ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF
ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN
USURPING THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF CONGRESS TO COMENCE WAR UNDER
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
ARTICLE I
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States,
Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully
to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the
best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed, has usurped the exclusive
power of Congress to initiate war under Article I, section 8, clause 11
of the United States Constitution by unilaterally commencing war against
the Republic of Libya on March 19, 2011, declaring that Congress is
powerless to constrain his conduct of the war, and claiming authority in
the future to commence war unilaterally to advance whatever he ordains
is in the national interest. By so doing and declaring, Barack Hussein
Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the
Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable
high crime and misdemeanor as hereinafter elaborated.
I.
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
1. Article II, Section IV of
the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President
and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
2. According to James
Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George
Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses
to treason or bribery:
Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only?
Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and
dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to
subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of
attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it
is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.
3. Delegates to the Federal
Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and
misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States
Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the
Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences.
Id.
4. Alexander Hamilton, a
delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses
in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of
public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some
public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be
denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to
society itself.”
5. In 1974, the House
Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then
President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional
government.”
6. Father of the
Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of
public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it
comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse
of executive aggrandizement.”
7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
8. The exclusive
congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII,
clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the
greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency,
and government frugality.
II.
THE “DECLARE WAR” CLAUSE
9. Article I, Section VIII,
Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress
shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and
Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
10. Article II, Section II,
Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “The President
shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States.”
11. The authors of the
United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII,
Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the
Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.
12. The authors of the
United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the
Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.
13. The authors of the
United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to
leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically
inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.
14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:
[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to
get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal,
such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts,
ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular
families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which
affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars
not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.
15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority
…would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great
Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to
nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and
naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while
that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the
raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the
constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.
16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote:
In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in
the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the
legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection
to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation
would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the
prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary
successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive
aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the
executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are
to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them.
In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and
it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is
in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the
executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most
dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the
honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the
desire and duty of peace.
17. James Madison also wrote as Helvidius to Alexander Hamilton:
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be
proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued,
or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great
principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the
sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of
enacting laws.
18. On June 29, 1787, at the
Federal Convention, James Madison explained that an executive crowned
with war powers invites tyranny and the reduction of citizens to
vassalage:
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly
given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the
same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing
military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe
companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have
been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a
standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended.
Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people.
19. In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:
The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments
demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested
in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care,
vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately
advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit
the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution
distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion
of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the
judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the
recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, &
negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from
the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the
freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the
Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of
the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral
obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally
repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident
that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their
Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their
blessings.
20. During the Pennsylvania
Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of
the United States Supreme Court, observed:
This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard
against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single
body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of
declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration
must he made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from
this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our
national interest can draw us into a war.
21. In 1793, President
George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to
South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective
counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: “The
Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore
no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they
have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”
22. President Thomas
Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington,
in a statement before Congress regarding Tripoli and the Barbary
Pirates, deemed himself “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the
sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” He amplified:
“I communicate [to the Congress] all material information on this
subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the
Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form
itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of
weight.”
23. In a message to Congress
in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a
border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that
“Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing
our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await
their authority for using force.” He requested Congressional
authorization for offensive military action, even short of war,
elaborating:
Formal war is not necessary—it is not probable it will follow; but
the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our country,
require that force should be interposed to a certain degree. It will
probably contribute to advance the object of peace.
But the course to be pursued will require the command of means
which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or deny. To them I
communicate every fact material for their information, and the documents
necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom,
then, I look for the course I am to pursue; and will pursue, with
sincere zeal, that which they shall approve.
24. In his War Message to
Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison reaffirmed that the
shift in language from make to declare in Article I, Section VIII,
Clause XI of the United States Constitution authorized at the
Constitutional convention did not empower the Executive to involve the
United States military in any action aside from defense against an overt
attack. Although President Madison was convinced that Great Britain had
undertaken acts of war against the United States, he nevertheless
maintained that he could not respond with military force without
congressional authorization. He proclaimed:
We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war
against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state
of peace toward Great Britain.
Whether the United States shall continue passive under these
progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing
force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just
cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all
connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other
powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable
re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the
Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the
Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy
in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and
patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.
25. In his Records of the
Convention, 2:318; Madison, 17 Aug., James Madison wrote that the power
“To declare war” had been vested in the Congress in lieu of the power
“To make war” to leave to the Executive “the power to repel sudden
attacks.”
26. Mr. Elbridge Gerry
“never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive
alone to declare war,” but still moved with Mr. Madison “to insert
declare—in place of make” in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI. Id.
27. Mr. George Mason was
against “giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to
be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to
be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but
for facilitating peace.” Yet Mr. Mason “preferred declare to make.” Id.
28. Mr. Roger Sherman “thought [the proposal] stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.” Id.
29. Delegates to the Federal
Convention overwhelmingly approved the motion to insert “declare—in
place of make,” to deny the Executive power to initiate military action,
but to permit the Executive to repel sudden attacks unilaterally. Id.
30. Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he
shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do
so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose
— and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can
fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so
much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it
necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how
could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the
British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you
don’t.”
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to
Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons.
Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars,
pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the
object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of
all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution
that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon
us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President
where kings have always stood.
31. Crowning the President
with unilateral authority to commence war under the banner of
anticipatory self-defense, prevention of civilian slaughters, gender
discrimination, subjugation of ethnic or religious minorities, or
otherwise would empower the President to initiate war without limit,
threatening the very existence of the Republic. Although a benevolent
Chief Executive might resist abuse of an unlimited war power, the
principle, if ever accepted by Congress, would lie around like a loaded
weapon ready for use by any successor craving absolute power.
32. Thomas Paine justly and
rightly declared in Common Sense that “in America, the law is king. For
as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law
ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”
33. Article 43 Paragraph 3
of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or
agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to
ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective
constitutional processes.”
34. Article 43 Paragraph 3
of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay
concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the
League of Nations Treaty in 1919.
35. That treaty risked
crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to
initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his
Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to
preserve the balance of power established by the United States
Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
resolved as follows:
The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial
integrity or political independence of any other country or to
interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the
League or not — under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the
military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the
treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress,
which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or
authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United
States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.
The rejection of Lodge’s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty.
36. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows:
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a
declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
37. In United States v.
Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a
delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a
federal circuit court:
There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a
nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion,
or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province
of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.
38. In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held:
The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms
unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument
against the action of the government or of its departments, and those
arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the
States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize
what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the
government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion
of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
39. In his concurrence in
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952),
which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers
in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated:
Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a
war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact
exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court
could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a
President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled,
and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the
internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s
armed forces to some foreign venture.
40. All treaties are
subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court
held:
There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that
treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with
the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates
which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution
which even suggests such a result.
41. Unconstitutional
usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal
branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition. The United States
Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by
Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative
veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).
42. In their dissent in
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and
Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military
power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence
war:
No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or
part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s
authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the
Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise
and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation
of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S.
Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military
forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit
authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under
Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton
explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior”
to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)
43. On December 20, 2007,
then Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed: “The President has the solemn
duty to defend our Nation. If the 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.”
44. Then Senator Joseph
Biden stated in a speech at the Iowa City Public Library in 2007
regarding potential military action in Iran that unilateral action by
the President would be an impeachable offense under the Constitution:
It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or
otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers
vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war,
except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.
They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress
first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making
before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public
support.
The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.
That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to
war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his
impeachment.
I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I
have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach
constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading
constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.
I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and
hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the
last year of his administration.
If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.
45. In a speech on the
Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: “…the only
logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States
Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all
hostilities, even limited wars.”
46. On December 20, 2007,
then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his
extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: “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.”
III.
USURPATION OF THE WAR POWER OVER LIBYA
47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war.
48. Congressman J. Randy
Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee
Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation
intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New
York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United
States?
Secretary Gates: Probably so.
Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply
if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?
Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.
Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense.
You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an
act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not
also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another
nation?
Secretary Gates: Presumably.
49. Since the passage of
United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the
United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise
missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil.
50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn.
51. On March 27, 2011,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an
“actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that
Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States.
52. United Nations Security
Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military
quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect
Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the
murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi.
53. In a Letter From the
President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President
Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “U.S. forces have
targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control
structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to
attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but
responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or
international organizations that are postured to continue activities as
may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 1970 and 1973.”
54. In his March 21, 2011
letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that
he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of
international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian
disaster.”
55. President Barack Obama
has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with
Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the
congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would
advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he
declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that
I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and
unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our
allies, and our core interests” (emphasis added).
56. President Obama’s
humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that
would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the
globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China,
Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia.
57. In Olmstead v. United
States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf
of a majority of the United States Supreme Court:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect
liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to
freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by
evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
58. President Barack Obama
has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,”
authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to
oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States
in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is
invariably the first casualty of war.
59. In response to questions
by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no
Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and
will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to
constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war.
60. On March 30, 2011, by
persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed
congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the
constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to
cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent
actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White
House attorneys.
61. President Barack Obama,
in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office
as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United
States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to
authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President
Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of
Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama
has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the
Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling
of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President
is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by
the Senate.
In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
If you agree with these articles, put your name behind the growing thousands who are fed up with the crimes and lies, and
. Together we can make our cry heard even in Washington.
