“Cry havoc! And let slip the” reactionary bloggers.
Why are so many blogs and articles popping up on the internet saying “Obama impeachment hearing begins”? This is all political froth fueled by wishful thinking. The simple truth is what our eyes can’t see or our ears can’t hear the brain fills in.
This process allows us all to be fooled by the shiny objects we believe are within our reach. But alas it is not the golden nugget of truth but just another worthless clump of disinformation. Secretary Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7th. Congressman Walter B. Jones wrote H.Con.Res 107 in reaction to Panetta’s statements at that hearing. So, to simplify how the internet got this particular Obama impeachment hearings fever I will use a little addition.
Panetta testifies at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. +
Rep. Jones writes H.Con.Res. 107 which contains the word impeachable +
Obama may send our military into Syria = Obama impeachment hearings begins.
Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see Obama impeached if he wins a second term. However, the hoopla over non-existent Obama impeachment hearings is mind-boggling or even mind-buggery.
Let’s start where this political wild-fire first ignited the reactionary H.Con.Res 107 written by Congressman Walter Jones.
The text of H.Con.Res. 107 follow:
“Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”
As you can plainly see, President Obama’s name does not appear in H.Con.Res. 107. Therefore this is a resolution addressed to current and future Presidents.
The short but to the point H.Con.Res. 107 was written in reaction to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s ignorance or lack of regard for the only governmental entity endowed by the U.S. Constitution with the authority to go to war — Congress.
Next let’s examine the impeachment process for a sitting President:
In the House of Representatives
- The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do…
- The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
- Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
- The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
- Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be “impeached.” However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
- The House Judiciary Committee lists no committee news or current issues related to impeachment or H.Con.Res. 107.
- As the Judiciary has not met they have not proposed a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
- Congressman Walter B. Jones is not a member of the House Judiciary Committee. So until I see news of impeachment proceedings originating from the House Judiciary Committee I will give it all of the attention it deserves.
This point may be more important than the reporting of the Obama impeachment hearings — where none exist: No one, not even a sitting unpopular U.S. President can be tried or impeached for something he or she hasn’t done yet.
Prosecution of future crimes and retroactive enforcement of new laws remains unconstitutional and both are strictly forbidden. Therefore the impeachment of President Obama before he unilaterally uses U.S. military force against Syria without having first advised Congress would be a violation of U.S. criminal law.
Impeaching Mr. Obama for sending U.S. military to engage Libyan forces without first advising Congress is currently lawful.