I get that its not 'movie like',

IM asking where it is 'unconstitutional' though,,,lol

http://www.defense.gov/

according to what OFFICIAL document is that considered an act of war

is an act of war the same as DECLARATION of war

because I can cite many examples of such an 'act of war' that wont be on the list of countries we have gone to war with,,,,,

Don't quote me:

"Declaration of War" - When one country declares hostilities (war) against a foreign nation(s).

"Act of War" - Engaging in hostilities that "demand" retaliation.

Ex. of Declaration:

Bush declared war on Iraq.

Ex. Act of War:

Pearl Harbor bombing

(A country not involved, was bombed heavily, and demanded said retaliation)

Well our military engaged in war without the United States declaring war.........which means that Obama openly engaged in war without consent or declaring which must be done by congress to engage in war.........and this was open war......

thats a popular opinion, apparently

I disagree as do many others

but it will be up to 'professionals' to disect

Id like to note though, that our military was ALREADY involved in delivering aide to Libya, which was being obstructed by Qhaddaffi forces,, so it wasnt exactly an 'unprovoked' occurrence

,,,but on with the show,,,

..but was the USA in that event, the aggressor or the defender?

If the US openly sought out said engagement; it is an act of "war".

If they defended themselves, then the act of war was done against us.

After all, it's not officially "war" until it is "declared".

according to military officials and commanders (who may or may not be revered depending upon whether they support the presidents decision,,lol)

there were FIRST aide to Libyans

there was SECOND non military actions through sanctions with the UN resolution (1970)


there was THIRD, a no fly zone imposed to protect civilians in Libya
which Qhaddaffi forces violated

..in my opinion,, we never went to 'War' with the country of Libya, but were in fact trying to help Libyan civilians

we fired upon Qhaddaffi forces who were violating sanctions, obstructing us operations already in progress to aide civilians, and violating a no fly zone ordinance,,,

A no fly zone is against ordinance, however, unless a direct aggressive act took place; there was no "act of war".

A missile dropped, they opened fired <-- Acts.

As dumb as it sounds, which I know it does and I don't entirely agree.

Said occurrence is to be examined thoroughly as to the "nature" of violation.

In which stupid irrelevant questions like:

1. Were these pilots rogue?
2. Or were they acting under direct government (leader) directives?
3. Why were they in said violation of respected air territory?

Etc.

As the military forces; just like local law enforcement; unless you are actively engaged, you have NO AUTHORITY to fire first. This, especially in foreign territories, in deemed an "Act of War". Retaliation, in itself, is not because you are then defending yourself FROM an act of war.

Putting it more simply..

Lower the value, keep the concept.

The Court of Law.

"Innocent until proven guilty."

Are they guilty of disturbing the "no fly zone"? Yes.
Are they guilty of causing an "Act of War"? No. (If they didn't fire."

"Punishment befitting the crime."

In retrospect:

If the US fired on said violator, and said violators made no aggressive actions; whoever gave the "order" to initiate said "firing" is the sole purpose responsible for aid "act of war".

The first to fire - the aggressor.

Look at robbery for a final example.

If the police surround a thief that had broken into a store and he's brandishing a machine gun but the thief was caught outside the premises and nothing was stolen. He isn't charged with "Theft" he's just charged with "Breaking and Entering" possibly trespassing and the holding of illegal firearms, but w/e.

Regardless, the police are NOT permitted to just OPEN fire once they see the culprit, correct? Now if he fire first; now it's a whole new ballgame, because he is now the aggressor.

Forgot to add:

If there was no war act on behalf of the planes, then someone gave the commander of US forces in Libya the "OK" to open fire. This is deemed an "Act of War". There's no way said act was pushed through Congress that swiftly, so, someone somewhere made a "judgement" call. That, in itself, is the criminal/crime.

what is Jones' legal background

people bring forth futile cases in the judicial system all the time, why would impeachment cases be different?

and what level of proof will be needed / required to ***** the standard

"If the US fired on said violator, and said violators made no aggressive actions; whoever gave the "order" to initiate said "firing" is the sole purpose responsible for aid "act of war".


is it likely, we had troops protecting a no fly zone who werent fired on at all but just began firing at others indiscriminately? wihtout provocation? and what is provocation?

if a police officer has a car coming toward him, he can usually shoot the driver

if I am in a no fly zone as a pilot and another pilot is heading directly at me,,,,, do I have a reasonable expectation of harm to protect myself?


,,,,,If it werent so sad, imagining the circus involved in trying to prove this case,,and the further vacation congress will get from actually ACCOMPLISHING anything, ID be laughing

http://jones.house.gov/Biography/

Just for you Harmony. :)

He's presently ranked #17 out of 535 Congressman as the hardest working. :D

Hey, I said I didn't agree with the "system".



Depends what "level" of proof they deem adequate.



"Indiscriminately" <--- Is not acceptable behavior befitting a United States Soldier. Is it possible? Yes, as seen in recent news. However, then those soldiers are to blame.

Provocation: An action that provokes (deliberately) a physical retaliation.

By that definition; them flying the planes over, do you not consider in the fact that was their objective? Make the US out to BE the aggressor?

"Yes, we accidentally flew through the no fly zone. However, we were then shot at and had no intentions of--"

You now play the fool, and thus why you are not to make yourself to be the "aggressor".



This is another example of "defending" yourself, you are no the aggressor.



If you cannot avoid him; then again yes, because you are defending yourself.



So sadly yet ironically true. :/

I get it. He is a hard working man, a longtime politician, and a former vet (of four years)

but I cant find what his NON POLITICAL background is,,,,,in terms of the constitution or the law (Education, experience,,,etc,,)

Always shooting the messenger. :O

I never said he "had one".

I just gave you the link to his biography. :P

In fact, I barely read it myself. xD

On March 7, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina submitted an Impeachment Resolution to put President Obama on Notice over what some in congress see as an overreach of executive powers. The Impeachment resolution stems from Obama's failure to get Congressional authorization for the military action in Libya that began in March of 2011. Under the War Powers Act, a president must terminate a mission within 60 to 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, that is unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue. In June of 2011, three months later, Obama argued that he had authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

During the time of the Libya Military Action, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich from Ohio, a Democrat, voiced concern that Obama may have overstepped the authority given to the president by the Constitution. He also stated that it could very well be an impeachable act by the president. Kucinich reiterated in an interview with RT news that it was important to raise the question about the abuse of executive power and that he did think the Constitution had been violated. On June 15, 2011, 10 lawmakers -- led by Kucinich and Jones -- filed a lawsuit asking a judge to order President Obama to pull out of the Libya operation because Congress did not authorize it.

It is also worth noting that The Impeachment Resolution was also submitted on the same day that Senator Jeff Sessions questioned Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. During questioning Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a "legal basis" for military action by the United States. Senator Jeff Sessions seemed a bit surprised by this admission from Panetta and the General. This exchange has gone viral on the web and may have been the catalyst for the impeachment resolution, though that is only speculation.

After the attacks on the World Trade Center, Bush sought Congressional approval to engage our military in Iraq. Congress approved military action overwhelmingly with bipartisan support on Oct 11, 2002. Even critics Hillary Clinton, then Senator (D-N.Y.), and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted in support to give president Bush authority to go to war. The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 and Congress traditionally has been the sole authority in giving authorization.

The clock is running out on President Barack Obama's military adventure in Libya. Today his campaign of pinprick air strikes and half-hearted support for the rebels will run smack into the War Powers Resolution. The law, passed in 1973, requires that the president withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities after 60 days unless he secures Congress's approval or a formal declaration of war.

In the depths of the Vietnam War and Watergate era, a Democratic Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution over Richard Nixon's veto. On the positive side, it recognizes that the president may constitutionally introduce armed forces into potential ...

I wasnt shooting at you hon, I was asking a genuine question concerning whether there is ANY background that would imply this particular politician had a superior knowledge of law or the constitution to validate the belief that he must have a solid case,,,,

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

War Powers

Overview | Constitutional Provisions | Legislation | Judicial | Congressional Hearings | Congressional Documents | Books | Journal Articles and Reports | Resources

Overview

This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.

The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law. For more information on Bills and Joint Resolutions see this explanation of Congressional Forms of Action.

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).

The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544). Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544(c) is known as a "legislative veto" and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544(c) (50 U.S. 1545-46a).

The fifth part of the law sets forth certain definitions and rules to be used when interpreting the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 1547). Finally, the sixth part is a "separability provision" and states that if any part of the law is held (by a court) to be invalid, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, the rest of the law shall not be considered invalid, nor shall its applicability to other situations be affected (50 USC 1548).

U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution. Some examples of the Resolution's effect on the deployment of U.S. armed forces include:

1975: President Ford submitted a report to Congress as a result of his order to the U.S. armed forces to retake the Mayaguez, a U.S. merchant vessel which had been seized by Cambodia. This report is the only report to have cited Section 4(a)(1) (50 USC Sec. 1543(a)(1)) of the Resolution, triggering the 60-day time limit; however the operation was completed before 60 days had expired.

1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed involved in hostilities.

1982-83: President Reagan sent a force of Marines to Lebanon to participate in peacekeeping efforts in that country; while he did submit three reports to Congress under the Resolution, he did not cite Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Over time the Marines came under increasing enemy fire and there were calls for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Congress, as part of a compromise with the President, passed Public Law 98-119 in October 1983 authorizing U.S. troops to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. This resolution was signed by the President, and was the first time a President had signed legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution.

1990-91: President George H.W. Bush sent several reports to Congress regarding the buildup of forces in Operation Desert Shield. President Bush took the position that he did not need "authority" from Congress to carry out the United Nations resolutions which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait; however he did ask for Congressional "support" of U.S. operations in the Persian Gulf. Congress passed, and the President signed, Public Law 102-1 authorizing the President to use force against Iraq if the President reported that diplomatic efforts had failed. President Bush did so report, and initiated Operation Desert Storm.

1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.

2001: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed Public Law 107-40, authorizing President George W. Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." For the first time, "organizations and persons" are specified in a Congressional authorization to use force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, rather than just nations.

2002: Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use force against Iraq, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, in Public Law 107-243.


Constitutional Provisions

1. Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8: Gives Congress the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces. Available online.

2. Constitution, Article II, Section 2: President as Commander in Chief. Available online


Legislation

1. The War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (November 7, 1973). Available online. It is codified in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48 of the United States Code. Available online.

2. Authorization for use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (September 18, 2001). Available online.

3. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498 (October 16, 2002). Available online.

its interesting stuff,, for certain

makes me think of how employers have these long lists of ambiguous requirements that they can impose and implement at will

giving them much more ROOM to discriminate behind the scenes while putting forth 'legitimate' reasons on the front


,,,,the ambiguous language of the political and legal world seems to be not much different,,,


we dont mind your affairs,, its LYING about them thats impeachable...

we dont mind about intervention thats needed, its not having EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT from us thats impeachable


,,,the circus continues