Who is the behind the Impeach Obama stands?

[rb336]

It is “a large amount of precedence” that makes it right.
It is because “Presidents have been doing far more than that “ that makes a right. I was understating your response.

no, that just makes it legal. legal and right are not the same thing. The Letters of Marque were, and still are, legal, but the world stopped seeing them as "right" nearly 200 years ago

You left off the Tammy Baldwin preface that it was that that statement pertained to the Afghanistan War as a response to 9/11[/quote]

What do I care what Ms. Baldwin wrote in her preface? Doesn't make it legally, or contextually, true.

[oladub]

no, that just makes it legal. legal and right are not the same thing. The Letters of Marque were, and still are, legal, but the world stopped seeing them as "right" nearly 200 years ago

What do I care what Ms. Baldwin wrote in her preface? Doesn't make it legally, or contextually, true.

Letters of Marque have not been used for a long time but the the concept is still valid and constitutional. It is still part of the Constitution the last time I checked. Bombing foreign countries by executive order without the consent of Congress is not. Such actions are neither legal nor right no matter how many presidents have pursued imperialistic gunboat diplomacy. It is a dictatorial power grab for which Congress should be blamed for it's lack of response to this usurpation of its power. Kucinich and Nader are right. Bombing Libya was an impeachable action. It did not even fit NATO requirements for attacking a third party.

Obviously you don't care about the context of the Congressional document linking Afghan and other actions to groups and individuals linked to 9/11 and such potential activities at the time it was passed. You seem to imagine that Obama bombed Libya because of terrorist it might have been harboring 10 years ago. Why should you care? In your world, can't the Peace Prize President volunteer to bomb anyone the UN tells him to although it never explicitly did?

You have never explained why Kucinich and Nader are wrong about impeachment regarding Libya. Why, in your opinion, is your opinion superior to theirs?

[rb336]

Letters of Marque have not been used for a long time but the the concept is still valid and constitutional. It is still part of the Constitution the last time I checked.

yes, it is legal, but not considered "right"

Bombing foreign countries by executive order without the consent of Congress is not.
Such actions are neither legal nor right no matter how many presidents have pursued imperialistic gunboat diplomacy. It is a dictatorial power grab for which Congress should be blamed for it's lack of response to this usurpation of its power. Kucinich and Nader are right. Bombing Libya was an impeachable action. It did not even fit NATO requirements for attacking a third party.

Obviously you don't care about the context of the Congressional document linking Afghan and other actions to groups and individuals linked to 9/11 and such potential activities at the time it was passed. You seem to imagine that Obama bombed Libya because of terrorist it might have been harboring 10 years ago. Why should you care? In your world, can't the Peace Prize President volunteer to bomb anyone the UN tells him to although it never explicitly did?

You have never explained why Kucinich and Nader are wrong about impeachment regarding Libya. Why, in your opinion, is your opinion superior to theirs?

First, bombing a country is not the same as declaring war on a country.
Second, the document of which you speak was written in such a way so that it was NOT limited to Afghanistan.

as to your last question, If you can't figure out my arguments, which have been very clear from the start, then you seriously need to buy a clue, so I will lay it out for you: Obama has done nothing that any court has ever found unconstitutional. Not necessarily saying they were "right," just that they weren't unconstitutional. Just because Congress passes a resolution doesn't mean that that resolution holds any real weight, especially when most congressional scholars doubt it would be upheld even by the fairly liberal SC that was in place when it was passed. Most presidents have paid the resolution lip service since it was passed, but that's it.

[oladub]

rb336: yes, it is legal, but not considered "right"

Why don't you consider Letters of Marque "right" either as a stand alone substitute for undeclared wars or relative whatever we are doing now?

First, bombing a country is not the same as declaring war on a country.
Second, the document of which you speak was written in such a way so that it was NOT limited to Afghanistan.

If another nation bombed Washington, D.C., it would be an act of war. How is bombing Tripoli different?

as to your last question, If you can't figure out my arguments, which have been very clear from the start, then you seriously need to buy a clue, so I will lay it out for you: Obama has done nothing that any court has ever found unconstitutional. Not necessarily saying they were "right," just that they weren't unconstitutional. Just because Congress passes a resolution doesn't mean that that resolution holds any real weight, especially when most congressional scholars doubt it would be upheld even by the fairly liberal SC that was in place when it was passed. Most presidents have paid the resolution lip service since it was passed, but that's it.

I side with Nader, Kucinich, and Paul with respect to if bombing Libya being an impeachable offense. I disagree with you, Obama, and McCain. A President Paul, which I don't think will happen this time around, will pay more than lip service to the Constitution and War Powers Act and represent this country instead of international bankers using international organizations as cover.

[rb336]

Why don't you consider Letters of Marque "right" either as a stand alone substitute for undeclared wars or relative whatever we are doing now?

Nations around the world, including the US, have agreed on that since the mid1800s, as I stated at least twice before. Please pay attention, as I am getting sick of constantly repeating myself

If another nation bombed Washington, D.C., it would be an act of war. How is bombing Tripoli different?

Please pay attention. An act of war is not a declaration of war. Please show me the dictionary or thesaurus that equates "act" and "declaration"

I side with Nader, Kucinich, and Paul with respect to if bombing Libya being an impeachable offense. I disagree with you, Obama, and McCain. A President Paul, which I don't think will happen this time around, will pay more than lip service to the Constitution and War Powers Act and represent this country instead of international bankers using international organizations as cover.

Paul has a seriously distorted view of the constitution that ignores both the expressed intent of the founders and 2 1/4 centuries of judicial precedence. His views are not true to the constitution but to the epically failed Articles of Confederation, down to states having their own bank systems.