Would it help or hurt RP if he drafted an impeachment resolution for Obama's Libya?

[chmst1999]

Obama's actions in Libya are in impeachable offense, and Dr. Paul said that back in 1998 with Clinton. I think he should draft the impeachment papers, regardless of whether or not they would gather enough support. Would this help or hurt his campaign? It would help with liberals who view these wars as illegal, and I think it would help with the conservatives (not the neo-cons) who actually believe in the Constitution and rule of law.

I don't think he should play politics here; however, I think people would see how closely he adheres to the Constitution.

Thoughts?

[Rocco]

The fact is, in order to be successful in 2012 we HAVE to play politics to some extent, and that "we" certainly includes RP. I would not support this because it makes Dr Paul look more extreme.

[sailingaway]

I think it would backfire because everyone knows it wouldn't go anywhere. He would look like he was posturing for the election more than drawing attention to an important point. And it could turn off those who have had enough of posturing, which are precisely the people he should do best with. BETWEEN elections, that is different, then it would be like Rand's speech to the senate for his resolution.

just my 2 cents.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It would probably help Ron Paul. It sure looked like Donald Trump temporarily rose to first place in the polls simply because he was publicly hitting Barack Obama. Honestly, I think whomever gets most out in front in mindlessly bashing Obama is going to appeal most to the 'Tea Party.'

Then again: this stunt of filing articles of impeachment didn't exactly rocket Dennis Kucinich to the top.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I don't know if he himself even has the ability to do it. I don't know what the procedure is. But, I think he should get a group together and threaten impeachment if the president doesn't seek a declaration of war by the Congress.

I don't see it as playing politics, but doing what is right despite the politics. A lot of Republicans seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room because it's an election year.


--------------


87 House Republicans vote for Kucinich resolution on Libya

The House just voted down a resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that would have required the U.S. to pull out of Libya within 15 days.

Voting for the non-binding resolution were 148 House members -- including 87 Republicans -- while 265 members voted against it. One Republican who voted for the measure: potential presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

Earlier, by a 268-145 vote, the House passed a non-binding resolution on Libya by House Speaker John Boehner, which asserted that the Obama administration must provide Congress information about the mission there.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/03/6780385-87-house-republicans-vote-for-kucinich-resolution-on-libya

[awake]

Why waste time and energy impeaching him. Ron should concentrate on replacing him.

[VIDEODROME]

I don't think this is a practical move. Even Ron has said as much even if he personally thinks things both Bush and Obama have done are impeachable offenses.

Besides it's kind of pointless if the objective is a President Biden.

[galantarie]

I believe that Ron Paul and other should begin such procedures; since, Obama (with Hillary Clinton)has done numerous things outside of the Law of the land.

I think many other government Officials feel the same way; but are frightened to say it openly.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FbY6kun2vGo/TekQIMr803I/AAAAAAAAIDc/KijeWYhi_dw/s400/b16biden.jpg

Friday, June 03, 2011
"Strettamente Privata": Benedict Meets Biden... and Silence Abounds
the back page of tomorrow's edition of L'Osservatore Romano, which was published within the last hour.
The meeting again going unnoted alongside the pon...tiff's other audience of the day on the traditional spot of the Vatican daily's front page, a caption to the small photo said that "On the morning of Friday 3 June, the His Holiness Benedict XVI received Mr Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice-President of the United States, with his wife [Dr Jill Biden] and entourage."
In what Italian reports have described as a "strictly private" encounter, this morning the Pope received Vice-President Joe Biden, who's in Rome representing the US at celebrations marking the 150th anniversary of Italy's unification.
Despite being the first Catholic to hold one of the country's top two posts in a half-century, in an ostensible reflection of the VP's status ...nothing official has emerged from the meeting: no photos.
I am not a supporter of Joe Biden in any sense; but I think Biden's decision to see Our Holy Father, had more to do with America's commitment to bombing, and what he really knows concerning Obama (i.e. the Bin Laden fiasco and truth) and Obama's innumerable lies and disregard for the Law, than it does about abortion. Before being elected on a duo... ticket with Obama, Biden was an outspoken representative against interference in another sovereign Country's internal affairs. He also advocated withdrawal of troups in a
American International occupied territories. He already is out of the 2012 race; as Obama has clearly already stated that his new VP, if elected, will not be Joe Biden.
In my heart, I think that Biden has a personal moral conflict in what he is being represented to stand for; and the real truth of the NWO greed and corruption which financed and trigered the Libyan War and bombing in the Middle East and North Africa. I do not believe he really wants to go along with the bombing, or Obama's other murderous policies which ignore America's Congress and flaunt the U.S. Constitution.

That is why I believe it was a very PERSONAL VISIT of moral conscience; and a wish to express what he feels, knows and believes, to Our Holy Father.

DO YOU ALL REMEMBER THIS?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56FxgsCbHNk&feature=player_detailpage

[galantarie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cw8j8b3mL4&feature=related

[galantarie]

'Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.'

Bipartisan Congress Rebuffs Obama on Libya Mission (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/bipartisan-congress-rebuffs-obama-libya-mission/)Saturday, 04 June 2011 08:29

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President is in
violation of the War Powers Resolution regarding the
use of United States Armed Forces in Libya, and for
other purposes.
A)
1) Resolved by the House of Representatives [the Senate
2) concurring], That the President is in violation of the War
3) Powers Resolution regarding the use of United States
4) Armed Forces in Libya and,
5) if the President does not
obtain congressional authorization for the use of the Armed
6) Forces in Libya by June 19, 2011, the President should
B)
1) remove the Armed Forces from Libya and the region as
2) soon as practicable after such date.
________________________
Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission
In two votes — on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures of Mr. Obama — Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether he ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Mr. Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

“He has a chance to get this right. If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for the president to deliver the information the House is seeking.

Minutes after approving Mr. Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would have insisted the president begin a withdrawal of troops.Most lawmakers said that was too rash at this point, and said they wanted to give Mr. Obama time to comply. Some also said immediate withdrawal would leave U.S. allies in the lurch.

The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265. In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for Mr. Kucinich’s resolution — more than the 61 Democrats that did.Still, taken together, 324 members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions, including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus. The size of the votes signals overwhelming discontent with Mr. Obama’s handling of the constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight.

Flaunting the Constitutional LAW, when asked about the votes beforehand, the White House/Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and White House spokesman Josh Earnest said they and Obama believe it is following the law by alerting Congress of its intentions regarding Libya, and called the resolutions “unnecessary and unhelpful.”

But members of Congress said the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution require more than alerts about military action — they require congressional approval, which the White House has not sought.

The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, but the power to “manage” the armed forces to the president. The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, tries to bridge that gap by allowing the president to commit troops for up to 60 days, but requires him to seek congressional approval if he wants to extend the commitment beyond that period.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

‘Nothing More Impeachable' Than War Without Authorization, Says Constitutional Scholar (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/nothing-more-impeachable-president-who-t)

Come on Dr. Paul: stand up to Obama. Be a 'Tea Party' hero. Obama is acting unconstitutionally.