If Obama Strikes should he be impeached?

[spacecowboy342]

My view on the whole impeachment thing is that if the Senate House and the American people vote no and he does it anyways.

Then I think he should be impeached.

As the laws are now I think he "technically" is legally allowed to do it. But im not a pro on those laws. I still think anyone who so blatantly abuses his powers and goes against the American people should be impeached.

This is all in the scenario that he does anyways.

The constitution says he can be impeached for"high crimes and misdemeanors"not for being unpopular

[Jeremiah65]

While we are busy Obama bashing

Can I just add that he is also very dumb

If we are going to have a little fun at his expense...here's some chuckles...

[spartan max2]

The constitution says he can be impeached for"high crimes and misdemeanors"not for being unpopular

Like I said legally I don't think it could really be done.

But if the congress the house and American people are clearly against and he knows everyone is against it. But he goes to war anyways.

Then in that instant I just feel that morally he should be impeached.

We are suppose to be a representative democracy after all. We should not allow our leaders to just start wars after everyone is clearly against it.

[spartan max2]

Its kind of messed up that we are just clearly bashing him at this point.

But I just have to add that this one was my favorite lol

[spacecowboy342]

Like I said legally I don't think it could really be done.

But if the congress the house and American people are clearly against and he knows everyone is against it. But he goes to war anyways.

Then in that instant I just feel that morally he should be impeached.

We are suppose to be a representative democracy after all. We should not allow our leaders to just start wars after everyone is clearly against it.

Again I agree with the sentiment.I doubt Obama will act without congressional approval, unless Syria does something else to provoke things. On the plus side it seems at least this time the wmd's appear to be real.

[Harte]

We are suppose to be a representative democracy after all. We should not allow our leaders to just start wars after everyone is clearly against it.

We are a republic that is a representative democracy. Elected leaders here (and in any republic) can and often do act against the will of the majority of the citizens.

Any other way is chaos or dictatorship.

Harte

[ian hacktorp]

We are a republic that is a representative democracy. Elected leaders here (and in any republic) can and often do act against the will of the majority of the citizens.

Any other way is chaos or dictatorship.

Harte

Strange then, ain't it? How we've nonetheless arrived at the brink of both?

Maybe we don't have the "republic that is a representative democracy" we thought we had.

Edited September 8, 2013 by hacktorp

[spartan max2]

We are a republic that is a representative democracy. Elected leaders here (and in any republic) can and often do act against the will of the majority of the citizens.

Any other way is chaos or dictatorship.

Harte

There is a difference between making an unpopular decision and making a decision that the Senate and the House votes down.

If a leader still acts after both bodies voted it down, and the people are so clearly against it. Then to me that does sound like a dictator.

So would deserved to be impeached

Especially when that "decision" is starting a war. Why in the world should our presidents have the power to starts wars that the rest of the nation and legislative bodies vote down. At that point it would no longer sound like I am living in a free country

Edited September 8, 2013 by spartan max2

[Space Commander Travis]

We are a republic that is a representative democracy. Elected leaders here (and in any republic) can and often do act against the will of the majority of the citizens.

Any other way is chaos or dictatorship.

Harte

Surely that is dictatorship, and is most probably a good recipe for chaos.

[Yamato]

Hypocrite:

http://youtu.be/HOGfLlQxWd0

[shrooma]

More than likely, history will mark Obama's humiliation as the moment at which the American people FOUND their backbone and DECLINED to be pushed around with threats,

.

but yet when we voted no to a strike we were seen as cowards.

I wonder why.

[shrooma]

There is a difference between making an unpopular decision and making a decision that the Senate and the House votes down.

Especially when that "decision" is starting a war.

.

no-one would've started a war Spartan- there would be no soldiers going in- just a missile strike/bombardment to take out some of assad's infrastructure and prevent him from doing the same thing again.

if assad IS guilty, then i'd bomb his ass all the way back to the stone-age, but while the UN sit around with their thumbs up THEIR asses, it's just sending the message that assad can do whatever he wants with impunity, and THAT'S wrong.....

[Space Commander Travis]

.

no-one would've started a war Spartan- there would be no soldiers going in- just a missile strike/bombardment to take out some of assad's infrastructure and prevent him from doing the same thing again.

if assad IS guilty, then i'd bomb his ass all the way back to the stone-age, but while the UN sit around with their thumbs up THEIR asses, it's just sending the message that assad can do whatever he wants with impunity, and THAT'S wrong.....

And taking out Assad Chem Weapons wouldn't send a message of encouragement to the Al Q-supported branch of the Rebels, would it .... ?

But it's only the Evil weapons Mr. Bam wants to take out, you say? Well, did you see the report in a link I put somewhere that it's reckoned that Assad keeps his Evil weapons distributed around maybe 50 towns & cities across Syria? So Bam would have to attack all of them in order to send the right Message to Assad? And since even he realises that that might not be so easy, the alternative way (much easier) would be to take out his delivery systems, i.e. the Syrian air force and mobile rocket forces, i.e. a considerable part of the Syrian armed forces? And to have any hope of doing that, he'd have to first take out the Syrian air defenses and command & control systems, i.e., in effect, declaring full-scale war on the whole country (sorry, Regime). And none of this bombing back to the Stone age would be likely to result in significant civilian casualties? And you don't think that the Regime would make the absolute propaganda maximum out of those casualties? Obviously it'd be hypocritical of him to do so, but surely that would make great TV footage in Iran and all those places that really don't need much encourage to dislike Uncle Sam ...

[Yamato]

.

but yet when we voted no to a strike we were seen as cowards.

I wonder why.

Politics is why. Maybe you should stop caring about how you're seen.

The Parliament already voted no, so talking "stone age" tough must be easy now when it's all about what you "would" do and what someone else other than you will do. But still, where's this important block of citizens at that you're so worried about keeping up appearances with?

Assad isn't doing anything with "impunity" as anyone who's paid any attention to Syria in the past few years well knows.

[Jeremiah65]

"Bombing back to the stone age" is "humanitarian aid"?

Wow....How many innocent men, women and children would die from that? You Know a tomahawk missile is not a scalpel...they have "acceptable collateral damages". Then say you succeed and remove Assad...but the country is in ruin. How kind. How long to rebuild their homes and businesses? How many will starve? Iraq is a wasteland. Rinse and repeat?

Yeah...such humanitarian results comes from drone and missile strikes...

[Babe Ruth]

I agree with the sentiment, I don't want to engage in this war either, but I can site many precedents for US presidents committing troops with no authority but their own, see Teddy Roosevelt for one

Does that mean that if President A violates the Constitution and any federal statute he pleases, then it is OK for succeeding men to do the same?

[spacecowboy342]

Does that mean that if President A violates the Constitution and any federal statute he pleases, then it is OK for succeeding men to do the same?

No but if President A exercised presidential power legally why is president B guilty of abuse of power for taking actions no where near as extreme?This is just conservatives screaming because they hate Obama.Were Bush still in office these same people would be singing his praises and the dems would be screaming.In other words politics as usual in the US while real people lives hang in the balance

[F3SS]

Does that mean that if President A violates the Constitution and any federal statute he pleases, then it is OK for succeeding men to do the same?

That's the perpetual bickering conflict about this. There has to be consequences to be faced by someone sometime or what's the point if having laws, three branches of government and their checks and balances?

No but if President A exercised presidential power legally why is president B guilty of abuse of power for taking actions no where near as extreme?This is just conservatives screaming because they hate Obama.Were Bush still in office these same people would be singing his praises and the dems would be screaming.In other words politics as usual in the US while real people lives hang in the balance

The difference is congressional approval.

[Babe Ruth]

No but if President A exercised presidential power legally why is president B guilty of abuse of power for taking actions no where near as extreme?This is just conservatives screaming because they hate Obama.Were Bush still in office these same people would be singing his praises and the dems would be screaming.In other words politics as usual in the US while real people lives hang in the balance

Your point that an impeachment proceeding would be partisan politics is valid and true, but that does not mean that those who violate the law should be let go free to continue doing so. At some point, if we really are a nation of laws (which I no longer believe), then the law must be enforced.

[questionmark]

No but if President A exercised presidential power legally why is president B guilty of abuse of power for taking actions no where near as extreme?This is just conservatives screaming because they hate Obama.Were Bush still in office these same people would be singing his praises and the dems would be screaming.In other words politics as usual in the US while real people lives hang in the balance

And that is precisely the point: As long as no laws have been violated Congress and Senate members can maxturbate their brains all they want about impeachement. Impeachment is not about removing a prezz whom you don't like but about removing a prezz who broke the law.

In the case of Syria, the only way for Obama to break the law is that Congress passed a law that prohibits him from bombing Syria, that the Senate approves it and then that there is a sufficient majority in both houses to cash in his veto BEFORE he bombed. Good luck with that.

[shrooma]

no Col. I didn't see your link, it's mushroom season so i've been kinda busy, but if you could put it up again so I could read it....?

you've a better idea of where it is than I do.....

[spacecowboy342]

Your point that an impeachment proceeding would be partisan politics is valid and true, but that does not mean that those who violate the law should be let go free to continue doing so. At some point, if we really are a nation of laws (which I no longer believe), then the law must be enforced.

Again,what law would Obama be violating?He does have the authority to direct the military as commander in chief.Congress can cut off his money to wage war as was done to Nixon when he attempted to widen the Viet Namese war to Cambodia and Laos,but it is within the presidents power to commit troops at his discretion

[spacecowboy342]

That's the perpetual bickering conflict about this. There has to be consequences to be faced by someone sometime or what's the point if having laws, three branches of government and their checks and balances?

The difference is congressional approval.

Roosevelt never asked for any congressional approval

[F3SS]

Roosevelt never asked for any congressional approval

Well whatever, they can all just do what they want then. They already do and it's pretty clear that I can't stop them.

[danielost]

The militaries job is not defending the president but the constitution. If obama goes against the will of the people and a no vote in congress. The military should do its job and arrest him, for being a threat to the constitution.

A president can put troops into harms way if it is to protect the usa or its citizens.

Obama likes to o around the constitution and congress.