General Discussion

David__77

(24,209 posts)

53. As Gerald Ford said...

Mon Sep 9, 2013, 12:45 PM

Sep 2013

"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

So this is never a question of some set criterion that can be adjudicated except by congress itself. I cannot foresee a situation in which this would even happen so it is a moot point. Under different political circumstances, I certainly would support impeachment of a president that engaged in foreign hostilities after seeking and failing to obtain congressional approval.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would you support the impeachment of Barack Obama if he intervenes militarily in Syria? [View all] Nye Bevan Sep 2013 OP

Impeachment is for crimes. It isn't for getting rid of presidents you don't like. *Edit: It isn't?* DireStrike Sep 2013 #1

Many DUers seem to believe that military intervention would be a "war crime" (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #4

Without UN sanction it would be a war crime. morningfog Sep 2013 #7

Go pound salt. The UN has ZERO legal authority in ANYTHING. alphafemale Sep 2013 #8

The UN has zero legal authority? morningfog Sep 2013 #9

What's with this "legal authority under U.S. law" stuff, Commie? You must be one of those HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #13

The UN is a glorified fucking committee. alphafemale Sep 2013 #19

So are you advocating that the U.S. withdraw from the U.N. and stop HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #10

UN has say so over US law? alphafemale Sep 2013 #15

Every treaty the U.S. enters into acquires the full force and authority as the HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #18

Treaties are NOT law. nt alphafemale Sep 2013 #20

Oy vey. Please re-read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #23

Treaties most certainly are law. morningfog Sep 2013 #24

Indian treaties may seem like historical documents, but, G_j Sep 2013 #27

Treaties are not law...Wow...searing brillance there. Katashi_itto Sep 2013 #39

What are the penalties for violating a treaty? alphafemale Sep 2013 #50

Who cares if you believe treaties aren't meaningful? Katashi_itto Sep 2013 #57

Not my point and you damn well know it. alphafemale Sep 2013 #58

Yes it is the point, you stated it yourself. Katashi_itto Sep 2013 #59

When have the STRONG adhered to a treaty. alphafemale Sep 2013 #63

And the answer is still is obvious, you just refuse to realize it. Katashi_itto Sep 2013 #65

Treaties are NOT equal to the Constitution. NYC Liberal Sep 2013 #26

No, the CONSTITUTION does MNBrewer Sep 2013 #45

Yeah we respect UN sanctions NEVER alphafemale Sep 2013 #47

The U S is a permanent member of the Security Council DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #16

Article 6 of the US Constitution Xithras Sep 2013 #42

Does the UN dictate US Law. Yes or No? alphafemale Sep 2013 #29

Lol, the US has ratified the charters it has signed with the UN. morningfog Sep 2013 #32

Nothing out of the UN dictates US law. alphafemale Sep 2013 #34

The Constitution begs to differ. MNBrewer Sep 2013 #46

There is no such thing as International Law. alphafemale Sep 2013 #36

It would certainly be a crime against peace since it wouldn't be defensive. joshcryer Sep 2013 #22

Bush is and was the war crime of the century Obama is not guilty of anything except being born black Tippy Sep 2013 #35

It is always a waste. alphafemale Sep 2013 #66

Actually impeachment is a political process. joshcryer Sep 2013 #17

How about that. huh. DireStrike Sep 2013 #54

Unbelievable. n/t Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #2

Obama is 100% wrong on this, but impeachment is silly! n-t Logical Sep 2013 #3

Umm, I must have wound up at Free Republic by mistake... heading to DU now. eom tarheelsunc Sep 2013 #5

Good grief! HappyMe Sep 2013 #6

Nope Spider Jerusalem Sep 2013 #11

Don't support it, but I do think if it happens it would benefit Democrats eridani Sep 2013 #12

It would be a political bonanza but morally odious DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #21

However you feel about this instance it's established law the president can order force DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #14

Really? Do you want to cite the Constitutional basis for your contention? Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #30

It's the spirit of the law that deems the president the Commander In Chief. DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #33

Your examples have nothing to do with the current issue Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #37

What part of DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #49

It is not established law that the president can order force without prior authorization always Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #67

If it is done unconstitutionally, yes. Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #25

No. Not in any way. We are signatories to the ban on the use MineralMan Sep 2013 #28

Show me where the CWC or any US implementation act authorizes attacks? Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #40

Ask me again after Bush's conviction. Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #31

Bush did go to Congress and did get authorization for Iraq Yo_Mama Sep 2013 #38

If the majority of Americans supported it leftstreet Sep 2013 #41

If Congress were to prohibit it, and he did it anyway, then yes. Xithras Sep 2013 #43

Obama Has No 'Intention' To Strike Syria If Congress Says No (NPR - 6 September) struggle4progress Sep 2013 #44

Yes, I would LittleBlue Sep 2013 #48

What ever! War criminals still run free and the law means nothing. n/t L0oniX Sep 2013 #51

Of course not! Impeachment is only YarnAddict Sep 2013 #52

As Gerald Ford said... David__77 Sep 2013 #53

For blowing the fuck out of someone? Naw Spirochete Sep 2013 #55

No and rusty fender Sep 2013 #56

Interesting that you did not vote in your own poll. MineralMan Sep 2013 #60

I thought I was the only one who noticed that... Ohio Joe Sep 2013 #61

Well, I usually look at the votes in polls to see how the MineralMan Sep 2013 #62

I very rarely vote in my own polls. Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #64

. Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #68