1-18-2013 10-18-11 AM.jpg (25.38 KiB) Viewed 1727 times
by Drew Zahn
Let the president be duly warned.
Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.” Ads by Google
Military Record Search1) Enter Any Name & Search It! 2) Military Records Instantly Militaryrecords.us.org No More 2-Day WorkweeksCongress should work 5 days a week, not 2. Agree? Sign the petition. NoLabels.org
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.
In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”
Read “The Case for Impeachment” and know why Obama has got to go before America is done for …
Get the bumper sticker that tells everyone to Impeach Obama!
In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”
“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”
Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.
Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.
“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
The exchange itself can be seen below:
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
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.
Thanks Blackvault for providing the article and the link.
I have been aware by reading history the controvercy over separation of powers according to the Constitution of the United States and how far back it goes. Even unto John Adams the second President of this country trying to restrict free speech.
But to farm out our sovereignty to a outside force is totally contrary to the Constitution of the United States. And the next time another nation gets in trouble and seeks our help...we decide that for ourselves..not by outside governments. And it will happen again. World leadership is not that smart as to keep out of trouble and get others to bear the expense.
As to whether the American People approve of it or will it...I dont think that issue came up at1with0. The matter at issue or controversy ..is whether this government is following it's charter or governing document. Not the will of the people per se.
Now ...if the case turns out that our government in the Executive Branch is following another governing document ...what is it...this other goverening document ...and do the American People know this has happened to them. Has this other governing document been announced to the people for their knowledge and approval?? Or have they been kept ignorant and unformed of it's existance...this other governing document?? A secret other governing document comes under the heading of "Occult" or hidden..not known except by a chose few. This has a basis in Religon...not in full disclosure or transparency.
If the government in the Executive Branch is following another governing document and goes against its original charter or governing document...who gave them permission to do this?? Now long has it been going on??
In otherwords...the government is representing something in the Executive Branch which is someone or something outside of what they have been authorized by the original charter. They are not representing the people of this nation..but something and someone else..not seen or not known , not announced/declared to and by the people.
This is the very same thing I thought when the Secretary of Treasury Tim Geitner stated when he announced about taxing the rich that these people need to pay more for the "Privilege " of being American. It is the same hidden/concealed mind set of entitlement thinking.
For you see at1with0...most of us are born Americans..it is not granted as a privilege from royalty...but a right with which we are born. It appears that Tim Geitner operates on another knowledge and understanding. A knowledge of royalty..feudalilsm. The very thing our governing charter was designed to prevent in government.
Now we have government leaders in the Executive Branch stating that they ask permission from outside forces for America to take action. That we pick up our go/no go ..from other governing bodies..not our own elected leaders. From souces unAmerican...just as the same priviliges of which Tim Geitner is speaking.
Finally! I have watched that particular video with Mr. Sessions many times, always in total disbelief at what I was hearing from Leon Panetta. I honestly had my doubts about this Bill ever seeing the light of day but there it is. Being from Alabama myself, I don't think I need to write my representatives to push this through but I hope others write theirs.
The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.