Posted on 06/15/2011 8:32:03 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
A group of lawmakers plans to file a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Obama administration, questioning the constitutional and legal justifications for military action in Libya, Fox News has confirmed.
The bipartisan group is being led by Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Walter Jones, R-N.C., and includes GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul.
Kucinich and Jones will lead a news conference at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to outline the claims. But according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Fox News, the group is seeking "injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from a stated policy of defendant Barack Obama, president of the United States, whereby a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without the declaration of war from Congress required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Impeachment would be considered as racist.”
...then just sue the white half...
BINGO
As I understand it the administration will provide a defense of “No Standing” again.
IOW, you don’t matter, are insignificant and maybe don’t even exist.
It’s about time the little Marxist and his pals be reminded that they are not above the constitution. He’s a disgrace.
That could well happen, but could as well be a difficult argument, since they’re congressmen and the filing is based on the Constitution and the absence of a Congressional declaration of war.
Just sayin’...
Well then, we'd be somewhat limited in its application, wouldn't we. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't better having been left vague...
I’d like to see them ALL go over and give the marxist punk a blanket party, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, hell even Biden. All go over to the white house throw a curtain over him and pummel him with trash cans.
HEY I can fantacize can’t I?
That works both ways.
By that point they started with, “'He shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of Representatives, and conviction by the Senate, for Treason, or bribery.”
Why, it was asked, impeachment for treason and bribery only? Treason will not reach many significant offenses. What of attempts to subvert the Constitution? It was moved to add, “or maladministration” after bribery.
James Madison feared it would lead to too many Presidents getting the boot by hostile Congresses.
George Mason motioned to withdraw “maladministration” to substitute, “other high crimes and misdemesnors against the State,” which passed by a 7-4 vote.
The Committee of Style cleaned up his prose to the clause we know today.
I agree with the pol who remarked that an impeachable crime is whatever Congress thinks it is.
If you are a Constitutional junkie, join me this summer as I join the Federal Convention day by day as events unfolded in 1787.
James Madison feared it would lead to too many Presidents getting the boot by hostile Congresses.
George Mason motioned to withdraw “maladministration” to substitute, “other high crimes and misdemesnors against the State,” which passed by a 7-4 vote.
Taking this in context, without knowing further debate, one would take it that attempts to subvert the Constitution would be an impeachable offense.
As I wrote upthread, I believe we're better off with a more malleable wording...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.