In this day and age, it's hard to think of an issue in which the far right and the left could find common ground. They always seem to be at odds and what seems to be a major issue for one is little more than a tiny blip for the other.
But a "perfect storm" has struck as both sides agree that President Obama's foray into Libya is beyond the scope of presidential powers and is, thus, an impeachable offense. Over the past week three notables -- Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader -- have suggested that impeachment of the president should be on the table, though under immense pressure from the Democratic Party, Kucinich has tried to scale his assertion back.
Personally, I agree with them! While Clinton was impeached (not convicted) for something involving an intern and a cigar, I thought the more impeachable offense was the unofficial war on Kosovo. Bush should have been impeached for Iraq and Afghanistan as well as numerous other issues. And Obama has followed in their footsteps, so his actions are just as impeachable.
Simply put, under the constitution, a US president doesn't have the power to send troops off to war. Though Congress ceded some of this turf to the executive branch via the War Powers Act (which I believe is unconstitutional), said act states that a president may do so only under a strict set of circumstances and none of these parameters apply to Libya.
Here's a discussion on this topic from The Nation's Chris Hayes with Yale University's Bruce Ackerman.
But a "perfect storm" has struck as both sides agree that President Obama's foray into Libya is beyond the scope of presidential powers and is, thus, an impeachable offense. Over the past week three notables -- Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader -- have suggested that impeachment of the president should be on the table, though under immense pressure from the Democratic Party, Kucinich has tried to scale his assertion back.
Personally, I agree with them! While Clinton was impeached (not convicted) for something involving an intern and a cigar, I thought the more impeachable offense was the unofficial war on Kosovo. Bush should have been impeached for Iraq and Afghanistan as well as numerous other issues. And Obama has followed in their footsteps, so his actions are just as impeachable.
Simply put, under the constitution, a US president doesn't have the power to send troops off to war. Though Congress ceded some of this turf to the executive branch via the War Powers Act (which I believe is unconstitutional), said act states that a president may do so only under a strict set of circumstances and none of these parameters apply to Libya.
Here's a discussion on this topic from The Nation's Chris Hayes with Yale University's Bruce Ackerman.
Great, so Biden can be our president? I mean, I'm unhappy about the executive branch's continual power grabs, including the war powers, but man...
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the last 4 presidents -- Bush, Sr., Clinton, Dubya and Obama -- I think re this issue it becomes obvious that it doesn't matter which party and which person occupies the Oval Office. So would Biden be worse than any of those 4?
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with everything you've said and that we have no business meddling in the affairs of other nations, I think the "work around" being used in this case is that we're acting as part of NATO. Not that I agree with it, I don't, but isn't it odd how so many American politicians deride working with the UN, NATO, and other international bodies as a loss of our precious sovereignty, yet when it's time to drop bombs, kill people, and generally spread mayhem and misery around the world, they're always the first one's to sign us up for duty? One party - two faces - same agenda.
ReplyDeleteClinton was impeached for LYING, not diddling an intern.
ReplyDelete