Lumpa wrote:Counselor:
While in your stated opinion, simply being President while ineligible may not be an impeacable offense, does utilizing the war powers act (yes I know that we've reached the point where that act is pretty much moot, and it may not technically have been applied in the case of Libya, even though it should have) to control the military as in Libya, while ineligible, cross a legal line?
I know it would be crossing a moral line, but would that technical loophole preventing impeachment be closed?
And, realistically, such a loophole would be overcome - they would simply find different "official" grounds for impeachment, and vote on that, excercizing congreessional equivalent of jury nulification.
That may not pass confirmation, but I could see it happening in the house.
But this ia all just for discussion purposes anyways, nothing of substance is gonna happen on this.
No. Nothing will happen, even if it was a crossing of the line. My personal opinion is that the "line" needs to have "safe harbor" to allow immediate action, when necessary.
I don't like the "Libya thing" either, at least to the very extent we seemed to be doing it alone .
Yesterday, i read that a Pentagon spokesperson said U.S. troops may be ultimately be required on the ground in Libya. I almost puked.
For whatever it is worth, I would hate to see politics/"jury nullification" occur when considering impeachment of anyone. But, that is just my own little pipe dream.
(BTW, just because I am a lawyer does not necessarily mean I think I definitely know more about any of this stuff than anyone else here may. It might help me to understand or interprett some things differently, but that is about all when it comes to this type of area of the law. Beleive it or not, we didn't cover it at all in any of my core iclasses in law school- not even in Con. Law...)
GTG t work...