Bush doesn't appear to be doing anything that previous Presidents aven't already done (see page six), but the scope and scale do trouble me. There also doesn't appear to be a clear rememdy on how issues like this should be handled. Can a judicial review force him to comply?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hopefully that'll change with Democrats in charge.
Otherwise it's hardly surprising, Bush has gathered more power to himself than any president since the Roosevelts.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Haven't had time to read the article yet, but how about that picture?
Who runs our country? That's right...a bunch of old white men.
*hides in his bunker*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
I find these three especially disturbing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's nice to see more attention being paid to "signing statements," although it's long overdue.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Javert, Have you seen the picture from his infamous wink?
Y'know, there was this really funny article in the Onion circa 2000. It had a picture of Bill Clinton dressed in grand military style with a caption something along the lines of "Clinton Names Self Grand Dictator for Life."
It was really funny, but the more and more weird vibes I get from Bush, the more concern that the farce above might be prophetical, if only for a different president.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's nice to see more attention being paid to "signing statements," although it's long overdue.
This is over a year old. Is there something else that suggests more attention is being paid now?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah. For some inexplicable reason, a number of social networking sites are going nuts over articles about signing statements. *shrug*
You know I think Bush should be impeached for 'em. We've had that conversation. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think he should be impeached just for the signing statements themselves. They're just his opinions as a 'Constitutional expert' (boy that's hard to say with a straight face).
When he actually violates the law by using one of these, then I support impeachment proceedings. And I've seen multiple suggestions saying he might have done just that, so I'd like to see more on it, but signing statements, as originally intended, to express Presidential disagreement with a bill, is fine. They have no weight of law, despite what THIS president might think, they're essentially just dissenting opinions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Suppose the Supreme Court decides 5-4 that the President's action was unlawful, with no majority decision and interlocking plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions. If it's necessary, suppose the justice lineup is Scalia, Ginsburg, Stevens, Thomas, and Souter in the majority and Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, and Breyer in the minority.
Would you support impeachment then?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's nice to see more attention being paid to "signing statements," although it's long overdue.
This is over a year old. Is there something else that suggests more attention is being paid now?
It's probably in part because of the Pulitzer awarded in 2007 to Charlie Savage for coverage of the issue.
I have to say, at best, it's kind of an underhanded way to get around the publicity of a veto.
[ May 14, 2007, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would you support impeachment then?
I suppose it would depend on their suggested remedy. Let's say they decide it's unlawful. What happens next?
As I understand it, there is no practical way to force an uncooperative President to stop "interpreting" laws in a manner directly contrary to their written intent without actually impeaching him. Is that incorrect?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I understand it, there is no practical way to force an uncooperative President to stop "interpreting" laws in a manner directly contrary to their written intent without actually impeaching him. Is that incorrect?
No, it's not. We've discussed this extensively in the past.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Musta missed that. In what thread?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Suppose the Supreme Court decides 5-4 that the President's action was unlawful, with no majority decision and interlocking plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions. If it's necessary, suppose the justice lineup is Scalia, Ginsburg, Stevens, Thomas, and Souter in the majority and Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, and Breyer in the minority.
Would you support impeachment then?
Yes, I would. All that would do is bring official charges against him, and then there would be a trial.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So, criminal charges for someone who used a statutory or constitutional interpretation that the leading experts on the constitution couldn't agree on. That's...astounding. Moreover, there are probably a dozen Presidents who should have been impeached by those standards.
And hundreds or thousands of members of Congress who, were the same type of standard applied to them, should have been kicked out of office.
quote:Musta missed that. In what thread?
Do a search.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To clarify: I would be comfortable impeaching a president for using excessive signing statements without even bringing the Supreme Court into it at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There is a common canon of construction called "avoidance of constitutional doubt" that states that a statute should, if possible, be interpreted in a manner that avoids raising a constitutional issue.
Note that this is "avoids raising" - a far lesser standard than simply interpreting a statute so that it is not unconstitutional.
This canon is used frequently by the Supreme Court - it's not an off-the-wall, fringe legal theory, but a centerpiece of statutory construction.
Note that this presupposes the existence of doubt. It also presupposes that the Executive will interpret the law when deciding how to execute it and that it will rely on canons such as this one.
The President - and his officers - have a specific duty to interpret the Constitution. There is an entire office at DoJ whose job it is to present the President's interpretation of the Constitution to the courts.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
An impeachment charge is a criminal charge? Isn't the only penalty removal from office?
How is a decision with "no majority decision and interlocking plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions" parsed into 5-4, or whatever the numbers might be?
Also, a technical note before the argument has it's inevitable devolution:
quote: impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts.
With that out of the way, I would be comfortable supporting impeachment and conviction in Dag's hypothetical. Of course, I'd be more comfortable with a more clear-cut or unanimous verdict.
In any case, I think specific instances of laws being broken are more compelling politically than the over-arching issue of signing statements. The big three are: violation of the 4th Amendement and FISA, use of torture, and false intelligence leading to war with Iraq.
The last two are certainly debatable, and have been here and elsewhere. But President Bush has explicitly admitted violating FISA with the warrentless NSA domestic wiretaps.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
He's not going to be impeached. Give it up. This administration has been (IMO) inethical and amazingly power-hungry, systematically breaking down or side-stepping every form of oversight possible that might constrain the President, but any illegalities are nebulous and difficult to prove. Mainly what he and his crew have been doing are the same things other presidents have done, just on a grander and more focused scale. Other presidents have sidestepped Congress for political expediency; this one appears to be determined to set up an elected monarchy.
The answer is for Congress to systemically restore oversight as much as possible, and for the voters to put in a president who will restore the rest. Keep bringing charges against this adminstration to try and keep down the worst of the excesses, but don't expect Any actual punishments to happen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Note that this presupposes the existence of doubt. It also presupposes that the Executive will interpret the law when deciding how to execute it and that it will rely on canons such as this one.
I submit that there is a clear and obvious difference between "interpret" and "disregard," and that Bush is doing the latter. And, moreover, as we've discussed, there is no remedy for the latter but impeachment. We don't even require a Supreme Court ruling on this; if Congress decides that the President is overstepping his authority -- which, IMO, he clearly is -- Congress has the ability to remove the President from office without even contacting the Supreme Court. And should use it.
Frankly, Dag, I'm baffled by your support of this kind of power-grab. Why doesn't it infuriate and disappoint you? Do you see over 700 signing statements -- many of which directly subvert and/or contradict the law to which they're attached -- as setting a good precedent to which lawyers will later be able to refer when defending future executive abuses?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frankly, Dag, I'm baffled by your support of this kind of power-grab.
I don't support it, Tom.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The President - and his officers - have a specific duty to interpret the Constitution.
And Congress has a specific duty to impeach Presidents who abuse this power in order to commit what Congress considers to be high crimes and misdemeanors.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't support it, Tom.
So what, then, would you see happen? You suggest, if I'm following you, that you would oppose impeachment unless it were backed by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. And you agree that impeachment is the only remedy for this behavior. And I think we're agreed that this Supreme Court would never rule unanimously on a topic like this. So...?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And you agree that impeachment is the only remedy for this behavior.
No I don't. I've said so in this very thread. (I just noticed that you phrased the last question in the negative, so I understand the confusion.) Impeachment is not the only remedy.
For one thing, a non-unanimous decision by the Supreme Court is a remedy to the specific interpretation. It's been invoked many times in the past, and it will be again.
Finally, there are certain governmental "wrongs" that are meant to be corrected politically. The use of signing statements - as opposed to the individual actions later justified by them - is one of them. As is Congressional insertion of "legislative history" into the Congressional record that is later used to decide cases such as this one.
quote:And Congress has a specific duty to impeach Presidents who abuse this power in order to commit what Congress considers to be high crimes and misdemeanors.
And calling a government official's discretionary act that essentially amounts to a difference of opinion about what the law actually is a "crime" is a horrible precedent. It's also antithetical to the entire history of statutory construction and judicial review.
The Supreme Court recently decided a case that means the USPTO has been granting illegal patents for a good 20 years. The court didn't change the law - it said that this was what the law had always said. Should those examiners be convicted of crimes or fired?
Should prosecutors and judges who oversaw the conviction of criminals based on evidence that was later excluded be convicted of crimes?
The issues here are extraordinarily complex. I'd like to see people at least acknowledge the complexity before advocating criminal proceedings against someone.
I have yet to see such analysis on this board from anyone supporting impeachment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In essence, if we are going to make the extraordinary move to a system with something akin to no-confidence votes, I want that move to be based on a amendment to the Constitution. This would be a substantial modification of the basic framework of our government, and the mechanism for such changes are well-defined.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have yet to see such analysis on this board from anyone supporting impeachment.
That's because "get rid of Bush" isn't a very complicated thing.
It's funny. When our government makes laws or does things outside the law that are distasteful to, say, try and thwart terrorism, we get a lot of "ends don't justify the means" talk.
Apparently that talk don't walk very far.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And calling a government official's discretionary act that essentially amounts to a difference of opinion about what the law actually is a "crime" is a horrible precedent.
Allowing a government official to justify crimes by saying "I interpretted the law to say my actions are okay" is also a horrible precedent.
The trouble is that the difference between "justifying a crime" and "difference of opinion about what the law actually is" can be a matter of judgement.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Incidently, a better solution to this would have been to NOT reelect Bush in 2004... and to reject those who support his policies in 2008...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Allowing a government official to justify crimes by saying "I interpretted the law to say my actions are okay" is also a horrible precedent.
The trouble is that the difference between "justifying a crime" and "difference of opinion about what the law actually is" can be a matter of judgement.
Sure. But when the decision by SCOTUS on the subject is 5-4, it's far more likely that it's a "difference of opinion" than "justifying a crime."
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I acknowledge the complexity of using the signing statements issue for impeachment. I'll have to think about this more, I'll be back later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And calling a government official's discretionary act that essentially amounts to a difference of opinion about what the law actually is a "crime" is a horrible precedent.
Do you really think that Bush's signing statements are simple differences of opinion about what the law "actually is?"
quote:The Supreme Court recently decided a case that means the USPTO has been granting illegal patents for a good 20 years. The court didn't change the law - it said that this was what the law had always said. Should those examiners be convicted of crimes or fired?
Well, in that SPECIFIC case, yes. You also know how I feel about our completely corrupted patent law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you really think that Bush's signing statements are simple differences of opinion about what the law "actually is?"
Yes. See Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. Interpreting a law so as to be consistent with the Constitution is a perfectly valid way to determine what the law is.
quote:Well, in that SPECIFIC case, yes. [Wink] You also know how I feel about our completely corrupted patent law.
I can't tell how much of this is the joke. Are you saying that executive employees and officers who interpret the law using the rulings of the Federal Circuit, which has been given the prime interpretive function of the patent laws, should lose their jobs or be convicted of crimes? Or were you simply commenting on our patent law in a humorous manner?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sigh.
Forum: Bush should be fired. Dag: You need to present exactly, in legal terms, why. Forum: Why are you defending him? Dag: I'm not, I'm just pointing out that "Bush should be fired" won't get far in court. Forum: Don't you think he should be fired? Dag: I haven't said either way, I've said [insert previous quotes]. You need proof, precedent, and actual law to fire him. Forum: So you really don't think he should be fired?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I haven't said either way
Well, I actually don't think he should be fired for the signing statements. Perhaps some applications of the signing statements would call for impeachment. I haven't seen a case presented to me that would make me seriously consider it.
The incident in my mind that has the strongest potential for impeachment was Hamdi's continued imprisonment. However, once the Supreme Court ruled that his indefinite detention was not unconstitutional and was, in fact, authorized by law, any case for impeachment based on Hamdi deflated.
Even without the SCOTUS ruling, though, I don't think that rose to the level of impeachable offense. Had Bush ignored the Court's ruling regarding process, I might change my mind.
The Hamdi ruling itself is enough to convince me that the non-FISA compliant wiretaps are not an impeachable offense, even if they are illegal, under the principles of qualified immunity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Dag: I'm not, I'm just pointing out that "Bush should be fired" won't get far in court.
My point here is that we don't even need to go to "court." We can impeach him RIGHT NOW, for pretty much any reason we come up with -- and the signing statements are a perfect example of the sort of abuse of executive power that Congress should use impeachment to punish. Unless we're going to try to take all 700 signing statements to the Supreme Court as they come up -- and the ones involving national "defense" will NEVER come up, because no one CAN know about them to bring them to court -- there's no practical way besides impeachment to address this. There's absolutely no reason to define why, "in legal terms," Bush needs to be impeached -- because it doesn't remotely matter.
quote:Interpreting a law so as to be consistent with the Constitution is a perfectly valid way to determine what the law is.
And you honestly believe that this is what Bush is doing when he negates a signed law?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Hopefully that'll change with Democrats in charge.
I doubt it. But I suspect the press will refrain from mentioning it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Otherwise it's hardly surprising, Bush has gathered more power to himself than any president since the Roosevelts.
He's a disaster. If I had to do it over again, I'd probably still vote for him, given the alternative, but he's absolutely horrendous. He's like Abraham Lincoln all over again. L'etat c'est moi.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My point here is that we don't even need to go to "court." We can impeach him RIGHT NOW, for pretty much any reason we come up with -- and the signing statements are a perfect example of the sort of abuse of executive power that Congress should use impeachment to punish. Unless we're going to try to take all 700 signing statements to the Supreme Court as they come up -- and the ones involving national "defense" will NEVER come up, because no one CAN know about them to bring them to court -- there's no practical way besides impeachment to address this. There's absolutely no reason to define why, "in legal terms," Bush needs to be impeached -- because it doesn't remotely matter.
Yes, it does. Using the impeachment power without even identifying the crime would be a direct violation of the Constitution. Sure, there's absolutely no way to stop Congress from doing this. It's a curious position for you to be advocating though: using a definite violation of the Constitution (impeaching for other than high crimes and misdemeanors) in order to correct a possible violation.
quote:there's no practical way besides impeachment to address this
This is not true.
quote:
quote:Interpreting a law so as to be consistent with the Constitution is a perfectly valid way to determine what the law is.
And you honestly believe that this is what Bush is doing when he negates a signed law?
I've already answered your question.
On a side note, stop with the cross-examination as to whether I "really believe" what I'm writing.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Forum: Bush should be fired. Dag: You need to present exactly, in legal terms, why.
It bugs me that one needs to be versed in legalese in order to express a political opinion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I haven't said that one needs to present it in legal terms. I have asked that the crime be identified and that people at least demonstrate a basic understanding of several facts:
1) All three branches are charged with interpreting the Constitution and the statutes passed by Congress. 2) The government undertakes activities that are later held to be "illegal" in some way ALL THE TIME. See Miranda. See Mapp. See the most recent patent case. 3) An interpretation that is ultimately held to be incorrect by the Supreme Court is not indicative of a crime or wrongdoing under almost all circumstances.
Further, this is not just a political opinion. The standards for impeachment are high crimes and misdemeanors. That is a legal question. It's not about what should be illegal (which is a political question). It's about what is illegal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, it does. Using the impeachment power without even identifying the crime would be a direct violation of the Constitution.
I think the definition of "high crime and misdemeanors" is flexible enough to accomodate clear abuses of power without requiring that those abuses be identified as specifically illegal to the satisfaction of a court, especially since a) Congress serves as the court for this purpose and b) the slow establishment of erosive precedent makes it harder and harder to trust the court to define clear lines of power correctly.
quote:I've already answered your question.
If you don't believe that this is what Bush is doing, why is what he might hypothetically be doing remotely relevant?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The standards for impeachment are high crimes and misdemeanors. That is a legal question.
It is. However, it's not one that requires that a specific law be broken.
edit: A member of the executive branch inappropriately encroaching on the power of the legislative branch, as is suggested in the case of the signing statements, is well within the accepted use of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would it be legal and binding, Dag, to pass a law requiring that "interpretations" of a law identified at signing still enforce all the specific requirements of the law?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's a curious position for you to be advocating though: using a definite violation of the Constitution (impeaching for other than high crimes and misdemeanors) in order to correct a possible violation.
"Definite violation" or "difference of opinion about what the law actually is"?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Thanks for the clarification. In my opinion, any and all presidents should have to follow the same laws as every other citizen. If a president re-interprets a law to have a different effect, every person prosecuted under that law so far should be re-prosecuted. If it becomes evident that a president may be re-interpreting laws for personal gain, I think a trial is warranted to find out.
Otherwise, I really don't understand a lot of what was talked about in the article or this thread, only because my understanding of the law is elementary.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm with Bill Maher on this one. Let's impeach him for lying about that fish.
Think of the children.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
vonk, One of the major issues (there are many, but I'm focusing on this one) with the signing statements is those dealing with oversight. Congress has authorized the President to do certain things with the explicit condition that he must subject the programs he sets up to do these things to oversight. He has responded with saying "My interpretation of this law is that I get to do these things and I don't have to submit to any oversight."
Congress is explicitly and implicity granted a great deal of oversight powers over the activities of the Executive branch. Much of the justification that the Bush administration has offered for having the ability to reject this oversight seem to many to be flimsy at best.
There are three avenues of recourse. The Congress could take it to the Supreme Court, which could make a (as I understand it, unenforcible, absent one of the other two as teeth) ruling on it. They could use the power of the purse string to bring this dog to heel. Or they can impeach him.
---
For many people, the issue is not just one of this specific situation, but rather of the precedent it sets. We are troubled by the idea that future Presidents will use Congress's inaction in this instance as justification for moving the line as to acceptible behavior on their part.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you don't believe that this is what Bush is doing, why is what he might hypothetically be doing remotely relevant?
I do believe that is what he is doing.
Sheesh.
quote:Would it be legal and binding, Dag, to pass a law requiring that "interpretations" of a law identified at signing still enforce all the specific requirements of the law?
I can't even imagine how you would word such a bill, let alone what it would mean.
It also depends on what you mean by enforce. Whether or not to prosecute a crime is a decision given to the executive. In general, no constitutional or legal violation occurs if the executive declines to prosecute a specific offense.* It would be perfectly legal for a U.S. attorney to not prosecute any violations of a particular law. (As a side note, it would be perfectly legal and appropriate for the President to fire such a U.S. Attorney, although this is only relevant in at most two of the U.S. attorneys fired late last year.)
The President cannot refuse to expend certain type of money allocated in a certain way, and if it declines to exercise regulatory authority in a certain way, there are statutory mechanisms to force it to do so. A President violating a court order resulting from such a case would be committing a crime. The President not regulating prior to such a court case would not.
*The exceptions involve certain reasons for not prosecuting - for example, the victim was black or the U.S. Attorney received money.
quote:It is. However, it's not one that requires that a specific law be broken.
It is one that requires an articulation of the high crimes and misdemeanors. Tom is refusing to do that. "Abuse of power" lacks both specificity and descriptiveness.
quote:"Definite violation" or "difference of opinion about what the law actually is"?
Hey, I'm the one who said that Congress couldn't be stopped from doing this. It's Tom that's insisting on a legal remedy to a political problem.
quote:A member of the executive branch inappropriately encroaching on the power of the legislative branch, as is suggested in the case of the signing statements, is well within the accepted use of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
No, it's not. A specific instance of circumvention of the law might be, but not merely issuing a signing statement.
Until someone deigns to reconcile this with the complexities of statutory interpretation, I'm done discussing this.
I've now brought up several specific instances demonstrating how difficult statutory interpretation is and how doing it wrong is generally not considered a crime. The only response to date has been one flippant remark by Tom.
Tom's standards would have allowed the impeachment and conviction of at least a dozen Presidents. If applied to Congress, hundreds or thousands would need to be removed (or have been removed) from office.
This means that Tom's standards are represent a radical shift from the existing constitutional framework defining the structure of our government. His standards amount to either an at-will removal by Congress of the President or a much higher standard of accountability for interpretative functions as a prerequisite to remaining in office.
Such a radical departure demands that the mechanism for altering the structure of our government be used.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are three avenues of recourse. The Congress could take it to the Supreme Court, which could make a (as I understand it, unenforcible, absent one of the other two as teeth) ruling on it. They could use the power of the purse string to bring this dog to heel. Or they can impeach him
They can demand the materials they want from him via their oversight functions and then take steps as needed if he fails to deliver. The steps can include any of the enforcement mechanisms you've provided.
If the Congress is asking for something beyond its constitutional prerogatives, the President has the right - the duty, even - to contest that. So far, the President has altered his policies in response to Supreme Court rulings.
Congress could also pass laws with specific non-severance provisions, so that if the President won his court battle to declare the particular form of oversight unconstitutional, the powers granted would be revoked as well.
There are many things short of impeachment that can be done.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For many people, the issue is not just one of this specific situation, but rather of the precedent it sets.
This is also the issue many of us have with respect to impeachment based on the signing statements themselves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, As far as I can tell, the overisght issue I just presented is legitimate grounds for impeachment. Do you agree?
edit: I realize that you may think that there are other recourses that they can/should try. That's not what I'm asking.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, As far as I can tell, the overisght issue I just presented is legitimate grounds for impeachment. Do you agree?
On the refusal to actually respond to requests for information, and after SCOTUS interpretation, yes. Not based on the signing statements alone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:His standards amount to either an at-will removal by Congress of the President or a much higher standard of accountability for interpretative functions as a prerequisite to remaining in office.
Both of which are entirely in keeping with my philosophy, so thanks for noticing. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:edit: I realize that you may think that there are other recourses that they can/should try. That's not what I'm asking.
If they impeach absent SCOTUS interpretation of the constitutionality of the demand for oversight, I think they are doing essentially what Bush is accused of doing - taking on the final interpretive function of the law and the constitution. Once SCOTUS says, "Yes, Congress can demand that" then the President is committing an impeachable offense by continuing to refuse. But he needs the chance to see if SCOTUS would say, "No, Congress cannot demand that."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:On the refusal to actually respond to requests for information, and after SCOTUS interpretation, yes.
Is this required by the Constitution? Or rather, is this the accepted view of what the Constitution says?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Both of which are entirely in keeping with my philosophy, so thanks for noticing.
So...to hell with the Constitution, then, and in with Tom's philosophy?
For all of the (justified) bitching a lot of people did about a Republican Congress interfering with a Clinton White House, the idea of an at-will removal by Congress of the President is bitterly ironic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure why we're imparting to the Supreme Court the right to determine whether someone should be impeached.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:On the refusal to actually respond to requests for information, and after SCOTUS interpretation, yes.
Is this required by the Constitution? Or rather, is this the accepted view of what the Constitution says?
I think it's required by the Constitution, because I don't think you can say a government official has committed a crime by making a colorable constitutional interpretation.
It's a requirement without a remedy, of course, because impeachment/conviction is not appealable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I thought that Supreme Court justices had been pretty clear in the past about not being the ones to decide if something is impeachable, but I might be misremembering.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In the matter of oversight, the right of Congress to demand it is well established. However, the Bush administration has offered what many view as extremely poor reasons why they don't have to comply (e.g. the war authorizations equate to the executive branch doing whatever they want in pursuit of goals associated with it - an interpretation that has been denied by the people who wrote the law).
In this case (or really in any case, but this one is more egregious), I was under the impression that Congress doesn't need anything other than the Constitutionally granted abilities to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, which this could reasonably could fall under the definition of.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So...to hell with the Constitution, then, and in with Tom's philosophy?
For all of the (justified) bitching a lot of people did about a Republican Congress interfering with a Clinton White House, the idea of an at-will removal by Congress of the President is bitterly ironic.
Congress has the power to do at-will removal of the President. The remedy for that is removal of our Congressional representatives; if we don't feel like they impeached a president for good reasons, we don't elect them again. I firmly reject the model of executive power that we've been permitting since the '40s.
Congress does not need to run with its tail between its legs to the Supreme Court to ask if the President did something illegal -- in that flawed court's opinion -- before impeaching the President.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So...to hell with the Constitution, then, and in with Tom's philosophy?
Rakeesh, As far as I can tell, Tom has not suggested anything that is un-Constitutional. Can you point out where you think that he has?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think it's required by the Constitution, because I don't think you can say a government official has committed a crime by making a colorable constitutional interpretation.
But that's neither explicitly written into the Constitution and associated law/practice nor a near universal interpretation, is it?
edit: You may have strong opinions about it, but there is plenty of room for people to legitimately disagree with you on it, correct?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Congress has the power to do at-will removal of the President.
I believe it says Congress can remove the President, but only in certain situations - when a serious crime has been committed. I don't think that qualifies as having the power to do "at-will" removal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:His standards amount to either an at-will removal by Congress of the President or a much higher standard of accountability for interpretative functions as a prerequisite to remaining in office.
Both of which are entirely in keeping with my philosophy, so thanks for noticing.
Yes. Now, could you please respond to the part about radical changes to the government structure being made in the manner which has been written into our constitution? That's my primary objection to moving impeachment in this direction.
quote:I'm not sure why we're imparting to the Supreme Court the right to determine whether someone should be impeached.
We're not. Congress CAN impeach for anything. I thought the question is "should they" and "are they following the Constitution when they do"?
quote:I thought that Supreme Court justices had been pretty clear in the past about not being the ones to decide if something is impeachable, but I might be misremembering.
They have. But they are the ones who decide if Congress has the right to demand specific items as part of oversight.
quote:In the matter of oversight, the right of Congress to demand it is well established. However, the Bush administration has offered what many view as extremely poor reasons why they don't have to comply (e.g. the war authorizations equate to the executive branch doing whatever they want in pursuit of goals associated with it - an interpretation that has been denied by the people who wrote the law).
You need to define "it" first. There are specific things Congress may not demand. It needs to be tied to a specific failure to deliver the requested oversight.
quote:In this case (or really in any case, but this one is more egregious), I was under the impression that Congress doesn't need anything other than the Constitutionally granted abilities to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, which this could reasonably could fall under the definition of.
Just as the Supreme Court does not need anything other than a case and controversy and 5 justices to strike down a law. The real question isn't "can they do it" but "are they complying with the Constitution."
The Taney court did not have the right to decide what they did in Dred Scott, but it had the power to do so. (Yes, I've jumped to an extreme example to make a distinction between right and power. No, I don't think impeaching Bush based on the signing statements would be nearly as morally reprehensible as Dred Scott.)
Here, Congress can indict Bush for putting ketchup on his eggs, and, if convicted, he would no longer be President. That wouldn't make it the proper decision or the constitutional one. (And, again, I'm not equating the two but using an extreme example to highlight a distinction.)
Impeaching based on the signing statement alone would be terribly egregious. Impeaching on a refusal to provide oversight prior to SCOTUS's disposition of the issue would be less, but still egregious. Impeaching on refusal after SCOTUS telling him he may not withhold would be a proper exercise of impeachment authority.
quote:But that's neither explicitly written into the Constitution and associated law/practice nor a near universal interpretation, is it?
edit: You may have strong opinions about it, but there is plenty of room for people to legitimately disagree with you on it, correct?
Of course. But that "room for people to disagree" is also there regarding Bush's signing statements. A significant number of constitutional scholars view them as the equivalent of legislative history. Room for people to disagree is a far greater defense for a non-final action such as announcing one's interpretation of the law than it is for final actions such as removing the president from power.
quote:Congress has the power to do at-will removal of the President. The remedy for that is removal of our Congressional representatives; if we don't feel like they impeached a president for good reasons, we don't elect them again. I firmly reject the model of executive power that we've been permitting since the '40s.
Congress does not need to run with its tail between its legs to the Supreme Court to ask if the President did something illegal -- in that flawed court's opinion -- before impeaching the President.
No, it does not need to. But when whether the President did something illegal turns entirely on functions that are reserved int their final form to the Supreme Court - that is, interpretations of the constitution and statutes - protestations about usurpation of constitutional powers start to ring very hollow.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Now, could you please respond to the part about radical changes to the government structure being made in the manner which has been written into our constitution?
I don't see any changes in structure that would be necessary. We'd go through Presidents a bit more often, perhaps, and perhaps people would be a bit more careful when electing Congressional representatives.
The President, when writing up his "interpretations" of existing law, would be well-advised to check with Congress to see what they intended and make sure that his "interpretations" are consistent with the law's intent. If he doesn't believe that any interpretation consistent with the law's intent would be constitutional, he should veto it.
quote:Congress CAN impeach for anything. I thought the question is "should they" and "are they following the Constitution when they do"?
I thought you felt that "following the Constitution" was a legal question. If Congress can do it, aren't they following the Constitution -- by definition? Isn't the question of "should Congress impeach" a political question and not a legal one?
quote:But when whether the President did something illegal turns entirely on functions that are reserved in their final form to the Supreme Court - that is, interpretations of the constitution and statutes - protestations about usurpation of constitutional powers start to ring very hollow.
It's worth noting that I ALSO disapprove of the expansion of power to the Supreme Court that we've suffered under for the last two hundred years. Only if members of the Supreme Court were elected and not merely ratified by Congress would I be comfortable with the expectation that it would be the first screen of "constitutionality" on questions of impeachment.
See, I believe that Bush is deliberately forcing this issue. By packing the court and issuing deliberately contraventive signing statements, he is forcing Congress into a situation where the only viable option is impeachment. And I think he's doing this INTENTIONALLY, to see if they blink -- and if they do blink, I think this example will be used in the future to justify even further abuses of power.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I thought you felt that "following the Constitution" was a legal question. If Congress can do it, aren't they following the Constitution -- by definition?
No. The lack of a remedy does not mean that no wrong has been committed.
quote:See, I believe that Bush is deliberately forcing this issue. By packing the court and issuing deliberately contraventive signing statements, he is forcing Congress into a situation where the only viable option is impeachment. And I think he's doing this INTENTIONALLY, to see if they blink -- and if they do blink, I think this example will be used in the future to justify even further abuses of power.
I disagree entirely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
On what grounds do you assert that legal removal of the President by Congress without the approval of the Supreme Court was not specifically intended by the framers of the Constitution?
quote:I disagree entirely.
Well, you would. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't see any changes in structure that would be necessary. We'd go through Presidents a bit more often, perhaps, and perhaps people would be a bit more careful when electing Congressional representatives.
The President, when writing up his "interpretations" of existing law, would be well-advised to check with Congress to see what they intended and make sure that his "interpretations" are consistent with the law's intent. If he doesn't believe that any interpretation consistent with the law's intent would be constitutional, he should veto it.
It destroys separation of powers. I know you want that in many ways, but it is definitely a radical change to the balance of powers in the government.
There are also significant problems with "Congress's intent," especially for multi-member bodies. What is "Congress's intent"? Does the drafter get more say in it? If so, why? Unless he communicated that intent to members, we don't know that they would have voted for that intent. How about amendment sponsors?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On what grounds do you assert that legal removal of the President by Congress without the approval of the Supreme Court was not specifically intended by the framers of the Constitution?
I don't think Supreme Court approval is required for every impeachment. I do think it's required (to be proper) for impeachments arising out of close, disputed interpretations of the Constitution.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It destroys separation of powers.
Rather, it creates "separation of powers" as it was originally intended, and returns the Supreme Court to the slightly reduced role it was designed to have and removes most of the imperial power that's been abrogated to the executive.
quote:What is "Congress's intent"?
That's one of the questions which the President should be asking before he signs a law, I agree.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But when whether the President did something illegal turns entirely on functions that are reserved int their final form to the Supreme Court - that is, interpretations of the constitution and statutes - protestations about usurpation of constitutional powers start to ring very hollow.
In the case I'm talking about, where the President has claimed much broader powers from an act of Congress than is either made in the act itself or, as per their own statements, was at all part of the intent of the people who wrote and/or voted on the act, I think Congress has some say in this process.
And the oversight issues is only one of many. This, to me, is far from the individual cases of differences of opinion as to laws that you seem to be making it out as. Especially in light of the other actions of this administration, it seems more part of a widespread strategy to expand executive powers far beyond what went before or is, in my opinion, justifiable by the spirit and in many cases text of the law or good for the country.
That is one of the classic definitions of high crimes and misdemeanors and one of the things that impeachment was set up to guard against.
Ultimately, Congress has the ability to do this. It is not, as some people claimed, illegal for them to do so. Your personal opinion may be that it is not in keeping with the Constitution. Many other people disagree, often for complex reasons other than those you seemed to be addressing before I entered this discussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Rather, it creates "separation of powers" as it was originally intended, and returns the Supreme Court to the slightly reduced role it was designed to have and removes most of the imperial power that's been abrogated to the executive.
Impeachment at will does NOT create separation of powers.
quote:That's one of the questions which the President should be asking before he signs a law, I agree.
My point is that, as a concept, it doesn't exist. Congress's intent is expressed in the legislation text.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Impeachment at will does NOT create separation of powers.
And yet, even though Congress is already capable of impeaching at will, we say we live under a "separation of powers" today. Do you think Congress will start impeaching presidents willy-nilly once the ball gets rolling?
quote:Congress's intent is expressed in the legislation text.
So it should be rather unnecessary for "signing statements," really. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I do think it's required (to be proper) for impeachments arising out of close, disputed interpretations of the Constitution.
Which is not an issue in several of the items in this particular case.
Congress - "You have to submit to oversight if you are going to exercise the powers we are granting you in this legislation." Bush - "No I don't. You signed the authorization for war, so I can do whatever I want in pursuit of that." C - "That's not part of the authorization as it is written, nor was it the intent." B - "So what?"
This doesn't appear to me to be a matter of close interpretations, but rather of using a seemingly flimsy excuse to ignore people keeping an eye on what you are doing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: It is not, as some people claimed, illegal for them to do so.
I have not claimed that it is illegal.
quote: Many other people disagree, often for complex reasons other than those you seemed to be addressing before I entered this discussion.
And if some of those complex reasons were presented, I would have responded. But they weren't, and they still haven't been. I have been dealing specifically with Tom's proposal here, to which most of the deeper analysis is not relevant at all.
This is very ironic, because my whole point has been that this issue is very complex. Complexity supports my side of the issue.
quote:And the oversight issues is only one of many. This, to me, is far from the individual cases of differences of opinion as to laws that you seem to be making it out as.
I've yet to see anyone post a constitutional analysis that the mere signing statements - and not subsequent noncompliance - are worthy of impeachments. I was not responding to the claim "Bush should be impeached." I was responding to the claim that Bush should be impeached because of the signing statements themselves.
quote:where the President has claimed much broader powers from an act of Congress than is either made in the act itself
You need to reconcile this as an impeachable offense with Hamdi, which read a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus into the authorization for the use of force. "Made in the act itself" is not a simple as you make it out to be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You need to reconcile this as an impeachable offense with Hamdi, which read a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus into the authorization for the use of force.
Why? The Supreme Court could simply have gotten it wrong, as Congress has every right to conclude.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And yet, even though Congress is already capable of impeaching at will, we say we live under a "separation of powers" today. Do you think Congress will start impeaching presidents willy-nilly once the ball gets rolling?
Yes. For example, were this philosophy to be well-ensconced during Clinton's term, I bet he would have been impeached.
quote:Which is not an issue in several of the items in this particular case.
Congress - "You have to submit to oversight if you are goign to exercise the powers we are granting you in this legislation." Bush - "No I don't. You signed the authorization for war, so I can do whatever I want in pursuit of that." C - "That's not part of the authorization as it is written, nor was it the intent." B - "So what?"
This doesn't appear to me to be a matter of close interpretations, but rather of using a seemingly flimsy excuse to ignore people keeping an eye on what you are doing.
Well, no, your caricature of Bush's position is not a matter of close interpretation. However, in the world in which we don't let hostile internet posters speak for their opponents, the matter is much closer than you are pretending it to be.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Impeachment at will does NOT create separation of powers.
No, it is part of the current set up of the separation of powers. It was laid out this way by the Founding Fathers as an important, though expensive check on the power of a unified executive.
This situation has existed for as long as the Consitution has been the law of the land. And yet, impeachment proceding have been pretty rare.
That's because it is, as I mentioned above, expensive. There are severe cost associated, both those written into the system, and the political cost of going through impeachment for things that don't warrant it.
In the matter of impeachment, the check on the legislature lies largely in the hands of the electorate, who are expected to react with extreme disfavor to frivolous impeachments. That's one of the reasons why moving for impeachment is solely reserved for the House, whose members are up for re-election every two years.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You need to reconcile this as an impeachable offense with Hamdi, which read a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus into the authorization for the use of force.
Why? The Supreme Court could simply have gotten it wrong, as Congress has every right to conclude.
If Congress has every right to conclude that, then we're back to a radical restructuring of the separation of powers.
The proper response to Congress screwing up and writing a vague law (which is very common) is for Congress to redraft the law.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I was responding to the claim that Bush should be impeached because of the signing statements themselves.
No one has made that claim. I believe that "signing statements" as indicators of how a law should be enacted are quite useful. I think "signing statements" that directly contravene explicit pieces of the law, however, are -- and should be -- illegal, literally by definition.
quote:For example, were this philosophy to be well-ensconced during Clinton's term, I bet he would have been impeached.
Why? They already had "legal grounds" to impeach, after all. What prevented Clinton's impeachment was a political decision -- and that's all that prevents any impeachment. The check on Congress' power is the voter.
--------
quote:The proper response to Congress screwing up and writing a vague law (which is very common) is for Congress to redraft the law.
I'll address this broader point in a second. But before I do: do you really think that the president, by directly contradicting the intent of written law in his signing statements, is trying to just "clarify" the law?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Impeachment at will does NOT create separation of powers.
No, it is part of the current set up of the separation of powers. It was laid out this way by the Founding Fathers as an important, though expensive check on the power of a unified executive.
This situation has existed for as long as the Consitution has been the law of the land. And yet, impeachment proceding have been pretty rare.
That's because it is, as I mentioned above, expensive. There are severe cost associated, both those written into the system, and the political cost of going through impeachment for things that don't warrant it.
In the matter of impeachment, the check on the legislature lies largely in the hands of the electorate, who are expected to react with extreme disfavor to frivolous impeachments. That's one of the reasons why moving for impeachment is solely reserved for the House, whose members are up for re-election every two years.
Squicky, I'm having a different discussion with Tom, one in which he has already admitted that he wants impeachment to not be tied to crimes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I've yet to see anyone post a constitutional analysis that the mere signing statements
You may want to read my statement again, then.
quote:Complexity supports my side of the issue.
It appears to me that I've had to drag out of yuo concessions that your implied expert opinion is actually just a personal opinion. It seems to me that you've dealt with the complexity of this issue in a one-sided, simplistic way.
edit: To be less confrontational.
[ May 15, 2007, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh great. Dag games again.
quote:I have not claimed that it is illegal.
I never said that you did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not that I want impeachment to not be tied to crimes. It's that impeachment isn't tied to crimes, and specifically that Congress has the explicitly granted right to stand in judgement of what constitutes a crime in the case of impeachment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No one has made that claim. I believe that "signing statements" as indicators of how a law should be enacted are quite useful. I think "signing statements" that directly contravene explicit pieces of the law, however, are -- and should be -- illegal, literally by definition.
This is what I meant - the mere act of issuing a signing statement can be grounds for impeachment. I assumed you meant certain types of signing statements and not any old signing statement. But even here it's the mere act of issuing a certain type of signing statement that you find to be suitable grounds for impeachment.
quote:Why? They already had "legal grounds" to impeach, after all. What prevented Clinton's impeachment was a political decision -- and that's all that prevents any impeachment. The check on Congress' power is the voter.
And if impeachment were viewed simply as something for Congress to do at will - which, despite Congress's ability to do so, is not how impeachment is viewed right now - then the political check would not have been as feared.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is what I meant - the mere act of issuing a signing statement can be grounds for impeachment.
Absolutely. As it currently stands, the mere act of breathing is grounds for impeachment. And yet Congress has so far failed to impeach presidents they disliked for breathing. Even when they've found presidents guilty of crimes (like perjury), they have occasionally chosen not to impeach. I submit that there is a strong check on the use of impeachment as a political tool that is far more powerful than the arbitrary requirement of "criminality."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, because I've had to drag out of yuo concessions that your implied expert opinion is atually just a personal opinion. You've really dealt with the complexity of this issue, in a one-sided, simplistic way.
You haven't had to "drag" anything out of me. I regret even acknowledging your posts to me in this thread, because I KNEW you would start lying about what happened.
quote:Oh great. Dag games again.
quote:I have not claimed that it is illegal.
I never said that you did.
It's not a game, it's a clarification. Some people would interpret your statement as saying that, and I wanted it clarified. Cut the crap. Please, for the love of God, just cut it out.
STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH!!!!!!!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:the mere act of issuing a signing statement can be grounds for impeachment.
Just as a note, I'm not making that argument. The mere act of issuing the statement isn't what I think is the major problem (although it is a problem), but rather acting on the signing statements (e.g. by doing domestic surveillence without oversight).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:the mere act of issuing a signing statement can be grounds for impeachment.
Just as a note, I'm not making that argument.
Yeah, I know. That is, however, the principle argument I am addressing - as I qualified it above regarding only certain types of signing statements - and the only one I have addressed in depth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm making the argument that merely serving as president is currently sufficient "grounds" for impeachment. The reason Congress does not impeach presidents at will is that impeachment is an incredibly serious decision that circumvents the will of the electorate and can be expected to have political ramifications.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Absolutely. As it currently stands, the mere act of breathing is grounds for impeachment. And yet Congress has so far failed to impeach presidents they disliked for breathing. Even when they've found presidents guilty of crimes (like perjury), they have occasionally chosen not to impeach. I submit that there is a strong check on the use of impeachment as a political tool that is far more powerful than the arbitrary requirement of "criminality."
This is the heart of what we disagree about, Tom. If impeachment for the mere act of issuing signing statements - make one as horribly bad as you wish - becomes acceptable, that check will be eroded to uselessness.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why do you think so? Would you vote for your representative again if he impeached someone for writing a signing statement?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If impeachment for the mere act of issuing signing statements - make one as horribly bad as you wish - becomes acceptable, that check will be eroded to uselessness.
Is anyone, anywhere making a serious case built on just issuing signing statements? I am unaware of this.
The real world stuff I've seen (and partially reflected here) seems to be based on a great deal more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah. For some inexplicable reason, a number of social networking sites are going nuts over articles about signing statements. *shrug*
You know I think Bush should be impeached for 'em. We've had that conversation.
quote:I think "signing statements" that directly contravene explicit pieces of the law, however, are -- and should be -- illegal, literally by definition.
And my principle objection is to this aspect of Tom's stance, one that he readily :
quote:His standards amount to either an at-will removal by Congress of the President or a much higher standard of accountability for interpretative functions as a prerequisite to remaining in office.
quote:Both of which are entirely in keeping with my philosophy, so thanks for noticing. [Wink]
And it should be quite clear that this is what I have been talking about:
quote:This is also the issue many of us have with respect to impeachment based on the signing statements themselves.
quote:On the refusal to actually respond to requests for information, and after SCOTUS interpretation, yes. Not based on the signing statements alone.
I gave an explicit statement of what I thought - and no, you didn't drag it out of me:
quote:Impeaching based on the signing statement alone would be terribly egregious. Impeaching on a refusal to provide oversight prior to SCOTUS's disposition of the issue would be less, but still egregious. Impeaching on refusal after SCOTUS telling him he may not withhold would be a proper exercise of impeachment authority.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I don't think any of those answer what I asked for.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The conversation started with Tom saying "I think Bush should be impeached for 'em."
That's what I've been talking about.
I presume Tom is serious about this.
As for anyone else who might or might not be advocating this, I'm not sure why I should bother to go looking for that. I responded to Tom. Not to a general statement, but to a specific one.
Whether or not anyone else is advocating what Tom is has no relevance to me here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ok. If you're not interested in answering my question, you could just say "I'm not interested in answering that." as opposed to posting some things that don't answer it and only expressing your actual meaning after being challenged on it.
To me, that would be the difference between playing a game and not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Ok. If you're not interested in answering my question, you could just say "I'm not interested in answering that."
I just told you that I considered Tom's post to be serious. Which, to someone not interested in continually bringing up this B.S. about games-playing, might suggest that I THOUGHT IT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
quote: as opposed to posting some things that don't answer it and only expressing your actual meaning after being challenged on it.
To me, that would be the difference between playing a game and not.
You mean as opposed to posting "Dag, I don't think any of those answer what I asked for" without bothering to explain what you asked for?
But no. Instead of thinking, despite my pains to mention that I thought Tom met the qualification of "seriousness" that you raised, you have once again taken the opportunity to raise this tired and dishonest charge about me.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i hope you guys continue because i have definately found this thread most enjoyable.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here is the true test of the Signing Statements--the Emergency Military Funding Bill.
So far President Bush simply vetoed the bill.
If he signs one, then does a signing statement claiming that what ever benchmarks or timetables included in the bill are unconstitutional, then procedes to ignore them, then he will see impeachment proceedings begin.
I don't think he'll risk it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The ironic thing there is that I would tentatively agree that tying tactical military decisions to a spending bill is unconstitutional.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There is a common canon of construction called "avoidance of constitutional doubt" that states that a statute should, if possible, be interpreted in a manner that avoids raising a constitutional issue.
Note that this is "avoids raising" - a far lesser standard than simply interpreting a statute so that it is not unconstitutional.
This canon is used frequently by the Supreme Court - it's not an off-the-wall, fringe legal theory, but a centerpiece of statutory construction.
Note that this presupposes the existence of doubt. It also presupposes that the Executive will interpret the law when deciding how to execute it and that it will rely on canons such as this one.
The President - and his officers - have a specific duty to interpret the Constitution. There is an entire office at DoJ whose job it is to present the President's interpretation of the Constitution to the courts.
What about when the President is at odds with his own Justice Department and Attorney General about the legality of his programs, and ignores their concerns (at least for a time)?
This came out in former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's recent Senate testimony. Deputy AG Comey, Attorney General Ashcroft,FBI Director Robert Mueller and other Justice Department officials were all willing to resign over warrent-less wiretap program.
quote:http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May16/0,4670,Eavesdropping,00.html WASHINGTON (AP) — A top Justice Department official thought President Bush's no-warrant wiretapping program was so questionable that he refused for a time to reauthorize it, leading to a standoff with White House officials at the bedside of the ailing attorney general, a Senate panel was told Tuesday. Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he refused to recertify the program because Attorney General John Ashcroft had reservations about its legality just before falling ill with pancreatitis in March 2004.
The White House, Comey said, recertified the program without the Justice Department's signoff, allowing it to operate for about three weeks without concurrence on whether it was legal. Comey, Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other Justice Department officials at one point considered resigning, Comey said.
quote: Comey recalled that after the bedside incident he started to offer his resignation and was persuaded to wait a few days until Ashcroft could resign with him. "Mr. Ashcroft's chief of staff asked me something that meant a great deal to him, and that is that I not resign until Mr. Ashcroft was well enough to resign with me," Comey said.
On March 12 at their daily briefing of the president, Bush asked Comey and Mueller for separate private conversations on Justice's concerns about the eavesdropping program. There, Comey said, Bush agreed to do "the right thing."
After the no-warrant wiretapping program was outed, the administration trumpeted the fact that it had "independent" oversight.
When in fact, it bitterly resisted any oversight from it's own Justice Department.
I have to say, Ashcroft's stock has risen for me because of this story.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Note the word "reauthorize." This wasn't about the start of the program, but it's continuation. And it was a recertification. We aren't told, but my impression is that the DoJ had certified it before.
Note also this paragraph:
quote:"We had the president's direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed, was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality," Comey said of the period after those private meetings. "We did that."
So we had original certification (probably) from the DoJ. We had recertification withheld by critics - critics who were willing to resign over the matter - in DoJ. We had adjustments made that convinced those critics to recertify.
This is very good evidence that the President did not ignore those concerns. He changed the program (how, we're not told) in a way that changed resignation-serious criticism into acceptance.
This suggests that, if they found the program unconstitutional or illegal, they would have resigned. Yet they didn't resign. The critic himself said he found the changes adequate.
In fact, he was ordered by the President to make changes that would meet his objections. In other words, far from ignoring their concerns, the President addressed them.
Additionally, not all concerns were about legality. Some were procedural. We aren't told the mix. We are told that even during the delayed recertification process, there was dissension - that is, DoJ officials who still supported the program.
Finally, the fact that recertification was necessary means that some oversight of the program was built in. There was a plan in place, presumably from the time of initial certification, to review the legality of the program.
quote:After the no-warrant wiretapping program was outed, the administration trumpeted the fact that it had "independent" oversight. [Roll Eyes]
When in fact, it bitterly resisted any oversight from it's own Justice Department.
All in all, this (if true) seems evidence that there was independent oversight. "Bush agreed to do 'the right thing'" based on that oversight.
You quoted this part in your story. Comey changed Bush's mind. That's oversight having an effect.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Dag, read Comey's testimony and tell me if you think it sounds like an above-board, legitimite use of independent oversight, or if it was, in Comey's words, an attempted "end-run" around that oversight by going at night to the AG's sickroom in the ICU. It's very dramatic testimony. http://salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/05/15/comey_testimony/
quote: SCHUMER: Let me ask you this: So in sum, it was your belief that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card were trying to take advantage of an ill and maybe disoriented man to try and get him to do something that many, at least in the Justice Department, thought was against the law? Was that a correct summation?
COMEY: I was concerned that this was an effort to do an end-run around the acting attorney general and to get a very sick man to approve something that the Department of Justice had already concluded -- the department as a whole -- was unable to be certified as to its legality. And that was my concern.
Also, the program as set up required DoJ recertification every 45 days (some accounts say 90 days). The certification expired the day after the sickroom scene. According to the AP, the program went on for three weeks before the DoJ recertified it (although I don't see that in the testimony excerpt Salon has.)
The WH flouted it's own oversight protocols by allowing the program to proceed without DoJ recertification.
There were some changes made that led to an eventual recertification, but no details were given. Perhaps a deal was struck, a compromise made?
At this point Comey seems a prime candidate for the whistleblower to the Ny Times that outed the program. Maybe he thought the program remained illegal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, read Comey's testimony and tell me if you think it sounds like an above-board, legitimite use of independent oversight, or if it was, in Comey's words, an attempted "end-run" around that oversight by going at night to the AG's sickroom in the ICU. It's very dramatic testimony.
That was his concern: that it was an end-run. However, what actually happened, as opposed to what he was concerned was happening, was that "Bush agreed to do 'the right thing'" and that DoJ "had the president's direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed, was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality.".
quote:Also, the program as set up required DoJ recertification every 45 days (some accounts say 90 days). The certification expired the day after the sickroom scene. According to the AP, the program went on for three weeks before the DoJ recertified it, although I don't see that in the testimony excerpt Salon has.
Sure. The limits imposed by the President on this program were not followed. That doesn't mean it was illegal. It means the independent oversight during one iteration didn't go exactly as planned, but that the oversight did have a direct impact on the direction of the program.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All in all, this (if true) seems evidence that there was independent oversight. "Bush agreed to do 'the right thing'" based on that oversight.
Why would they have needed to resign if they had oversight of the program? If the program continued and its critics felt forced to leave, how is that "oversight?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yet they didn't feel forced to leave after all - the changes they wanted were implemented.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But it took the resignation threats of half a dozen top DoJ officials to get through to President Bush. If it was legitimate oversight, it would never have gotten that far.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let's take this back to your specific point: "What about when the President is at odds with his own Justice Department and Attorney General about the legality of his programs, and ignores their concerns (at least for a time)?" This was posted in response to my contention that the interpretation of the Constitution is the legitimate duty of the executive, and mere differences in such interpretation should not support criminal charges.
Here, the President made changes to his initial viewpoint in order to accommodate the legal viewpoints of his DoJ staff. He sought out their opinion, he modified his view in response, and the person with the serious criticisms stated that Bush did the right thing.
In the course of this, Bush (or, more accurately, Bush's representative) advocated for Bush's then-current viewpoint. This does not denigrate the quality of the oversight. It is expected.
In the end, the oversight generated changes in the program - changes Bush did not have to accept.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, do you really consider "If you don't do this, I quit!" to be oversight? In what way does that differ from a program over which someone has no oversight?
quote:In the end, the oversight generated changes in the program - changes Bush did not have to accept.
So your definition of "oversight" includes forms of oversight that are absolutely powerless?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, quit it. Please. I've said that I consider this oversight. I've listed my reasons - repeatedly now. Your mock incredulity is very annoying.
I get that you disagree. You've made that quite clear. Please do so without this cross examination style. If we want to engage in this style, I promise I can do it at least as well as you. But it won't be productive.
And, quite frankly, I don't believe that you are asking "In what way does that differ from a program over which someone has no oversight?" without already knowing the incredibly obvious answer: without this oversight, the White House wouldn't have modified the program. So clearly this oversight differs from no oversight in a significant and meaningful way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:without this oversight, the White House wouldn't have modified the program
Why not? Are you suggesting that the principal players in this program wouldn't've still been involved without "oversight?" The three people mentioned in the article in question would still have known about it, and still could have threatened to quit. They gained no special Oversight Ray that gave them extra-special quitting powers.
I don't see why being able to threaten to quit when your boss insists on doing something illegal represents some safeguard on your boss' behavior.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why not? Are you suggesting that the principal players in this program wouldn't've still been involved without "oversight?" The three people mentioned in the article in question would still have known about it, and still could have threatened to quit. They gained no special Oversight Ray that gave them extra-special quitting powers.
No, they didn't get an Oversight Ray. They got a chance to provide ongoing oversight based on the periodic recertification process. Without that process, they would not have been asked to recertify. With the process, they were asked their views on the matter. Those views were accommodated.
I don't see any evidence for your contention that this would have happened absent the request for recertification.
quote:I don't see why being able to threaten to quit when your boss insists on doing something illegal represents some safeguard on your boss' behavior.
Clearly, it provided some safeguard here.
The White House implemented a process to have the legality of the program regularly reviewed, and this review resulted in a change to the program.
quote:At this point Comey seems a prime candidate for the whistleblower to the Ny Times that outed the program. Maybe he thought the program remained illegal.
Comey, a man willing to resign over the recertification of a program he thought illegal has stated, under oath, that the program that he did recertify was legal. On what do you base your contention that he thought the program remained illegal?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Now let's try this the Tom way:
1) Tom, do you deny that the Bush administration sought ongoing DoJ input into the legality of the taps?
2) Do you deny that this input was independent of the White House staff?
3) Do you deny that the program was altered to reflect this input?
4) Do you deny that the program, as altered to reflect this input, was deemed at the time to be legal by Comey?
5) Do you deny that Comey's opinion on the legality of the altered program is independent of the White House's opinion?
6) Do you have any evidence that Comey considered the program, as altered, to be illegal?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:With the process, they were asked their views on the matter. Those views were accommodated.
I have absolutely no idea why this would matter to you. They could have volunteered their views at any time. They already KNEW about the program, and knew what was going on. Having official "oversight" without having the power to stop the program as a function of that oversight granted them no knowledge that they didn't already have -- and certainly gave them no additional power over the program.
quote:Clearly, it provided some safeguard here.
How are you defining "safeguard," exactly? What additional security did the "oversight" grant that their knowledge of the ongoing program did not grant? Heck, the specific "security" implied by the requirement of oversight -- that the program would be stopped if it failed to meet certain standards -- was completely ignored.
...As for your questions, I freely grant all of the above. What I'm asserting, however, is that it's completely irrelevant. That the White House deigned to ask the DOJ their completely non-binding opinion does not constitute meaningful "oversight" of a given program.
To put that into perspective, it's like saying that I'm "watching over" Sophie, even if I've left her at home alone, if she decides to call me on my cell phone to ask if it's okay before eating rat poison. If there's nothing enforceable about the oversight, there's no oversight.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Frontline presented evidence that the program in question is only one in a suite of programs designed to spy on Americans in America.
quote:How are you defining "safeguard," exactly? What additional security did the "oversight" grant that their knowledge of the ongoing program did not grant?
Your evidence that, absent the certification program, they would have known about it?
quote:...As for your questions, I freely grant all of the above. What I'm asserting, however, is that it's completely irrelevant. That the White House deigned to ask the DOJ their completely non-binding opinion does not constitute meaningful "oversight" of a given program.
You mean it's irrelevant to the issue you've attempted to focus on, because the issue I've focused on is whether the Bush administration had meaningful review of the program and whether they disregarded DoJ opinions on the legality of the program.
Your definition of oversight is not one I accept. However, every point I've made stands whether I call the recertification program "oversight" or "fitzgripple."
Quite simply, Morbo's initial question prompted by this testimony - "What about when the President is at odds with his own Justice Department and Attorney General about the legality of his programs, and ignores their concerns (at least for a time)?" - can be answered very simply:
The President did not ignore their concerns, but, in fact, modified the program to address them. The concerns were discovered because the President sought out their opinion on the matter. The DoJ lawyers - including one who is quite critical of Bush in this matter - have deemed the programs as modified to comply with the law.
Focus on that, not whether we agree about the definition of a word.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the issue I've focused on is whether the Bush administration had meaningful review of the program and whether they disregarded DoJ opinions on the legality of the program.
As I'm reading it, though, and based on your use of phrases like "disregarded DoJ opinions," you believe the Bush administration was not required to submit to DoJ opinion.
quote:However, every point I've made stands whether I call the recertification program "oversight" or "fitzgripple."
I think calling the policy "you must obtain the opinion of X before doing anything, unless it's too inconvenient, and you don't actually have to do what they recommend" something like "fitzgripple" is absolutely appropriate, and firmly encourage you to use it instead of a more meaningful word like "oversight" when "fitzgripple" is what you mean.
quote:Focus on that, not whether we agree about the definition of a word.
Why? That's only remotely relevant if we assume that this state of affairs must continue. It relies on the goodwill and cooperation of all participants, and lacks any sort of teeth.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The President did not ignore their concerns, but, in fact, modified the program to address them. The concerns were discovered because the President sought out their opinion on the matter. The DoJ lawyers - including one who is quite critical of Bush in this matter - have deemed the programs as modified to comply with the law.
That's it. That's all I'm saying about Mr. Comey's testimony. The rest has been an attempt to explain this, which I will now cease, because you've agreed with it.
quote:That's only remotely relevant if we assume that this state of affairs must continue.
Well, no, because (and Morbo, correct me if I'm wrong), Morbo introduced this as evidence against a defense based on good-faith but differing constitutional and statutory interpretations. Which means the relevance goes to what has happened.
This is not my preferred form of verification of the legality of this program. I would far prefer to have it submitted to the courts, and I wish there was a mechanism for the administration and congress to seek declaratory judgments regarding the matter.
Absent that, I wish Congress would either make it explicitly illegal or make it explicitly legal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Morbo introduced this as evidence against a defense based on good-faith but differing constitutional and statutory interpretations.
Specifically, though, Morbo's point was that DESPITE the fact that approval was not given, the program continued. In poor faith, until such time as good faith was re-obtained.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Specifically, though, Morbo's point was that DESPITE the fact that approval was not given, the program continued. In poor faith, until such time as good faith was re-obtained.
Temporary continuation while the differing opinions were being worked out does not disprove good faith differing opinions.
Remember, at the time, there were still attorneys who considered the non-modified program legal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But there will ALWAYS be attorneys who consider given abusive program X to be legal. Can that really be a valid yardstick? If so, that's grounds for the indefinite retention of any program.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But there will ALWAYS be attorneys who consider given abusive program X to be legal. Can that really be a valid yardstick? If so, that's grounds for the indefinite retention of any program.
I'm not talking about grounds for retention, about talking about their not being grounds for impeachment.
Seriously, Tom, I corrected you once already for saying I supported this program.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, is there no point at which a cumulatively overwhelming number of situations which fall just shy of "grounds for impeachment" would convince you that impeachment might be deserved? Or is there a bar for impeachment that cannot consider general malfeasance, and thus demands specific instances which in and of themselves -- with no possible legalistic excuse -- are deserving of impeachment?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, is there no point at which a cumulatively overwhelming number of situations which fall just shy of "grounds for impeachment"
Your question contains a faulty premise. I don't think any of these are "just shy." I think they fall far short.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How high a bar do you set for things which are deserving of impeachment?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not things that have colorable support for them under very recent SCOTUS rulings.
I can evaluate specific examples - and I have, including giving examples I think worthy of impeachment in this very thread. I can't articulate a general rule other than "things that rise to high crimes and misdemeanors."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In this specific example, how long would the president have to let the program continue without oversight before it became a constitutional issue?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Without knowing the details of the problems DoJ lawyers had with it, I can't tell you. Disagreement within the administration does not automatically make it rise to the level of impeachable offense.
The oversight isn't what makes this not rise to the level of impeachable offense. The fact that colorable legal arguments raised by the White House and DoJ lawyers supporting the legality of the program is what makes this not rise to the level of impeachable offense.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The President did not ignore their concerns, but, in fact, modified the program to address them. The concerns were discovered because the President sought out their opinion on the matter. The DoJ lawyers - including one who is quite critical of Bush in this matter - have deemed the programs as modified to comply with the law.
That's it. That's all I'm saying about Mr. Comey's testimony. The rest has been an attempt to explain this, which I will now cease, because you've agreed with it.
quote:That's only remotely relevant if we assume that this state of affairs must continue.
Well, no, because (and Morbo, correct me if I'm wrong), Morbo introduced this as evidence against a defense based on good-faith but differing constitutional and statutory interpretations. Which means the relevance goes to what has happened.
This is not my preferred form of verification of the legality of this program. I would far prefer to have it submitted to the courts, and I wish there was a mechanism for the administration and congress to seek declaratory judgments regarding the matter.
Absent that, I wish Congress would either make it explicitly illegal or make it explicitly legal.
Congress is deadlocked on the issue, or was last September. A federal court has ruled the program illegal, it's now under appeal.
I think the relevance is not only what happened, but what was attempted and almost happened. In my next post I'll highlight a few Comey quotes and why they are truly troubling.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A federal court has ruled the program illegal, it's now under appeal.
Yes, I know.
quote:I think the relevance is not only what happened, but what was attempted and almost happened. In my next post I'll highlight a few Comey quotes and why they are truly troubling.
I don't think that's relevant to the impeachment issue. It's relevant to other things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fact that colorable legal arguments raised by the White House and DoJ lawyers supporting the legality of the program is what makes this not rise to the level of impeachable offense.
But that's the thing I find most pernicious, Dag: by your argument, as long as the President has a lawyer willing to back his claim, he's not impeachable. And the President gets to hire his own lawyers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But that's the thing I find most pernicious, Dag: by your argument, as long as the President has a lawyer willing to back his claim, he's not impeachable. And the President gets to hire his own lawyers.
Not true.
First, the dispute is genuine and widespread. Beyond that, there are ways to remove this possibility from play. I've discussed them in detail, you've read and responded to them. you've even complained about them.
So don't go saying that "he's not impeachable" with a single lawyer by my standards. You know that's not the case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:First, the dispute is genuine and widespread.
How do you establish whether a dispute is genuine and widespread? What's the criteria for that, insofar as Congress might look to it for impeachment guidelines?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One would examine the legal landscape. It's a case-by-case decision.
At this point, I'm less concerned with the details than with your ongoing dishonesty about my position.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, I couldn't even begin to tell you what your position is, besides possibly "impeachment should really be for constitutional breaches as defined by the Supreme Court or violations of criminal code."
The whole "it's a case-by-case decision" thing baffles me, because I don't see how the "legal landscape" can possibly be an empirical, much less useful, criteria.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I couldn't even begin to tell you what your position is
Yes, but you know several things that my position is NOT, but you keep saying that it is. I think you're doing it on purpose in some attempt to get me to attempt to postulate a grand unified theory if impeachment. I don't have one.
I do have a few principles, such as impeachment for violating a specific law (say, FISA) should not be based on good-faith differing interpretations of the law and Constitution.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, but you know several things that my position is NOT, but you keep saying that it is.
Believe it or not, this isn't true. In cases where you feel I've misrepresented your position, it's more likely the case that I'm simply not comprehending your position. It IS a pretty baffling position, and I'm not as smart as you think I am.
I think the stumbling block here is your presumption of good faith. I don't HAVE any expectation of that from the executive branch.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In cases where you feel I've misrepresented your position, it's more likely the case that I'm simply not comprehending your position.
Then explain how you could post this as my position "impeachment should really be for constitutional breaches as defined by the Supreme Court or violations of criminal code" in the same thread in which this appears:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:On what grounds do you assert that legal removal of the President by Congress without the approval of the Supreme Court was not specifically intended by the framers of the Constitution?
I don't think Supreme Court approval is required for every impeachment. I do think it's required (to be proper) for impeachments arising out of close, disputed interpretations of the Constitution.
As for "criminal code," I have not limited the grounds for impeachment to the criminal code even once.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You appear to be missing an assumption that I am making: that since the executive branch hires its own lawyers, it will ALWAYS be able to claim that any Constitutional breach arises from a close, disputed interpretation of the Constitution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We're talking about MY position now Tom, not yours. You don't get to tack your assumptions onto my position. You can say that my position plus your assumptions will lead to a certain result.
But you haven't been saying that. You've been repeating statements of my position that I have already told you are inaccurate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You are saying "I like all blue fruit."
I say, "Oh, you like blueberries?"
You reply, "That's a distortion of my position."
While it MAY be the case that some blueberries are in fact purple and therefore anathema to you, I think it would highly unfair to presume that my confusion is deliberate. When you've parsed out your opinions as narrowly as you have on this topic (and others), it's rather silly to take umbrage at misunderstandings.
It's like you've asked me to throw a baseball into a glove in your hand, but I have to do it blindfolded -- and you're standing inside a box with a single hole in it. And you're berating me for guessing. You've noted that I've worded my requests for clarifications as questions; this is specifically because I have trouble believing that you could possibly mean what I'm perceiving your meaning to be.
If you don't want people to logically extend your opinions based on their own assumptions, give them enough information to fill in the gaps. If you, for (ludicrous) example, believe that space aliens will prevent the President of the United States from committing impeachable offenses as long as the moon rock remains in the window of the National Cathedral, that's sufficiently relevant to the basis of your opinion on impeachment that people should be forgiven for not making the same logical leap.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You are saying "I like all blue fruit."
I say, "Oh, you like blueberries?"
You reply, "That's a distortion of my position."
While it MAY be the case that some blueberries are in fact purple and therefore anathema to you, I think it would highly unfair to presume that my confusion is deliberate. When you've parsed out your opinions as narrowly as you have on this topic (and others), it's rather silly to take umbrage at misunderstandings.
It's like you've asked me to throw a baseball into a glove in your hand, but I have to do it blindfolded -- and you're standing inside a box with a single hole in it. And you're berating me for guessing. Get over it.
Bull, Tom. You have twice now applied YOUR assumptions - assumptions you KNOW I don't shared - to my position to reach a conclusion, then stated that I support that conclusion.
I'm not asking you to restate my position at all. In fact, at this point, I'd be just peachy if you stopped trying to do it. You suck at it. You continue to say the same thing over and over and over about my position in the face of specific denials.
There's no cause to do that.
quote:If you don't want people to logically extend your opinions based on their own assumptions, give them enough information to fill in the gaps.
You're not making assumptions about my opinion. Your making assumptions about different things.
Here's what you're doing, also a ludicrous example:
Person 1: I don't believe in God. Person 2: Why do you think murder is OK? Person 1: I don't think murder is OK. Person 2: But if there's no God, then murder must be OK.
To translate:
Me: In situations like FISA and oversight, where the President presents colorable legal arguments, Congress should not impeach until SCOTUS has evaluated those arguments. Tom: Why do you think SCOTUS must pass on every impeachment. Me: I don't. Tom: But there's always a colorable legal argument.
Person 1 does not think that if there is no God, then murder must be OK.
I do not think that there's always a colorable argument. You know this - we've argued about it.
For you to now insist that I think a SCOTUS decision (or violation of the criminal code, something you've yet to explain where it came from) is necessary before any impeachment is wrong - and, in the face of repeated explanations, simply a lie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You have twice now applied YOUR assumptions - assumptions you KNOW I don't shared...
But I DON'T know you don't share them. It is absolutely self-evident to me that the President's chosen Attorney General will attempt to find (or, at the very least, assert), when pressed, a valid Constitutional interpretation for any of the Executive Branch's maneuvers. It is equally clear to me that these assertions of the Attorney General will be considered with sufficient weight that the mere existence of these assertions will be seen by some as proof of "good-faith" differences of opinion over Constitutional interpretation.
It is, quite frankly, inconceivable to me that someone could believe otherwise. It would be like saying that I'm mischaracterizing you because I've been assuming this whole time that rain generally falls towards the Earth.
And when I've said things like "Dag, does that mean you don't think ... etc...," you've accused me of asking leading questions.
quote:I do not think that there's always a colorable argument. You know this - we've argued about it.
But, quite specifically, what we argued about is that there is no way for Congress to meaningfully draw the distinction between a "colorable legal argument" and a steaming pile of B.S. in this situation. And in this thread, you've indicated that you would in general accept the determination of the Supreme Court in that case, and would believe that Congress would be acting improperly without first obtaining it, thus indicating that you do expect a SCOTUS decision on pretty much every potential impeachment case (since, after all, we can reasonably expect the DoJ to assert that it has a legal argument.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is, quite frankly, inconceivable to me that someone could believe otherwise. It would be like saying that I'm mischaracterizing you because I've been assuming this whole time that rain generally falls towards the Earth.
Fine. We're done, then, because you are incapable of imagining something that is screamingly obvious to me.
And I'm not even asking you to admit that it's screamingly obvious, just that other people can think it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Can you explain to me why you think the Attorney General of the United States would not come up with an assertion of legality in this situation? And why, if he refused, the President would not simply demand his resignation and replace him with one more amenable to that "interpretation?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can you explain to me why you think the Attorney General of the United States would not come up with an assertion of legality in this situation?
Counterexample 1: The visit to Ashcroft and subsequent events.
The more general answer is that I've qualified this with the word "colorable" repeatedly. That's not an empty word.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Ashcroft example is complicated in that firing him at that point would have been resulted in serious political damage to President Bush.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Ashcroft example is complicated in that firing him at that point would have been resulted in serious political damage to President Bush.
Which is always going to be the case when the President fires an AG for not signing off on the legality of an executive program.
Beyond that, it still answers Tom's question quite soundly. He asked "Why" the AG wouldn't sign off and not be fired. We know it happened at least once. Political reasons are an answer to that question, even though I don't think that was the motivating factor.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, the point we've discussed re: "colorable" before is that it IS an empty word in this situation, because the determination of what actually constitutes a "colorable" argument is not one that can be realistically made without bias by any of the parties expected to make this decision.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which is why it should be put to the court, for the definitive answer, and not used as the basis for the most extreme sanction available.
If they present it in court, there is a neutral arbitrator and significant penalties for the lawyer advancing a non-colorable argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Which is always going to be the case when the President fires an AG for not signing off on the legality of an executive program.
We don't know this to be the case. In fact, from a cynical perspective, you could argue that Bush later deliberately undermined Ashcroft's position at Justice in order to replace him in a way that would avoid political fallout, and thus assume that the changes which were previously made to the program have since been rolled back in silence. Washington moves slowly enough that I don't see any real, practical reason why this couldn't apply to virtually every case of obstruction -- especially since the President picks the AG originally, meaning that disagreements would only arise in exceptional situations in the first place.
------
quote:Which is why it should be put to the court, for the definitive answer, and not used as the basis for the most extreme sanction available.
Which is why I am saying that your argument amounts, as far as I can tell, to the claim that all impeachment proceedings that don't involve clear criminality should go through the Supreme Court. If we grant that part of the AG's job (as seen by his immediate boss) is to justify -- and come up with -- "colorable" arguments for executive policies, and believe that the Supreme Court is the appropriate venue for determining whether an argument is truly colorable, and would expect that only non-colorable arguments would be ignored by Congress, then it does seem to logically follow that you see the Supreme Court as a quasi-mandatory first stop in any impeachment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which is why I am saying that your argument amounts, as far as I can tell, to the claim that all impeachment proceedings that don't involve clear criminality should go through the Supreme Court.
Except your assuming that "colorable" isn't something that is regularly evaluated by lawyers every single day, most of the time without going to court.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But, Dag, those lawyers are going to disagree. It's practically a given. Even if we leave the DoJ out of it, it's guaranteed that some bunch of aging lawyers in the Republican Party are going to disagree with another bunch of aging lawyers in the Democratic Party -- for political reasons alone, if not for actual philosophical/legal ones. And you're saying that when that happens, it should go to the Supreme Court before it goes to an impeachment hearing.
But the only time I could ever imagine it not happening would have to involve the AG saying something like, "Oh, yeah, I guess that was pretty unconstitutional. Sorry. We'll stop immediately."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But, Dag, those lawyers are going to disagree. It's practically a given.
I disagree. I've disagreed vehemently and repeatedly. So I, at least, am not saying that any issue "should go to the Supreme Court before it goes to an impeachment hearing."
quote:Even if we leave the DoJ out of it, it's guaranteed that some bunch of aging lawyers in the Republican Party are going to disagree with another bunch of aging lawyers in the Democratic Party -- for political reasons alone, if not for actual philosophical/legal ones.
Which is another great reason not to move into impeachment based on what the advocates alone are saying.
quote:But the only time I could ever imagine it not happening would have to involve the AG saying something like, "Oh, yeah, I guess that was pretty unconstitutional. Sorry. We'll stop immediately."
Or when the President is doing something very, very wrong. Which is the heart of the dispute. I don't want the President's constitutional duty of interpreting statute and constitution to be performed under the threat of impeachment if a bunch of people in the opposite party think his interpretations are wrong. I want impeachment to be more reserved than that.
But I still don't think that any issue "should go to the Supreme Court before it goes to an impeachment hearing."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't want the President's constitutional duty of interpreting statute and constitution to be performed under the threat of impeachment if a bunch of people in the opposite party think his interpretations are wrong.
I understand your reservations, although I don't agree with them. But how should a Congress deal with a president who hurls potentially abusive Constitutional "reinterpretations" like spaghetti at a wall, just to see what sticks? It's simply not politically feasible to review every individual policy, and at some point a clear pattern of skirting close to the edge has to become actionable. Doesn't it?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I am still unsure if Dag is arguing to reform the impeachment process, or just to add something new: a SCOTUS declaratory mechanism that can be initiated by the President or Congress.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This is not my preferred form of verification of the legality of this program. I would far prefer to have it submitted to the courts, and I wish there was a mechanism for the administration and congress to seek declaratory judgments regarding the matter.
I can certainly see the wisdom for such a process although I am not exactly clear what the status of those decisions would be in relation to the jurisprudence of case law and precedent. It smacks of French civil law but presumably these declarations could find their place much like the signing statements.
What I can't figure, is how this addresses the impeachment process except as another potential factor that may, or may not, be considered by Congress in the proceedings.
If the SCOTUS declaration is not a requirement, nor a replacement, for impeachment, impeachment as a concept, or even as a specific process, is unchanged with or without the new mechanism.
The catchall of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ remains, as does congressional authority to determine what that means. Whatever objections that this constitutes a ‘vote of no-confidence’ endure, even if employed less often by virtue of the SCOTUS mechanism.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
You also know how I feel about our completely corrupted patent law.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)