Are you saying that Congress cannot authorize the military to detain enemy combatants for the sake of national defense?
Bear in mind - I am not saying the military should remove Obama from the Presidency. I am saying that they are authorized to DETAIN him as an enemy combatant. Congress can decide what to do from there - whether to impeach him or not, but while he is detained he could not dispense the duties of the office and so the Constitutionally-authorized line of succession would come into play as to who is to ACT AS PRESIDENT, just as it would if he was shot like Reagan and temproarily (or permanently; that would be up to Congress) couldn’t perform the duties.
A while back there was a claim that Obama had moved a nuke from Nevada to the east coast, with plans to detonate it there and bring about martial law. I think it was shortly before the Navy Yard shooting. What was said in that claim was that there is somebody who has the responsibility of ARRESTING the President if he clearly wages war against the country.
Who remembers who that person is, and what is the legal/Constitutional justification for that?
That is for an ARREST.
The legal justification for DETAINMENT is already there in the NDAA, unless there is some clause that excludes the POTUS from among those who can be detained. And they can be detained just for being “belligerent”. Those who paid for, trained, provided logistics for, harbored, etc the 9-11 attackers are considered to have been attackers too. They committed an act of war against the US by doing those things.
Well.... so has Obama...
How many acts of war against us does he have to commit before he gets evaluated the same way that any of our other enemies get evaluated? Right now he is keeping the states from being able to protect our borders from invasion by groups that we KNOW include Hezbollah and Hamas operatives bent on killing us. What does he have to do before that is called an act of war? Personally walk them to a plane and hand them a bomb?
When you say “Congress” that means the US House of Representatives and the Senate. Now in an Impeachment only the US House of Representatives acts on that, The Senate acts on whether to convict or not.
We’ve already seen how the Senate acts with the Democrats being in control - for example with Clinton, where they would NOT CONVICT.
The Senate would never act to convict. It would be Reid running a straight party line ... :-) ...
In addition to that, in the entire history of the USA, the Senate has NEVER ONE TIME removed a president from office. It has simply NEVER WORKED ONE SINGLE TIME, despite being tried many times.
So ... “that” (what you say) ... is going absolutely nowhere and everyone knows it, including the military.