Will A Sitting President Finally Be Held Accountable For High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Impeachment proceedings begin in the House and the Senate over Obama’s brazen use of aggressive military force without congressional authority.

Eric Blair
March 11, 2012

Since 2005, Veterans for Peace and others have been calling for the impeachment of the sitting president for war crimes. After their demands to lawmakers to uphold the rule of law against Bush were largely ignored, they renewed their effort to impeach Obama once he continued to bomb sovereign nations without congressional approval.  Now, lawmakers seem to have finally decided to take the rule of law and Separation of Powers seriously.

Obama will face impeachment over his failure to seek congressional authorization before launching offensive military action in Libya last year.  Official impeachment proceedings have now been filed in both the House and Senate.

Last week, North Carolina Representative Walter Jones filed an Impeachment Resolution in the House H.CON.RES.107.IH stating “Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

“Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

President Barack Obama becomes only the third sitting president to face impeachment following Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.  Johnson was impeached for illegally dismissing an office holder without the Senate’s approval, and Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice.  Both were acquitted by the Senate.

Significantly, President Obama faces much more serious charges than his impeached predecessors and it’s still unclear what legal defense he will use to diffuse the charges as the legal basis for his unilateral action has been inconsistent and vague from the beginning of the Libya assault.

Prior to military operations in Libya, the Justice Department advised the Administration on the legality of using unauthorized force in Libya in a 14-page memo titled Authority to Use Military Force in Libya, which states vaguely:

We conclude…that the use of military force in Libya was supported by sufficiently important national interests to fall within the President’s constitutional power.  At the same time, turning to the second element of the analysis, we do not believe that anticipated United States operations in Libya amounted to “war” in the constitutional sense necessitating congressional approval under the Declaration of War clause.

The memo goes on explain why the alleged situation on the ground in Libya was in U.S.’s national interest, cites previous times when the U.S. military was deployed without congressional approval and claims the mission was an international support mission with no deployed ground troops to justify their conclusion.

However, in no way were national interests under an “imminent” threat by hostilities in Libya as required by the War Powers Act, and supporting an international mission is irrelevant to the Act.  Furthermore, Obama has maintained the legal defense that American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities even after hostilities exceeded the 90-day limit of unauthorized use of force afforded under the War Powers Act.

The New York Times quotes directly from the 38-page report Obama sent to concerned lawmakers after the 90-day deadline “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

Therefore, the Administration claims it wasn’t a real military conflict that Congress should concern itself with.  However, at the same time, the White House acknowledged that the cost to U.S. taxpayers was well over $1 billion for these non-hostile military activities.

Coincidentally, on the same day the impeachment resolution was filed, Obama’s Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the Libya War did indeed constituted military combat, but claimed the legal basis for spending U.S. tax dollars on war rested in “international permission”:

This impeachment comes on the heals of other Administration officials giving equally flimsy legal justifications for assassinating U.S. citizens without due process.  Where, also last week, Attorney General Holder sought to clarify this tyrannical authority in a speech at Northwestern University by claiming “judicial process” was not the same as “due process” under the Constitution.
Yet, the Fifth Amendment clearly states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”

And as Wikipedia defines due process:

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

The Obama Administration has clearly “offended against the rule of law”, and it appears his only defense lies in somehow changing the definition of words.  It’s not a strong legal position to be in and it seems for the first time in history a sitting president may be held accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.

This article first appeared at Activist Post

This entry was posted in Financial/economic information, Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption, Political and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Will A Sitting President Finally Be Held Accountable For High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

  1. Oh, one other thing….there is NO possible way for any of us to know the REAL facts! So, it is purely LOGIC to assume that those “hate” views are P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N of that individual. The clinical, but fun part, is that projection teaches us all about the person themself. Example: Gingrich condemning Clinto for getting a BJ “out of marriage”! LOL!!!

  2. About the Obama crime, Jean….I have to be blunt, though I am sure my response will not be appreciated by some whom I read. Oh, well……….

    My gut instinct is, “Get over yourself!”. Then the second is, “Get to know yourself!” These Obama crime facts (pullease!) have such logical argument that is would be a waste of time to go over them here. It is oh-so-simple. Most of the people making accusations are one, or all, of these: ignorant of research, ignorant of critical thinking skills, and most certainly R-A-C-I-S-T. It doesn’t take much for them to expose themselves (sometimes only a word or two, which they themselves cannot recognize) and they will do it every time.

    But, it IS like a sulky, tantruming toddler (clearly the same with a sulky, tantruming adult!!). “The more attention you give to a behavior …. the behavior GROWS. The same with people who become so engaged with the “hating”. The 4th-5th dimension reaction? Easy! LOVING DETACHMENT! They are seeking attention for negative behaviors … anyone who gives it credence, colludes in the infantile behavior. Sure, sure….1st amendment and all that. But this “hating” is not 1st amendment … it is simply cloaked in that as a “poor us” , righteous gig. Listen to them … but ignore their self-serving, attention-seeking, racist behaviors.

    • Jean says:

      Your wisdom here is much appreciated, and I thank you for speaking out. Today, I’ve moved passed Obama, somehow, because I could see all that we learned from the discussion – about discussions and how they ‘work’. Hugs, ~Jean

  3. G. Macdonald says:

    Bush First………………

  4. Katie says:

    If Obama isn’t one of the “dark” ones (and I don’t believe he is since “they” all hate him so much — when you have a den of thieves who vehemently hate one person, you sorta have to conclude he isn’t one of them — or we could even say, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”), he probably welcomes impeachment proceedings as an opportunity to expose the way our government has been operating for years.

    I was STUNNED when he sent our military into Libya without congressional approval, but over time, and with input from my heart, I’ve come to feel that many of the things he does that seem so atrocious, are done in such a way as to draw attention to them. As if Obama says to himself, “ok, if they (the “dark”) are going to make me do this, I’ll do it, but I’m not going to protect them or their tactics by trying to cover over it, or pretty it up, I’ll just do it in a way that shocks everyone. Then the corruption in the system can’t be ignored, and people will wake up and begin demanding answers.”

    I imagine him as having HUGE diaries and journals of every one of his days in office, and copies of documents hidden away, to serve as proof later for the truth of how things went down.

    I watched the video of Panetta telling the congressman that they don’t need to consult congress before engaging in military actions, and I sensed no arrogance in his words. Rather, I felt strongly that he was simply informing the senator of “how it is”, almost as an invitation to the senator to dig deeper. As if Panetta would love an inquiry into the “system” of power at the top of the U.S.

    Oh well, time will tell. And all will happen as it should.

    Blessings all.

  5. Mario Raso says:

    I would like to see them go after Bush and all his cohorts first just because this could cause a disruption in our Political system that will detract from bringing down the NWO cabal and Bankers. It could be a ploy so the cabal can continue with their negative destructive plan while this drama is playing out.

    Also, from what I understand from my sources and research, Obama is possibly a clone that weavers in and out and can be used for that very purpose to distract from the Illuminati cabal plan. The U.S. has bigoted genes that go way back (that it is working through to change) and it is very easy for the cabal to arouse those genes of the sheeple. We all need to use discernment and keep our minds and hearts open to make sure we all don’t get sucked in to their scheme. Just saying. Peace.

  6. susan says:

    Wild time to be on the planet! Sit back and watch the play unfold (or unravel as it were)!

  7. Alex says:

    Or they are paving the way for the wholesale roundup of said bankers. Do you think if, what Jean says is right about Obama, that he will go down for this without exposing the true corruption? Either way it is the start of the wall come a crumblin’ and a tumblin’ down. I hear the horns a blowin’!!

  8. Pingback: Media cover-up of Obama Impeachment Exposed – | Our Greater Destiny! Blog

  9. DrinkDeep says:

    and the Senate, who overwhelmingly passed the NDAA, is going to convict, right? Sounds like a bunch of kerfluffle to distract from the bankers if you ask me –

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.