Obama Impeachment Bill Now In Congress


obama1Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

{World Net Daily/Matzav.com Newscenter}


  1. I’m no fan of the President, but this resolution is frivolous and redundant (and I agree with #1 about the misleading headline).

    Of course the President will not enter into a war without Congress’ approval. No president ever did. What we’ve been fighting for the last nearly century or so has been a series of things not formally declared as war (the last officially congressionally declared war being WWII), so all the presidents, including Mr. Obama have been acting purely constitutionally.

  2. AlbertEinstein,

    What about the illegal war in Lybia without congressional approval?

    I guess if you call it a war depends on relativity.

  3. #2:
    There are very clear guidelines as to how, when, under what circumstances and for how long the President can deploy military forces without going to Congress for approval.

    The war in Libya was a clear violation of the War Powers Act, and is not the first instance of Obama and Co. skirting or outright violating the Constitution.

    I sincerely hope this bill passes, because it will be a warning shot across Obama’s bow that his continual violation – both in word and spirit – of the Constitution will no longer be tolerated.

    Had a Republican president tried to pull this shtick, he would have been hung by the media a long time ago.

  4. We never declared war in: Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Libya, and others, most of those “conflicts” were in fact started by Republican Presidents. There is something called “The War Powers Act” which allows the President to send troops as necessary. It’s time that Congress focus on jobs and the economy, and not trying to find ways to undermine this country’s leadership.

  5. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., has introduced an excellent bill to address a very serious problem, which he and Rep. Tom Tancredo pointed out: The wording of the presentation by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta seems to imply that the Obama administration believes that approval of the U.S. Congress may not be needed for the U.S. to enter a war.

    Along with this, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s remarks shows an even bigger and much more serious problem. He begins his presentation with the statement: “Our goal would be to seek international permission . . . ”

    “International ‘permission'”??? Let me repeat that: “International ‘PERMISSION'”?????

    The United States needs to get “International ‘permission'”?????

    If, Chas V’Shalom, our country is attacked or sees that it is being threatened with attack, we need to ask for “International ‘permission'” to be “allowed” to fight back?????

    When in 1941, Japan heavily bombed (the U.S. Navy base at) Pearl Harbor, and the U.S. President declared ” . . . a date that will live in infamy . . . ” and the U.S. Congress (almost) unanomously declared war on Japan, did they ask for any kind of “International ‘permission'”?????

    When Adolf Hitler, Yimach Shemo V’Zichro, heaped high praise on Japan for it’s treachery and, three days latter, officially announced that Germany and Italy were joining Japan’s attack, and the U.S. Congress unanomously declared war on Germany and Italy, did they ask for any kind of “International ‘permission'”?????

    When in 1918, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was abhorred at that era’s German aggresion, and the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany, did they ask for any kind of “International ‘permission'”?????

    (Of course, here is not the place to list every one of our country’s wars. We will just list one more — the first one.)

    When in 1776, the American founders were deeply angered at the dominering control of British rule and thus proclaimed the “Declaration of Independence” and, with only a rag-tag amatuer army, fought a long difficult war against the fully professional world class British military forces — and won — and thus established our great and wonderful independent nation of the “United States of America,” DID THEY ASK FOR ANY KIND OF “INTERNATIONAL ‘PERMISSION'”???????

  6. (continuation of my previous comment)

    Such expressions of such distorted attitudes give credence to the accusations that many people have. Yes, very many people — oh yeah, they are ridiculed and laughed at as being paranoid “conspiracy theorists,” but a lot of what they say is based on a lot of solid evidence — yes, very many people accuse that “behind the scenes” of countries’ governments, are various groups and organizations that guide and direct and manipulate the countries’ governments.

    In other words, the officials of the government of a country ARE NOT the people who are really running the country! Instead, the people who are directing and running the country are the people of these behind-the-scenes groups!

    The overall plan and goal of these secret groups is to manipulate events and direct the countries’ governments so that they will all eventually merge together to form one large “One World Government.” The world will become a “one government world.” Yes, this will mean that the entire whole world will be ruled by one big super government. All of the current nations with their current governments will loose their individual rulership, as they will be instead fully subservient to and forced to follow the directives of this one big super government of the world.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here