Who is the behind the Impeach Obama stands?

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I went to a Dunkin Donuts in Southfield and saw a group of people standing outside with a poster of Obama with a Hitler moustache that said impeach Obama. They were trying to get people to sign petitions. Who are these people?

[Occurrence]

Probably unemployed mentally ill people with no hobbies or nothing better to do with their time.

[Whitehouse]

Probably unemployed mentally ill people with no hobbies or nothing better to do with their time.

You mean republicans and Tea Party?

Or maybe Occupy Zug Island.

[Searay215]

They have setup here in Macomb County as well, saw them in Clinton twp and Mt. Clemens......when I see them I excercise my 1st amendment rights and honk and give them the finger. I've even tried to take their picture and they turn away.....I mean if you stand for something why hide your face?

I agree with Occurrence.....Nut jobs!!!

[oldredfordette]

They're LaRouchies.

[firstandten]

They're LaRouchies.

Yep ! sounds like there part of the LaRouche movement. They had that poster of Obama in a Hitler stache since 09.

According to what I read they are more in line with the fringe left-wing, but there politics overall seems jumbled .

[old guy]

People that want Joe Biden to be president?

[lpg]

They were in Lincoln Park last fall. Same poster. Strange looking folks.

[313WX]

Probably the same folks who wants the government to take its hands off their medicare and the same people who want us morans to get a brain.

[oldredfordette]

No, don’t put them over here. They’re stand-alone crazy.

[Zacha341]

Put them on Woodward and Nine Mile... a grouping of protesters does that corner from time to time........

No, don’t put them over here. They’re stand-alone crazy.

[jerrytimes]

I don't know. I won't vote for Obama, I've never liked Obama and I think that people that do must ignore what he's done. They are just as bad as the people that loved Bush. I will vote for whomever runs against him this election, but I saw these people in St Clair Shores at Salvaggios and the guy said something to me and I told his they were idiots. Who puts a Hitler stache on someone and there is no legal reason to impeach him. Just vote the guy out, but this impeach Obama shit is ridiculous.

[oladub]

I don't know. I won't vote for Obama, I've never liked Obama and I think that people that do must ignore what he's done. They are just as bad as the people that loved Bush. I will vote for whomever runs against him this election, but I saw these people in St Clair Shores at Salvaggios and the guy said something to me and I told his they were idiots. Who puts a Hitler stache on someone and there is no legal reason to impeach him. Just vote the guy out, but this impeach Obama shit is ridiculous.

Putting mustaches on pictures seems juvenile. It was funny in fourth grade. However, I would concur with Dennis Kucinich [[D) that Obama's bombing of Libya by executive order without a declaration of war, the observation of the War Powers Act, without even consulting Congress, and in violation of the NATO Charter was an "impeachable offense".

Presidential Oath of Office: " I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." -Wikipedia paraphrasing Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,”“He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.” -Dennis Kucinich [[D) 3/21/11

The Democratic Senate, of course, will do no such thing. For all the Senate cares, President Obama can bomb, legislate, and spend to his heart's content without any input from Congress because he's their guy. I don't think most Republicans care either. They never did with Bush.

*Ron Paul 2012*

[Gistok]

Putting mustaches on pictures seems juvenile. It was funny in fourth grade. However, I would concur with Dennis Kucinich [[D) that Obama's bombing of Libya by executive order without a declaration of war, the observation of the War Powers Act, without even consulting Congress, and in violation of the NATO Charter was an "impeachable offense".

Presidential Oath of Office: " I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." -Wikipedia paraphrasing Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,”“He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.” -Dennis Kucinich [[D) 3/21/11

The Democratic Senate, of course, will do no such thing. For all the Senate cares, President Obama can bomb, legislate, and spend to his heart's content without any input from Congress because he's their guy. I don't think most Republicans care either. They never did with Bush.

*Ron Paul 2012*

This is like you 20th post on this exact same subject in the last 6 months ...

Maybe the war powers act should be amended to include NATO "transfered" operations to give your argument some sense of importance....

I view our "still in place" erosion of civil liberties after 9/11 as much more important than flyover bombings that are now a footnote in history....

[rb336]

Putting mustaches on pictures seems juvenile. It was funny in fourth grade. However, I would concur with Dennis Kucinich [[D) that Obama's bombing of Libya by executive order without a declaration of war, the observation of the War Powers Act, without even consulting Congress, and in violation of the NATO Charter was an "impeachable offense".

The war powers act requires the president to notify congress within 48 hours of commencing hostilities, which he did:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...erations-libya

further, there was no declared war, and what constitutes a war is clearly debatable. Only an extremist would decide that any military action is an act of war, in which case the rescue of hostages in Somalia, the interdiction of pirates by the Navy would be "unconstitutional." The congress can, after a certain amount of time, require withdrawal of forces from the country in which they are engaged in hostilities, yet there were, technically, no forces engaged in Libya

There is a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war, and thus falls under the sole aegis of the President.. Just because you think it is unconstitutional doesn't mean that it is, a fact that continues to elude you. There is a reason that the founders ONLY gave congress the right to declare war and didn't grant congress the right to run military operations and didn't require the President to get approval for all military operations.

[oladub]

rb336: The war powers act requires the president to notify congress within 48 hours of commencing hostilities, which he did:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...erations-libya

Our 'constitutional scholar' and peace prize winner's notification sidestepped another War Powers Act requirement which is that "presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue." He didn't. In fact he tried to talk his way away from it. You are wrong. Kucinich is right. Odd that you would put yourself at odds with progressive Democrats.

further, there was no declared war, and what constitutes a war is clearly debatable. Only an extremist would decide that any military action is an act of war, in which case the rescue of hostages in Somalia, the interdiction of pirates by the Navy would be "unconstitutional." The congress can, after a certain amount of time, require withdrawal of forces from the country in which they are engaged in hostilities, yet there were, technically, no forces engaged in Libya

Only you would make the case that bombing a nation's capitol is not an act of war. Next time someone does a 9/11 on us or lobs a missile or 400 missiles into Washington,D.C. I will then have to remind you that such things aren't 'war' because you claim that "no forces engaged".

You will also have to brush up on your knowledge of Letters of Marque. I'm not sure why Clinton involved US forces in Somalia however the US can constitutionally defend Americans and go after pirates. Technically, even Blackwater or the Hells Angels could be hired to go after Bin Laden or pirates without declaring a war.

There is a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war, and thus falls under the sole aegis of the President.. Just because you think it is unconstitutional doesn't mean that it is, a fact that continues to elude you. There is a reason that the founders ONLY gave congress the right to declare war and didn't grant congress the right to run military operations and didn't require the President to get approval for all military operations.

You are right. There is "a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war". Welcome to the Reagan/Ollie North imperialist fan club. Latin Americans wouldn't like you today. The President is Commander in Chief which is sort of like a six star general. Generals are out of line when they start bombing countries without congressional approval. However, as the commander of chief, Obama could bring the troops home from Afghanistan tomorrow without the consent of Congress.

[313WX]

Our 'constitutional scholar' and peace prize winner's notification sidestepped another War Powers Act requirement which is that "presidents must terminate a mission 60 or 90 days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into hostilities, unless lawmakers authorize the operation to continue." He didn't. In fact he tried to talk his way away from it. You are wrong. Kucinich is right. Odd that you would put yourself at odds with progressive Democrats.

FYI, you missed this part in the War Powers Act...

SEC. 8. [[d) Nothing in this joint resolution-- [[1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties;

The US Congress voted to join the North Atlantic TREATY Organization in 1949. Article 5 of the North Atlantic TREATY states...

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/...exts_17120.htm

If an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.

And furthermore, in Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty...

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

And all of that said, the mission in Libya was NATO-led, thus the president did absolutely nothing unconstitutional. The far right was just grasping at straws to shoot down Obama.

[rb336]

You are right. There is "a large amount of precedence for sending troops into action that does not constitute war". Welcome to the Reagan/Ollie North imperialist fan club. Latin Americans wouldn't like you today. The President is Commander in Chief which is sort of like a six star general. Generals are out of line when they start bombing countries without congressional approval. However, as the commander of chief, Obama could bring the troops home from Afghanistan tomorrow without the consent of Congress.

sorry, but that has NEVER been the reality of the term "Commander in Chief," nor was it what the founders intended. Presidents have been doing far more than that since the early 19th century, and all Supreme Court tests have upheld the right of presidents to do so. A SC test of the war powers act would most likely result in it being declared unconstitutional. add to that the authorization congress gave for the war on terror and known Libyan support for al qaeda, and it becomes a moot point anyway

The US has not issued letters of marque since the early 1800s, following the Paris convention, just another red herring from your absurd idol