Could Obama Be Impeached Over Libya? Let’s Ask Biden

Joe Biden comments on unconstitutional launching of military action. Comments from 2007.

12 Comments on "Could Obama Be Impeached Over Libya? Let’s Ask Biden"

  1. Watching people explain why “that” kind of attack is different than “this” type of attack has been rather amusing.

  2. Watching people explain why “that” kind of attack is different than “this” type of attack has been rather amusing.

  3. chinagreenelvis | Mar 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm |

    Laughable. A classic example of truncating information in order to appear as if you have a leg to stand on. The part you got:

    “The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.”

    The part you didn’t get:

    “The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.”

  4. chinagreenelvis | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:10 pm |

    Laughable. A classic example of truncating information in order to appear as if you have a leg to stand on. The part you got:

    “The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.”

    The part you didn’t get:

    “The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.”

  5. DeepCough | Mar 24, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

    If “the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” then why did the military actions in Iraq authorized by Bush go thoroughly unimpeached?

  6. DeepCough | Mar 24, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

    If “the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” then why did the military actions in Iraq authorized by Bush go thoroughly unimpeached?

    • chinagreenelvis | Mar 24, 2011 at 5:06 pm |

      Bush had Congressional authorization. Also:

      “The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.”

    • It shouldn’t have. Two wrong do not make a right though. It’s time for the America Citizens to step up to the plate and take our country back from the bankers. They are behind all of our children being sent off to fight in unjustified situations

  7. chinagreenelvis | Mar 24, 2011 at 9:06 pm |

    Bush had Congressional authorization. Also:

    “The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.”

  8. The War Powers Act is entirely irrelevant since nowhere does the constitution grant congress the power to override the constitution via legislation or amendment. Only a constitutional amendment could do that.

    One would have to presume we live under the rule of law though, which would be an entirely foolish presumption in this day and age. We are ruled by a criminal gang of undercover fascists, not a lawful government.

  9. Marklar_Prime | Mar 25, 2011 at 12:58 am |

    The War Powers Act is entirely irrelevant since nowhere does the constitution grant congress the power to override the constitution via legislation or resolution. Only a constitutional amendment could do that.

    One would have to presume we live under the rule of law though, which would be an entirely foolish presumption in this day and age. We are ruled by a criminal gang of undercover fascists, not a lawful government.

  10. It shouldn’t have. Two wrong do not make a right though. It’s time for the America Citizens to step up to the plate and take our country back from the bankers. They are behind all of our children being sent off to fight in unjustified situations

Comments are closed.