Kucinich: Obama could be impeached for attacking Libya

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Kucinich: Obama could be impeached for attacking Libya

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/kucinich-obama-could-be-impeached-for-attacking-libya/



Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says President Barack Obama did not have the constitutional authority to order U.S. forces to participate in an attack on Libya.

In a conference call with other liberal lawmakers Saturday, Kucinich asked why the U.S. missile strikes were not impeachable offenses, according to two Democratic lawmakers who spoke to Politico.

The U.S. unleashed a barrage of strikes against the Libyan regime's air defenses over the weekend, but ruled out using ground troops in what Obama called a "limited military action."

After taking a cautious stance on armed intervention in Libya's civil war, Obama ordered the attacks citing the threat posed to civilians by Moamer Kadhafi's forces and a UN-mandated no-fly zone endorsed by Arab countries.

[Zoeisright]

1. Yeah, that's just what we need.

NOT.

[Richardo]

2. Let's impeach EVERY president from now on!!

:party:

[Amerigo Vespucci]

4. Richardo, I'm not 100% sure, but I think you could possibly be impeached for saying that...

...or maybe I can be impeached for telling you that you could be impeached. Not sure. I'll have to look into it and get back to you.

:rofl:

[razorman]

34. It will certainly be tried.

I predict that because of President Clinton's impeachment, there will be public calls for every president to be impeached, regardless of party. The term is already starting to become meaningless.

[Richardo]

39. I fully agree - impeachment used to be the hydrogen bomb of politics...

Now, thanks to the GOP's penchant to use any and all means available for political gain, it's nothing more than a cheap handgun.

[razorman]

50. You are right. But to be fair, it is not only a GOP fault. Recall all the voices

on our side, calling for the impeachment of GWB, when everyone knew it would not happen. Strangely enough, this time the people calling for President Obama's impeachment are other Dems, notably Dennis Kucinich. I suppose you can at least say he is being consistent. It will not happen now, either.

[Richardo]

63. You're right, not just a GOP issue. I was a consistent nay-sayer against impeaching GWB

Mainly because most proponents had no idea that it did NOT mean removal from office, or how much he would have been validated by the inevitable acquittal in the Senate.

[madmax]

3. Let's go with elect'em - impeach'em.

:eyes:

[earthside]

5. Agree or disagree ...

... U.S. Rep. Kucinich is consistent.

Sadly, more consistent than is Barack Obama: http://youtu.be/PWJLmMyGw-U

[Godhumor]

8. Kucinich is consistently a self-aggrandizing blowhard

But he is definitely consistent on that matter, for sure.

[FSogol]

33. +1 n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

52. self-aggrandizing toward what end?

:shrug:

[Godhumor]

59. His own publicity

His history is not a good one.

[ReggieVeggie]

77. really?

he's just trying to get face time? Because....?

[Godhumor]

78. Because he is in love with his own fame and always has been--it is why his record is so awful

Very little legislation introduced that eventually passed. Radical shifts in policy support. Doing BS things like announcing he wanted Rand Paul to be his running mate. And let's not forget his suing over the olive pit or claims of seeing a UFO.

The guy just wants to be seen and to be in the news-cycle. He has no interest in actually fixing anything.

[ReggieVeggie]

89. So he said what he said for notoriety?

or because he believes what he's saying?

[Godhumor]

97. Notoriety, hence bringing full circle to self-aggrandizing. He's a do-nothing. n/t

[sabrina 1]

115. What about these Democrats?

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Mike Capuano (D-MA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during the conference call, a source told Politico.

Are they ALL self-aggrandizing too? There is no better protector of the Constitution in Congress than Jerry Nadler btw. If he is concerned, then there is a problem.

Did you read the article, or is this a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived attack on a politician? Because personally NO politician is worth defending when or if the Constitution is under attack, wouldn't you agree?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

101. you are so wrong!

[Godhumor]

110. I know he is well liked by many here, and I have no problem with that. To me, he is all bark no bite

And he takes stands where he doesn't have to worry about compromising to win, because he knows they will not win.

The most respect I've had for him is when he urged people to vote for HCR--he took a stand for something that wasn't all or nothing. If he was willing to work within that sort of framework, my opinion of him would be much higher.

[frylock]

111. shirley mclaine made the claim that kucinich saw a ufo..

and you REALLY want to fault him for the cafeteria's negligence? really?

[sabrina 1]

90. What has he been wrong about on major issues?

And what politician is not a self-aggrandizing blowhard? That's kind of like saying 'water is wet'.

He is absolutely right that in a country that abided by its constitution any president attacking a nation that has not attacked us, and without Congressional approval, would be impeached.

I'm sure Kucinich knows very well that that will never happen to a president who starts wars no matter how unconstitutional. And of course they know that, which is why they don't care about the laws of this country anymore. Who's going to stop them?

Did Obama go to Congress before he went off to war in Libya, spending the people's desperately needed money, to get the approval of the people's representatives? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? They want to spend our money on bombs etc. they need our approval?

Kucinich reminds us of what we have lost. He is an important and very consistent voice for the rule of law and for our rights and unfortunately, almost a lone voice, in a Congress that has been almost been completely bought by Big Business.

[Godhumor]

96. He spends so much time on self-advertising he contributes nothing that actually gets passed

His legislative moves have all been designed solely to get attention.

You look at his actual legislative record, and it is awful. You call that a "lone voice" I call that ineffective and in it for himself.

He is certainly not absolutely right in this matter either.

[sabrina 1]

99. I have looked at his legislative record, in fact I have posted it here

and it is better than some actually and is about average for the time he has been in Congress.

I would hope that when someone tries to stop a war, or stop funding it, that they WOULD try to get attention for it. Imo, he didn't get enough attention for issues like that, but then that is by design. Pointing out that Congress had the ability to stop funding an illegal war, isn't something that is popular with most of his colleagues who did not have guts to try to stop those wars. And the MSM is not going to cover extensively the reasons he so clearly laid out as to why it was Congress' obligation to refuse to continume funding Bush's wars. I wish they had, it was a lesson on the Constitution regarding the powers of the branches of government that this country badly needs.

I don't understand why you would object to a Congressman trying to get the attention of the public for such important matters. We sure don't hear much about them from anyone else.

If he's not right about this, where is he wrong? Was Congress consulted in their role of having the power to fund or not, any foreign military interventions? Has Congress completely abdicated its powers now to a Unitary Executive? I hope people here will feel the same should a Republican president do the same thing, but airc, even though Bush did have the approval of Congress for his foreign adventures, there were literally hundreds of threads right here on DU excoriating him for starting an illegal war etc. And I agreed with them and still do.

I haven't changed my opinion on these matters. I think the Constitution still applies, especially when the military is committed to drop bombs on foreign nations. Did we have a discussion about this? What is the exit strategy? What if Qadaffi hangs on for months as he might? Are we going to execute a foreign leader without trial? The British PM eg, said last week that it might be necessary to put troops on the ground in a 'peace-keeping capacity'.

The UN resolution doesn't mention 'peace-keeping' forces being off the table. Does that mean U.S. troops as well? Do we have Special Forces on the ground right now? I have read that we do. Did Congress approve of that if so?

I am very grateful that we have at least ONE member of Congress at least raising questions. I wish there were more of them.

[joeunderdog]

125. Stop. You are asking people to address content

rather than partisanship or banners.

How could you?



Issue by issue, all names aside, ask yourself where you stand?

I'll take DK any day.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

104. Hey godhumor, relaxe....Kuchie said, "could" not should...wtf is up your ass anyway?

[Godhumor]

107. I am relaxed, I just don't like Kucinich. No matter how it is parsed he mentioned the word impeach

I feel Kucinich is destructive and not helpful; I have always felt this way. This certainly does not raise him up in my opinion.

[sabrina 1]

116. Okay so you don't like HIM. But he is not the only Democrat

raising the same questions. Is it the fact that Obama is being questioned that you have a problem with, or does the fact some other very credible Democrats share Kucinich's concerns cause you to wonder if they might be right?

Here they are again:

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Mike Capuano (D-MA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during the conference call, a source told Politico.

Do you not like any of them?

[snappyturtle]

12. +1

[Motown_Johnny]

13. consistently represents the views of about 1% of the country

I'll give ya that

[LWolf]

16. Apparently, if 1% is accurate, the 1% with the most intelligence and integrity.

Too bad the other 99% are so lacking; the nation would be a better place.

[Motown_Johnny]

27. the self deluded 1% This is not illegal in any way and not impeachable

This statement is completely insane. The War Powers Act gives POTUS the authority to do this.

This Is Not Illegal In Any Way, Not According To U.S. Law And Not According To International Law.

[sabrina 1]

114. Can you please explain that? Was Libya about to attack the U.S.?

Did Congress even discuss this? Was it voted on? How is it going to be funded if Congress has not approved the funding which is only within THEIR power to do? Since when can a president fund a war all by himself?

I see you support what we used to NOT support when Bush claimed the powers of a Unitary Executive. Has something changed regarding those powers which we so objected to? And what if we get a Republican president, (a question I asked rightwingers repeatedly when they made the same argument you are now making regarding presidential powers and now of course, they are screaming) who claims the same powers to drop bombs on some other country?

Are we on some kind of see-saw, where when a Republican does it, we scream, and when a Democrat does it, THEY scream? And if so, who is right? I guess you're saying that Republicans were right after all. All that screaming for nothing.

[dkofos]

22. But it's not the top1% that the big O supports.

[LWolf]

14. More consistent, and I agree with him more often than not.

I don't think impeaching Obama is going to go anywhere. We couldn't get a fucking Democratic House to find enough courage to impeach GWB.

I agree, though, that Obama did not have the authority to attack Libya without Congressional approval.

He probably would have gotten approval, though. There are more hawks than not in Congress, and almost no Democrats who will oppose a Democratic president.

Still, I appreciate him pointing this out.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

108. I agree with LWolf

[Bumblebee]

46. yes, consistently stupid and useless.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Now that's what I can a REAL dilemma for republicans.

The primal desire to impeach Obama for ANY reason and knowing they can't as they wanted our military in Libya more than Obama did.

[DevonRex]

7. He'll be hearing from lots of actual Democrats. nt

[dionysus]

10. and then he flew away on his magic unicorn, back to the enchanted shoe...

[DevonRex]

21. Well, damn. Was that UFO a unicorn the whole time?

I'm all for Dennis going back to his enchanted shoe.

:rofl:

[NorthCarolina]

25. If they are "actual Democrats", then I assume they will be offering their support. nt

[DevonRex]

37. So you think Obama should be impeached?

Disgusting.

[Maru Kitteh]

41. considering Obama's approval rating among self-identified Democrats runs 75% + I'd say

your statement is not reality-based, but rather your personal wish.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. just looks foolish, The War Powers Act Dennis, have someone look it up for you

never mind, I'll do it. Try this again in about 2 months.



http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm


^snip^


SEC. 5. (b)

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

[snappyturtle]

24. There should have been at least a discussion of Presidential intent

before proceeding. Unfortunately, there's plenty of precedence for the President's action.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/21/134730963/the-nation-in-libya-us-forgot-about-congress

The Nation: In Libya, U.S. Forgot About Congress--by John Nichols

snip~

"President Obama's approval of an intervention in Libya has also skipped the Congress.

Was this necessary? Of course not. Obama could have consulted Congress; indeed, if the issue was pressing, he could have asked that the House and Senate be called into session over the weekend. Had the president gone to the Congress, it is doubtful that he would have met with opposition. As noted above, Gadhafi has few defenders.

Consulting Congress does not mean that Congress will block a war. The constitutional system of checks and balances was not established merely to stop wars; it was established to allow members of Congress to add their insights, to propose timelines, to set limits and parameters for military initiatives.

The debate, the discussion, the sifting and winnowing of information: This is the point."

[The Magistrate]

32. The Utter Dysfunction Of Congress At Present, Ma'am, Requires This Formality Be Foregone

[snappyturtle]

100. Utter dysfunction of Congress is, sadly, a chronic condition. nt

[The Magistrate]

112. It Is Past the Usual At This Point, Ma'am, Unfortunately

[rustydog]

11. Why not? Newtered Gingrich lead an impeachment of Clinton

For having sex with a female he was not married to WHILE he (Newtered) was boning some female who was not HIS wife...Of COURSE Obama can be impeached!
Will the GOP launch an investigatin...most likely.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[opihimoimoi]

15. The Dude has gone SOUR....WTF Dennis?...Just destroy Obama why doncha? Palin & Compnay must LOVE YOU

[dkofos]

17. Is impeachment on boner's table??

[Marblehead]

18. technically yes

so should have any pres that starts a war without congress's approval. The UN shouldn't be able to decide this for us, especially when it is our blood and treasure and you know it will end up that way

[Monique1]

20. DK lost me

a long time ago when asked if he won the presidency who he would select for his VP - he said Ron Paul.

[Marblehead]

28. he still makes more

sense than the corporate owned presidents we've been having for years, at least he would fight for the citizenry. I liked it back in 08 when he said he would take on the health insurance companies. We need someone to fight for us and Obama ain't it.

[vaberella]

35. The thing is..this is NOT a war. n/t

[WingDinger]

19. OMG, this is horseshit, coming out of KUCINICH! Not good.

Presidents have had the power, and almost every one used it, to send troops into a hotzone, for a I believe 90 day period, on only the preses say so. He is then expected to take it before congress, and fight to make it an adopted war. This is how we do it. Haven't had a proper war for eons. I suspect we moved much quicker, on Libya, cuz they are oil related. This is not necessarily about us TAKING their oil. It might just be about a steady price on oil.

Sure, change the whole system, but dint insist on it, on a dime. I thought Kucinich more mature than that.

[DevonRex]

23. His office does not deny that Kucinich said it. I just called.

I will donate to any primary challenger he might have next time around. And I told his office person that.

[Ikonoklast]

58. Dennis won't have to worry about that too much.

Ohio Republicans are going to gerrymander his district into oblivion.

[DevonRex]

64. Well, that's true. I hate gerrymandering. I'd rather contribute to his

loss to a sane Democrat.

[Ikonoklast]

68. But that's what happens when the voters sit home.

They gave up their right to be part of that process, and this is the results.

[DevonRex]

70. Yes it is. Wow, they really showed the Dem Party who's boss, eh?

Wha..???? Not the Greens and Socialists? Oh noes, they gave the election to the Republicans! Who could have seen that coming?

[Ikonoklast]

81. What do you mean Kasich is a Wall Street tool, intent on selling Ohio

public assets off to his pals on Wall Street?


WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT????


Makes me mad enough at the Democratic Party that I'm not going to vote in the next election, either. That'll show 'em!!


Republicans fuck over the electorate, and the PL then blames Democrats for it.

[DevonRex]

83. Funny, when they lobby so hard for people to stay home and not vote

and then they disavow all responsibility for the outcome. Kinda makes you wonder...

[Ikonoklast]

85. "I'm not voting in the mid-term elections!", thundered Big Eddie Schultz,

the 'Ex'- Republican.



And the sheep all went "Baaaa!", "You tell 'em Big Eddie, we'll show 'em!"


Nothing to wonder about.

[jillan]

26. Let's Impeach Obama while Bush and Cheney enjoy their retirement!!!

Let's impeach all Democrats!!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

29. +1

[ReggieVeggie]

53. Kucinich called for Bush's impeachment

while the other Dems cowered

[Ikonoklast]

87. He knew nothing would come of it.

The Senate would not have voted for conviction on charges of impeachment.


Dennis always plays the safe game.

[ReggieVeggie]

120. OH! So calling for impeachment knowing it wouldn't happen IS BETTER than

not calling for any impeachment at all like the rest of the Democrats?

HAHAHA! ANd I bet you or people like you are over at the Nader thread saying something like "Where were you during the Bush years, Ralph?!?" AHAHAHAHA

[earthside]

67. It was Kucinich ...

... who introduced articles of impeachment against Bush/Cheney and introduced them into a majority Democratic Congress.

So, it's not because of Dennis that Bush/Cheney have got off scot-free for their war crimes.

[Akoto]

30. Impeached for what? He has 60 days under the War Powers Act. n/t

[vaberella]

31. Do you people see what Obama is dealing with in Congress?

Wow....Kucinich----this man is something else.

[Zorra]

36. The point is: A President does not have the Constitutional authority to bomb

whoever s/he wants at any time s/he chooses.

Regardless of the validity of his actions, Obama has made a serious legal, and possibly political, mistake.

The only reason republicans may not try to impeach him is because they love war and the money it makes for them.

[DevonRex]

38. So you think Obama should be impeached, too?

[Zorra]

76. Absolutely not. I think he could be impeached. Big difference. n/t

[Akoto]

44. Which law did he violate?

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action (they obviously know). Armed forces are forbidden from remaining any longer than 60 days, plus 30 days for withdrawal, without Congressional authorization or a declaration of war.

We are in day, what, two? Three?

[Zorra]

72. The War Powers Resolution of 1973. You posted only a small interpretaiton

of an excerpt with no context.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Here is a link to entire Act:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

[harun]

82. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution

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

Not that we actually follow the Constitution anymore. For if any two branches of gov't agree, it is allowed no matter what the paper states.

As one can see here:

http://is.gd/aTSTmq

Dk is the only one who even brought it up. If Congress won't do anything about it, then you have the Executive and Legislative agreeing, and Obama can do what he wishes. Albeit still on paper being unconstitutional.

[FLPanhandle]

40. Shit like this is why Kucinich has no credibility

Think Dennis, think!

[DevonRex]

42. Call Dennis and tell him what you think about it.

http://kucinich.house.gov/Contact/

[Amerigo Vespucci]

47. Error message on your link: "The parameter is incorrect."

http://kucinich.house.gov/Contact/

I'm guessing it's because you have a space between "Contact" and "/"

:patriot:

[DevonRex]

48. Works for me. Wonder why. But thanks, just in case other people

get the same error message you did. :hi:

[Bumblebee]

49. why waste one's breath?

[DevonRex]

54. I told his phone person that I'll donate to any primary challenger

he might have next time around. And I'll personally get a lot of other people to do the same thing.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

57. Contacting any politician could be considered "wasting one's breath"...

...but the fact of the matter is that they are elected officials, serving at the pleasure of the voters who elected them.

It's like that scene in "Casino" where Don Rickles is doing the voice-over as Dick Smothers (as a congressman) is in his hotel room, unloading stacks of comped poker chips and undressing some blonde woman. "These guys earned their comped life the day they were elected," Rickles says.

You can view politicians as corrupt, jaded people who won't listen to you because they don't care, or you can hold them accountable.

Giving Kucinich the benefit of the doubt...and I don;t say this as a supporter, just someone who posted a new story...maybe he believes what he's saying is right. Maybe he didn't take the time to consider anything that's been discussed in this thread. Maybe he "shot from the hip." I don't know. He does. He's the one who said it, so I agree...anyone who takes issue with what he said may wish to consider contacting the person who said it. Straight line between two points, you know?

In the long run, you can't control their behavior, any more than I can control yours, or you can control mine.

But if you agree / disagree with something a politician says or does and take the time to contact them, you've taken responsibility, and if enough people do that, change happens.

Sometimes we just need to do what we know is right with no guarantees of what the other person will do.

And I'm not suggesting that you contact Kucinich...that's your business, not mine. I'm just responding to your question.

:patriot:

[DevonRex]

60. When I called, it was first to ask if he had indeed said it. I wanted to make sure

before I flew off the handle. They refused to answer, said "We have no comment on that." And then referred me to his website, which gives a flawed explanation of what the President can and cannot do with regard to "war."

[Maru Kitteh]

43. +1000

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Shouldn't he be doing something more useful, like protecting us from olive pits?

[NYC Liberal]

51. "Kucinich asked why the U.S. missile strikes were not impeachable offenses"

Let me count the ways, Dennis...

[MilesColtrane]

55. Introduce the articles, Dennis.

There are plenty of Republicans who will support you.

(He's desperately trying to out-Nader Nader.)

[DevonRex]

56. I doubt he has the courage of his conviction. nt

[Ikonoklast]

61. What are you talking about? Consider Dennis' stellar legislative record,

the enormous amout of bills he wrote, sponsored or got passed into law, and the many Democrats he has built coalitions with over his long, long tenure in the House.



On second thought, forget it.

He has done NONE of that.

One of the biggest do-nothing legislators in Congress is named Kucinich.

[DevonRex]

62. But he did see a UFO.

:rofl:

[Union Scribe]

74. Do you? Are you enlisting yet?

[DevonRex]

79. I'm a veteran. US Army. 98G2LRU. Thank you for YOUR service.

:sarcasm:

[Ikonoklast]

91. Ouch.

You could have just stepped on his toes, instead of kicking him in the er..ah...umm...















...presumptions.

[DevonRex]

95. Hahaha.

That's one of my favorite things about being a veteran.

[tallahasseedem]

109. Well that just about wrapped things up!

Thank you for your service! :)

[blogslut]

65. Awww. Isn't that cute?

Dennis is running for president!

[Sky Masterson]

66. Dear Dennis.

I love you, But shut up..

[ecstatic]

69. I have to hand it to Kucinich. He knows how to raise funds

Whenever funds are low, tap into the left wing blogosphere. Repeat whatever the current talking point is. Watch the cash roll in. It's how he manages to stay in office despite decades of not accomplishing anything.

[DevonRex]

71. I called his office and said I'm donating to any Dem who primaries him.

So he can certainly raise funds for his primary challenger.

[Union Scribe]

75. I'm sure that $14 is going to be the clincher.

[DevonRex]

80. So now you're making fun of people's economic status? How very "progressive" of you.

I'll give what I can. I always do, both time and money.

[Union Scribe]

124. Lol

ok universal soldier.

[Ikonoklast]

84. Hollywood saved his seat the last time.

While he was out tilting at windmills during the last presidential run, his opponenet was quickly gaining ground and Dennis had, like, some gum and lint left in his pocket to save his House seat.

His friends in Cali came up big for him.


As a legislator, let's just say his many years in the House have produced an underwhelming amount of significant legislation.

[Forkboy]

86. He's asking why the double standard for Bush and Obama, and he's right.

This place wouldn't know nuance if it bit you all the ass and chewed upwards to the head.

"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," he insisted.

This is correct.

"Congress should be called back into session immediately to decide whether or not to authorize the United States’ participation in a military strike. If it does not, the action of the President is contrary to U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that the United States Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not. That was the Founders’ intent," the Ohio congressman added.

This is also correct.

Nowhere in that article does DK say Obama should be impeached. Nader does, and don't any of you find it funny that they bring Nader up in this article. You DK haters are being played like fiddles, and can't even see it.

Also noted is that not one of you is complaining about the others mentioned in the article (I'm guessing because few of you actually read the thing).

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Mike Capuano (D-MA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during the conference call, a source told Politico.

I should have invested in Ben Gay for all the kneejerking going on in this thread. I could have made a killing.

[ProSense]

88. "double standard "? The two

situations aren't even remotely similar.

Conflating them trivializes the extent of Bush's deception and illegal actions.

[ReggieVeggie]

92. and the Democrat complicity?

that too?

[Poll_Blind]

98. LOL, too true.

PB

[StarburstClock]

106. Excellent points, thank you for making them.

The article raises those questions and you answered them.

[flvegan]

119. That's in the upper decks.

Man, lots of folks went down swinging before you stepped up. Well done.

[RufusTFirefly]

123. A great big +1 n/t

[Catherina]

93. Thank you Dennis for your moral consistency and watching out for the constitution n/t

[treestar]

94. With the UN behind it, it's hard to imagine that could be right

Did Kucinich think Clinton should have been impeached too? And what about Reagan? And Johnson and Nixon?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

103. UN or not it is our Constitution that must stand before any UN approval.

[treestar]

122. Our Constitution allows for treaties

[Taverner]

102. Well not yet at least

Although bombing Libya is "stupid is as stupid does"

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ramulux]

113. I haven't seen anyone even bother

attempting to explain why he is wrong. Obviously this isn't the same situation as Iraq but it still is a military action being done by the USA without the consent of congress. How is that not factually accurate?

[Confusious]

121. War powers act

Lots of people have posted it up thread.

[JoePhilly]

117. Apparently, its only a crime when the black guys does it.

The US has not declared war since world war II.

And almost every President since world war II as become engaged in some military action of one kind or another.

And so clearly, the time to become outraged, and actually impeach some one, is when the US President is a black guy.

Yup, this is definitely the time to take a stand.

[RufusTFirefly]

118. Did you read the headline? Or the story?

And, oh yeah, it's from Politico, a "news organization" that lives for creating shitstorms out of practically nothing.

Kucinich did not call for impeachment.

Kucinich asked why launching missile strikes that were not approved by Congress wouldn't constitute an impeachable offense.

Check out Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution for a sense of why he asked the question in the first place.