Are there any plans to impeach Obama over Libya?

Impeachment charges are brought up and voted on in the House of Representatives and then the trial is conducted in the Senate. The House could very well initiate impeachment charges (should things come to that), but the Senate would never turn against a sitting Dem president (unless he was caught on national television eating babies or something equally heinous). It would simply be a repeat of the Bill Clinton impeachment circus. I think there is more justification to impeach Obama than there was for Bill Clinton, but I still don't see it going anywhere.

Two problems.

1. Traditionally we have given presidents the power to wage war. The Constitution makes it clear that only Congress has the power to declare war, but through precedent we have given the president this power. These precedents were all set by REPUBLICANS who simply sent troops and then accused anyone who criticized them as anti-American. So you can't exactly complain when a Democrat does it.

2. We have been conditioned in the US to see every question as primarily a partisan matter. There is a long list of 'crimes' that are only illegal when a president of the other party does them. Republicans feel just about -everything- Obama does is wrong. They know that cooperating with a Democratic president, or even just agreeing with him, hands him a victory. So they fight him on everything, even things they wanted themselves. But they can't impeach him because Democrats now also see this as a partisan thing, and they will vote to keep him no matter what he's done. President Nixon only resigned when he was abandoned by his own party, so he knew he'd be impeached.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton really backfired on the Republicans. They knew they couldn't remove him from office because they didn't have the votes in the Senate. They impeached him anyway, in the House, just as a political circus. But during the impeachment, Clinton's popularity ratings rose to the highest in his entire administration, and they were never below 66% after that, basically twice what GW Bush's numbers were during 90% of his time in office.

The War Powers Act is a law, not part of the Constitution, so your argument falls short on the face. Add that to the fact that the War Powers Act is probably an unconstitutional law passed by one branch of Congress trying to limit the powers of another branch, and it becomes even more difficult to go down that path.

Let's just hope that his more moderate supporters, as naive and unthinking as they are, remember this in the next election.

No. The US is not that involved in Libya. We got out after a week and turned command of operations over to NATO. NATO is not subject to the War Powers Act.

Congress already agreed to be part of NATO and the UN many decades ago. Observing our treaty obligations with regards to NATO and the UN is not a violation of the Constitution.

If we couldn't impeach Bush for lying to Congress with regards to WMDs in Iraq, we certainly can't impeach Obama over Libya.

The Constitution doesn't mean anything to Obama. I hope he is voted out in 2012 (or impeached before then) and goes into retirement on some remote island far away and hides in shame for the rest of his life.

None, read the article below it gives an interesting take on the House leadership in this regard.

No.

Honoring our treaty obligations is not an offense of any kind, much less an impeachable one.

Congress has failed their Constitutional responsibilities at every turn.

We are a tin horn dictatorship with both parties holding hands.

nope, the republican congress has no such plans

(for good reason)

We need to drop him over Libya