Would you support the impeachment of Barack Obama if he intervenes militarily in Syria?

[Nye Bevan]

39 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes. If Obama intervenes militarily I will support his impeachment.
	0 (0%)
	If Congress votes for no intervention and Obama intervenes anyway I will support his impeachment.
	15 (38%)
	I will support Obama's impeachment if he sends in ground troops (as opposed to missile strikes).
	0 (0%)
	I'm waiting for more evidence. But if there is no more evidence I will support impeachment if Obama attacks Syria.
	0 (0%)
	I will not support impeachment.
	24 (62%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DireStrike]

1. Impeachment is for crimes. It isn't for getting rid of presidents you don't like. *Edit: It isn't?*

Last edited Mon Sep 9, 2013, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Joshcryer points out below that impeachment doesn't have specific legal requirements. In fact it does have several specific requirements, and one very general one.

From wikipedia:

"In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[9] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[citation needed] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[10] Four years later, Gerald Ford would become president when President Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment."

[Nye Bevan]

4. Many DUers seem to believe that military intervention would be a "war crime" (nt)

[morningfog]

7. Without UN sanction it would be a war crime.

No one has offered the legal basis for an attack. Feel free to offer if you have one.

If he strikes after a no vote from Congress, the strike would probably not be legal under US law either.

[alphafemale]

8. Go pound salt. The UN has ZERO legal authority in ANYTHING.

It is like the ultimate committee.

Not in favor of any Syria intervention but you need a lesson in who governs US law I think.

Certainly not the damn UN.

[morningfog]

9. The UN has zero legal authority?

Seriously? YOu sound like the neo-cons of yesteryear. You do realize that the Obama Administration has repeatedly invoked UN charters that have been violated as the need for a strike, right?

As for the US, what is the legal authority under US law to attack Syria? Precedent under the Bush Doctrine?

[HardTimes99]

13. What's with this "legal authority under U.S. law" stuff, Commie? You must be one of those

dirty hippie peace-lovin' faggots

[alphafemale]

19. The UN is a glorified fucking committee.

Fuck them. It is worthless and has been for a long fucking time.

It was a noble idea but anyone who still thinks it serves any purpose other than pud yanking needs to wash their eyes.

[HardTimes99]

10. So are you advocating that the U.S. withdraw from the U.N. and stop

funding it?

You should check the Constitution and what it says about the scope of foreign treaties.

[alphafemale]

15. UN has say so over US law?

Yeah look that up.

[HardTimes99]

18. Every treaty the U.S. enters into acquires the full force and authority as the

U.S. Constitution. We are signatories to the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter authorizes the use of military force to either defend against an actual or imminent attack OR upon authorization of the U.N. Security Council.

[alphafemale]

20. Treaties are NOT law. nt

Ask the Indians.

[HardTimes99]

23. Oy vey. Please re-read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

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

[morningfog]

24. Treaties most certainly are law.

And Indians have recently been enforcing some of the old Treaties in courts.

[G_j]

27. Indian treaties may seem like historical documents, but,

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Native+American+Rights


Treaty Rights

From the time Europeans first arrived in North America, they needed goods and services from Native Americans in order to survive. Often, the terms of such exchanges were codified in treaties, which are contracts between sovereign nations. After the American Revolution, the federal government used treaties as its principal method for acquiring land from the Indians. From the first treaty with the Delawares in 1787 to the end of treaty making in 1871, the federal government signed more than 650 treaties with various Native American tribes. Although specific treaty elements varied, treaties commonly included such provisions as a guarantee of peace; a cession of certain delineated lands; a promise by the United States to create a reservation for the Indians under federal protection; a guarantee of Indian hunting and fishing rights; and a statement that the tribe recognized the authority or placed itself under the protection of the United States. Treaty making ended in 1871, when Congress passed a rider to an Indian appropriations act providing, " No Indian nation or tribe … shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty …" (25 U.S.C.A. § 71). This rider was passed largely in response to the House of Representatives' frustration that it was excluded from Indian affairs because the constitutional power to make treaties rests exclusively with the Senate. Since 1871, the federal government has regulated Native American affairs through legislation, which does not require the consent of the Indians involved, as treaties do.

Indian treaties may seem like historical documents, but the courts have consistently ruled that they retain the same legal force that they had when they were negotiated. Despite frequent challenges and intense opposition, courts have upheld guaranteed specific tribal rights, such as hunting and fishing rights. Often, disputes over treaty rights arise from conflicting interpretations of the specific language of treaty provisions. In general, there are three basic principles for interpreting treaty language. First, uncertainties in Indian treaties should be resolved in favor of the Indians. Second, Indian treaties should be interpreted as the Indians signing the treaty would have understood them. Third, Indian treaties are to be liberally construed in favor of the Indians involved. Courts have consistently upheld these principles of treaty interpretation, which clearly favor the Indians, on the basis that Indian tribes were the much weaker party in treaty negotiations, signing documents written in a foreign language and often with little choice. Liberal interpretation rules are designed to address the great inequality of the parties' original bargaining positions.

[Katashi_itto]

39. Treaties are not law...Wow...searing brillance there.

[alphafemale]

50. What are the penalties for violating a treaty?

Enforceable against US I mean.

Name a penalty the US has faced for violating a Treaty.

No on edit make that any country or group causing egregious harm.

ONE.

Just ONE.

Name ONE.

Name ONE horrible thing that has been stopped by the unarmed misfits in blue hats.

I will then believe Treaties and the UN mean something.

[Katashi_itto]

57. Who cares if you believe treaties aren't meaningful?

But, To damn easy.


The Treaty of Versailles (French: Traité de Versailles) was one of the peace treaties at the end of World War I. It ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed on 28 June 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The other Central Powers on the German side of World War I were dealt with in separate treaties. Although the armistice, signed on 11 November 1918, ended the actual fighting, it took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty. The treaty was registered by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on 21 October 1919, and was printed in The League of Nations Treaty Series.

Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required "Germany accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt clause. The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion or £6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK £284 billion in 2013). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes predicted that the treaty was too harsh—a "Carthaginian peace", and said the figure was excessive and counterproductive.

Then we could talk about what the North Extracted from the south after the Civil war.

But there are tons of examples.

[alphafemale]

58. Not my point and you damn well know it.

Expecting treaties to be adhered to is for fools.

Because there is NO reason to adhere to them.

They are about as binding as a Pinkie Swear.

Sure small nations may be clobbered by sanctions.

But is going to be done anyway.

[Katashi_itto]

59. Yes it is the point, you stated it yourself.

[alphafemale]

63. When have the STRONG adhered to a treaty.

Once they decided they didn't want to anymore?

The question still stands.


What force does the UN have to enforce ANYTHING?

[Katashi_itto]

65. And the answer is still is obvious, you just refuse to realize it.

[NYC Liberal]

26. Treaties are NOT equal to the Constitution.

They are at the level of federal law.

Treaties cannot contradict the Constitution; they cannot restrict or expand the constitutionally defined powers of the government, just as federal law can't do so. That includes military and war-related powers.

[MNBrewer]

45. No, the CONSTITUTION does

Look THAT up!

[alphafemale]

47. Yeah we respect UN sanctions NEVER

Nor does anyone else. EVER.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. The U S is a permanent member of the Security Council

It's unlikely they would vote to censure themselves. So is China, France, Russia, and the U K and therein lies the reason the U N is so often ineffective.

[Xithras]

42. Article 6 of the US Constitution

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;...

The United States is a member of the United Nations, and as such has ratified nearly all of the major UN treaties. Under the terms of Article 6, every ratified treaty carries the same power as a Congressionally passed federal law. You might want to look up some of the 500+ international treaties passed by the UN over the years. All of the US ratified treaties are legally binding...even on the President. http://treaties.un.org/

[alphafemale]

29. Does the UN dictate US Law. Yes or No?

Speak.

[morningfog]

32. Lol, the US has ratified the charters it has signed with the UN.

UN law is US law. Now, what legal basis can you provide under international law?

Having given your opinion that international law does not exist or apply, please provide the US law which provides the legal basis for an attack.

Speak?

[alphafemale]

34. Nothing out of the UN dictates US law.

The UN is nothing more than glorified suggestions.

[MNBrewer]

46. The Constitution begs to differ.

[alphafemale]

36. There is no such thing as International Law.

At all.

There is a basic idea of such a thing.

But there is absolutely NO legally binding force behind it AT ALL.

Ask all those millions of slaughtered Hutus about the power of a UN resolution.

Yeah.


Worthless.

[joshcryer]

22. It would certainly be a crime against peace since it wouldn't be defensive.

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

And the ensuing fallout could constitute war crimes.

[Tippy]

35. Bush is and was the war crime of the century Obama is not guilty of anything except being born black

[alphafemale]

66. It is always a waste.

[joshcryer]

17. Actually impeachment is a political process.

It can be done for any reason whatsoever. The Congress doesn't even have to say their reason (though that might not go over well with the public).

[DireStrike]

54. How about that. huh.

I seem to have been misled by all those years of hand-wringing democrats scrounging for a "legally justifiable" reason to impeach W. Of course, congress would never have done that even if he did commit crimes.

In fact impeachment does have several specific requirements, and one very general one.

From wikipedia:

"In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[9] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[citation needed] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[10] Four years later, Gerald Ford would become president when President Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment."

Thanks for the info.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Unbelievable. n/t

[Logical]

3. Obama is 100% wrong on this, but impeachment is silly! n-t

[tarheelsunc]

5. Umm, I must have wound up at Free Republic by mistake... heading to DU now. eom

[HappyMe]

6. Good grief!

No, I won't support impeachment.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. Nope

but I am willing to bet that if US military intervention comes after a Congressional vote against it, the Republicans WILL call it grounds for impeachment. Just wait.

[eridani]

12. Don't support it, but I do think if it happens it would benefit Democrats

The Repukes will make asses of themselves, and hopefully plenty of Dems will remind people of the Bush war follies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. It would be a political bonanza but morally odious

They would be impeaching a president for a constitutionally allowed act and an act that has been done, I believe one hundred fifty times before, in our nation's past.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. However you feel about this instance it's established law the president can order force

However you feel about this instance it's established law the president can order force without prior authorization.

[Yo_Mama]

30. Really? Do you want to cite the Constitutional basis for your contention?

I'd be most interested.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. It's the spirit of the law that deems the president the Commander In Chief.

What happens if Congress is in recess and the North Koreans use a nuclear weapon on Seoul?

What happens if Congress is in recess and pirates attack a U S vessel?

What happens if Congress is in recess and one of our embassies are attacked?

[Yo_Mama]

37. Your examples have nothing to do with the current issue

The law that makes the president CinC is the Constitution, and the Constitution is pretty specific on the subject:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

The Congress shall have power ...
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

When Congress has authorized a field of action, the president's power then comes into play. And the president is authorized to take immediate defensive action against attacks on the US, US territories, US personnel, or US forces, but that is not the current case.

A president is authorized to use immediate force in many circumstances, most immediately and specifically to defend against attack. The president is not authorized to simply initiate hostilities. I refer you to this paragraph from Campbell v Clinton:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1177126.html

In this case, Congress certainly could have passed a law forbidding the use of U.S. forces in the Yugoslav campaign;  indeed, there was a measure-albeit only a concurrent resolution-introduced to require the President to withdraw U.S. troops.   Unfortunately, however, for those congressmen who, like appellants, desired an end to U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia, this measure was defeated by a 139 to 290 vote.   Of course, Congress always retains appropriations authority and could have cut off funds for the American role in the conflict.   Again there was an effort to do so but it failed;  appropriations were authorized.   And there always remains the possibility of impeachment should a President act in disregard of Congress' authority on these matters.

In that case Clinton sent the WPA report to Congress and Congress took mixed action - funded it, did not pass war authorization, voted down negation of the action. But note that the legal wrangling in this case turned largely on the idea that the Congressmen who sued did not have standing to sue not because the president's actions were necessarily constitutional, but because Congress already had the legislative power to accomplish its aim, including negation by statute, removal of funding and impeachment.

Note that the 2011 Libya actions by the president overrode internal legal opinions!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=0

The rather tenuous justification for Libya is not even present with Syria.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. What part of

What part of "However you feel about this instance it's established law the president can order force without prior authorization." don't you understand?

[Yo_Mama]

67. It is not established law that the president can order force without prior authorization always

It's established law that as CinC he can use arms to respond to attack.

This is a different matter.

We are talking about the law, not about how we feel about the situation in Syria. In some circumstances, the president can order the use of force without prior authorization when a de facto situation of war already exists, and that theory pretty much goes back to the writing of the Constitution. I'm pretty sure that during the debate the wording about Congress was changed from "make" to "declare" on the theory that sometimes the president might have to respond to sudden attack.

This is not pettifogging - there is a real legal distinction.

[Yo_Mama]

25. If it is done unconstitutionally, yes.

That is to say if Congress does not authorize it.

I support the Constitution above any president. This is what the Constitution has to say on the subject:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

The Congress shall have power ...
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

It's entirely clear that the president doesn't have the constitutional power right now to attack Syria without Congressional authorization. If he acts unilaterally, which I do not believe he will, he will have violated his oath of office and it will be a high crime and misdemeanor.

[MineralMan]

28. No. Not in any way. We are signatories to the ban on the use

of chemical weapons. What is proposed may not be in keeping with people's desires, but is not an impeachable crime in any way. In many ways, this is a ridiculous poll.

[Yo_Mama]

40. Show me where the CWC or any US implementation act authorizes attacks?

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

I think you'll be a long time looking. If the UN authorized force or sanctions, you'd have an argument. It hasn't. Nor is Syria in violation of a treaty, because it never signed.

[Democracyinkind]

31. Ask me again after Bush's conviction.

I might vote "yes" then.

[Yo_Mama]

38. Bush did go to Congress and did get authorization for Iraq

I think the results have convinced many that we shouldn't go down the same path with Syria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

Afghanistan was the AUMF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

But the AUMF cannot be used to authorize Syrian strikes, because they haven't been against the US.

[leftstreet]

41. If the majority of Americans supported it

I can't imagine that being the case though

[Xithras]

43. If Congress were to prohibit it, and he did it anyway, then yes.

But the odds of that happening are virtually nil, so it's a moot point. One of the President's advisor's has even conceded that Obama won't do it if Congress refuses. It's not happening.

Hypothetically though, I'd have no real problem supporting that, because arbitrarily overriding Congress would be a blatant abuse of power. Democrat or Rethug, any elected official who abused his or her power that way should be removed from office. Nobody on this board would hesitate to support an impeachment if it were a Republican in office, and I try to stay ideologically consistent.

[struggle4progress]

44. Obama Has No 'Intention' To Strike Syria If Congress Says No (NPR - 6 September)

by Mark Memmott
September 06, 2013 9:52 AM

"The president of course has the authority to act" even if Congress does not support his plan for a military strike on Syria, White House deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken host Steve Inskeep earlier today.

But Blinken also said of the president that it is "neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him" ...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/06/219626379/obama-has-no-intention-to-strike-syria-if-congress-says-no

[LittleBlue]

48. Yes, I would

He is an elected US president, not a Roman emperor.

[L0oniX]

51. What ever! War criminals still run free and the law means nothing. n/t

[YarnAddict]

52. Of course not! Impeachment is only

for serious issues--like blow jobs in the Oval Office.

[David__77]

53. As 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."

So this is never a question of some set criterion that can be adjudicated except by congress itself. I cannot foresee a situation in which this would even happen so it is a moot point. Under different political circumstances, I certainly would support impeachment of a president that engaged in foreign hostilities after seeking and failing to obtain congressional approval.

[Spirochete]

55. For blowing the fuck out of someone? Naw

that could only happen if someone blows the fuck out of him.

[rusty fender]

56. No and

NO

[MineralMan]

60. Interesting that you did not vote in your own poll.

At least I find it interesting.

[Ohio Joe]

61. I thought I was the only one who noticed that...

With the OP's pro-paul and pro-citizens united stances, I thought for sure putting a pro-impeachment stance would just follow.

[MineralMan]

62. Well, I usually look at the votes in polls to see how the

person posting the poll voted, and to look at who voted how. It's always interesting.

Whenever I post a poll, my vote is always the first one. I wouldn't post a poll without voting. But that's just me.

[Nye Bevan]

64. I very rarely vote in my own polls.

And if I do, it's after most of the votes are already in.

The reason is that when I post a poll it is primarily to survey DUers' opinions, not to express my own viewpoint.

BTW it seems that you follow my philosophy. You did not vote in this poll that you posted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2879371

[Egalitarian Thug]

68. .