By: Daniel Nardini
It would seem like a clear case of violating the U.S. Constitution. U.S. President Barack Obama has clearly overstepped his powers as President of the United States. He is still fighting the war in Libya even though the U.S. Congress has not authorized him to commit any further action in Libya. Ten members of the U.S. Congress have taken the administration to court on the violation of the War Powers Act of 1973, and there are loud voices coming from both the Democrats and Republicans that Obama should immediately stop U.S. participation in NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) offensive against Libyan dictator Muamar Gaddhafi.
When you come down to it, what Obama is doing is an impeachable act. This is clear in the War Powers Act and in the U.S. Constitution. Only the U.S. Congress can declare war, and authorize military action. Anything else should mean that the Congress must pass articles of impeachment. But this has not happened. Why? In the never-never land that is Washington, D.C., it seems that for the Republicans tearing Obama down gets better mileage than trying to impeach him. If they try to impeach him then they will make Obama look like a martyr. This could do more to finance his reelection campaign than anything else (including the killing of Osama bin Laden).
Also, if the Republicans can take Obama several political notches down then it will make any Republican presidential candidate look good. Further, this can be used by any Republican presidential candidate as effective political ammunition. Of course, the Democrats do not want to push impeachment since this would remove a president from their party. Yet to both parties the act cannot go unchallenged, so hence this political smokescreen of outrage. But then when all is said and done, not punishing a president for violating the War Powers Act could set a dangerous precedent, correct?
I do not believe that the politicians have thought that far. The Republicans, like the Democrats, want to keep the White House as untarnished from scandal as possible. Both parties want to put their candidate in there, and impeachment is a very messy thing to the powers that be. But according to the law that is the next step since we now have a president who is in violation of the U.S. Constitution and does not seem interested in readjusting his policy. In just about every poll taken, a majority of Americans do not want the United States to be involved in Libya and believe that the lawmakers should do something immediate and drastic to get us out. Sadly, the never-never land that is Washington, D.C. seems to be playing politics as usual.
No Sign of Impeachment
By: Daniel Nardini
It would seem like a clear case of violating the U.S. Constitution. U.S. President Barack Obama has clearly overstepped his powers as President of the United States. He is still fighting the war in Libya even though the U.S. Congress has not authorized him to commit any further action in Libya. Ten members of the U.S. Congress have taken the administration to court on the violation of the War Powers Act of 1973, and there are loud voices coming from both the Democrats and Republicans that Obama should immediately stop U.S. participation in NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) offensive against Libyan dictator Muamar Gaddhafi.
When you come down to it, what Obama is doing is an impeachable act. This is clear in the War Powers Act and in the U.S. Constitution. Only the U.S. Congress can declare war, and authorize military action. Anything else should mean that the Congress must pass articles of impeachment. But this has not happened. Why? In the never-never land that is Washington, D.C., it seems that for the Republicans tearing Obama down gets better mileage than trying to impeach him. If they try to impeach him then they will make Obama look like a martyr. This could do more to finance his reelection campaign than anything else (including the killing of Osama bin Laden).
Also, if the Republicans can take Obama several political notches down then it will make any Republican presidential candidate look good. Further, this can be used by any Republican presidential candidate as effective political ammunition. Of course, the Democrats do not want to push impeachment since this would remove a president from their party. Yet to both parties the act cannot go unchallenged, so hence this political smokescreen of outrage. But then when all is said and done, not punishing a president for violating the War Powers Act could set a dangerous precedent, correct?
I do not believe that the politicians have thought that far. The Republicans, like the Democrats, want to keep the White House as untarnished from scandal as possible. Both parties want to put their candidate in there, and impeachment is a very messy thing to the powers that be. But according to the law that is the next step since we now have a president who is in violation of the U.S. Constitution and does not seem interested in readjusting his policy. In just about every poll taken, a majority of Americans do not want the United States to be involved in Libya and believe that the lawmakers should do something immediate and drastic to get us out. Sadly, the never-never land that is Washington, D.C. seems to be playing politics as usual.