Sadly, I believe that the answer is yes.

Why?

Based upon this statement by a noted "constitutional law professor", "statesman, and Nobel Peace prize winner that I highlighted in an earlier post.

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. — Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

That statement, from a man of such accomplishment and credentials, must carry great weight. And when he himself violates the standard he set for his predecessors -- and, one presumes, the successors to those predecessors -- it is important that he be held to that standard by the people of the United States speaking through their elected representatives in the people's House.

What's more, this was the standard adopted by so many liberals during the Bush years, and they are insisting that it be applied now that one of their own is sitting in the Oval Office.

This should be easy. No doubt Dennis Kucinich has his articles of impeachment regarding George W. Bush saved on a computer somewhere in his House office. Pull them up, revise them appropriately, and submit them. Should be doable by lunch. And as a privileged motion, they should be easy to take up in short order for consideration by the full House, without any need for formalities like committee hearings.

Who should support these articles of impeachment? Every member of the House of Representatives -- both the anti-war leftists who have spent the last decade giving aid and comfort to the jihadis against whom we battle and those who have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why?

Because this is Obama's standard, set for Obama by Obama. And unlike George W. Bush, Obama has not received authorization from Congress for his commitment of troops and has failed to form a true international consensus in favor of this military action -- the very things that the Left has repeatedly claimed (falsely) that Bush failed to do with regard to Iraq.

This would, of course, lead to a trial in the US Senate. Do I advocate the conviction and removal of Barack Hussein Obama from office? I am unsure on this point. Let's lay out the case for the Obama Doctrine cited above as a part of the trial in the Senate. Then let's have that vote by the full Senate. If, as the Left has claimed for the last several years, this sort of military action is a violation of the US Constitution and merits impeachment and removal of a president, then let that happen right now, with a president who explicitly acknowledged that standard even before his election. If Obama and his liberal fellow-travelers were wrong during the Bush years, then allow Obama to remain as president -- with his judgment (and that of the liberal anti-war crew who have served as al-Qaeda's fifth column) repudiated by the US Senate. In either case, this will serve to set the standard for future military actions around the globe that are undertaken without a declaration of war.

And in doing so, it will establish which was right on the military powers of the president -- Bush or Obama. And in doing so, it will apply the more stringent standard to one who was a champion and advocate for it, and require that a Senate majority of his party either embrace or repudiate the standard they exploited for political purposes during the first decade of the twenty-first century.