Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Administration Now Saying It Can Attack Syria Even If Congress Votes Against Authorization (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So what's the argument for it? (0+ / 0-)

    You can't actually just impeach someone because you don't like them. You need some evidence of "high crimes or misdemeanors." That's why it took the GOP so long to get Clinton back in the 1990s: they needed some plausible excuse, and it took them years to find it.

    The only real justification here is the War Powers Resolution. That will not be used. Mark it. No one with any political ambition will want to go on record as wanting to deny the president the ability to use the armed forces, especially when any scrutiny by the courts will almost certainly rule the WPR unconstitutional. There won't be enough public outrage to drag them to that.

    It'll hurt Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party generally, politically, and possibly substantially so. But it's realistically not an impeachable offense, nor should it be.

    •  You are asserting that the WPA won't be used... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I assert that it is entirely possible.

      Time will tell who is correct...IF he defies congress, and IF congress first votes against attacking Syria.

      (The "Ifs"...can drive one mad, no? :)

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 03:20:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, you CAN (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      impeach someone because you don't like them.  I would argue that that's what both of the actual impeachments that have been carried out were ultimately about.

      Problem is there's been no firm definition set of what constitutes "high crimes or misdemeanors."

      Andrew Johnson only committed a crime because Congress specifically passed a law (an unconstitutional one, I might add) to give them an excuse to impeach him.  And all Clinton did was lie under oath about something that wasn't illegal in and of itself.  This is a crime, sure, but is it really a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

      Having said that, I agree that legally speaking, carrying out a military strike on Syria doesn't fit the criteria.

      •  Fair enough. (0+ / 0-)

        But every time it's been attempted, Congress has at least tried to provide a legal rationale. A weak one, either the result of an unconstitutional law passed specifically for that reason (in the case of Johnson), or as a result of a flailing, multi-year fishing expedition (in the case of Clinton), but a rationale nonetheless. Given the current political climate, I'm highly doubt that's in the cards here. But it's not totally unthinkable, to be sure.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site