Federal Court Indicts President Obama Will not see end of his second term

[dontlop]

impeach THE BUM right now

[joekooltrips]

Overall, nearly 5.6 million people received unemployment benefits in the week ended Jan. 19, the latest data available. That's about 325,000 fewer than the previous week.

That's also less than half the number of unemployed, which stood at 12.3 million last month. Many of the unemployed aren't eligible for benefits, while others have used up all the benefits available to them.

Many of the unemployed aren't eligible for benefits, while others have used up all the benefits available to them.

Many of the unemployed aren't eligible for benefits, while others have used up all the benefits available to them.

Many of the unemployed aren't eligible for benefits, while others have used up all the benefits available to them.

impeach the bum for sending troops into libya with out congress approval

With respect Dontlop, O doesn't need congress approval to send troops anywhere !. (Dontlop, I overstand what your trying to say but he don't need congress approval )

[dontlop]

With respect Dontlop, O doesn't need congress approval to send troops anywhere !. (Dontlop, I overstand what your trying to say but he don't need congress approval )

YOUR STATEMENT IS JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY

War Powers Act" redirects here. For other uses, see War Powers Act of 1941.

War Powers Resolution Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President. Enacted by the 93rd United States Congress Citations

Public Law Pub.L. 93–148 Stat. 87 Stat. 555

Legislative history

Introduced in the House as H.J.Res. 542 by Clement J. Zablocki (D-WI) on May 3, 1973

Committee consideration by: House Foreign Affairs

Passed the House on July 18, 1973 (244–170)

Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 ()

Reported by the joint conference committee on October 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (75–20) and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238–123)

Vetoed by President Richard Nixon on October 24, 1973

Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284–135)

Overridden by the Senate and became law on November 7, 1973 (75–18) <<< democrat controlled house and senate

U.S. Congressional opposition

to American involvement in

wars and intervention

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

forget the war powers act ..of 1941 .. the resolution was passed in 1973

FOR JOE COOL TO READ

OBAMA IS THE FIRST PRESIDENT AND ONLY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY OF UNITED STATES TO EVER DO SUCH A THING ..

[joekooltrips]

YOUR STATEMENT IS JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY

FOR JOE COOL TO READ

With respect( I don't know Y U would say that (stupidity comment) But as I said I overstand what your trying to say, BUT O doesn't need congress approval to send anyone anywhere and I can prove it EASILY !

[dontlop]

With respect( I don't know Y U would say that (stupidity comment) <_</> But as I said I overstand what your trying to say, BUT O doesn't need congress approval to send anyone anywhere and I can prove it EASILY !

YOU CAN . ? .. SO THATS WHY PEOPLE ARE CALLING FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT ? .. BECAUSE ITS LEGAL TO DO WHAT HE DID ? SO THEY ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH HIM FOR DOING SOMETHING LEGAL ?.. HOLY COW .. WHAT A WASTE OF TIME .

impeach THE BUM right now

.

[joekooltrips]

YOU CAN . ? .. SO THATS WHY PEOPLE ARE CALLING FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT ? .. BECAUSE ITS LEGAL TO DO WHAT HE DID ? SO THEY ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH HIM FOR DOING SOMETHING LEGAL ?.. HOLY COW .. WHAT A WASTE OF TIME .

.

Lol, Ok Dontlop, just for you and anyone else who will listen, I will show you EASILY why O DOES NOT NEED CONGRESS APPROVAL TO DO ANYTHING ! (Ill start a new topic on here okay, are you ready ?.)

[dontlop]

Lol, Ok Dontlop, just for you and anyone else who will listen, I will show you EASILY why O DOES NOT NEED CONGRESS APPROVAL TO DO ANYTHING ! (Ill start a new topic on here okay, are you ready ?.) :)/>

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT ... I LIKE THIS TOPIC JUST FINE

[genx4me]

Recovery?? Just like this past quarter huh? Guess you will blame that on Bush also.

Oops....fat fingers, cell phone, hit the - button. Can someone + plus please. Thanks

[DinarMillionaire]

Just an observation from Obama and H.Clinton...

In 2007, Obama told Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” His rival, Hillarious Clinton, said, “If a country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization.”

Just another example of Obama doing the opposite of what he said when campaigning, when it suits what HE wants to do. I remember something else about how "un-patriotic and irresponsible" it is to raise the debt ceiling.

[joekooltrips]

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT ... I LIKE THIS TOPIC JUST FINE

So Dontlop if you wanna stay here that's fine just let me know when your ready for the proof then ok, thx. (This goes for anyone here on this great site as well.)

[dontlop]

So Dontlop if you wanna stay here that's fine just let me know when your ready for the proof then ok, thx. (This goes for anyone here on this great site as well.) :)/>

YOU HAVE NO PROOF OR YOU WOULD OF POSTED IT .

impeach THE BUM right now

.

[Shabibilicious]

YOU HAVE NO PROOF OR YOU WOULD OF POSTED IT .

Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 without congressional approval. He was advised to enact the "War Powers Act" because is was to be a secret raid.......and you can't very well have a secret raid if congress is negotiating it on the floor. He then had 60 days to get the approval of congress. But I'm sure you know this or would have found the information yourself. Sorry D-lop.....no link

GO RV, then BV

[R2D2]

YOU CAN . ? .. SO THATS WHY PEOPLE ARE CALLING FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT ? .. BECAUSE ITS LEGAL TO DO WHAT HE DID ? SO THEY ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH HIM FOR DOING SOMETHING LEGAL ?.. HOLY COW .. WHAT A WASTE OF TIME .

.

Mr. Lop I am out of (+) today they all went to you for your post on this thread. I will return tommorrow with a full bag. You get all of them. Thanks for your stand againt this impostermarxist president that I did not elect.

[DinarMillionaire]

[/size]

Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 without congressional approval. He was advised to enact the "War Powers Act" because is was to be a secret raid.......and you can't very well have a secret raid if congress is negotiating it on the floor. He then had 60 days to get the approval of congress. But I'm sure you know this or would have found the information yourself. Sorry D-lop.....no link

GO RV, then BV

President Ronald Reagan ordered attacks against Libya and Grenada without congressional approval, but in both cases it was to combat a threat or respond to an attack. Reagan justified the presence of U.S. medical students in Grenada for the attack there, while the bombing in Libya was in retaliation to a Gadhafi-sponsored terrorist bombing of a discothèque that killed and injured several U.S. troops.

But in Obama's case, even the Secretary of Defense has said that Libya is not in our national interest.”

[Shabibilicious]

President Ronald Reagan ordered attacks against Libya and Grenada without congressional approval, but in both cases it was to combat a threat or respond to an attack. Reagan justified the presence of U.S. medical students in Grenada for the attack there, while the bombing in Libya was in retaliation to a Gadhafi-sponsored terrorist bombing of a discothèque that killed and injured several U.S. troops.

But in Obama's case, even the Secretary of Defense has said that Libya is not in our national interest.”

Good info DM. I was not bashing Reagan.....he was one of my faves. I was simply pointing out the congressional approval process for D-lop. He appears to be fixated on it.

GO RV, then BV

[dontlop]

Here’s a history flashback to April 15, 1986, when President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libyan Dictator Moammar Gadhafi in response to Gadhafi’s direct order to carry out a terrorist bombing in Germany that killed two U.S. Soldiers, and wounded 50 others at a nightclub. Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli, and was roundly criticized for it by Democrats and those on the Left. Reagan ordered the attack without seeking Congressional approval in advance.

Under the WPR, the President may commit U.S. forces into armed hostilities, but must advise Congress within 48 hours that he has done so. This report must explain the circumstances necessitating the deployment, the legal authority he is relying on, and the estimated scope and duration of hostilities. A 60-day clock then begins ticking, at the end of which the president must terminate his military action unless (1) Congress has specifically authorized it, (2) Congress has extended the 60 days, or (3) Congress is physically unable to meet due to an attack on the U.S. But the President may extend the 60 days by another 30 days if he certifies to Congress that he cannot safely remove U.S. forces from combat without that additional time.

Thus, an American president operating under the WPR, basically has 92 days total to get his military business done abroad without specific Congressional authorization

I GUESS THERE ARE TIMELINES INVOLVED

I CAN SEE OBAMAS POINT NOW . HE CAN DO THIS IF HES OUT WITHIN 60 DAYS . BUT IT MUST MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION >>>> The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." ... DID IT ?

YA IM FIXIATED ON IT ..

Edited February 8, 2013 by dontlop

[joekooltrips]

YOU HAVE NO PROOF OR YOU WOULD OF POSTED IT .

.

Ok for you Dontlop, I have told you that I overstand what your saying, but you asked for proof, here it is, for you and those who will listen, 1st, is the USA part on the U.N. ?. Yes or No ?. Go to the U.N. Treaty of 1945 , Read the preface of the charter concerning the members and read what it says. Next go to Article 25 of the charter and read "The ALL of the article". Now you know that O, or ANY President since FDR (and maybe before him, i'm researching it) doesn't call the shots, THE U.N. DOES. In 1950, the BS "Uniting for Peace" resolution was passed (illegally) permitting the General Assembly to exercise the powers of the Security council (Funny how in 1950 we went to Korea no coincidence) The USA recognizes the UN charter as the "Law of the Land" overriding our Constitution . The General Assembly makes the Law, ratifies the resolution 2/3 majority vote, The resolution is sent to the "Chief" executive (our President, currently O) of the member state, and the Executive (our president) MUST ACCEPT AND CARRY OUT the provisions in the resolution (refer back to Article 25 of the UN Charter). All Govt who are members according to the UN Charter must Ignore, Abolish, Revise, and Rescind laws in their territories which conflict with the resolutions handed down by the General Assembly (see resolution 1760"one man, one vote"). ALL of our laws come from resolutions of the General Assembly ratified by our Senate. O just last month went to the UN for Gun Resolutions and came back with 23 executive orders (see Article 26 of UN charter on who controlls armaments ) If O should be impeached, it's because he put the UN Treaty ABOVE our Constitution, BUT guess what, ANY President who puts the UN Treaty of 1945 above our constitution should be impeached as well. I'll stop here for now, if you need more proof i'll EASILY provide more, BUT this should do for now.

[dontlop]

Ok for you Dontlop, I have told you that I overstand what your saying, but you asked for proof, here it is, for you and those who will listen, 1st, is the USA part on the U.N. ?. Yes or No ?. Go to the U.N. Treaty of 1945 , Read the preface of the charter concerning the members and read what it says. Next go to Article 25 of the charter and read "The ALL of the article". Now you know that O, or ANY President since FDR (and maybe before him, i'm researching it) doesn't call the shots, THE U.N. DOES. In 1950, the BS "Uniting for Peace" resolution was passed (illegally) permitting the General Assembly to exercise the powers of the Security council (Funny how in 1950 we went to Korea no coincidence) The USA recognizes the UN charter as the "Law of the Land" overriding our Constitution . The General Assembly makes the Law, ratifies the resolution 2/3 majority vote, The resolution is sent to the "Chief" executive (our President, currently O) of the member state, and the Executive (our president) MUST ACCEPT AND CARRY OUT the provisions in the resolution (refer back to Article 25 of the UN Charter). All Govt who are members according to the UN Charter must Ignore, Abolish, Revise, and Rescind laws in their territories which conflict with the resolutions handed down by the General Assembly (see resolution 1760"one man, one vote"). ALL of our laws come from resolutions of the General Assembly ratified by our Senate. O just last month went to the UN for Gun Resolutions and came back with 23 executive orders (see Article 26 of UN charter on who controlls armaments ) If O should be impeached, it's because he put the UN Treaty ABOVE our Constitution, BUT guess what, ANY President who puts the UN Treaty of 1945 above our constitution should be impeached as well. I'll stop here for now, if you need more proof i'll EASILY provide more, BUT this should do for now. :)/>/>

that is such bull crap .. your telling me .. the un can pick out what ever country they choose and tell them to bomb another country and they have to disobey their own countrys constitution and do it .. or what ?.. the president of that country should be impeached ? and in this case the un chose the united states to do the bombing ,,so obama had no choice .. .. ok you proved yourself.. if obama ever did that he would be behind bars , emediatly .

Edited February 8, 2013 by dontlop

[Shabibilicious]

that is such bull crap .. your telling me .. the un can pick out what ever country they choose and tell them to bomb another country and they have to disobey their own countrys constitution and do it .. or what ?.. the president of that country should be impeached ? and in this case the un chose the united states to do the bombing ,,so obama had no choice .. .. ok you proved yourself.. if obama ever did that he would be behind bars , emediatly .

I am not the "Spelling Police".....so please don't go there.......But D-lop you completely obliterated that word. I thought it might be in latin.......I went to look up the definition. Hahaha.....just trying to lighten the mood.

GO RV, then BV

[joekooltrips]

that is such bull crap .. your telling me .. the un can pick out what ever country they choose and tell them to bomb another country and they have to disobey their own countrys constitution and do it .. or what ?.. the president of that country should be impeached ? and in this case the un chose the united states to do the bombing ,,so obama had no choice .. .. ok you proved yourself.. if obama ever did that he would be behind bars , emediatly .

O is at fault, BUT it's because he put the UN treaty above our Constitution, just Google the UN Treaty 1945. O does have a choice, he can rescind the UN Treaty of 1945 and put the Constitution back to it's proper standing as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. I asked you if the USA is a member of the UN ? Yes or No ?. Yes we are, now read the UN Treaty 1945, ALL MEMBERS ARE BOUND BY IT'S ARTICLES, AND THAT OBLIGATIONS TO THE UN PREVAIL OVER ALL OTHER TREATY OBLIGATIONS. NOW, READ THE ALL OF ARTICLE 25.

[dontlop]

O is at fault, BUT it's because he put the UN treaty above our Constitution, just Google the UN Treaty 1945. O does have a choice, he can rescind the UN Treaty of 1945 and put the Constitution back to it's proper standing as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. I asked you if the USA is a member of the UN ? Yes or No ?. Yes we are, now read the UN Treaty 1945, ALL MEMBERS ARE BOUND BY IT'S ARTICLES, AND THAT OBLIGATIONS TO THE UN PREVAIL OVER ALL OTHER TREATY OBLIGATIONS. NOW, READ THE ALL OF ARTICLE 25. :)/>

i guess every other country thats a member dis obeyed the un charter , except obama .. .. im not going to read the un charter .. the un is set up to stop wars ,, it took 13 years to get rid of saddam using the united nations and their 17 resolutions against iraq before the un approved 1441 to allow the use of force .. .. the un was used properly to build a coolition against iraq for non compliance .. 13 years long .. hows obamas recognition of the un doing .. .. they best not get in americas way or try to dictate americas contittution .. we answer to no one . ..that building will be empty in new york ... iraqis were dying for years because of brutal dictatorship of saddam .. look at syria ,, i guess the united states better look out ,.. the un is going to tell obama to bomb syria next ..

the truth is .. obama will not rush into syria like he did in libya ,, because its against our laws .. is syria attacking america ? ,, was libya ? if not hes got a long wait at the un .. ask bush clinton bush

I am not the "Spelling Police".....so please don't go there.......But D-lop you completely obliterated that word. I thought it might be in latin.......I went to look up the definition. Hahaha.....just trying to lighten the mood.

GO RV, then BV

i saw it and didnt care ..lol ,,

[Shabibilicious]

Roger that D-lop

GO RV, then BV

[DinarMillionaire]

In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” In short, as “[the Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties may neither supplant nor amend it.

Amen!

Edited February 8, 2013 by DinarMillionaire

[joekooltrips]

In the landmark case Reid v Covert, the Court ruled”…no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” In short, as “[the Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties may neither supplant nor amend it.

Amen!

So the UN is now a foreign nation ?. Reid vs Covert has nothing to do with the UN, nothing at all. As I said the UN treaty is clear on it's Charter and Article 25 in the Charter is Clear. Since the UN treaty, the US has gone where ever the UN says to go starting with Korea in 1950 and on from there.

i guess every other country thats a member dis obeyed the un charter , except obama .. .. im not going to read the un charter .. the un is set up to stop wars ,, it took 13 years to get rid of saddam using the united nations and their 17 resolutions against iraq before the un approved 1441 to allow the use of force .. .. the un was used properly to build a coolition against iraq for non compliance .. 13 years long .. hows obamas recognition of the un doing .. .. they best not get in americas way or try to dictate americas contittution .. we answer to no one . ..that building will be empty in new york ... iraqis were dying for years because of brutal dictatorship of saddam .. look at syria ,, i guess the united states better look out ,.. the un is going to tell obama to bomb syria next ..

the truth is .. obama will not rush into syria like he did in libya ,, because its against our laws .. is syria attacking america ? ,, was libya ? if not hes got a long wait at the un .. ask bush clinton bush

i saw it and didnt care ..lol ,,

Of course you won't read it, truth hurts. The UN charter is clear as is Article 25.

[joekooltrips]

[/size]

Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 without congressional approval. He was advised to enact the "War Powers Act" because is was to be a secret raid.......and you can't very well have a secret raid if congress is negotiating it on the floor. He then had 60 days to get the approval of congress. But I'm sure you know this or would have found the information yourself. Sorry D-lop.....no link

GO RV, then BV

Article 47 of the UN charter.

Article 47 of the UN charter. :)/>

Also see Articles 25, 26, 27 of the UN Charter in relation to Article 47.