Obama Impeachment Bill Already in Congress (VIDEO)

Each passing week seems to bring a new justification for the impeachment of President Barack Obama.

First, there was the shredding of the Bill of Rights when the president signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on New Year’s Eve, a piece of legislation that allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely and without trial under the guise of protecting us all from terrorists.

Then came the independent investigation revealing that the president’s long-form birth certificate is, in fact, fraudulent.

Now, President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have basically informed Congress that they can bomb Syria if they want to, so long as they have the authorization of NATO and the United Nations.  If they decide to do so, they’ll be sure to stop by and let Congress know what they’re doing.

The problem?  It’s illegal.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.) has now introduced a resolution declaring that, should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war.

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta replied, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would…come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

When asked again what the legal basis was for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was flabbergasted by that answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

It’s hard to believe that this treasonous exchange actually took place right here in America.

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo writes:

The list of Obama’s constitutional violations is growing by the day and ought to be the topic of not only nightly news commentary but citizens’ town-hall meetings and protest rallies.

President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. That must change.

Check out the awkward exchange on the use of military force below.

Related articles

• North Carolina Congressman Moves To Impeach Obama (alan.com)
• Panetta Testimony Prompts Resolution Threatening Impeachment (markamerica.com)
• Obama Impeachment Hearings Begin! (weeklyworldnews.com)
• ‘Impeach Obama’ Bill: Use of military without Congress approval ‘high crime’ (rt.com)