take this location from enemy A.
Plan A - Goes into action.
Extra - Enemy B shows up.
Request - Engage, Disengage, Ignore.
New Objective - Alteration/addition to plan A.
Plan A - Now becomes plan B.
etc.

Firing on another or a country is considered an "Act Of War", firing in defense of being fired is not an Act of War under the articles of the military and hence what constitutes an Act of War......