Proposed Bipartisan Resolution: Wars Not Authorized by Congress An Impeachable Offense

By Jonathan Mizrahi | July 18, 2018 | 3:32pm EDT
U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
(YouTube)

(CNSNews.com)— Representatives Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) held a press conference on Wednesday to discuss their joint congressional resolution (H.Res.922) that says a "presidential wars" not declared by Congress constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors,” an impeachable offense under the Constitution.

At the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Gabbard said, “Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war.”

“The last time Congress officially declared war was December 8, 1941, the day that the United States entered World War II,” she said.  “Ever since, Congress has failed to uphold this constitutional responsibility and has seated this power to the president -- presidents of both parties.”

House Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).  (YouTube)

Congressman Jones said this is not a partisan issue, and that both President Donald Trump, by sending missiles into Syria, and President Barack Obama, by sending troops into Libya to remove dictator Muammar Gaddafi, were both at fault, as were many of their predecessors.

Jones further said that former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should have been impeached for their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The joint resolution states, “Defining presidential wars not declared by Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 11 (Declare War Clause) as impeachable ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ within the meaning of Article II, section 4 of the Constitution and defining the meanings of war and co-belligerency for purposes of the Declare War Clause and Impeachment provisions.”

At the press conference, CNSNews.com asked,  “As was mentioned earlier, every time Congress has declared war there has been an aggressor. However, in the current day and age, the United States acts as, fortunately or unfortunately, global police. How can the American people feel confident that Congress will take the appropriate action against various atrocities across the globe?”

House Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).   (YouTube)

Congressman Jones said, “This, again, if we see that we are going to be attacked, we can raise intelligence that the president knows ahead of time that we might be attacked in a situation that might need to involve troops. He can come to Congress, and then with the leadership of the Congress, and then have a debate. That’s the things we don’t do.”

“That’s exactly the point,” Representative Gabbard added. “Congress can and should have that debate of whether or not we should be the policemen of the world, and to put our troops on those front lines in order to execute that.”

“I personally don’t believe that we should,” said Gabbard, “but the fact remains that Congress does not even debate these issues, does not bring this issue to the American people to say what price are you willing to pay for the United States to continue these interventionist wars, these regime change wars that in almost every case prove to be counterproductive, not only to American interests, but to the interests of the people in those countries, that the United States is presumably intervening in to save?”

U.S. soldiers in Vietnam.  (YouTube)

MRC Store