More Impeachment Blather

If the president exercises his authority as commander in chief to engage in military action, we should impeach him! So says Representative Duncan Hunter.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) told the Washington Times Tuesday that the House could impeach President Obama if he authorizes a military strike in Syria without congressional approval.

“I think he’s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter said. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”

Actually, the president would not be breaking the law. He has the authority to do that. He did not have to ask congress for approval, but he chose to.

Whether you agree with intervention or not, it would not be an impeachable offense.

The point at which this becomes comical is when you consider that these are the same yahoos who want to impeach the president for allegedly doing nothing (why didn’t he call in Captain America?) in Benghazi.

Do something. No, don’t do something.

This entry was posted in Super Stupid, Syria and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Schneibster

    Duncan Hunter is still in the government and not in prison?

    How disappointing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Por Qua?

      • Schneibster

        Oh, I figured after the US Attorney scandal and the Duke Cunningham scandal they’d poured bleach down the drain. I should have known better.

    • nathkatun7

      Actually this Duncan Hunter Jr., who inherited his father’s Congressional District, here in San Diego county, CA. His father, Duncan Hunter, Sr. was a rabid right winger, but he was generally a smart guy. Duncan Hunter Jr. is as dumb as they come. He makes Darrell Issa look like a genius.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Somebody’s got to explain this to someone.

    See, here’s the thing: Congress has the power to declare war. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

    For 155 years this was not a problem. Unless and until Congress declared war, we didn’t have any Armed Forces for the President to be the Commander-in-Chief of. In addition to its war-declaring power, Congress also has to power to “raise and support Armies,” which it only ever did incident to a declaration of war.

    That is, until WWII ended.

    After WWII, we decided, Hey, let’s keep this massive, awesome war machine we’ve built just in case we ever need it again; that way we won’t have to pull the plug on our economy and industry and start from scratch again the next time we go to war.” So instead of demobilizing and dismantling the Armed Forces, like we did after WWI, we kept them.

    So, since 1945 we’ve had this huge, awesome, and ever-growing Armed Forces and no Congressional declaration of a war for them to go and fight. So what is this big awesome military machine and hundreds of thousands of troops supposed to do in the meantime? More to the point, who gets to decide what the Armed Forces are going to do, and where they’re going to go?

    The Commander-in-Chief, that’s who.

    If we accept it as axiomatic that the Commander-in-Chief gets to tell the Armed Forces to go places and do things, but that he can’t declare war, we need to understand the limits — if there are any — of what the C-in-C can tell the military to do that is different from or short of actual “war.” I don’t think enough people understand this.

    • trgahan

      Point well taken, however it could be argued that congress relinquished their formal war declaration powers as early as 1801 to “small government, state’s rights” Thomas Jefferson when he wanted to use the newly formed Navy to invade the Barbary Coast.

    • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

      It used to be the case that any military action undertaken by or against the United States would require months to execute — that is, a British invasion fleet would a long time to reach our shores (or vice-versa), so there would be plenty of time for Congress to hold a vote. It’s not precisely correct to say that this changed with the Cold War. It really began to change with Pearl Harbor; by the time Congress declared war the next day, American forces were already fully engaged in pitched battles with Japan, and there had already been shooting incidents with German U-boats in the months before. So it’s more correct to say that technology is what overran Congressional war powers, and that the Cold War with its 30-minute warning times merely completed a transition that was already underway.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        Good point.

  • trgahan

    The people Rep. Hunter is talking to already swallowed Sen. Paul’s “military action will kill Christians and empower Muslims. We all know why Obama wants that..wink…wink” ranting, so expect plenty more of this over the coming weeks.

  • Brutlyhonest

    One side of rwnj mouth: President Obama is exceeding his authority by taking action against Syria without congressional approval!

    Other side of same mouth: Obama is weak for not acting without waiting for congressional approval.

    • Rita D. Lipshutz

      yup. and the uber lefties think he’s is a fascist warmonger going against the will of the people after years of calling for him to “grow a pair” and just do what he wants to regardless of Congress and the people (as long as ‘what he wants to do’ at the moment is something they want him to do). the mind reels.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    The precise sequence is “do something! But not too much! In fact, don’t do anything! But do something right now!”