• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kucinich: Obama's Impeachable Offense

mysteronyx

Critical Thinker
M
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
381
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the seven-term liberal Democrat from Ohio who has twice run for the White House, says President Obama committed an "impeachable offense" in deciding to authorize U.S. airstrikes over Libya Saturday without the consent of Congress.
Click to expand...

Found this at CNN's blog. I can't post links yet.

Thoughts?
 
Kucinich has been sneaking into the capitol building janitors closet and smoking used cleaning rags.
 
If only there were some Constitutional scholars to back Kucinich up with that claim. Surely there's been some thought on to whether or not the War Powers Act is constitutional or not.

Wait, how about this one?

Barack Obama said:
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
 
So many presidents have done it "to protect America's interests" that I can't see starting a big hullabaloo over this instance. And I hate B.O.
 
Presidents have been ignoring the War Powers Act (and the Constitutional provision reserving to Congress the right to declare war) for at least 5 decades now.

But, had Obama sought Congressional approval, what would his detractors have made of that? They were already calling him weak and wishy-washy for not injecting the US into the uprising earlier.
 
Loss Leader said:
Presidents have been ignoring the War Powers Act (and the Constitutional provision reserving to Congress the right to declare war) for at least 5 decades now.
Click to expand...

I remember in the Reagan years there was actually an appeals court case that supported the President (Reagan) in ignoring that law. I thought it was ridiculous at the time, but I didn't have the internet available, so I never read the actual opinion. Media accounts of constitutional court cases are not very good.

I actually think, though, that Kucinich may have a point. In recent decades it has been at least customary to call in congressional leaders and inform them of the imminence of military action. If Obama ignored this custom, then shame on him. Not that anyone will impeach him for it, but if he really totally ignored the Congressional role, it seems like a very bad precedent to set.
 
I support this impeachment. I feel the War Powers Act is very clear that imminent threat is a requirement.
 
Loss Leader said:
Presidents have been ignoring the War Powers Act (and the Constitutional provision reserving to Congress the right to declare war) for at least 5 decades now.

But, had Obama sought Congressional approval, what would his detractors have made of that? They were already calling him weak and wishy-washy for not injecting the US into the uprising earlier.
Click to expand...

The GOP was screaming that Obama was not doing enough to stop Kadaffi; now they are screiming he is getting the US too involved. Either position is a respectable one, but the blatent partisianship is pretty digusting...not that the Dems are any better.

As for Kucinich he can best be described as the Dems version of Michelle Bachmann.....off in his own little reality that bears little resemblence to the real world. I remember his Department of Peace, which, among other things, would have gotten the Federal Government involved in Domestic Marraige disputes.......
 
JWideman said:
Presidents have been doing this since Korea, at least.
Click to expand...

Quote from Volokh.com

Let's start with war initiation. Virtually every major military action undertaken by the US since World War II has either been formally authorized by strong congressional majorities in advance (Vietnam, both Iraq Wars, Afghanistan), or enjoyed strong congressional support without a prior formal vote, though often there was an authorizing vote after the fact (Korea, both Lebanon interventions, Grenada, Somalia, Haiti). There is only one noteworthy exception to this rule: President Clinton's 1999 military action in Kosovo, which was opposed by most congressional Republicans. Yet even this case partly validates the rule. Knowing that congressional support was severely limited, Clinton took account of this political reality and carefully limited the scale of US involvement and especially US casualties (which didn't include a single combat fatality).
Click to expand...
 
dudalb said:
The GOP was screaming that Obama was not doing enough to stop Kadaffi; now they are screiming he is getting the US too involved. Either position is a respectable one, but the blatent partisianship is pretty digusting...not that the Dems are any better.

As for Kucinich he can best be described as the Dems version of Michelle Bachmann.....off in his own little reality that bears little resemblence to the real world. I remember his Department of Peace, which, among other things, would have gotten the Federal Government involved in Domestic Marraige disputes.......
Click to expand...

I think most of the people pointing this out are just upset at the abrogation of powers. They want he-of-many-spellings gone as well. Obama can push for military action. But Congress must authorize it. It's a check and balance. It's there for a reason. Congress should censure him. Tell him he's naughty. And next time, ask Congress to rush through some emergency resolution authorizing it.
 
The safe money says that he'll formally report the military action to congress within the 28 days (or whatever's left) and they'll approve it.
 
One thing that's interesting in Obama's case is not that he has done what many presidents before him have done, but that he has done what he himself recently proclaimed that presidents should not do.

Another interesting thing is that while he seems to have been at great pains not to act without buy-in from a great many foreign governments, he seems to have completely forgotten to get the support of the one government he once insisted the President must have: his own.

And this repetitive litany of "other presidents did it too" makes no sense. Doesn't Obama have a coherent foreign policy of his own? Can't his policy decisions be justified on their own terms? Is "Reagan did it too" really the best we should expect of Obama?

I mean, sure, tu quoque is an easy enough rebuttal. But wouldn't a reasoned explanation of how the President arrived at this decision be a much better rebuttal?

I guess it's true what Rumsfeld said: You go to the JREF politics forum with weaksauce excuses you have, not the strong rational arguments you wish you had.
 
I don't think you'll find the most ardent Obama supporter here thinks he's any good at living up to his campaign promises, from fighting for healthcare to closing Guantanamo, he's been pretty dire in that regard.

However, if you take the decision on its own terms, it's a better start to intervention than usually happens. Remember '91 were were playing the no-fly zone game with Saddam and decided helicopters didn't count? If were were going to do the toppling Saddam thing, that probably would have been the time to start hitting tanks. Not trying to go off-topic, but it seems like a strong parallel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom