Obama and Biden on Impeaching People Like Themselves

By on March 30, 2011 in News 16

From the Daily Paul:

“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.”
— Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

Also, here’s Ron Paul on “Freedom Watch” (I don’t see how Napolitano can remain on Fox News, I think by this time next year, I’ll be he’ll have been kicked out):

, , , , , , ,

  • DeepCough

    Napolitano is right about one thing: both the Democratic and Republican parties are just puppets of the military industrial complex.

  • DeepCough

    Napolitano is right about one thing: both the Democratic and Republican parties are just puppets of the military industrial complex.

  • Rheokhu

    I don’t know how I’ve missed out on Napolitano all this time, but I agree with the poster. If what’s in this video is representative, he’s far too good for FOX.

    ETA: Ron Paul is the first talk show guest whom I’ve seen mention Libya’s oil supply in the context of this latest war.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know how I’ve missed out on Napolitano all this time, but I agree with the poster. If what’s in this video is representative, he’s far too good for FOX.

  • reubenavery

    Anyone with a basic knowledge of the constitution knows that the president can full well order such a military action. Declarations of war require the congress.

    Political bullshit.

    • Rheokhu

      Perhaps you can educate the rest of us by citing:

      a) the text where the Constitution permits the President to bomb another country’s military forces and installations without declaring war, which is what he’s been doing; and

      b) any difference between the bombings and an act of war that couldn’t be performed without Congress declaring it.

      My argument acknowledges that the President is Commander-In-Chief. For the duration of his term as President, he’s the highest ranking officer the Armed Forces has. He calls the shots on strategy, logistics, and personnel. The laws of our land don’t grant him the privilege of launching a war without Congress, even if the governments of France and the UK go along.

      • reubenavery

        Well, when was the last time Congress formally declared war? And how many wars have we been in since then?

        Congress can bitch all they want about “advise and consent” and “declaring war” but the president is in his full power and authority as commander in chief to direct military forces to “clear and present danger” and all that kind of bullshit.

        • Rheokhu

          World War 2, nine, and no he isn’t.

          In the interest of clarity: you said that anyone with a passing knowledge of the Constitution knows that this is okay. I’d like you to show me that I’m mistaken about what the Constitution says. If you’re arguing that Congress has historically allowed Presidents to get away with abuses of power, I agree – but that’s changing the subject, and it doesn’t make this latest war lawful.

        • Liam_McGonagle

          Don’t be an eejit. You know damned well that Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II should all have been impeached for their phony “non-war” wars as violations of Article I Section 8. Just because Americans are too gullible or gutless to demand enforcement of a law that is clearly articulated on the books doesn’t void the law.

          It just means that Americans are so fcuking worthless that they don’t deserve the democratic rights their ancestors bequeathed to them.

  • Anonymous

    Anyone with a basic knowledge of the constitution knows that the president can full well order such a military action. Declarations of war require the congress.

    Political bullshit.

  • Anonymous

    Perhaps you can educate the rest of us by citing:

    a) the text where the Constitution permits the President to bomb another country’s military forces and installations without declaring war, which is what he’s been doing; and

    b) any difference between that activity and an act of war that would require Congress’ declaration, in your informed analysis of the Constitution.

  • Anonymous

    Well, when was the last time Congress formally declared war? And how many wars have we been in since then?

    Congress can bitch all they want about “advise and consent” and “declaring war” but the president is in his full power and authority as commander in chief to direct military forces to “clear and present danger” and all that kind of bullshit.

  • Anonymous

    World War 2, nine, and no he isn’t.

  • adam j marsh

    (I don’t see how Napolitano can remain on Fox News, I think by this time next year, I’ll be he’ll have been kicked out)

    That’s funny because I don’t see how Fox News can remain on Television.

  • adam j marsh

    (I don’t see how Napolitano can remain on Fox News, I think by this time next year, I’ll be he’ll have been kicked out)

    That’s funny because I don’t see how Fox News can remain on Television.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t be an eejit. You know damned well that Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II should all have been impeached for their phony “non-war” wars as violations of Article I Section 8. Just because Americans are too gullible or gutless to demand enforcement of a law that is clearly articulated on the books doesn’t void the law.

    It just means that Americans are so fcuking worthless that they don’t deserve the democratic rights their ancestors bequeathed to them.