• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If The Obama does not follow the War Powers Act

If He does not follow the law, will you support a call for His impeachment?

  • Total voters
    18
Kandahar said:
Because I think that impeachment should be reserved for the most blatant abuses.
Click to expand...
Waging war against the wishes of Congress isn't a blatant abuse of power?
Why then even bother with the WPA - or the power to declare war?

Just so you know, I think the WPA is unconstitutional - but it's there, and until such a time as it is struck or upheld, it needs to be followed.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Just so you know, I think the WPA is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Another good reason not to resort to impeachment. While I disagree with your assessment of the WPA's constitutionality, the fact is that there are a good many people who agree with you that it's unconstitutional, and a good many more who aren't sure if Obama has actually violated it. I think that level of ambiguity alone is sufficient reason to rule out impeachment. Again, the impeachment of a president should be reserved for the most blatant, open-and-shut cases where no one can seriously dispute that the president knowingly violated the law IMO.

PzKfW IVe said:
and until such a time as it is struck or upheld, it needs to be followed.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why there should be a lawsuit so that the Supreme Court can issue an injunction telling him to stop.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Another good reason not to resort to impeachment. While I disagree with your assessment of the WPA's constitutionality, the fact is that there are a good many people who agree with you that it's unconstitutional, and a good many more who aren't sure if Obama has actually violated it. I think that level of ambiguity alone is sufficient reason to rule out impeachment. Again, the impeachment of a president should be reserved for the most blatant, open-and-shut cases where no one can seriously dispute that the president knowingly violated the law IMO.

I agree. That's why there should be a lawsuit so that the Supreme Court can issue an injunction telling him to stop.
Click to expand...
Excellent commentary - but you didn't answer my questions.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Waging war against the wishes of Congress isn't a blatant abuse of power?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

PzKfW IVe said:
Why then even bother with the WPA - or the power to declare war?
Click to expand...

I agree, Obama shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. That hardly necessitates impeachment though.
 
Considering no other President has taken this seriously, no. The act itself is stupid and should be repealed IMO. I never was a fan of it and I think congress should either declare war or nothing.

By the way, congress has said they support it for the most part. You have both sides of the aisle expressing total support for this pretty much. They just said they aren't bringing to vote this month. It's not like he ordered the military to Kenya to destroy evidence of him being born there.
 
Last edited:
shades said:
killing innocent civilains, while in the act of trying to assasinate thier leader,
other than that?
Click to expand...
And we are doing that by providing recon from satellites? By sending in sniper teams? By dropping boxes of rancid meat from helicopters?

I mean what are we actually doing.
 
No... Because no violation has occured.. Thanks have a nice day..
 
Considering that McCain and Kyl both think that he's not doing enough in Libya, I doubt you'd even get that many Republicans to vote in favor of removing him.
 
Maybe when Obama defies the UN. and starts a war of choice killing about 4 thousand of our troops, we can talk about impeachment.. But knowing republicans, you will wait until Obama gets a blow job from an intern.. After all, sex seems to be the only thing that really matters.. Just ask the homosexuals and the women who are pregnant because appearantly it is a bad thing to have Planned Parenthood sell birth control..
 
I want him impeached NOW, period. No one who HATES America should be allowed to become President, PERIOD.
 
DemonMyst said:
Maybe when Obama defies the UN. and starts a war of choice killing about 4 thousand of our troops, we can talk about impeachment.
Click to expand...
Defying the UN isnt an impeachable offense.
A "war of choice", executed in accordance with the Constitution and the laws pursuant to same, isn't an impeachable offense.
The loss of 4000 troops isn't an impeachable offense.

Sorry that reality doesnt live up to your ignorant, bigoted, partisan rhetoric.
 
DemonMyst - "Maybe when Obama defies the UN. and starts a war of choice killing about 4 thousand of our troops, we can talk about impeachment."

PzKfW IVe said:
Defying the UN isnt an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

No, we reserve that for big offenses, like a blowjob!
 
Kandahar said:
No, but I would support a lawsuit so that the Supreme Court can order him to cease and desist immediately.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court doesn't have **** to say to Obama. He can give them the finger.
 
American said:
The Supreme Court doesn't have **** to say to Obama. He can give them the finger.
Click to expand...

No he can't. Because then he'd be in contempt of court, which WOULD be an impeachable offense IMO.
 
Note, I voted for impeachment if POTUS does not follow the War Powers Act. Note that so far he is following the war powers act. I expect him to follow it in a way that it can be successfully argued that he has obeyed the law. There will not be a problem. So we have a poll that both sides can select the same answer. Oh good.
 
Catawba said:
DemonMyst - "Maybe when Obama defies the UN. and starts a war of choice killing about 4 thousand of our troops, we can talk about impeachment."
No, we reserve that for big offenses, like a blowjob!
Click to expand...
You mean perjury, which is a felony.
You knew that, but your partisanship won't allow you to admit it.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
You mean perjury, which is a felony.
You knew that, but your partisanship won't allow you to admit it.
Click to expand...

Asking a married man about his sex life is no business to the people of this nation.. I mean how many republicans can't keep it in their pants?? So there is no perjury.. There is an inappropriate question being asked, while putting a married man under oath.. Shall we put all elected officials under oath and ask them about their sex lives?? Sorry.. But I am just not all that obsessed with the sexual relations of our elected officials.. If they actually commit a crime then that is one thing.. Cheating on your wife isn't a crime..

As for partisanship?? Go look in the mirror..
 
Last edited:
DemonMyst said:
Asking a married man about his sex life is no business to the people of this nation.
Click to expand...
It is when it it pursuant to a sexual harassment case.

So there is no perjury.
Click to expand...
Lying under oath when answeing a question relevant to the legal issue at hand is perjury, which is a felony.
No way around it.
 
DemonMyst said:
Asking a married man about his sex life is no business to the people of this nation.. I mean how many republicans can't keep it in their pants?? So there is no perjury.. There is an inappropriate question being asked, while putting a married man under oath.. Shall we put all elected officials under oath and ask them about their sex lives?? Sorry.. But I am just not all that obsessed with the sexual relations of our elected officials.. If they actually commit a crime then that is one thing.. Cheating on your wife isn't a crime..

As for partisanship?? Go look in the mirror..
Click to expand...


Right on, and why didn't we go to as much trouble about questioning politicians for leading 4,000 of our soldiers to their deaths under false pretenses as we did about a blowjob?
 
PzKfW IVe said:
It is when it it pursuant to a sexual harassment case.


Lying under oath when answeing a question relevant to the legal issue at hand is perjury, which is a felony.
No way around it.
Click to expand...

There was no Sexual Harrassment case with Monica or anything that the did while in office.. There probably was no sexual harrassmant case in Ark. either.. Let's fase it, blaming someone rich of sexual abuse is fairly common.. Just look at the Duke Lacross case..

So no.. There was no issue.. Linda Tripp pressured Monica into testifying in the first place.. Be sure to learn your facts.. The impeachment of Clinton was a witch hunt..

The Impeachment Trial of President William Jefferson Clinton

There.. Educate yourself.. There wasn't even a chanrge of sexual Harrassment in Ark. either.. There was a law suit claiming it.. No charges..
 
Catawba said:
Right on, and why didn't we go to as much trouble about questioning politicians for leading 4,000 of our soldiers to their deaths under false pretenses as we did about a blowjob?
Click to expand...
You aren't honest enough to even -try- to get the facts straight.

But the, when you are tasked to defend that which cannot be defended, all you -can- do is lie.
:shrug:
 
DemonMyst said:
There was no Sexual Harrassment case with Monica or anything that the did while in office.
Click to expand...
I see you are wholly ignorant as to the specifics of the issue.
Is that ignorance willful? Likely.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
You aren't honest enough to even -try- to get the facts straight.

But the, when you are tasked to defend that which cannot be defended, all you -can- do is lie.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

Show me the lie there skippy!
 
DemonMyst said:
Asking a married man about his sex life is no business to the people of this nation.. I mean how many republicans can't keep it in their pants?? So there is no perjury.. There is an inappropriate question being asked, while putting a married man under oath.. Shall we put all elected officials under oath and ask them about their sex lives?? Sorry.. But I am just not all that obsessed with the sexual relations of our elected officials.. If they actually commit a crime then that is one thing.. Cheating on your wife isn't a crime..

As for partisanship?? Go look in the mirror..
Click to expand...

The perjury is that he lied under oath. If it was an unfair question he should have objected and refused to answer. That being said, IMO he shouldn't have been impeached.

And actually in some states it is illegal to commit adultery, although it's not a federal law, just thought I'd throw that tid-bit out there.
 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
I see you are wholly ignorant as to the specifics of the issue.
Is that ignorance willful? Likely.
Click to expand...

I see your incapable if either providing links to support your claims or reading links that prove you wrong.. So?? Any other meaningless posts you would like to subject this forum with..

Is your ignorance willful?? I see you chose not to read the link provided.. So yes.. I would say your ignorance is willfull and observable..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom