Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Can Obama be impeached for not seeking a decleration of war from congress?

Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear that only congress can declare war.

The war in Afghanistan had congressional approval.

The Iraq war had congressional approval.

Obama has not sought the counsel of congress. He has made us a slave to the UN. Therefore he needs to be impeached.

Update:

Stan, what about them? Both supported by congress.

23 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The President didn't need to seek approval of Congress to launch the missile strike against Libya, since it was a U.N resolution. We legally honored our treaty obligations, something Congress has already approved when they ratified the treaty. There is no violation of law, so no cause for impeachment.

    Additionally, there is the War Powers Act of 1973. The answer is 60 days, ladies and gentlemen. Not 30 or 90. The President can deploy his troops as Commander in Chief for sixty days, after which Congress must approve funding for further action. For all practical purposes, however, Congress will almost always approve at that point, otherwise they face political fallout. Cries of "you let our soldiers die by pulling their funding", while not technically true, will ring true for many people when they hear it in campaign speeches. Legally, it's sixty days. In practical terms, once engaged, it is hard to stop a President's military actions.

  • 10 years ago

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007

    Obama made a very good point here. First of all, it's called the War Powers Resolution. Second, it does allow military action up to 60 days with an additional 30 day withdrawal period without specific authorization from Congress but only in very specific conditions. Those conditions are spelled out in the Resolution and are as follows:

    (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

    The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

    (1) a declaration of war,

    (2) specific statutory authorization, or

    (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

    So it doesn't give unlimited authority to commit for 60 days. The reasons still have to be one of the three listed. Based on those requirements, Obama should have requested Congressional authority to act just as Bush did PRIOR to sending troops into Iraq. There was no declaration of war by either party, there was no specific statutory authorization (Sorry, the UN doesn't count) and there was no indication of an immediate threat or attack on the US.

    But in fairness, Obama would not be the first President to act contrary to the Resolution. It was originally vetoed by Nixon but his veto was over ridden by Congress.

    PS, this counts under the Resolution: (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces

  • 10 years ago

    No, not right now.

    The War Powers Act of 1973 gives the President authority to the President can send U.S. troops into combat only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. President Obama will likely argue, as Bush did before him, that the tiny nation he is bombing into powder is a serious threat to the United States.

    The other loophole is that the Constitution allows the Congress to declare war. Like Bush and Clinton before him, President Obama will be very careful not to declare war on Libya or state that there is a war going on (Remember Bush saying "MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS in Iraq have ended", not "The WAR in Iraq has ended"). These will be combat operations, and not a declared war.

    There is a loophole in the War Powers Act that the President can send forces anywhere he wants if he notifies Congress within 48 hours of sending forces somewhere, and I think they know by now.

    The President has 90 days under the War Powers Act before he has to either get authorization for war from Congress or bring the troops home.

    For right now, he is acting according to the law. Thirteen weeks from now, that's a different story.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    We are not at war with Libya. The U.S. is assisting England and France to attack Libya.

    The operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan were not declared wars by Congress but neither was the Vietnam conflict and 50,000 Americans died in that war.

    The U.N. does what the U.S. wants them to do. The U.N. declared the Iraq invasion illegal because we were not responding to an imminent threat. The whole thing was a hoax.

    The Senate passed a resolution dealing with Libya.

    http://senatus.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/senate-ado...

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Oreo
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    No a President can do what they want for 90 and get the ok to keep doing it after 90 days from Congress. I think it should be the other way around they have to ask Congress first unless we were being attacked since I have never seen a President ask Congress for an extension all my days from Vietnam to across Bosnia, etc etc to present day of the 2 Wars thats lasted 10 years unless they are doing it behind closed doors.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Absolutely Not!

    The War Powers Act of 1973 allows the President to commit Troops for 60 Days without Congress Approval, he must only notify them within 48 hours after Committing Troops. This is the Law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

  • 10 years ago

    No. This isn't even a proper war. Also by law the president is allowed to used the armed forces without congressional declaration of war for a long extended period of time. FYI Iraq and Afghanistan had approval, but wasn't an official declaration of war. Without an official declaration it's actually illegal to have troops out for as long as they have been.

  • 10 years ago

    It's not really our war, we are just intervening because of our obligations in the UN. Not saying we don't want to do it, just saying it went through legal means. The war in Iraq was not legal and it was approved by congress. Most of the world said no, but with enough propaganda the republicans got congress to approve it.

  • ?
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    installation for Americas best Losers, and that i'm no longer conversing fat persons. nicely consistent with hazard some. This lady is sturdy, Barry would nicely be stated on any sort of costs now, Seeing because his first 3 hundred and sixty 5 days has been full of Chicago sort spirit and incorrect doing, i'm hoping this lady wins that twenty 2nd district, for his or her is a district here in Florida on the Cape which will lose 15,000 jobs and jobber distributors whilst Obama swings the Ax on NASA, And the jobs that he would be killing off, are not minimum salary burger flippers,

  • 10 years ago

    No. The president can declare war for 40 days before approval from congress.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.