Page 3

the legal defense that American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities even after hostilities exceeded the 90-day limit of unauthorized use of force afforded under the War Powers Act. The New York Times quotes directly from the 38page report Obama sent to concerned lawmakers after the 90-day deadline “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Therefore, the Administration claims it wasn’t a real military conflict that Congress should concern itself with. However, at the same time, the White House acknowledged that the cost to U.S. taxpayers was well over $1 billion for these nonhostile military activities. Coincidentally, on the same day the impeachment resolution was filed, Obama’s Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged that the Libya War did indeed constituted military combat, but claimed the legal basis for spending U.S. tax dollars on war rested in “international permission”: Panetta suggests OK from UN more important than Congress Approval when it comes to War? VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aecXpZPhrrM This impeachment comes on the heals of other Administration officials giving equally flimsy legal justifications for assassinating U.S. citizens without due process. Where, also last week, Attorney General Holder sought to clarify this tyrannical authority in a speech at Northwestern University by claiming “judicial process” was not the same as “due process” under the Constitution. Yet, the Fifth Amendment clearly states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” And as Wikipedia defines due process: Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law. The Obama Administration has clearly “offended against the rule of law”, and it appears his only defense lies in somehow changing the definition of words. It’s not a strong legal position to be in and it seems for the first time in history a sitting president may be held accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Will A Sitting President Finally Be HeldAccountable For High Crimes andMisdemeanors?  

Impeachment proceedings begin in the House and the Senate over Obama’s brazen use of aggressive military force without congressional authori...

Advertisement