I'm curious to know what everyone else is thinking about this whole war between congress and the White House that's been going for the past couple of months. The latest skirmish:
[ July 10, 2007, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think it's a bit overblown to call it a war and as alluded to in your NPR link, this has been going on since George Washington so it is nothing new at all
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yes, it has, but it feels to me like Bush is taking it to extremes. Also that was a bit tongue in cheek (the calling it a war).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, it has, but it feels to me like Bush is taking it to extremes.
Why is it Bush taking this to extremes and not Congress?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because his claims of executive powers and priviledges have far outstriped that of the past four presidents put together?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think it feels that way because the media tends to overhype every single news story they report on. I mean this is the same media that gave moment to moment coverage on Paris Hilton. Ratings drive the news and nothing drives up ratings like the 'end of the world' or 'it's never been this bad' scenario
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Why is it Bush taking this to extremes and not Congress?
I meant taking his use of executive privilege to extremes. Near as I can tell, congress is finally trying to get some oversight on Bush's administration, and trying to reassert that there are three equal branches of government, not just the White House. Something that's been rather lacking. And he's resisting them like there's no tomorrow.
At least that's my read on this.
What's your take Dag? I'd love to hear it.
[ July 10, 2007, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because his claims of executive powers and priviledges have far outstriped that of the past four presidents put together?
Are you referring merely to numbers of assertions? If so, I'd like to see the actual numbers. Moreover, it's a pretty superficial way to arrive at such a conclusion.
If you're referring to the content of the claims, some analysis would be appropriate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What is your take on the situation, Dag?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What's yours?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that on several issues, signing statements, for one, it is clear that the Bush administration is claiming executive privilege in amounts and in a manner that is extreme both in terms of the behavior of previous Presidents and in terms of justification or what should be expected from a President.
I believe that, in large part to prevent his behavior being used as a precedent by future Presidents, he should be impeached for this combined with a mess of other matters.
We have already talked about this before. I was never really clear on what you believed though.
Could you provide this?
[ July 10, 2007, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:People, it's 'privilege'; not 'privledge'.
Thanky kindly. Fixed the thread title. That was bugging me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that on several issues, signing statements, for one, it is clear that the Bush administration is claiming executive priviledge in amounts and in a manner that is extreme both in terms of the behavior of previous Presidents and in terms of justification or what should be expected from a President.
Squicky, I can't tell how you're using "executive privilege" here. The only signing statements related to executive privilege I'm aware of are those that state that disclosure requirements will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the President's power to invoke executive privilege.
Are you using privilege in a sense broader than it's use to refer to the right to keep certain information secret?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:in large part to prevent his behavior being used as a precedent by future Presidents, he should be impeached for this combined with a mess of other matters.
I'm comfortable investigating Bush to discover if impeachment is necessary; I'm not comfortable with saying that impeachment is necessary without investigation.
I think the Democrats are entirely too focused on Bush-hate. I think it's going to bite them come election time, if their only platform is 'We Hate Bush More Than You.'
quote:his claims of executive powers and priviledges have far outstriped that of the past four presidents put together?
I agree with Dag. This type of statement is better taken when it is accompanied by a link to a supporting site.
Nontheless, I believe Squicky may be right. It wouldn't surprise me. But the fact that executive privilege is claimed, even hundreds of times, doesn't indicate wrong-doing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm usign executive privilege to include signing statements. I was under the impression that they are included in the term. If it has a more specific meaning, then I'm talking about a general concept that incorporates both.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But the fact that executive privilege is claimed, even hundreds of times, doesn't indicate wrong-doing.
I wasn't answering whether or not there was wrong-doing, but rather whether or not it was extreme.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I'm comfortable investigating Bush to discover if impeachment is necessary; I'm not comfortable with saying that impeachment is necessary without investigation.
What if Bush invokes executive privilege to a degree that an investigation is impossible?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ask Clinton and Nixon how well that worked out.
Scott -
I wouldn't say the Democrats are too focused on Bush hate, I think they are trying to make up for six years of no Congressional oversight all at once. They've been in charge almost a year, and Leahy is only now starting to get serious about investigations. But they have a lot they want to get done, and can't because they're being stymied by Republicans. The more issues they can get shut down by from Republicans and Bush, the more ammo they will have come 2008 when they can attack incumbents for voting against popular measures the Democrats tried to pass.
Given the rhetoric from the Bush Administration these past few years, I am not at all surprised by the partisanship of the Congress. The man has gone from calling himself a Uniter to being a corporeal manifestation of the spirit of Divisiveness.
I too would be interested in an investigation into Bush's actions to see if there has been any wrongdoing. I have no doubt that such an effort would outlast his presidency at this point, but I'd still like to see it done.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm usign executive privilege to include signing statements. I was under the impression that they are included in the term. If it has a more specific meaning, then I'm talking about a general concept that incorporates both.
I still don't understand: Are you saying that all signing statements are an exercise of executive privilege, or only the ones related to disclosure? As it's generally used, executive privilege means "a privilege exempting the executive branch of government from disclosing communications if such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making process of that branch."
In legal terms, a privilege is generally a right to not disclose something - it's a pretty narrow definition, especially when compared to the lay uses of the term.
quote:I was never really clear on what you believed though.
I've been pretty clear in the past that I don't think the mere creation of signing statements should be grounds for impeachment. Specific acts based on such signing statements might or might not be.
Mere assertion of executive privilege (in the legal sense described above) should NEVER be grounds for impeachment. Failure to comply with a final judicial order denying the claim of executive privilege would be grounds for opening impeachment proceedings.
quote:I wasn't answering whether or not there was wrong-doing, but rather whether or not it was extreme.
Why did you limit it to the past 4 presidents, then? Eisenhower invoked it 40-some times, way more than Bush.
And I still don't know if Bush has invoked it more than the past 4 combined. How many times has he invoked it? Clinton invoked it at least once, and he used it as a negotiating leverage at least one other time. And it's unlikely I can recall each time he used it. Reagan invoked it in the early 80s and possibly other times. I don't know about Carter or Bush I.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What if Bush invokes executive privilege to a degree that an investigation is impossible?
The invocations should be tested in court.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm comfortable investigating Bush to discover if impeachment is necessary; I'm not comfortable with saying that impeachment is necessary without investigation.
Have you done anything about this Scott?
I believe that the Bush administration has done serious, and potentially lasting damage to my country through an unjustified expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch through things like saying they can spy on whomever they want with no oversight, his improper use of signing statements, and his constant claims of executive privilege in what seems to be attempts to hide wrongdoing by his administration.
I think he has been aided in this by a legislative branch that has not resisted him in firm or appropriate ways. Congress has limited avenues of recourse to deal with this, some of the weaker ones they have already used to no avail. I support escalating these avenues, but have little hope that anything sort of a full impeachment is going to have a big enough effect to repair the harm that the Bush administrations policies and misdeeds will cause if left unopposed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Could you explain to us what your take on this whole situation is?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, Could you explain to us what your take on this whole situation is?
quote:I've been pretty clear in the past that I don't think the mere creation of signing statements should be grounds for impeachment. Specific acts based on such signing statements might or might not be.
Mere assertion of executive privilege (in the legal sense described above) should NEVER be grounds for impeachment. Failure to comply with a final judicial order denying the claim of executive privilege would be grounds for opening impeachment proceedings.
If you have a specific question, ask it. Also, you need to define "whole situation."
In the specific question of executive privilege, the proper way to resolve differing opinions on the subject is for the parties to got to court concerning the assertion of executive privilege. Both of the recent instances fall close to the core justification, but might or might not actually be appropriate assertions. I'm not going to venture an opinion on how appropriate the claim is without knowing more based on the parties court filings and the decision, and I expect a compromise to be reached before we get to that point.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you think that the President's assertion of executive power in contradiction of Congress's power has been extreme? Do you think that Congress's response to this has been extreme?
Do you think that the assertions of executive power over that of legislative are legitimate or should they be reigned in?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Does Pres. Bush really strike you as the compromising type?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you think that the President's assertion of executive power in contradiction of Congress's power has been extreme? Do you think that Congress's response to this has been extreme?
I don't think either has been extreme.
quote:Do you think that the assertions of executive power over that of legislative are legitimate or should they be reigned in?
I think that some have been legitimate, some have been legitimized that shouldn't have been (by the liberal wing of SCOTUS minus Stevens and the conservative wing minus Scalia in the most egregious case), some have been overreaching that has been brought into check by a combination of court and legislative action, and some that should be brought into check have not been (yet).
It seems pointless to keep responding to your interrogation if you're going to continue to act this rudely to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Does Pres. Bush really strike you as the compromising type?
Yes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It seems pointless to keep responding to your interrogation if you're going to continue to act this rudely to me.
I have no idea what this is in reference to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You firing off questions like a police interrogator. Especially after I've answered your questions, you haven't bothered responding to those answers, and then you merely repeat the same questions.
It's tiresome.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You answered my questions prior to your vague and uninformative response above? I must have missed that.
I was and am still trying to get you to actually say something substanttive on this. But my pliers are getting tired.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know that I find it tiresome and rude when you try to pry answers out of me, Squicky.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You answered my questions prior to your vague and uninformative response above? I must have missed that.
I was and am still trying to get you to actually say something substanttive on this. But my pliers are getting tired.
When you bother to respond to the many substantive things I've said in this thread, as well as the questions I've asked you, I'll continue.
In the meantime I'll merely state that, assuming your ability to read, you are either 1) lying about my answers not being substantive or 2) have a definition of "vague and uninformative" that includes what you have posted in this thread, in which case you are being hypocritical in demanding that I provide something you haven't bothered to provide.
It's not your job to "get" me to say something "substantive on this," especially when you refuse to do the same yourself.
I've answered your questions. If you would like to know something else, ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION instead of this annoying interrogation and then these unfounded, dishonest summaries of what I've said.
Or maybe try to actually meet this standard that you are, for some reason, trying to hold me (and only me) to.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Is it really unacceptible to expect people to contribute to a conversation as equals?
I've been pretty free with my opinion and elaboration here. I also don't walk away from a conversation in the middle of a vein that I started.
I don't think I am wrong to expect the same respect from other people, but it appears to some people I am.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It is unacceptable to try to wheedle people into participating in a conversation on your terms and not theirs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
TBH a simple acknowledgment or even heaven forbid a thank you for taking the time to respond at all could probably alleviate alot of perceived ill will.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think I am wrong to expect the same respect from other people, but it appears to some people I am.
In short, what you're wrong about is the level of respect you've given and the level you've received. You're also wrong about who started the "vein" of anything related to signing statements - you did that when you misunderstood what was actually being talked about.
quote:I've been pretty free with my opinion and elaboration here. I also don't walk away from a conversation in the middle of a vein that I started.
You haven't been any freer than I have been here.
Perhaps you could demonstrate why your answers are substantive, informative, and not vague and then apply the same standards to mine to show that mine are not. Start with this gem of information, precision, and substance:
quote:Because his claims of executive powers and priviledges have far outstriped that of the past four presidents put together?
Realizing that that's all you said before you started demanding something from me.
Then let's compare this:
quote:I think that on several issues, signing statements, for one, it is clear that the Bush administration is claiming executive privilege in amounts and in a manner that is extreme both in terms of the behavior of previous Presidents and in terms of justification or what should be expected from a President.
I believe that, in large part to prevent his behavior being used as a precedent by future Presidents, he should be impeached for this combined with a mess of other matters.
We have already talked about this before. I was never really clear on what you believed though.
Could you provide this?
And my response:
quote:I've been pretty clear in the past that I don't think the mere creation of signing statements should be grounds for impeachment. Specific acts based on such signing statements might or might not be.
Mere assertion of executive privilege (in the legal sense described above) should NEVER be grounds for impeachment. Failure to comply with a final judicial order denying the claim of executive privilege would be grounds for opening impeachment proceedings.
How is yours more informative, substantive, and precise, exactly? How am I not contributing "equal[ly]"?
And where's your "equal" contribution to this?
quote:Why did you limit it to the past 4 presidents, then? Eisenhower invoked it 40-some times, way more than Bush.
And I still don't know if Bush has invoked it more than the past 4 combined. How many times has he invoked it?
Or to this, which is the only attempt at all to address the specific issue of the thread?
quote:In the specific question of executive privilege, the proper way to resolve differing opinions on the subject is for the parties to got to court concerning the assertion of executive privilege. Both of the recent instances fall close to the core justification, but might or might not actually be appropriate assertions. I'm not going to venture an opinion on how appropriate the claim is without knowing more based on the parties court filings and the decision, and I expect a compromise to be reached before we get to that point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Have you done anything about this Scott?
Not really. It's not that important to me.
You can't really claim
quote: I've pretty free with my opinion and elaboration here. I also don't walk away from a conversation in the middle of a vein that I started.
when you haven't responded to questions about your founding statement:
quote:his claims of executive powers and priviledges have far outstriped that of the past four presidents put together?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Could you describe the situation as you see it in some sort of detail consummate to how I did above in regards to the President's assertion of executive power over that of Congress?
To me, that would be equal. I don't think it is an unreasonable request. When you ask "Why are yuo saying that the President is extreme here and not Congress?" and someone responds and then asks your opinion, I think you've sort of obligated yourself to answer their question. That is respectful to me.
I don't like participating in a conversation of your terms, where, it appears to me, you volunteer little to nothing and instead try to attack the potential weak parts of what other people said.
If you explained, as I did, what you think the President's actions were doing and what Congress was doing, I wouldn't have a problem answering your questions. If you gave your opinion on why people held the views they did on this, I'd love to discuss it with you. But, I don't believe that the way you were conducting yourself was in good faith. I didn't feel comfortable being completely open or in answering your fault-finding questions. I dislike the guarded style that seems to be necessary to deal with you on issues like this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Is the President making use of signing statements far in excess of his predecessors not something that has been well established for you?
That was the context I was using it in, although it may appear that my terminology is incorrect.
As for executive privlege as it has been defined here, I don't have specific numbers, but I would not be at all suprised if that is correct for that specific definition.
The President has made an extreme number of attempts towards expanding the power of the executive branch over that of the legislative by nearly all scales that I can think of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Could you describe the situation as you see it in some sort of detail consummate to how I did above in regards to the President's assertion of executive power over that of Congress?
Could you explain what detail you gave that I didn't give "consummate" detail on? I posted a nice side by side analysis which you haven't addressed.
quote:To me, that would be equal. I don't think it is an unreasonable request. When you ask "Why are yuo saying that the President is extreme here and not Congress?" and someone responds and then asks your opinion, I think you've sort of obligated yourself to answer their question. That is respectful to me.
Your response to that question provided NO DETAIL AT ALL. Can you really not see that?
As to obligating myself, I asked someone (not you) why they thought one side was extreme and not the other. That person had provided an opinion without any explanation as to why that opinion was held. I fail to see how I obligated myself to you by asking Alcon a question. Especially when you continue to ignore the fact that your response doesn't meet the standards you want me to meet.
quote:If you explained, as I did, what you think the President's actions were doing and what Congress was doing, I wouldn't have a problem answering your questions. If you gave your opinion on why people held the views they did on this, I'd love to discuss it with you. But, I don't believe that the way you were conducting yourself was in good faith. I didn't feel comfortable being completely open or in answering your fault-finding questions. I dislike the guarded style that seems to be necessary to deal with you on issues like this.
Could you please explain why you think you provided more information about your opinion than I provided about mine?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You didn't obligate yourself to me. You obligated yourself to Alcon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then why are you hounding me?
Also, could you please explain why you think you provided more information about your opinion than I provided about mine?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Alcon, here's my take on the specific assertions of executive privilege in case you missed it above:
quote:In the specific question of executive privilege, the proper way to resolve differing opinions on the subject is for the parties to got to court concerning the assertion of executive privilege. Both of the recent instances fall close to the core justification, but might or might not actually be appropriate assertions. I'm not going to venture an opinion on how appropriate the claim is without knowing more based on the parties court filings and the decision, and I expect a compromise to be reached before we get to that point.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
No, I caught it. And thank you And just for the record, you didn't obligate yourself to me (or anyone else... sorry Squick) near as I can tell, I was just curious cause I value your opinion on these things. You're wicked smart and highly informed, and it's also interesting to see your take on things from your position of solid detailed legal knowledge and understanding.
quote:I believe that the Bush administration has done serious, and potentially lasting damage to my country through an unjustified expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch through things like saying they can spy on whomever they want with no oversight, his improper use of signing statements, and his constant claims of executive privilege in what seems to be attempts to hide wrongdoing by his administration.
I think he has been aided in this by a legislative branch that has not resisted him in firm or appropriate ways. Congress has limited avenues of recourse to deal with this, some of the weaker ones they have already used to no avail. I support escalating these avenues, but have little hope that anything sort of a full impeachment is going to have a big enough effect to repair the harm that the Bush administrations policies and misdeeds will cause if left unopposed.
You pretty much nailed how I feel too right there, Squick. Unfortunately that feeling is based on a much more vague understanding of the situation than I'd like, due to the fact that between school and work I have a tendency to bounce in and out of contact with the rest of the world. So while I agree with you wholehearted, I dunno if I could provide ample justification for my feelings on the matter with out some serious research. Which, actually, since I have time this summer, I might do.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is the President making use of signing statements far in excess of his predecessors not something that has been well established for you?
Why don't you just provide numbers that support your claim that the president's use of executive privilege is excessive in comparison to previous presidents?
*I* don't like the Bush administration; I'm willing to believe you if you can show a logical reason for your opinion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 1,100 challenges.[6] [10] In the words of a New York Times commentary:
And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.[11]
The signing statement associated with the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody attracted controversy:
"The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."
This statement specifically invokes the unitary executive theory, which according to its adherents argues that the President, in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief, cannot be bound by any law or by Congress since anything hindering him in that capacity can be considered unconstitutional.[12] With his signing statment to the McCain Detainee Amendment, the President has reserved his authority to challenge parts of the law passed by Congress.[13]
Is this just idle curiosity to you Scott? You've said you don't really care.
I'm not what you want me to convince you of. I am not all that tied to the extreme nature of the number of assertions of executive power, which is what you seem to be asking about. I'm much more concerned about the nature of the assertions and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branch.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Squicky, could you please explain why you think you provided more information about your opinion than I provided about mine?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I have no desire to engage in your interrogation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks!
It makes sense that you would think Bush II's use of executive privilege is excessive in comparison to previous administration's, given those numbers.
I appreciate your efforts to show that your opinion is supported by actual facts.
EDIT:
Whoops! I was posting whilst you were editing.
You asked me a direct question, so I'll answer you directly:
quote:Is this just idle curiosity to you Scott? You've said you don't really care.
Yes. It (this conversation) is just idle curiosity to me. Everything that happens on the internet (with the exception of email, my website, and the 2350 game) is only of idle curiosity to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Have you followed this issue at all? Maybe I'm mistaken, but that seemed like widely disseminated information.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I have no desire to engage in your interrogation.
Squick, you've now proven yourself to be dishonest.
You made specific, negative statements about what I posted. You did so by comparing them to your statements.
Your comparison is unfounded. I contend that it's lack of foundation is because the comparison was fundamentally inaccurate. I presented a comparison demonstrating that inaccuracy. You then accuse me of playing games, quickly changing that to interrogation.
Your accusations are wrong. Your lack of acknowldgement of that is dishonest. And you are a liar.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Have you followed this issue at all?
I'm not sure why that's important.
quote: Maybe I'm mistaken, but that seemed like widely disseminated information.
It's entirely possible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm trying to assess how common the knowledge is among people who followed the issue. I thought it was extremely common, so much so that it could be referenced without sourcing.
If someone cared about the issue, I figured they'd already know.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmm...I was aware that Bush had a reputation for stonewalling processes against him and his administration.
I wasn't aware of the extent, or how valid that reputation was.
In response to this statement:
quote:But the fact that executive privilege is claimed, even hundreds of times, doesn't indicate wrong-doing.
You said:
quote:I wasn't answering whether or not there was wrong-doing, but rather whether or not it was extreme.
By "extreme," I thought you must mean quantity, since you didn't take up the gauntlet on the legality of the issue.
But at the end of page 1 you said:
quote:I am not all that tied to the extreme nature of the number of assertions of executive power, which is what you seem to be asking about. I'm much more concerned about the nature of the assertions and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branch.
So now I'm a little confused. Obviously, I've misinterpreted your argument.
Do you believe that the president has illegally used the power of executive privilege, and that misuse constitutes treason, or a high crime or misdeamenor? (Linking us back to your original statement which was that Bush should be impeached for his misuse of executive privilege. I think.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I'm personally not that incensed about the number of times it was done in and of itself. However, the original exchange was about the "extremeness" of Bush's actions, which I believe is substantiated by amount. There is a separation between the first thing I said and my personal opinions that I followed up with.
Also, what I linked dealt with signing statements, not executive privilege.
I think that the Bush administration has provided grounds for impeachment in a number of areas. For example, asserting the legal doctrine that they can spy on whomever they want without any oversight, or having signing statements that basically say "We don't need to listen to Congress in these areas when we're fighting a war" where those areas are established as being in Congress's jurisdiction. I think that it is less clear in the case of the assertion of executive privilege, but things like illegally using outside email accounts to get around the monitoring requirements and the "losing" of many of the pertinent documents being asked for would, I think, make that part of the procedings as well.
That being said, I don't think going straight to impeachment is the best solution. I think that Congress should be going through the process that I believe, if they are actually aiming at removing the precedent that the President can do these things, is going to end up with them impeaching the President.
I also think that, if they did this, it is very likely that a host of other abuses will come out that will make impeaching him a slam dunk. I think that this is the main reason Alberto Gonzales will be Attorney General until the end of Bush's term.
However, because it is the Democrats in power and because many people jsut don't seem to care, I don't think that any of that will happen. Instead, we are having dangerous precedents being set that are going to be used by future Presidents to even worse effect. And then the people who didn't care now are going to not even realize that it is their responsibility that this happened.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Does Pres. Bush really strike you as the compromising type?
Yes.
I don't know. When you look at the history of clashes between Congress and the Presidency, a solution or compromise has always bee reached, it's never made it to the courts, well, it has a couple times, but generally without devastating consequences. So looking at how this thing usually goes, I would say we're probably in store for another compromise.
The only thing that stops me from believing that is Pres. Bush's attitude and actions over the last seven years. He acts like a petulant child a lot of the time, stamping his foot until he gets his way, and has seemed all too willing to dismiss Congress entirely when they don't do what he wants. After putting two men on the Bench, I think it's entirely possible that he'll ignore Congress until it hits the courts, and then either expect to win, or he'll let the aides be convicted of contempt of court and he'll simply pardon them.
But I don't expect him to give in. Unless this is some masterful plan by Karl Rove to give Pres. Bush the high ground before conceding in an attempt to score PR points, but I think that's pretty far fetched, to say nothing of the fact that I don't think it'd do much good to his image at this point.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Bush has been rather openly antagonistic towards Congress and the notion of external oversight. I'm unimpressed with "the decider" and his willingness to compromise with anyone.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You know, if I had to create a metaphor for the present Executive/Legislative wrangling, I couldn't pick a better example than this thread. Dag plays the part of the President. The rest of those who have voiced in play the congress.
Some in congress want the truth and they kindly ask for it from a person who the respect and expect to know the facts.
Others are looking to score verbal points for the home team (both pro and con the President/Dag) so they taint their questions into legal booby-traps.
Dag/President uses all the legal and logical powers he can find to avoid answering those questions.
Now for my opinion: President Bush asks for the country, the party, and the congress to trust him. Yet he has done nothing to gain our trust. In fact his continued reliance on secrecy, executive privilege, and other cynical back-handed tactics points to the fact that he does not trust us, the party or the congress. As more evidence comes out that Gonzales lied to congress yet again, a man whom speaks for the President on the issue of Justice, congress can not trust the President and I don't blame them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, I'm really not trying to score verbal points. I'm trying to get Dag to be honest and open about a political issue in which his side looks bad for once in his time at Hatrack, or at least set the expectation that he should be so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know, I've answered the damn question squicky.
I've spoken at length in opposition to Bush's policies with respect to civil gay marriage and to specific aspects of the detention issue.
Don't accuse me of being dishonest, especially when you refused multiple times to back up your repeated slurs in this thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Further, you haven't even bothered to address the issue which the thread poster raised - these particular assertions of executive privilege. I gave my actual opinion on them, including the areas I haven't decided about them.
Stop accusing me of dishonesty. You've been making this accusation for years, and I'm tired of it.
Oh, and start living up to the standards you try to enforce here. Your hypocrisy is showing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm trying to get Dag to be honest and open about a political issue in which his side looks bad for once in his time at Hatrack
By the way, how on earth do you reconcile this statement with this thread, which you participate in extensively. Did it slip your mind?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It depends on what Bush's real reasons for commuting the sentence were. If they were "good" reasons I wouldn't consider the act immoral, even if I think the factual findings underlying those reasons are in error. If they're based on who Libby is, then I think it immoral. If it's both, I don't know what I think.
I'm skeptical they were good reasons, but I don't know for sure.
quote:The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.
I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.
...
If he really wanted to let the appeals process run he could have granted respite.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I don't think the jury was disrespected so much as the judge. The current sentence of probation and fine is well within what might be expected for this offense within the guidelines. Had the current sentence been given by the judge, there'd be no real case for calling it a weak sentence given existing law.
The sentencing guidelines propose ranges, and when the ranges are low enough, house arrest and probation are considered acceptable for all or part of the range. So the verdict could (and likely would have with a different judge - this guy is known as a tough on crime kind of guy) resulted in a sentence closer to this one than the 30 month prison sentence.
However, we have judges for a reason - they hear all the evidence and take it into account at trial. Bush wasn't at the trial and has an obvious conflict of interest over the most important factor that distinguishes the judge's sentence from the new one: the seriousness of the lie and the affect it had on the investigation.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I even agree Clinton's lie wasn't as bad, but mainly on the national security front.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [Libby's lie] feels worse to me as well [than Clinton's]
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Again, a prosecutor, grand jury, jury, judge, and probation officer all had input into the ultimate disposition of the sentence. Further, the legislature specifically allows conviction even when no underlying crime was committed at all. The vague descriptions of Libby's "innocence" don't amount to a hill of beans in light of this, absent some serious allegation that evidence was tampered with or wrongfully excluded. So I'm comfortable accepting a slightly harsh sentence with the knowledge that I don't (and can't) have all the facts those other entities did.
On the one issue that I might be considered to be in sympathy with Bush in that thread - my opinion that the decision was slightly harsh - you didn't bother to respond to my clarification concerning obstruction of justice and the lack of threats and violence being a possible distinguishing factor in Libby's sentence compared to the average.
So get off your high horse. Your trying to "get me" to do anything is rank hubris.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag, your problem is that you just aren't rabid enough. You can't be dismissed as a Bushite because you don't support everything The President has done or proposes. Yet some of the Bush Bashers are out to get you because you so nicely squash their vast right wing conspiracies with legal facts. You are not a Bushy (I'd say you'd have gotten the axe if you were one of the Prosecutors, for not being loyal enough), nor are you Bushy enough. Both ends hate the middle.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Jesus christ, Dag. Take a deep breath and look back at your posts. I usually think of you as a nice guy. And I normally don't take sides in Hatrack pissing contests. But you really took the offensive from post #1.
Is there more going on in some other thread that I'm not seeing here?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My post #1 was "Why is it Bush taking this to extremes and not Congress?" How is that the offensive as a direct response to someone stating that he sees Bush taking this to extremes without giving reasons (in that post - he gives them later, in response to that question).
If you're referring to my second post:
quote:Are you referring merely to numbers of assertions? If so, I'd like to see the actual numbers. Moreover, it's a pretty superficial way to arrive at such a conclusion.
If you're referring to the content of the claims, some analysis would be appropriate.
Again, how is that "taking the offensive" when in response to "Because his claims of executive powers and priviledges have far outstriped that of the past four presidents put together?"?
Both Alcon and Squicky were the ones making claims. Why is questioning those claims going on the offensive?
quote:Is there more going on in some other thread that I'm not seeing here?
That ought to be evident from Squicky's admission that he has an ongoing interest in altering my behavior ("I'm trying to get Dag to be honest and open about a political issue in which his side looks bad for once in his time at Hatrack, or at least set the expectation that he should be so"), or at least what he erroneously perceives to be my behavior.
Moreover, squicky's one line answer with no analysis and no backup comes after repeated bitching against me when I don't provide detailed analysis.
Squicky has contended repeatedly in this thread that I haven't given substantive, informative answers and held himself up as having done so. I made a direct comparison between our posts, one he hasn't bothered to respond to for some reason - I'm going with because he can't until he decides to prove otherwise.
Moreover, he made allegations about a long-term refusal to be open and honest in situations in which "my side" (whatever the hell that means) looks bad, ignoring numerous conversations where I have criticized the Bush administration.
In short, he's lied about me, and you want to blame me for being angry?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
roarr boom bang crash
MEANWHILE, ELSEWHERE
how about that executive privilege thing huh
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I still await someone explaining why these two assertions of executive privilege are clearly wrong - or, for that matter, even venturing an opinion on them (that is, the two specific assertions of executive privilege). I've talked more about executive privilege than anyone else in this thread.
Maybe you'd like to take a crack at it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
What I don't understand is what has changed since we reelected Bush that would justify undoing the choice we made in that election. I thought it seemed fairly plain even in 2004 that the Bush administration was extremely deceptive towards the American public and willing to commit almost anything it could get away with to achieve its desired ends. Yet we elected him again anyway. Now we want to impeach him?
It seems to me that the "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" principle applies here. Investigating the president might be helpful to clean out the government to a certain degree, but I think the problem really starts with us, the voters. We need to stop electing people with poor judgement just because they represent "our party", or just because we agree with them on a single issue, or just because they can effectively smear the other candidates, or just because they can raise more money, etc. And we certainly need to not be so afraid of electing someone new that we RE-elect people who have already proven themselves to have poor judgement.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Jesus christ, Dag. Take a deep breath and look back at your posts. I usually think of you as a nice guy. And I normally don't take sides in Hatrack pissing contests. But you really took the offensive from post #1.
Is there more going on in some other thread that I'm not seeing here?
Destineer: Dag and Mr S do not have a history of amiable conversation.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Honestly, Destineer, from my memories of past conversations between Dag and Squicky, my sympathy's with Dag on this one. Squick is coming across calmer because he is speaking in fewer words, but that actually goes to the root of why Squick's position is completely untenable He's not saying anything substantive, yet is holding Dag to a hypocritically stringent standard that I haven't actually seen him define. I'm not sure what Dag was supposed to have written here that might have resulted in a different response from Squick. It seems like Squick is out to get Dag for some reason, and would have gone after him no matter what he said ... not the reverse.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
OK, if it's one of these longstanding grudges I should probably withold judgment. Sorry!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I still await someone explaining why these two assertions of executive privilege are clearly wrong - or, for that matter, even venturing an opinion on them (that is, the two specific assertions of executive privilege). I've talked more about executive privilege than anyone else in this thread.
Maybe you'd like to take a crack at it.
So maybe I'd like to figure out exactly what executive privilege is. It is increasingly defined by apologism. I tried to find answers in the Constitution, but it is suspiciously absent there as part of the official record on the balance of powers. And yet it is still construed to exist based on interpretations of judicial rulings and other such precedent. So I troll various interpretations and explanations from impartial legal beagles, law professors, and fey-folk who get to comment detachedly on the subject. It's illuminating what you find on the subject when it is discussed by those who do not have any vested interest in being sympathetic to the President that they still consciously or subconsciously bias themselves in favor of. It is even better when it is discussed by people who also don't want to spit-roast the President, to grab onto anything they can nab him on as a catharsis for years of preconceived shadowy abuses. I crudely adapt my position from their writings. Pretty directly, too.
The seminal case involving executive privilege was United States v. Nixon in 1974. The supreme court ruled on the concept when Leon Jaworski demanded that Nixon produce the audiotapes of his conversations with aides, dealing with an investigation of criminal misconduct. He invoked executive privilege and refused to turn over any tapes.
The result was that the SCOTUS created an acknowledgment of the privilege based on the need of a president to get 'free and candid advice,' or somesuch. But it outright denied that the president's claim of absolute privilege should prevail; they ruled that in this case the public interest was served by obtaining the full truth during a criminal prosecution. Nixon gave up the tapes and resigned days later in disgrace.
Cut to the future. Clinton is rebuffed by the judges when he invokes the selfsame privilege during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, trying to keep aides from testifying. A pattern emerges. Subpoenas from congress to presidential advisers are not a new thing. It happened all the time to Clinton, for good reasons and for stupid reasons. These new ones, however, raise new issues.
Executive privilege is a real power, but not in the way that the President wants to use it. The Supreme Court said that it is there to allow the president to have free-flowing candid advice. But it is a presidential power. It does not apply in a blanket way to every presidential aide. It applies when the information being sought actively impinges on the president's ability to get that advice.
In other words, it is when the information being sought involves communications that are directly or indirectly between the president and his aides, or the president and his executive branch advisers. It does not apply to communications between Justice officials and White House aides who are -- and let's just invent a hypothetical here -- discussing the politics of firing U.S. attorneys as part of an ideological whitewash. Or, perhaps, some clandestine discussions on the legal basis, or obvious lack thereof, of an extralegal surveillance program.
So, Congress has the better position in this war. But this is the 'logical' position. It is not the 'political' potential. If this situation ends up turning into a a contempt citation for the white house, it could very well go to the courts. The white house wants this, because the clear standards for executive privilege (that prevented presidents like Nixon from being able to shield themselves from the discovery of their misconduct) are in place to be overturned, blithely, by John Roberts and his partners with a strong executive branch bias.
So, the white house is directly challenging Congress in such a contemptible way because they want to drive the issue back to a supreme court which has recently been stacked in their favor. They want to create a new legal precedent today. They want to formulate a new tool in the imperial executive by reverting the privilege back to the way Nixon wanted to define it (To paraphrase, "If the president does it, that means that it is legal.")
But above all this is the credibility of the claims. When Brett Kavanaugh testified before the judiciary committee on his nomination for an appeals court judgeship, he claimed in his testimony that he was not involved at all in administration discussions about the treatment of enemy combatants. At this point, we have credible news stories saying that he was. I'll bet the Senate has a desire and a rightful responsibility to get to the bottom of this -- and other -- leaks hinting to miscreant behavior. Bush's spurious use of executive privilege to attempt to stonewall him may help him survive legal battles, but they baldly support the suspicion that he's forced to try to use it to cover his own ass. None of it comes off as honest to anyone who isn't burying their head in the sand and pretending that nothing could possibly be wrong in this current murder of executive misdeeds.
Bush has, essentially, already been caught. Some BS has been committed, obviously. These defenses are merely legal defenses to try to stay cloaked behind pretense, to hide the known unknowns, to avoid being held to any legal risk. Oh, thank goodness for plausible deniability. Too bad it doesn't keep the public at large from raising an eyebrow and giving him an even stronger thumbs down at the polls.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I tried to find answers in the Constitution, but it is suspiciously absent there as part of the official record on the balance of powers.
As is Congress's subpoena power. What's "suspicious" about that? The power has been asserted Presidents since Washington.
quote:It's illuminating what you find on the subject when it is discussed by those who do not have any vested interest in being sympathetic to the President that they still consciously or subconsciously bias themselves in favor of.
Ah, yes, bring out the ad homs.
quote:In other words, it is when the information being sought involves communications that are directly or indirectly between the president and his aides, or the president and his executive branch advisers. It does not apply to communications between Justice officials and White House aides who are -- and let's just invent a hypothetical here -- discussing the politics of firing U.S. attorneys as part of an ideological whitewash. Or, perhaps, some clandestine discussions on the legal basis, or obvious lack thereof, of an extralegal surveillance program.
Both of those are instances of advice given during the formulation of administration policy. What is your basis for saying it does not apply?
Your summary of past precedents is all to the good, but you haven't applied it at all to the facts at hand. You've simply told us your conclusion. Distinguishing factors:
1) Both Clinton and Nixon were the subject of grand jury investigations - that is, criminal investigations. The subpoenas here are not part of such an investigation.
2) Both subpoenas in this instance relate directly to the formulation of policy - the core of the Nixon decision's rationale for upholding the long-standing doctrine of executive privilege.
3) You've conveniently left out Clinton's claims of executive privilege that were successful.
quote:None of it comes off as honest to anyone who isn't burying their head in the sand and pretending that nothing could possibly be wrong in this current murder of executive misdeeds.
Ah, Sam, you're engaging in this psychic mind-reading crap, too?
Is it because it's easier to simply state your conclusion and that anyone who disagrees with it is willingly hiding from the truth? Or is their some other reason you can't let your arguments speak without throwing out insult after insult?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"As is Congress's subpoena power. What's "suspicious" about that? The power has been asserted Presidents since Washington."
On the other hand, congress is explicitly granted power to write laws governing the conduct of any member of the government, up to and including the president, so if congress were to pass a law stating that the president had to turn over to congress any documents it requested, I think you would be hard pressed to find a constitutional argument allowing executive privelege to stand.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: OK, if it's one of these longstanding grudges I should probably withold judgment. Sorry!
While you're here: please post more, I often find your posts extremely interesting.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I can't see any Congress passing such a law. Not when there are members that have executive office envy...er...ambition.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On the other hand, congress is explicitly granted power to write laws governing the conduct of any member of the government, up to and including the president, so if congress were to pass a law stating that the president had to turn over to congress any documents it requested, I think you would be hard pressed to find a constitutional argument allowing executive privelege to stand.
If that were the case here, there'd be an entirely different issue to be discussed, although I doubt your conclusion is correct.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think there is a non-defined limit on "Executive Privilege" that has been put in place. This limiting factor is non-judicial, and non-governmental, but does keep most Presidents from abusing this privilege.
I call it the "Swiftboat" solution.
Claiming executive privilege limits the amount of information that will be given to the public, as well as to the other two branches of government. However, that information is a two edged sword. While it might incriminate executive aides or worse, it can also defend them. Without that information others can and will make what ever presumptions of guilt they can.
They will "Swiftboat" the President and his administration.
Lets take the Vice President's Energy Commision as an example. The Vice President gathered together experts on energy to help him formulate an energy policy. When members of Congress requested a list of who those experts were, Mr. Cheney claimed Executive Privilege. He did not supply congress, or the public, with those names.
So many rumors were spread claiming it was a gathering of only oil execs, including Ken Lay from Enron. Rumors spread that they basically bought the US Energy policy.
The public began to believe those rumors more and more as Mr. Cheney could not defend himself against them with anything other than a promise that it was not.
Was Mr. Cheney meeting with only Oil Execs to plan US Energy Policy to be in their favor? I do not know. His reason for not giving the information to Congress, one of deep adherence to the principle of Executive Privilege, is a bit shakey. Most people will assume he's hiding something, so his approval ratings drop.
The only way that "Executive Privilege" can go unchecked is if we blindly assume that whatever the President does is perfectly trustworthy. Only when we refuse to question the spin that comes from the White House are we in true danger. If we do not question his decisions, the "Swiftboat" balance on "Executive Privilege" weakens and then, a President or his aides can get away with anything.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:
quote:It's illuminating what you find on the subject when it is discussed by those who do not have any vested interest in being sympathetic to the President that they still consciously or subconsciously bias themselves in favor of.
Ah, yes, bring out the ad homs.
This could only be an ad hominem if it was a purposeful attack against someone. You've been sparring with this Squick guy for too long -- still got the red in your eyes -- and automatically read that as a dig against you, looks like.
Like I would be so indirect.
Because I know I have to explain this with blatant obviousness just in case: there is absolutely no references in my post towards your positions whatsoever. You went ahead and assumed it. You are permitted to drop your assumptions about positional persecution. They do not exist. "Dagonee" is a non-factor in my writing and there is no summary dismissal of his position or any automatic inclusion of said Dagonee into such a group. I just happen to find interpretations of executive privilege to be more usefully objective when they aren't provided by people with an obvious and confounding pro-Bush bias, and I'm damn proud that I do. It would be stupid of me to do otherwise, huh.
Let's shift gears and not have you automatically open up as though you were preconceptually engaged in a personality conflict.
quote:
quote:I tried to find answers in the Constitution, but it is suspiciously absent there as part of the official record on the balance of powers.
As is Congress's subpoena power. What's "suspicious" about that? The power has been asserted Presidents since Washington.
Given that I made it blatantly obvious that I don't think that the privilege does not exist (Read: "Executive privilege is a real power") talking about its non-presence in the constitutional balance of powers illustrates that the power is left with very malleable degrees of assertion and these often come down to 'What they can get away with.' This is a great way to start talking about why using executive privilege can be so problematic!
quote:Your summary of past precedents is all to the good, but you haven't applied it at all to the facts at hand. You've simply told us your conclusion.
If I had simply delivered a conclusion, it would not have included the same precedent that I use to derive the argument that hamstrings Bush's present attempts at the use of the policy. If you believe that I'm only delivering conclusions, that's lopsided and we're probably done here.
quote:You've conveniently left out Clinton's claims of executive privilege that were successful.
They are of less importance since they can't be scrutinized in the same way involving circumstances which would end up proving undeniably that the privilege had been attempted in a way to blatantly cover up misdeeds for the selfish interest of a president. Kind of important because the current administration appears to be at great risk of having dirty laundry exposed and is also acting in a way which many think is obviously mitigated by a concealment attempt. Allowed uses of the privilege were left out for 'brevity' involving a degree of irrelevance to my position, which would only not make sense if I were saying that executive privilege either didn't exist or shouldn't exist.
quote:Ah, Sam, you're engaging in this psychic mind-reading crap, too?
Is it because it's easier to simply state your conclusion and that anyone who disagrees with it is willingly hiding from the truth? Or is their some other reason you can't let your arguments speak without throwing out insult after insult?
I get to make whatever conclusions I want. This isn't a court of law; it's an internet forum, and I don't need to present evidence to the court to be allowed to express the fact that Bush ran out of the benefit of the doubt with me long ago and I already think that he's doing something wrong. I'm perfectly allowed to reason this, and Bush makes it easy for me since there's so few ways to explain the whole of the administration's behavior that can't get razored down to a point where one can reasonably assume that their actions require scrutiny.
I don't believe in his latest round of cover stories and I make it a point to say that I believe that other people should not believe in them either. Especially when all of his actions are
1. most simply and reliably explained by the attempt to cover up misdeeds, and 2. very hard to put in the framework of a plausible innocence on the part of Bush's administration.
The only thing I'm sorry about is that I no longer get to be an outside voice in presuming this. It gets so cliche after everyone gets the hint and stops thinking of the white house as being very trustworthy at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This could only be an ad hominem if it was a purposeful attack against someone. You've been sparring with this Squick guy for too long -- still got the red in your eyes -- and automatically read that as a dig against you, looks like.
FYI, I would be surprised if Dagonee and I were the only ones who saw a dig. Perhaps the fault isn't in Dagonee's paranoia.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:This could only be an ad hominem if it was a purposeful attack against someone.
I didn't think an ad hominem attack had to be directed a specific person. I thought any argument that went to the motives or character of the opposition (real or hypothetical), while sidestepping the actual argument, counted as an ad hominem attack. Negatively characterizing your hypothetical opposition might not be intended to directly hurt or offend a particular person, but it's still a silly, beside-the-point way to argue, and it only hurts your position in the eyes of people like Dag who do this for a living and know a good argument from a fallacious one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't see Samp's words as a direct dig at Dag. He was defining bias from Pro-Bush and Anti-Bush in his source material, and was letting you know that he got his information from people who weren't specifically out to undo the President.
quote:Originally Posted by: Samp It's illuminating what you find on the subject when it is discussed by those who do not have any vested interest in being sympathetic to the President that they still consciously or subconsciously bias themselves in favor of. It is even better when it is discussed by people who also don't want to spit-roast the President, to grab onto anything they can nab him on as a catharsis for years of preconceived shadowy abuses. I crudely adapt my position from their writings. Pretty directly, too.
I interpret this as "there are parties out there who side with the President, parties out there just trying to tear the president down, and parties out there who come to conclusions without a specific agenda in mind, and I follow the advice of the lattermost group." Frankly I don't think he's dodging the argument at all, which I think is necessary for an attack (that I don't think exists in this case) to be an ad hominem. He's giving you some background into his thought process and his sources before he lanuches into what I found to be a well thought out opinion on the matter. Ignoring his substantive points to seize on that part of his post looks like reaching to me.
If what he said is an ad hom, then so are some of Dag's responses. Personally I don't think any of it qualifies, but if we're going to lower the bar, it swings both ways.
I generally find Samp's respones to be well thought out, and well presented, so maybe I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt, but then I also find Dag's responses to generally be well thought out, and well presented, so I could be giving him the benefit of the doubt too.
Edit to add: I liked what Dan had to say on the subject.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not saying that his statement was a dig at Dag. I'm saying that it's not unreasonable for it to have been taken that way, as Samp suggested.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This could only be an ad hominem if it was a purposeful attack against someone. You've been sparring with this Squick guy for too long -- still got the red in your eyes -- and automatically read that as a dig against you, looks like.
Nope, didn't read it as a dig against me. Therefore the rest of this section of your post is inapplicable to me.
quote:If I had simply delivered a conclusion, it would not have included the same precedent that I use to derive the argument that hamstrings Bush's present attempts at the use of the policy. If you believe that I'm only delivering conclusions, that's lopsided and we're probably done here.
I didn't state that you were only delivering conclusions. I stated that you summarized precedent ("it is when the information being sought involves communications that are directly or indirectly between the president and his aides, or the president and his executive branch advisers") and then stated your conclusion that this instance didn't fall under the rule derived from those precedents. What you did not do is say, "here's why this instance is more like these precedents than these other precedents."
I'm not saying you have to do that. I'm just saying your precedents don't support your conclusion until you do that.
quote:They are of less importance since they can't be scrutinized in the same way involving circumstances which would end up proving undeniably that the privilege had been attempted in a way to blatantly cover up misdeeds for the selfish interest of a president. Kind of important because the current administration appears to be at great risk of having dirty laundry exposed and is also acting in a way which many think is obviously mitigated by a concealment attempt. Allowed uses of the privilege were left out for 'brevity' involving a degree of irrelevance to my position, which would only not make sense if I were saying that executive privilege either didn't exist or shouldn't exist.
They are of equal importance because the accusation is that Bush's assertion of the privilege is not consistent with the purpose of the privilege - a purpose that is essentially defined by examining the uses in the past that have been found acceptable and those that haven't. If there are more similarities to those that have been found acceptable, it's good evidence that this is closer to acceptable than not.
quote:I get to make whatever conclusions I want.
Sure you do. I haven't said otherwise.
quote:This isn't a court of law; it's an internet forum, and I don't need to present evidence to the court to be allowed to express the fact that Bush ran out of the benefit of the doubt with me long ago and I already think that he's doing something wrong. I'm perfectly allowed to reason this
That conclusion isn't the psychic exertion your making. Rather, "anyone who isn't burying their head in the sand and pretending that nothing could possibly be wrong in this current murder of executive misdeeds" is the part that's psychic mind reading crap.
You've stated that anyone who disagrees with you on this is willfully ignoring the truth. It's a continuation of your ad hom from the beginning.
[ July 13, 2007, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I just happen to find interpretations of executive privilege to be more usefully objective when they aren't provided by people with an obvious and confounding pro-Bush bias
I wouldn't say that Dag has a pro-Bush bias. If anything, he has a pro-executive-privilege bias that also inclines him to think well of Bush's uses of executive privilege. He and I are rather opposed on that issue, but I've never seen any indication that he's a fan of only specific Imperial Presidencies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Nope, didn't read it as a dig against me.
quote: It's a continuation of your ad hom from the beginning.
Then it's not an ad hominem! Your charge ends up baseless and purposeless! Who am I attacking. I was letting you know that I value information when it doesn't come from biased sources. If this is an ad hom in your world then our systems are very much lightyears apart.
Furthermore, if you will insist on interpret it to be an ad hominem when I say that I will most respect interpretations that come from people without vested interests and biases, then I will weather the charge with pride. I would not want it to be any other way.
quote:I wouldn't say that Dag has a pro-Bush bias
Ok! Who did?
quote:I'm not saying you have to do that. I'm just saying your precedents don't support your conclusion until you do that.
This charge makes way more sense.
The SCOTUS rules in the Nixon case that there exists an executive privilege against mandatory disclosure of his communications, only when he is speaking with his closest advisers.
What the court also ruled is that the privilege is qualified rather than absolute, and that it can be overcome when "weighty and legitimate competing interests" are at stake.
Bammo. No need for an equal requirement in criminal charges or other such circumstances. No need at all. . You could just be trying to find out why there are conflicting statements, lies, and a coverup attempt over things like:
- Firing of attorneys - An extralegal wiretapping program
etc etc.
quote:You've stated that anyone who disagrees with you on this is willfully ignoring the truth
What I actually stated was that anyone who does not believe that anything could *possibly* be wrong is burying their head in the sand -- denying reasonable potential to suspect misdeeds -- and I feel no shame at making this charge. Especially given that it's not unreasonable to conclude that the attorney firings were a misdeed and the use of executive privilege seems to involve an attempt to prevent finding out how far up the chain this event actually went.
I'm going to go ahead and charge people with ignorance when they are people who think that nothing could possibly be wrong and that the administration should not even be suspected or investigated for anything. You'll note them's who I'm talking about. I's seen them. Yup, they're dumb, as far as I'm concerned.
If this sort of statement is what passes for ad hom to the point where you want to call it a fallacy by name, then go back and look at yourself: you appear suspiciously prone towards the same category of actions.
FINAL NOTE
quote:I didn't state that you were only delivering conclusions.
quote:You've simply told us your conclusion.
Stuff like this is reasonably giving me much confusion. It's at best textually ambiguous enough to imply charges that you apparently don't mean.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Then it's not an ad hominem! Your charge ends up baseless and purposeless!
Ad hom does not imply that I was the one attacked.
It's an ad hom because - as you demonstrate later - you are attributing this unconscious bias to them.
quote:Stuff like this is reasonably giving me much confusion. It's at best textually ambiguous enough to imply charges that you apparently don't mean.
What I actually said was this: "Your summary of past precedents is all to the good, but you haven't applied it at all to the facts at hand. You've simply told us your conclusion." There is no way to read that statement and think that I have suggested that you did nothing else in your post other than state a conclusion. Clearly, I have said that you gave a summary of past precedents. A fact that could not have escaped your attention had you read "I didn't state that you were only delivering conclusions. I stated that you summarized precedent ('it is when the information being sought involves communications that are directly or indirectly between the president and his aides, or the president and his executive branch advisers') and then stated your conclusion that this instance didn't fall under the rule derived from those precedents."
quote:The SCOTUS rules in the Nixon case that there exists an executive privilege against mandatory disclosure of his communications, only when he is speaking with his closest advisers.
It said no such thing. The specific communication at issue were communications with his closest advisors - that is the factual background of the case. But the court did not limit privilege to such communications. Rather, it "conclude[d] that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interests in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial." At no time was the issue of what the level the advisers were before the court.
Note that there may be grounds under which privilege will trump a criminal subpoena.
quote:What the court also ruled is that the privilege is qualified rather than absolute, and that it can be overcome when "weighty and legitimate competing interests" are at stake.
Bammo. No need for an equal requirement in criminal charges or other such circumstances. No need at all. . You could just be trying to find out why there are conflicting statements, lies, and a coverup attempt over things like:
Bammo that there are other interests that will compel overriding the privilege. Not Bammo that Nixon provides guidance as to what they are. It's possible that those interests are sufficient. You've by no means demonstrated that.
quote:What I actually stated was that anyone who does not believe that anything could *possibly* be wrong is burying their head in the sand
No, that's not what you said when you said, "None of it comes off as honest to anyone who isn't burying their head in the sand and pretending that nothing could possibly be wrong in this current murder of executive misdeeds."
This says that anyone to whom the administration's actions come off as honest is doing two things: (1) "burying their head in the sand" and (2) "pretending that nothing could possibly be wrong in this current murder of executive misdeeds."
If you now claim that you misspoke when you said this and actually meant something else, that's fine. Is that what you're saying?
Otherwise, you have absolutely engaged in ad hom.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's an ad hom because - as you demonstrate later - you are attributing this unconscious bias to them.
So, it's final, then. You're going to say I'm committing an ad hominem when I say that interpretations on this subject are more illuminating when they are discussed by those who don't have any vested interest in being sympathetic to a president that they are biased in favor of.
I guess I'm not really interested in discussing any such matter with you, then. Apologies!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Was Mr. Cheney meeting with only Oil Execs to plan US Energy Policy to be in their favor? I do not know. His reason for not giving the information to Congress, one of deep adherence to the principle of Executive Privilege, is a bit shakey. Most people will assume he's hiding something, so his approval ratings drop.
The only way that "Executive Privilege" can go unchecked is if we blindly assume that whatever the President does is perfectly trustworthy. Only when we refuse to question the spin that comes from the White House are we in true danger. If we do not question his decisions, the "Swiftboat" balance on "Executive Privilege" weakens and then, a President or his aides can get away with anything.
An interesting idea; however, particularly in the case of a standing presidency in its last term, I rather think that matters have to rise to a level beyond that of public muttering before they will have any real effect on the reins of government. Those in power have to care about public sentiment before it can have an effect. One poll I've seen sited suggests that "82% of the country supports either tying Iraq war funding to benchmarks for progress, or blocking all funding." As yet, this seems to have had little effect on the passage of legislation. And Cheney having a lower popularity rating even than Bush hasn't prevented him from such unpopular moves as claiming immunity to standards set for offices of the executive branch.
quote:So, it's final, then. You're going to say I'm committing an ad hominem when I say that interpretations on this subject are more illuminating when they are discussed by those who don't have any vested interest in being sympathetic to a president that they are biased in favor of.
No, it's ad hom when you assume that people have biases because they come to conclusions you don't like.
This isn't that hard to figure out, sam. You have repeatedly dismissed certain points of view by assuming bias exists.
By the way, which time did you misstate what you meant with the head in the sand comment? The first time or the second time?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You have repeatedly dismissed certain points of view by assuming bias exists.
Do you believe it is unreasonable to assume bias?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I wouldn't say that Dag has a pro-Bush bias. If anything, he has a pro-executive-privilege bias that also inclines him to think well of Bush's uses of executive privilege. He and I are rather opposed on that issue, but I've never seen any indication that he's a fan of only specific Imperial Presidencies"
Dagonee- The above got me wondering. Would it be fair to say that you have a "bias" in favor of a strong presidency compared to a strong legislature?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you believe it is unreasonable to assume bias?
Not if you mean "to assume bias exists in every observer." That's perfectly reasonable.
But it's not reasonable if you mean "to assume someone who comes to conclusion X is biased toward the person who benefits from conclusion X."
It's especially unreasonable to assume that someone who reaches a different conclusion is "burying their head in the sand and pretending that nothing could possibly be wrong."
quote:Would it be fair to say that you have a "bias" in favor of a strong presidency compared to a strong legislature?
Not really. I think it's fairer to say that, having been subjected to such a strong presidency for 70 years (since the Supreme Court shuffle in 1937), a strong presidency is now a constitutional reality and that accusations of malfeasance (as opposed to accusations that someone is acting in an undesirable manner) need to be judged in light of this reality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But it's not reasonable if you mean "to assume someone who comes to conclusion X is biased toward the person who benefits from conclusion X."
I think what's being said, instead, is "person Y, who benefits indirectly when person X benefits directly from conclusion X, is likely to be biased towards conclusion X." I think that's actually a pretty reasonable statement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't, because it too easily allows rejection of opinions other than one's own. Further, it too often confuses cause and effect - the reason someone is "indirectly benefiting" is often because they have made choices based on opinions they arrived at before they would have benefited.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I think it's fairer to say that, having been subjected to such a strong presidency for 70 years (since the Supreme Court shuffle in 1937), a strong presidency is now a constitutional reality and that accusations of malfeasance (as opposed to accusations that someone is acting in an undesirable manner) need to be judged in light of this reality."
Do you think that the current strength of the prsidency has been expanded beyond the implicit and explicit powers granted to the executive in the constitution? Or is the power of the current presidency a reasonable interpretation of the document?
Is it fair to judge accusations of malfeasence within light of what a person believes the power of the executive is within the context of the constitution? Or must it be judged within the context of SC decisions regarding the power of the executive? In other words, is it reasonable for a person to judge the malfeasence of a representative of the government based on their own understanding of the issues, rather then the issues as interpreted by others?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you think that the current strength of the prsidency has been expanded beyond the implicit and explicit powers granted to the executive in the constitution? Or is the power of the current presidency a reasonable interpretation of the document?
I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of the document. It hasn't been since 1937.
quote:s it fair to judge accusations of malfeasence within light of what a person believes the power of the executive is within the context of the constitution? Or must it be judged within the context of SC decisions regarding the power of the executive?
I think it's unfair to judge it as malfeasance outside the context of SCOTUS decisions and accepted divisions of power.
quote:In other words, is it reasonable for a person to judge the malfeasence of a representative of the government based on their own understanding of the issues, rather then the issues as interpreted by others?
I don't think your "in other words" is accurate here. It's not that one must rely in the interpretation of others. It's that the mental element necessary for malfeasance is missing when an actor, such as the President, relies on the interpretation of bodies that have the power to decide if the acts are malfeasance or not.
For example, using my own understanding of the Constitution, a U.S. district judge who strikes down a law banning abortion altogether is not committing malfeasance, even though I think it is wrong to do so as a matter of constitutional interpretation. A judge who refuses to strike down such a law is committing malfeasance, even though I think it is right to do so as a matter of constitutional interpretation.
Similarly, a President following the ruling in Hamdi is not committing malfeasance, even though I think that ruling is wrong according to my understanding of the Constitution.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I believe that Dag has a "pro-law" bias. Much of what has been done by this administration has been legal, technically, and much of the rest has been open to interpretation. Where it has not been legal, Dag has spoken against it.
I believe that this administration has been pushing the law as far as it can go to provide maximum executive power, even when that power goes against the expressed will of the Constitution and the people. I believe in cases where law prevented that power they either violated the law and then passed legislation to make it legal after the fact, or simply ignored the law and used every option they had available to prevent investigation and exposure. I believe they have politicized the different departments of the government to an alarming degree, pushing aside accountability and unbiased performance for loyalty.
The tricky bit is proving, in a court of law, that their actions deserve punishment. What I believe won't go far under cross-examination. And arguing about how other people are arguing seems to me to be spectacularly useless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I believe that Dag has a "pro-law" bias. Much of what has been done by this administration has been legal, technically, and much of the rest has been open to interpretation. Where it has not been legal, Dag has spoken against it.
That's true, but I have also spoken against things that have been legal/constitutional, including, for example, the commuting of Libby.
For example, following Hamdi is wrong, whether it's legal or not. It is not, however, valid grounds for impeachment.
The type of condemnation determines whether the legality of the act being condemned is relevant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The tricky bit is proving, in a court of law, that their actions deserve punishment.
Which is part of why I think the use of impeachment to rein in a framework of case law and (IMO) corrosive precedent, even if it means doing an end run around that framework, will not only be necessary but ultimately the only potentially satisfactory resolution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which is part of why I think the use of impeachment to rein in a framework of case law and (IMO) corrosive precedent, even if it means doing an end run around that framework, will not only be necessary but ultimately the only potentially satisfactory resolution.
Far more appropriate would be a Congress passing unambiguous laws that highlight the differing views.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that Congress has passed quite a few unambiguous laws to "rein in" differing views lately, only to have the president indicate which parts of the law he believes he can ignore.
If an executive chooses to ignore Congress -- as I argue that this one largely has done -- then impeachment is pretty much the obvious remedy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:
quote:But it's not reasonable if you mean "to assume someone who comes to conclusion X is biased toward the person who benefits from conclusion X."
I think what's being said, instead, is "person Y, who benefits indirectly when person X benefits directly from conclusion X, is likely to be biased towards conclusion X." I think that's actually a pretty reasonable statement.
So do I, which is why I'm not going to bother with someone who wants to work me over, over it supposedly being an ad hominem statement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Still ignoring your other little inconsistency regarding "None of it comes off as honest to anyone who isn't burying their head in the sand and pretending that nothing could possibly be wrong in this current murder of executive misdeeds," I see.
You could easily have made your case without questioning the honesty and integrity of those who disagree with you. You not only chose not to, but to insist that you haven't done so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would argue that Congress has passed quite a few unambiguous laws to "rein in" differing views lately, only to have the president indicate which parts of the law he believes he can ignore.
Then it should be easy to find an incident other than the signing statements to bring impeachment charges on. Some time where he's actually ignored Congress, instead of just saying he might.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Some time where he's actually ignored Congress, instead of just saying he might."
quote:Then it should be easy to find an incident other than the signing statements to bring impeachment charges on. Some time where he's actually ignored Congress, instead of just saying he might.
Why should that be necessary? More importantly, given that many of the signing statements involve not notifying people of certain happenings, why not just take him at face value and assume that indeed people have not been notified of those happenings?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of the other five laws that the study found were disobeyed, two provisions required agencies to get permission from a congressional committee before taking certain actions. In both cases, the agencies notified the committee but acted without their permission -- just as Bush's signing statements instructed them.
There were actually three such laws requiring submission of budget plans to committees for approval. The requirements to obtain permission from a congressional committee are almost certainly unconstitutional under very well-established separation of powers doctrine. (See INS v. Chadha for more detail.)
There are ample opportunities to challenge the agency actions in court to adjudicate the constitutionality of the provisions. But Congress would lose, probably unanimously, if it did so. The only element that might not be unanimous is whether the unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers by Congress would have been severed or the whole bill struck down.
quote:1· Unitary Executive: The Department of Defense (DOD) did not include as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget submission to Congress separate budget justification documents for the costs of all contingency operations for the Military Personnel, Operation and Maintenance, and Procurement accounts. DOD did provide a separate justification document that included the costs of contingency operations in the Balkans and Guantanamo Bay but did not include costs for any other contingency operations, such as those in Iraq.
2· Unitary Executive: DOD responded to an inquiry from the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, House Committee on Appropriations, in 38 days, instead of 21 days as directed by the appropriations act.
3· Law Enforcement: Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) did not relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson sector every 7 days as directed by Congress in the appropriations act. CBP told us that such relocations were not always consistent with CBP’s mission requirements. Instead, CBP shut down its checkpoints for short periods in an effort to comply with what CBP termed the “advisory provision” in the appropriations act.
As for 2, I know for a fact such delays in reporting to Congress by the DoD happened throughout the Clinton administration. I'm sure it happened prior to that, but that's when I happen to have first-hand knowledge of many missed deadlines of 3 or more weeks.
Were I in Congress, I would refuse to move any bills related to military funding while 1 was not followed.
I need a copy of the bill before commenting on 3, because there are competing claims as to whether it's advisory or not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:More importantly, given that many of the signing statements involve not notifying people of certain happenings, why not just take him at face value and assume that indeed people have not been notified of those happenings?
Then Congress should issue specific demands for the specific information and wait for Bush to refuse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again: why? Why not simply remove a President who is determined to repeatedly push the envelope of his power?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Isn't telling your employees to break the law itself criminal activity? Or does it only because criminal activity if they actually listen to you?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Again: why? Why not simply remove a President who is determined to repeatedly push the envelope of his power?
Why? Why remove a President for stating that he interprets the Constitution differently than Congress and will conduct the very common activity undertaken by executive officers every single working day of interpreting a law in such a manner that it does not violate the constitution?
quote:Isn't telling your employees to break the law itself criminal activity? Or does it only because criminal activity if they actually listen to you?
None of the six listed incidents are criminal activity. If they were, then ordering someone to do them would be criminal solicitation, which, under Federal law, creates criminal culpability as a principal in the offense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why remove a President for stating that he interprets the Constitution differently than Congress and will conduct the very common activity undertaken by executive officers every single working day of interpreting a law in such a manner that it does not violate the constitution?
Well, for one thing, if you also grant that the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule justly on a given question, it'd be the only way to obtain justice and/or balance the government.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You could easily have made your case without questioning the honesty and integrity of those who disagree with you. You not only chose not to, but to insist that you haven't done so.
Sometimes, people's input on a matter is going to end up obviously useless because it's too confounded by bias. I'm not going to trust William Kristol to give me better information than Bill Emmott in judging how Bush's presidency is doing. One person's more objective, has less vested interest in promoting Bush or his policies, and is less biased. whoops ad hominem mind reading garbage
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:whoops ad hominem mind reading garbage
Your italics and smiley would be quite a bit less scathing and favorable to your argument, Samprimary, if you hadn't just likened Dagonee to a conservative pundit, and a noteworthy neoconservative.
For all you claim you aren't actually doing that, you continue to make statements that can easily and reasonably be taken in at least two ways. At some point, it becomes natural for a reader to wonder just how intentional, and in what way, these double meanings are.
-------------------
Oh, and you went quite a bit further than simply stating there was a 'bias'.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Given the subject matter of this page, why in the name of God is there a rather attractive swimsuit model on the ad at the bottom of this page?
Is Google Ads reading this thread and trying to cheer us all up? Or are they telling us all to shush up and go to the beach?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Samp, you have my sympathies, and I intend no offense, but if you say you're going to withdraw from the conversation you're more likely to be taken seriously- and allow an argument which may be going nowhere to die- if you actually withdraw from the conversation.
I don't think it's unreasonable to fear that an administration which has made extensive use of signing statements, claimed executive privelige on numerous occasions, stonewalled investigations that might portray its actions in a positive light, been responsible for the placing of two Supreme Court justices, and kept at least one covert action of questionable legality out from Congress' oversight might do real harm both to the separation of powers and to the government of the United States as a whole.
What's perhaps most frustrating is the apparent notion that there's nothing that Congress could do short of impeachment to bring such activities to a halt. I know very well just how extreme the notion of impeachment is; it seemed over the top and hypercombative when it was brought to bear against Clinton, and much as I dislike many of the actions of this administration, I recognize that it seems equally hypercombative and over the top brought to bear against Bush.
Of course, given that Congress doesn't seem capable of even bringing a censure vote, it's probably a moot point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Samp, you have my sympathies, and I intend no offense, but if you say you're going to withdraw from the conversation you're more likely to be taken seriously- and allow an argument which may be going nowhere to die- if you actually withdraw from the conversation.
You are right. I am full of sark and I forgot the principal rule of internetus interruptus: the other dude is free to whack at your now static position.
Otherwise you become The Guy Who Keeps Saying He Is Done And He Washes His Hands Of You Blah Blah Blah But He's Always Back Look At Him Go Always Trying To Get In An Indignant Last Word (TGWKSHIDAHWHHOYBBBBHABLAHGATTGIAILW) and deserve nothing short of death.
I will at risk of pain of said death however make mention of one thing: I haven't ever likened Dagonee to any person or his position to any category of opinions that I thumbed through but ultimately discarded in favor of better legal interpretations. Dagonee I still love you like the impeccably dressed blood uncle lawyer I never hung out with at our family reunions but who secretly loved my mix tapes. I don't think I would ever include you in the summary dismissal category for this subject. I have not changed my mind on that in this thread either. You are not Kristol. You are Dagonee.
Some examples of ones I discarded (ultimately) included the oft-repeated jabs of various sources that conglomerated in Salon and Co. articles which stated emphatically that the Nixon case was specific enough to assure that Bush's muzzling of Harriet Miers was obvious proof of the requirement of Bush's impeachment. It was obviously too far a stretch but it was easy to expect from leftie mags who pander to their audience by constantly reaffirming that Bush should probably be .. I don't know, shot and then fed to dogs which are then also shot and then fed to rats which are then probably also shot or dropped in acid vats and then mailed to Peru.
Then on the other side of the argument are people like the Newsmax commentators who say essentially that everything Bush does is totally legal without any credible doubt and that there is no reason to even suspect the administration of potential wrongdoing. These people are, well, pretty simply doltish.
I don't care whose feelings I hurt by dismissively abandoning these positions in favor of the commentary of people who, upon inspection, appear to want to provide a more objective reading of the ambiguities of executive privilege that Bush is trying to operate within. "It looks fishy, and won't fly based on the arguments the administration itself are making" is the big point.
"It will go to the courts given a sufficient degree of conflict in its use" is the other big point.
"These courts were stacked just recently. HMMMM" is the third.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"None of the six listed incidents are criminal activity. If they were, then ordering someone to do them would be criminal solicitation, which, under Federal law, creates criminal culpability as a principal in the offense."
Those are actual instances where the employees have actually listened to Bush and followed through. Surely you realize that there have been hundreds of signing statements saying that the executive branch does not need to obey laws that congress has passed?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, for one thing, if you also grant that the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule justly on a given question, it'd be the only way to obtain justice and/or balance the government.
I don't grant that. If you do grant that, then what you actually want is a revolution of some kind. It seems strange to think that the third branch of government is going to give you what you want given the corruption you perceive in the other two.
quote:What's perhaps most frustrating is the apparent notion that there's nothing that Congress could do short of impeachment to bring such activities to a halt.
That's just not true. There are many things Congress could do short of impeachment. With respect to the signing statements, Congress could simply make all their bills non-severable and create a cause of action allowing for judicial review of the alleged separation of powers issue. It would be trivial to do this, but they haven't.
quote:I don't care whose feelings I hurt by dismissively abandoning these positions in favor of the commentary of people who, upon inspection, appear to want to provide a more objective reading of the ambiguities of executive privilege that Bush is trying to operate within. "It looks fishy, and won't fly based on the arguments the administration itself are making" is the big point.
Which is not at all what you did with that little head-in-the-sand statement. As much as you want to recharacterize it, the fact remains that you said those think that any of Bush's actions in this regard come off as honest are burying their heads in the sand and don't think anything could possibly be wrong. You've conspicuously ignored this point after being shown that your attempted recharacterization was inaccurate.
quote:Those are actual instances where the employees have actually listened to Bush and followed through. Surely you realize that there have been hundreds of signing statements saying that the executive branch does not need to obey laws that congress has passed?
I've never accepted that characterization of the signing statements and find it too glib to be useful in figuring out what's actually going on. Although neither Tom nor you seem to ever want to address this point, interpreting statutes so that they conform to the Constitution is a common exercise. I don't find the signing statements any more objectionable than the misuse of "legislative history" in making statutory interpretation.
I'm not saying I like it, mind you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While I agree Congress tends to go about navigating the separation of powers wrong, this is not true:
quote:It would be trivial to do this, but they haven't.
It is accurate as far as the mechanics, but the mechanics are but one part of how Congress operates. The political difficulties of such an action would be astounding (unfortunately), and that is with the most favorable political clime for such an action in decades.
Now, the political situation could be improved, given a few years work by a political thinktank targeted at the issue of tools for the branches to effect balance of powers influence, but that isn't likely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:interpreting statutes so that they conform to the Constitution is a common exercise
I love the way you put this. Especially because, in order for it to conform to the Constitution, I want everyone else here to read it as "interpreting statutes so that they conform to the Constitution is an exceedingly rare and highly illegal exercise."
Seriously, why do you try so hard to not depict this as a willful refusal on the part of the executive branch to enforce laws handed down from the legislature? I think this is especially pernicious when the laws in questions are ones which are clearly and concisely written to leave no room for "interpretation," and which are specifically intended to provide a check on the behavior of the executive branch. What you keep saying is that the "remedy" for this situation would include Supreme Court action on every specific violation of the law (assuming that such violations, as in the case of secret material, ever become known) -- but given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I submit that a much more logical remedy is in fact impeachment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I love the way you put this. Especially because, in order for it to conform to the Constitution, I want everyone else here to read it as "interpreting statutes so that they conform to the Constitution is an exceedingly rare and highly illegal exercise."
I don't think you've truly appreciated the difficulties
Let's look at a situation where Congress and the President pass a an unconstitutional law. The President enforces it and no case or controversy arises to allow its adjudication.
Is your contention that the next President must continue to act in a way he believes to violate the Constitution?
Let's take another example: a SCOTUS decision strikes down law A. The underlying rationale provides very strong reasons
quote:Seriously, why do you try so hard to not depict this as a willful refusal on the part of the executive branch to enforce laws handed down from the legislature?
I think this is the heart of the disagreement. I'm not trying hard. This is basic stuff - not the ultimate resolution of the issues, but the idea that this is the process by which our government resolves separation of powers issues.
To me, it looks as if you're the one trying hard to make this an impeachment-worthy offense. I get that you don't think this is what our government should be. But it's what it is.
I'm really kind of annoyed that Paul (and you, although I wasn't responding to you at the time) didn't comment on my clarification of when authoritative interpretations should be used in judging acts, because to me it's the most important part of this whole controversy.
quote:It is accurate as far as the mechanics, but the mechanics are but one part of how Congress operates. The political difficulties of such an action would be astounding (unfortunately), and that is with the most favorable political clime for such an action in decades.
Now, the political situation could be improved, given a few years work by a political thinktank targeted at the issue of tools for the branches to effect balance of powers influence, but that isn't likely.
If Tom can ignore the political difficulties of impeachment, I can ignore the political difficulties of Congress actually passing laws that do what they repeatedly say they want them to do.
Undoing an election because Congress can't grow the political balls necessary to actually deal with a situation seems to be attacking the problem backwards.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I'm really kind of annoyed that Paul (and you, although I wasn't responding to you at the time) didn't comment on my clarification of when authoritative interpretations should be used in judging acts, because to me it's the most important part of this whole controversy."
I had simply been thinking in terms of wrong doing. You were thinking in terms of legal wrong doing. Your clarification identified to me why we were approaching the issue differently.
That said, I think that 750 signing states (as of a oouple months ago) goes way beyond what is common practice in our government, and I think its quite clear that many of these signing statements indicate a willful disregard for constitution. The "unitary executive" theory that bush operates under is flatly contradicted, explicitly, by the constitution, and aside from being a theory that doesn't hold legal water from the documents that govern our country, its one that has repeatedly been shot down by the courts on every level. And, worse, the unitary executive theory is completely indistinguishable from the "military dictatorship theory" of government, and, as such, to me, a president who advocates for it is not only untrustworthy, but if he tries to act on it, should immediately be impeached.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
"Why not impeach the President?"
1) Because that would put Mr. Cheney in charge, and that is a much scarier proposition than having President Bush as the boss.
2) Because there isn't enough strong evidence to support anything more than a trusting President with some incompetent employees.
3) The government, country, and people of the United States does not need the farce and degradation such a media circus would create.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The President enforces it and no case or controversy arises to allow its adjudication.
Is your contention that the next President must continue to act in a way he believes to violate the Constitution?
Yes, actually. But I think the president is in a position where he could easily create such a case or controversy, if he so desired. It's much easier for him to do so than for the legislature to do so, in fact.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dan:
1) So impeach Cheney first. That's probably easier, anyway.
2) Given that 80% of the job of a modern president is to pick out competent employees, that's not much of a rebuttal.
3) As compared to the farce and degradation that the continued presence of the Bush Administration would create?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The "unitary executive" theory that bush operates under is flatly contradicted, explicitly, by the constitution
You can see why the opinion of numerous constitutional scholars might matter to me more in this regard, can't you? And that's not to say that constitutional scholars are in agreement about this. Just that there is a large body of very smart people who don't think it "flatly contradicted, explicitly, by the Constitution." And some of those actually don't agree with the theory of the unitary executive.
quote:aside from being a theory that doesn't hold legal water from the documents that govern our country, its one that has repeatedly been shot down by the courts on every level.
That's not true, either. Court decisions have disagreed with certain interpretations of it, but it has not been "shot down" as a theory by the courts.
quote:And, worse, the unitary executive theory is completely indistinguishable from the "military dictatorship theory" of government
This isn't true, either.
quote:Yes, actually. But I think the president is in a position where he could easily create such a case or controversy, if he so desired. It's much easier for him to do so than for the legislature to do so, in fact.
How can he do this if he's following the law? At best he can wait for someone else to do it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I want everyone else here to read it as "interpreting statutes so that they conform to the Constitution is an exceedingly rare and highly illegal exercise."
And let's be clear about this: it is neither rare not highly illegal to interpret statutes so that they conform to the Constitution. It is, in fact, very common and mandated by currently accepted constitutional jurisprudence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I had simply been thinking in terms of wrong doing. You were thinking in terms of legal wrong doing. Your clarification identified to me why we were approaching the issue differently.
I still haven't conveyed my meaning then. I, too, am talking about wrongdoing, but a specific form of wrongdoing that requires more than simply doing wrong.
Paying too little on taxes is wrong, but it's not immoral if the cause is a mathematical error. If it's willful, then it's fraud and dishonesty.
Nor is it wrongdoing to pay fewer taxes than one owes based on a belief that the law requires the lower payment. I might argue with someone about their being wrong in their interpretation of the law, but I wouldn't consider them to be doing wrong at a level that requires official sanction.
At the time it becomes clear that the law requires the payment (generally after the conclusion of judicial proceedings), not paying becomes a wrong that requires sanction. But putting forth the contention as to why one doesn't owe the taxes prior to that is not wrongdoing requiring official sanction, even if it is wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:3) As compared to the farce and degradation that the continued presence of the Bush Administration would create?
Impeaching President Bush at this time for the reasons currently being discussed would certainly be viewed by other countries as a denouncement of all our current actions oversear, i.e. Iraq/Afghanistan. Now perhaps that's an added bonus to you, but I really can't think how you impeach a president for misusing his executive powers, in the middle of a major foreign policy action, without making foreigners think that its the ACTION that is also being condemned.
To me, there's a chance Iraq could get better, but to impeach Bush now, at this point, makes Iraq a certain lost cause. It also signifies a complete stop to our aggressive push against Islamo Facism, and that is not something I would like to see happen.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You can see why the opinion of numerous constitutional scholars might matter to me more in this regard, can't you? And that's not to say that constitutional scholars are in agreement about this. Just that there is a large body of very smart people who don't think it "flatly contradicted, explicitly, by the Constitution." And some of those actually don't agree with the theory of the unitary executive."
I can certainly see why the opinion of constitutional scholars might matter more to you. I would suggest, though, that the constitutional text should matter more then what they think, though.
Constitutional scholars who don't think that the unitary executive theory is flatly contradicted by the constituion haven't read the document they are purportedly scholars of, at least not recently enough or carefully enough to realize the theory is not possible to support textually.
"That's not true, either. Court decisions have disagreed with certain interpretations of it, but it has not been "shot down" as a theory by the courts."
Sure it has. Everytime that the courts rule the executive can't do something that is part of the executives role, the unitary executive theory is shot down. The unitary executive theory, as I understand it, states that the only person who can make decisions about the executive branch is the executive, and that all (ie 100%) of the "executive functions" of government are part of the executive branch. All it takes for a court to be shooting down the theory is to rule that something that is an executive function is shared by multiple branches.
"This isn't true, either."
What an *effective* debunking.
One of Bush's signing statements was on a law making it impermissible for the military to maintain information that was gathered illegally. Bush wrote that information gathered illegally could indeed be kept by the military if the pentagon wanted to keep it. By the same logic bush got there, which is the logic of the unitary executive, as long as it is the military performing an action, then ONLY the executive can determine whether "illegal" means anything. Another phrase for this is "military dictatorship."
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
When you find me the part of the constitution that says members of the executive branch aren't members of the united states government, then I'll take seriously claims that the unitary executive theory is not flatly contradicted by the constitution.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How can he do this if he's following the law?
Given half the things we've had signing statements about recently, all he'd have to do is say "okay, I'm doing the following things because I have to, thanks to Congress, but I think they border on the unconstitutional."
=========
quote:And let's be clear about this: it is neither rare not highly illegal to interpret statutes so that they conform to the Constitution.
Which, of course, means that it's both rare and illegal to do so, as I've decided we should interpret what you're saying. I'm sorry if your clear and explicit sentence is meant to convey some other meaning, but I have perfectly good reasons to think that it should mean something else. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Constitutional scholars who don't think that the unitary executive theory is flatly contradicted by the constituion haven't read the document they are purportedly scholars of, at least not recently enough or carefully enough to realize the theory is not possible to support textually.
You know, that's just not true. It might be comfortable for you to think that, but they read it often.
quote:Sure it has. Everytime that the courts rule the executive can't do something that is part of the executives role, the unitary executive theory is shot down. The unitary executive theory, as I understand it, states that the only person who can make decisions about the executive branch is the executive, and that all (ie 100%) of the "executive functions" of government are part of the executive branch. All it takes for a court to be shooting down the theory is to rule that something that is an executive function is shared by multiple branches.
Then you don't understand it, or you only understand a single version of it. The heart of the theory regards the vesting of executive discretion in entities or persons other than the President.
quote:The unitary executive doctrine, in its mildest form, claims only that the President has the power to appoint, control, and remove executive officers, as well as the duty to interpret the law as it applies to his office.
Note that in the article Froomkin, a well-known opponent of the theory, oversimplifies it just as you are doing.
quote:But advocates differ on the degree of executive authority. Some believe only that Congress cannot create agencies or officers that operate outside the president's direction. Others contend the president has executive powers beyond those granted by Congress or listed in the Constitution.
quote:What an *effective* debunking.
It wasn't meant as a debunking. It was meant as a contradiction, which, coincidentally, included exactly much support as the original assertion which it contradicted.
quote:One of Bush's signing statements was on a law making it impermissible for the military to maintain information that was gathered illegally. Bush wrote that information gathered illegally could indeed be kept by the military if the pentagon wanted to keep it. By the same logic bush got there, which is the logic of the unitary executive, as long as it is the military performing an action, then ONLY the executive can determine whether "illegal" means anything. Another phrase for this is "military dictatorship."
Yes, because keeping information is the same as every other possible action that the military might undertake. Beyond that, the power of the purse is enough to make Bush's view - even if it is an extreme version of the unitary executive - less than a military dictatorship.
quote:When you find me the part of the constitution that says members of the executive branch aren't members of the united states government, then I'll take seriously claims that the unitary executive theory is not flatly contradicted by the constitution.
When you talk about the unitary theory of the executive as it's actually promulgated, including recognizing the wide range of views within the larger umbrella of "unitary executive," rather than this caricature, I'll take seriously your claim that it is. The article most widely cited as defining the unitary executive contains a detailed textual analysis of the Constitution, which makes an accusation that they haven't read it recently or carefully an untenable accusation. They read it and reached a different accusation than you. Is that really too hard for you to accept?
P.S., "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Paul: would you care to quote the parts of the Constitution that contradict the notion of a unitary executive? I think the notion is wrong (at least as currently popularly asserted by certain politicians and pundits) and pretty much completely undermined by what we know of the Constitutional process, but there is a reading of the Constitution consistent with it.
I'd be quite happy if you would provide the quotations from the Constitution that show otherwise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which, of course, means that it's both rare and illegal to do so, as I've decided we should interpret what you're saying. I'm sorry if your clear and explicit sentence is meant to convey some other meaning, but I have perfectly good reasons to think that it should mean something else
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm asserting a very simple fact: Interpreting laws so that they conform to the constitution is a common and legal activity.
Read it as written. Do you think it's not common? Do you think it's not legal? If either, can you cite some sources for that?
I can cite dozens of cases in which it is done.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think he's attempting some weak humor based on your 'not' instead of 'nor' typo.
On a complete side note, I wonder how far the power of the purse could be taken. For instance, could the Congress pass a law preventing the paperwork for firing the holder of a certain office from being processed (by explicitly denying any funds that would be involved in the time and materials)?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I did, fugu. Or, at least, one part. This first one. But there are others.
1) Article 1 section 8, grants congress the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Congress has the power to make laws governing the power of the executive branch, members of the executive branch, and departments within the executive branch, and the executive power.
2) Article 1, section 1 "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Article 2 section 1 "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Notice the distinct difference? While ALL legislative powers are vested in congress, the executive power is vested in the president. Interesting difference, I think. Especially when we note that the judicial power, and not all the judicial power, is vested in the supreme court and other inferior courts. Why isn't all the judicial power vested in the courts? Because the legislature explicitly is granted some judicial power. So, if we read carefully, the executive power is notvested ENTIRELY in an executive.
3) Within Article 2, various powers of the executive are distinctly stated to be shared. E.G. Treaties, appointment of judges and other officials.
4) Article 2, Section 3 "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," E.g. the president does NOT have the power to direct that portions of laws passed by congress governing the conduct of the executive branch be ignored.
5) Article 6 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; "
Even the president has to obey the law.
It is my opinion that, in general, a hypothesis or theory, not only in science, but in textual interpretation, philosophy, history, or any other area of inquiry, is valid as long as it is not contradicted by other evidence. The theory of the unitary executive is contradicted in several places by the text of the constutition, meaning, in my view, that it is not a valid or rational theory to hold to be true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Notice the distinct difference? While ALL legislative powers are vested in congress, the executive power is vested in the president. Interesting difference, I think. Especially when we note that the judicial power, and not all the judicial power, is vested in the supreme court and other inferior courts. Why isn't all the judicial power vested in the courts? Because the legislature explicitly is granted some judicial power. So, if we read carefully, the executive power is notvested ENTIRELY in an executive.
"All legislative Powers herein granted" v. "The executive Power" is not a strong argument in favor of the former being broader than the latter. In fact, it's cited by supporters of the theory as distinguishing the enumerated nature of the legislative power from the non-enumerated nature of the executive power. There are thousands of pages of analysis based on those very points and other portions of the text that come to a very different conclusion than you do.
Your insistence that this is not a rational (as in capable of being supported by reason) theory to hold simply makes you look as extremist as some of the Bush supporters. Have you read Calabresi's & Rhode's article and the ongoing debate?
quote:4) Article 2, Section 3 "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," E.g. the president does NOT have the power to direct that portions of laws passed by congress governing the conduct of the executive branch be ignored.
5) Article 6 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; "
Further, "the Laws" specifically include the Constitution - this is the whole basis of Marbury v. Madison, that, in determining the law to be applied, the law must be read on light of the Constitution.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
""All legislative Powers herein granted" v. "The executive Power" is not a strong argument in favor of the former being broader than the latter. In fact, it's cited by supporters of the theory as distinguishing the enumerated nature of the legislative power from the non-enumerated nature of the executive power."
Enumerated vs non-enumerated is not the same as shared vs unshared.
"Your insistence that this is not a rational (as in capable of being supported by reason) theory to hold simply makes you look as extremist as some of the Bush supporters."
I can't help but notice, though, that the text of the document STILL flat contradicts the unitary executive theory (at least any unitary executive theory that states that the executive branch is not beholden to laws written by congress that govern the execution of the powers of the constitution). Article 1 section 8 grants the power to write the laws governing the executive branch to the CONGRESS, and article 2 does NOT grant the executive the power to interpret those laws, or state that the offices of the executive do not need to follow the laws as written. Rather, it demands that he take care to faithfully execute them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Enumerated vs non-enumerated is not the same as shared vs unshared.
True.
quote:I can't help but notice, though, that the text of the document STILL flat contradicts the unitary executive theory.
No, it doesn't.
quote:Article 1 section 8 grants the power to write the laws governing the executive branch to the CONGRESS, and article 2 does NOT grant the executive the power to interpret those laws. Rather, it demands that he take care to faithfully execute them.
Yes, to faithfully execute the laws which, as we know, includes the constitution.
Except in rare cases (such as the "chilling effect" doctrine WRT free expression), laws that are constitutionally overbroad - that is, laws that on their face could mandate constitutional violations - are still enforced. They are simply interpreted to exclude those situations in which it would be unconstitutional to enforce them. This is a very common thing. It's literally done daily in police departments across the country as well as throughout government.
You seem to think that any law that limits executive action is counter to the unitary theory of the executive - that is, if you can demonstrate that Congress can constitutionally limit the executive's actions, then you have demonstrated that the unitary executive is invalid. It's not. No one is contending that actions of the executive cannot be limited by Congress. Not Bush, not his various lawyers, no one.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Further, "the Laws" specifically include the Constitution - this is the whole basis of Marbury v. Madison, that, in determining the law to be applied, the law must be read on light of the Constitution."
Yup, I agree with that. And I don't see the part of the constitution that grants the executive the power to ignore laws written by congress, or not faithfully execute the laws.
I can understand an executive understanding a law, and enforcing it, in one way. Thats perfectly within his role, because the executive can only enforce laws as he understands them. But, in such a case, if the congress clarified what the meaning of the law was through further written law, the executive would be constitutionally bound to execute the law as clarified by congress. Or, if the executive thinks a law might be unconstitutional as written, it appears to me as if he has two options: Enforce the law as written and wait for a constitutional challenge to the execution of the law, or ask for constitutional clarification from the judiciary, because none of the powers granted to the executive states he has the power to interpret the constitution. Only to enforce the laws (execution of the laws), and his duties as commander in chief (such duties which, again, are governed by the legislature, since the legislature has the constitutional power to write laws governing ANY member of the U.S government, which would include all military personnel).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Per your edit:
quote:I can't help but notice, though, that the text of the document STILL flat contradicts the unitary executive theory (at least any unitary executive theory that states that the executive branch is not beholden to laws written by congress that govern the execution of the powers of the constitution).
No unitary theory states that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Lets put this on very specific grounds, dagonee, looking at examples of how bush has used a signing statement, so as to get rid of the baggage of the unitary executive.
In 2004, Congress passed a law forbidding US troops in columbia from engaging in combat against rebels, except in self-defence.
Bush wrote a signing statement declaring this to be "advisory in nature."
Do you, personally, believe that this signing statement is constitutional? And, if so, on what grounds?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Or, if the executive thinks a law might be unconstitutional as written, it appears to me as if he has two options: Enforce the law as written and wait for a constitutional challenge to the execution of the law,
First, "enforce the law as written" is hardly as simple as you make it appear. The courts spend far more time interpreting statutes than the Constitution. So does the executive branch. It's a very complex matter, with lots of rules of construction (some of them contradictory) that are used in the process. One of those rules is the one I've mentioned repeatedly - interpreting laws so as to avoid bringing their constitutionality into question.
quote:or ask for constitutional clarification from the judiciary, because none of the powers granted to the executive states he has the power to interpret the constitution.
First, the ways in which he can do that are very limited. Second, in cases where the law mandates the President do something unconstitutional, he is not required to undertake the unconstitutional action and wait to be sued. My comments above referencing the chilling effect as an exception to the usual practice of excluding unconstitutional applications of laws also apply here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you, personally, believe that this signing statement is constitutional? And, if so, on what grounds?
First, every signing statement is constitutional. Actions taken in accordance with those signing statements may or may not be. That is an important distinction.
Second, anyone who answers that without reading both the bill and the signing statement is leaping to conclusions. I haven't read either. If you care to link them, I'll get to them sometime in the next day or two.
Third, you seem to be confusing my comments concerning your overly broad statements on the unitary executive theory with support for everything Bush has done in its name. That is a mistake.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Third, you seem to be confusing my comments concerning your overly broad statements on the unitary executive theory with support for everything Bush has done in its name."
I'm not, really. I'm trying to get away from general unitary executive theories, to a specific one, i.e. the one bush is acting under, and then trying to understand your take on that particular unitary theory.
"Second, in cases where the law mandates the President do something unconstitutional, he is not required to undertake the unconstitutional action and wait to be sued."
I agree. But its also not his job to determine whether something is constitutional or not. I agree he sometimes has to make a judgement call on that. If he does, there's several ways to handle that situation, none of which are secretly drafting a signing statement directing the specific department in question to ignore parts of the law.
"First, every signing statement is constitutional."
Really? I certainly understand how a signing statement would be constitutional given two conditions: 1) Congress is made aware of the signing statement 2) The signing statement is a declaration of understanding, and not a directive.
"First, the ways in which he can do that are very limited."
Not out of any constitutional necessity. I think the US in general would much benefit from a few legislative actions easing access to the SC for clarification questions. I know that MA has an option where the legislature can send a proposed bill to the SJC before voting on it to ask whether or not the law would pass muster. I think having a federal version of this, both for the executive, and the legislature, would be beneficial. This wouldn't be a binding, or full, decision, but a way for the president to ask, perhaps 3 SC justices "Congress just sent me this law about troops in columbia. I think that it is only advisory in nature. Can you give me a quick and dirty opinion on that?" And, of course, such a process should be completely transparent.
There's probably a lot of kinks that would have to be worked on in that fast and dirty proposal, but its not like dozens of supreme courts don't already do something like this.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Tom:
1) Agreed. Of course, getting the proof to do a legal impeachment of Mr. Cheney will be difficult since it will be hidden behind "Executive Privilege". Congress can't even get together a "no-Confidence" vote on an Attorney General who lied to them several times. Doing chain impeachments within the next two years is not likely.
2) While it is a shame when the President does not meet our requests for hiring Competent individuals, their is no room in the constitution for impeachment on the grounds of incompetence, stupidity or laziness.
3) Black Blade answered this fairly well. Yes, there will be a whole new level of farce and incompetence perceived by the world if an impeachment trial were to be had. It hurt the US when such a farce was practiced upon President Clinton, and it will hurt us to try again on President Bush--unless new proof of treason, corruption, or such were to come to light.
Gee. Who would have thought that I would be arguing with Tom and agreeing with Blackblade?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As Dagonee has aptly handled, your definition of a unitary executive is not consistent with what even particularly strained versions of the unitary executive interpretation assert.
A more cautious approach based on the actual debate might be warranted.
Moving to this quotation:
quote:Yup, I agree with that. And I don't see the part of the constitution that grants the executive the power to ignore laws written by congress, or not faithfully execute the laws.
Imagine a scenario. Congress has passed a blatantly unconstitutional law (we'll make this as simple as possible: perhaps the law says the President is no longer Commander in Chief and cannot act as if holding that post). The president looks at it and looks at the Constitution, and is sworn to uphold the law. The Constitution is part of the law, and trumps (as stated) laws passed by Congress. The President continues to act as Commander in Chief. Has the president done something wrong?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Paul: signing statements are always Constitutional because they're nothing more than words. The President could make a signing statement saying he is the supreme ruler of the universe, and unless he performed an illegal act (which making a signing statement isn't, unless you'd care to point me to a law that says otherwise) there'd be nothing illegal happening.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not out of any constitutional necessity. I think the US in general would much benefit from a few legislative actions easing access to the SC for clarification questions. I know that MA has an option where the legislature can send a proposed bill to the SJC before voting on it to ask whether or not the law would pass muster. I think having a federal version of this, both for the executive, and the legislature, would be beneficial. This wouldn't be a binding, or full, decision, but a way for the president to ask, perhaps 3 SC justices "Congress just sent me this law about troops in columbia. I think that it is only advisory in nature. Can you give me a quick and dirty opinion on that?" And, of course, such a process should be completely transparent.
I tend to agree that something like that might be good, but there is a constitutional limitation on this, called the "cases and controversies doctrine." There must be a real case or controversy - the court considers itself constitutionally prohibited from issuing advisory opinions. Contrast that with the Mass. Supreme Court's advisory opinion in the gay marriage case - that would be absolutely unconstitutional according to current SCOTUS jurisprudence.
The biggest problem with it is ensuring that both sides get a hearing - we have an adversarial system, and courts are set up to make decisions in light of two (or more) sides presenting their strongest arguments. This is not insurmountable - allow the sponsor of the legislation, any legislator who will oppose, and the President to have their opinion argued and briefed, and the problem is mostly solved. We still have the problem of lacking a factual background - which the court has said is one of the key policy reasons for the cases and controversies requirement - but that can be worked around by allowing each side to allege its facts and then treating the issue as a summary judgment-type hearing (each position examined with the facts viewed in the best light to their opponents).
I agree the kinks can be worked out, but it's still unconstitutional as you describe it and I can't think of a modification that saves it while preserving its central features.
quote:I'm not, really. I'm trying to get away from general unitary executive theories, to a specific one, i.e. the one bush is acting under, and then trying to understand your take on that particular unitary theory.
OK, that's fair. If you link them, I'll review them. My answer will be based on an assumption that the President, directly or indirectly, has ordered or authorized troops to engage in the actions at issue in the signing statement, to keep it distinct from the issue below.
quote:Really? I certainly understand how a signing statement would be constitutional given two conditions: 1) Congress is made aware of the signing statement 2) The signing statement is a declaration of understanding, and not a directive.
Can you link one that you consider a directive? I think we have a terminology difference again and I'd like to clarify before commenting.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I would argue that he should either enforce the law, or request clarification from the SC, or request clarification from congress. I'd also suggest he has the power to veto that law... actions he hasn't taken with any of the laws in question. In any of those, other then enforcing the law, we've got transparency... an open question of the constitutionality of an act of congress. Bush has avoided, as hard as possible, letting ANYONE other then his advisors know when he thinks there is a constitutional question with bills that he has signed into law.
But we're not dealing with questions like that. We're not dealing with congress passing laws that are outside the realm of the constitution. We're talking about congress passing laws governing the conduct of executive branch officers, requesting information, establishing command chains (education sciences law passed in 2002 which was explictly created outside of the department of the secretary of education. Bush's signing statement said it wasn't), laws specifying that the military may not use evidence gathered illegally, etc. In other words, we are talking about laws that are spefically about executing the powers of the constitution, or governing the conduct of members of the us government.
This power is EXPLICITLY granted to congress by the constituion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: request clarification from congress.
The clarification from Congress is highly problematic. My biggest problems both with signing statements and legislative history with respect to interpreting the law is that they both rely on the fictional assumption that laws are created with a single idea of their meaning.
This problem is even worse in a post-hoc clarification situation. Whom do you ask? Anyone less than a majority of each house of Congress (this goes back to Chahda again) means that the law (as it will be enforced if the clarification is binding) is actually being enacted by a portion of Congress, not all of it. And even a majority can be overriden by the veto (which I agree Bush should have used more to express his concerns).
I wish there were a conditional veto power for the President that basically said "this is unclear. The law will be interpreted this way." Then Congress could - on simple majority - reject that interpretation, meaning the law is vetoed, or override the conditional veto via 2/3 of each house, meaning the law is passed and the Presidential interpretation is null and void - to be explicitly rejected by courts in the future. If Congress did not act at all, the interpretation would be binding.
This would remove my objection about Congress other than as a whole.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Can you link one that you consider a directive? I think we have a terminology difference again and I'd like to clarify before commenting."
An example I am thinking of is, in august 2005, congress passed a whistleblower law for the department of energy and nuclear regulatory commission, basically protecting people from retaliatory action if they gave information to congress. Bush wrote a signing statement directing employees of those agencies not to give information to congress, and that he or his appointees will determne whether an employee may talk to congress.
In october 2004, congress passed a law forbidding the defence department from interfering with military lawyers giving independent legal council to their commanders.
In response, bush issued a signing statement directing all military lawyers to only give legal council consistent with the administrations lawyers in the justice department and the department of defence.
In november 2003, congress passed a law specifying that US officials in iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the coalition from carrying out an investigation. Bush issued a signing statement saying "Title III of the Act creates an Inspector General (IG) of the CPA. Title III shall be construed in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The CPA IG shall refrain from initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administrative units of the Department of Defense related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security. The Secretary of Defense may make exceptions to the foregoing direction in the public interest."
He cannot request clarification from the SC (see Dagonee, above, though in this case I bet he'd have standing to sue to use the power; if you want I can substitute another blatantly unconstitutional law which doesn't directly affect the President except insofar as he enforces it, or we can imagine a military crisis is under way making the time for a lawsuit prohibitive), and Congress was presumably clear in what they were stating. So I repeat, given our current legal framework, what is the President to do?
And Congress certainly has passed laws that are blatantly unconstitutional in the past (not that bad, but close), and I'd bet parts of the executive branch have at times not chosen to execute such laws.
And of course, there's one simple thing: by executing an unconstitutional law passed by Congress, the President would be violating the law, not upholding it.
In particular, read the clause you are so fond of:
quote:To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The only laws that fall under that clause are those which are otherwise Constitutional (see: "proper"; it is also worth noting that court decisions have varied over time as to how "necessary" is to be determined), so if Congress passes a law which is unconstitutional, it holds no authority over the President (insofar as it is unconstitutional).
And I don't think Bush is a very good President, and agree that many of the actions you point out are suspect and/or bad, et cetera. That, however, does not mean I'm not going to be extremely careful and thoughtful before deciding an act of his is illegal. I will, for instance, apply a higher standard than "he did it a lot", one which has been proposed in this thread.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I am out for the afternoon.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
One last thing, and then I am REALLY out for the afternoon:
According to Bush's own justice deparment, any law passed by congress has a strong presumption of constitutionality... an interpretation belied by the fact that bush is around 1000 constitutional objections raised by signing statements.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I assume this is the section you refer to:
quote:The executive branch shall construe the amendments to section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act made by section 629 of the Act, as they relate to dissemination of official information by employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.
Where does it do this?
quote:Bush wrote a signing statement directing employees of those agencies not to give information to congress, and that he or his appointees will determne whether an employee may talk to congress.
Perhaps Bush intended it to mean that. But he certainly didn't say so, so absent a specific instance where it has been interpreted to say so, I'm not sure where your statement is coming from.
If you want, I bet I can find similar unfounded extrapolations for the other signing statements you're complaining about.
Reading the signing statements, I do think Congress should start making it a matter of course to include 'or else' clauses: issue us the following reports as we dictate or else we cut off some essential part of the executive branch's funding.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:An example I am thinking of is, in august 2005, congress passed a whistleblower law for the department of energy and nuclear regulatory commission, basically protecting people from retaliatory action if they gave information to congress. Bush wrote a signing statement directing employees of those agencies not to give information to congress, and that he or his appointees will determne whether an employee may talk to congress.
quote:Today, I have signed into law H.R. 6, the "Energy Policy Act of 2005." This legislation promotes dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for America's future.
The executive branch shall construe section 365(e)(2) of the Act, which purports to require disclosure of an internal executive branch recommendation, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and preserve the confidentiality of its deliberations.
The executive branch shall construe the statement in section 110(d) of the Act, that the Congress reserves the right to revert to previous schedules for daylight savings time, as referring to reversion by enactment of a law in accordance with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements specified in the Constitution.
The executive branch shall construe the amendments to section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act made by section 629 of the Act, as they relate to dissemination of official information by employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.
The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act that purport to direct the conduct of communications, negotiations, and other relations with foreign governments and international organizations, including sections 643(c)(2), 795(d), 814, 972, and 985 of the Act, and sections 732, 734(a)(2), 736, and 737 of the Global Environmental Protection Assistance Act as contained in section 1611 of the Act, in a manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of authority to conduct the Nation's foreign relations.
Provisions of the Act, including sections 342(j), 351(h)(3), 704(c), 706(e)(5), 957(a)(2)(C), 1221(b), 1234(c), 1272(2), 1509(b)(2), 1541(c)(6), 1831(c), 1835, and 1836(b)(2), section 543(a)(3) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act contained in section 102(b), and section 170H(f)(3)(B) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 contained in section 651(d)(1), purport to require executive branch officials to submit legislative recommendations to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of the authority to submit for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient and to supervise the unitary executive branch.
The executive branch shall construe the reference in section 631(b) of the Act, to awaiting action by the Congress, as providing for the Congress a reasonable period of time to consider the information furnished under section 631, as it is plain from the text and structure of section 631 that the reference is not intended to function as a prohibition.
The executive branch shall construe section 9007 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, contained in section 1528 of the Act, in a manner consistent with the various legal immunities conferred by the Constitution on members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Federal Government to protect the effective functioning of the three branches.
The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act that make legislative classifications based on race, ethnicity, or gender in a manner consistent with the requirement of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to afford equal protection of the laws.
GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, August 8, 2005.
I don't see anything I would call a "direction" in there.
Have a good afternoon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Reading the signing statements, I do think Congress should start making it a matter of course to include 'or else' clauses: issue us the following reports as we dictate or else we cut off some essential part of the executive branch's funding.
I agree, as long as worded so as to be self-executing (i.e., so as not to violate the requirement that Congress act as a whole).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Works for me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:According to Bush's own justice deparment, any law passed by congress has a strong presumption of constitutionality... an interpretation belied by the fact that bush is around 1000 constitutional objections raised by signing statements.
The "shall be interpreted in light of" formulation does not say anything about the law being unconstitutional. It says, of the many interpretations possible of this law, only constitutional ones shall be used.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Constitutional scholars who don't think that the unitary executive theory is flatly contradicted by the constituion haven't read the document they are purportedly scholars of, at least not recently enough or carefully enough to realize the theory is not possible to support textually.
Boy, I need to keep this one at the ready next time someone argues with Paul about global warming/climate change.
This supports my opinion that for most people (myself often included, I'm reluctant to admit), the opinions of experts don't really matter very much on an issue where we've made up our minds already.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think he's attempting some weak humor based on your 'not' instead of 'nor' typo.
No. I'm demonstrating how incredibly annoying it is to have your words -- or laws -- completely subverted and reversed by someone who does not recognize your right to speak clearly in this regard.
I could simply announce that we must "interpret" everything Dag says in light of my take on reality. What recourse, then, is available to Dag?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I could simply announce that we must "interpret" everything Dag says in light of my take on reality. What recourse, then, is available to Dag?
My recourse is simply to ignore your tiresome little quips until you want to participate honestly in this and to acknowledge that, whatever Pollyanna world you want to live in, in the real world: 1) statutory interpretation is HARD; 2)there are commonly accepted standards for doing to, although these standards can produce wildly different results; and 3) interpreting laws so as to avoid raising constitutional questions is one of the oldest and most widely accepted of those principles.
You might think you're clever, but you are smart enough to understand the difference in what I'm saying and your stupid little example.
For one, when you don't know what I mean, you can ask me. You can't ask Congress what they mean beyond the words of the statute - and it's the words of the stature that must be interpreted.
Let's look at the patent code for a minute (35 U.S.C):
quote:101. Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
...
103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Are you going to pretend that what I said - even with my stupid typo - isn't clear compared to that?
What does "obvious" mean? What is "ordinary skill" and "the art to which said subject matter pertains?"
It requires interpretation. I'ts not clear. And the executive, as much as the judiciary, is responsible for interpreting it.
And this is the simplest part of the Patent Code.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:1) statutory interpretation is HARD; 2)there are commonly accepted standards for doing to, although these standards can produce wildly different results; and 3) interpreting laws so as to avoid raising constitutional questions is one of the oldest and most widely accepted of those principles.
Dag, the bulk of the signing statements mentioned in this thread are not issues where people are looking at the text and going, "Oh, gee, I'm not sure what 'obvious' means in this context." They're situations in which Bush looks at a clear and unambiguous law and says, "I don't believe that I, for various Constitutional reasons, have to do that."
Bush isn't confused by the law. He's not clearing up some matter of interpretation. He's saying, "I don't think Congress can require me to do this, so I won't."
There's no "HARD" there, especially not in capital letters. There's a solid difference in interpretation. You know how I feel about the whole "Imperial Executive" thing; I'd even do away with the executive branch if someone granted me a bunch of wishes. So when the issue boils down to whether or not the "unitary executive" position is a sound, moral, and sensible one or not, and when the court has been arguably packed with people who might well support just such an odious approach, you can understand why I'm advocating action within the legislature.
We're not talking about people niggling over the definition of "ordinary skill," mind you. I know you keep trying to bring it back to that, to present these as if they were part of some larger body of normal, healthy interpretations of law. But they're not "interpretations;" they're repudiations of law. They're very carefully parsed so as to be defensible -- the Bush Administration is good at nothing if not legal defensibilty -- but they're corruptive nonetheless. And, yeah, I know they're not unique in that regard -- but I suspect that they are unique in both boldness and volume.
quote:My recourse is simply to ignore your tiresome little quips...
Except, of course, that Congress can't ignore the President. So the next step might be to appeal to the mod (assuming you didn't want to stop posting altogether). But if I picked the mod, how useful do you think that might be?
---------
You mentioned earlier that if one believed that the president and the Supreme Court were both hopelessly corrupted, that violent revolution might be a better solution. My argument remains that impeachment is both less bloody AND more respectful of the framework of the Constitution.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: since your assertion is that the law is "clear and unambiguous" on the points Bush is making signing statements regarding, would you care to quote some of that "clear and unambiguous" law and a signing statement that interprets it in a way contradictory to what is stated? I'll start by only asking for two or three examples.
edit: please provide specific quotations, I'm not going to try and interpret which parts of laws or signing statements you're talking about. If there is some clear and unambiguous aspect of a law being interpreted in an impossible way, there will be direct quotations to that effect.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:would you care to quote some of that "clear and unambiguous" law and a signing statement that interprets it in a way contradictory to what is stated?
I'll actually point to the one that's already been cited here, since it's a good example of both the sort of law I'm talking about and Bush's response.
Now, you can argue that Bush's "We shall interpret this law according to the Constitution" notation in the signing statement is somehow not a "we won't do this," but that's only because he didn't say, in writing, in that signing statement, "we won't do this." After all, "we'll interpret this law in accordance with the Constitution" isn't something you normally need to make explicit; it's pretty much a given that you're interpreting the law in accordance with the Constitution. It's only necessary to say that you're going to "interpret" the law if you believe -- or are at least going to assert -- that the law as written is unconstitutional in some way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, the bulk of the signing statements mentioned in this thread are not issues where people are looking at the text and going, "Oh, gee, I'm not sure what 'obvious' means in this context." They're situations in which Bush looks at a clear and unambiguous law and says, "I don't believe that I, for various Constitutional reasons, have to do that."
It's not just the law, but the constitution that has to be interpreted, Tom.
quote:I'll actually point to the one that's already been cited here, since it's a good example of both the sort of law I'm talking about and Bush's response.
The unconstitutionality of a Congressional committee approval for spending funds is about as settled as these things ever get. Congress passed a clearly unconstitutional provision IF they meant actual approval, instead of notification.
It's not allowed. If you're all for separation of powers, why aren't you going on about this?
By the way, how are you saying that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is unambiguous? It hasn't been linked - did you go back and read the bill?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:SEC. 110. DAYLIGHT SAVINGS. (d) Congress retains the right to revert the Daylight Saving Time back to the 2005 time schedules once the Department study is complete.
There are two ways to interpret this: either Congress means 1) it can pass a law, which the President can sign or veto, in order to revert; or 2) Congress can pass a resolution by majority in both houses and, without Presidential signature, Daylight Savings time will revert.
Both are perfectly reasonable interpretations. The first is absolutely unnecessary - Congress can alway pass a law to undo an existing law or treaty. One Congress cannot bind another.
The second happens to be blatantly unconstitutional. Now tell me why the President shouldn't clarify as he signs the bill that he thinks Congress didn't violate the Constitution.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's not allowed. If you're all for separation of powers, why aren't you going on about this?
I'm not "all for separation of powers." I'm generally opposed to powerful executives; I don't think we need a balance; I think we need a parliament.
quote:By the way, how are you saying that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is unambiguous?
Specifically, Section 365(e)(2) is relatively unambiguous. For that matter, Bush's reply to that section -- that it "purports to require" -- is pretty unambiguous, too. Congress is saying "you'll do the following." Bush is replying, "No, I won't. You quite literally can't make me."
And what worries me about this is that this sort of exchange, like other exchanges before it, can later be used as precedent for assuming even greater power by a future executive. "Look," they'll say. "Lincoln did this. And Bush did this. So clearly I have the authority to do this." The worst thing about that is that the Supreme Court has a tendency to look at exactly that sort of situation when making its determination; mistakes of the past become justifications for bad policies of the future.
----------
quote:Now tell me why the President shouldn't clarify as he signs the bill that he thinks Congress didn't violate the Constitution.
Honestly? Because a better method of dealing with the same situation, which does not require "interpreting" Congress, is to either veto the bill or, when Congress attempts to exercise unconstitutional power, put it before the Supreme Court at that time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let's look at this one:
quote:SEC. 342(j) (2) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress-- (A) assessing the effectiveness of granting preferences specified in paragraph (1); and (B) providing a specific recommendation on the continuation of authority to grant preferences.
Congress is demanding a specific recommendation from the President. There's a clause in the Constitution that states the President shall "recommend to [Congress's] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Congress has overstepped here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Congress has overstepped here.
According, certainly, to one interpretation of the Constitution. Why should the president get to make that decision without first having to obey it, or at least challenge it in court? Why should he be entitled to an "interpretation" that changes the entire nature of that section of the bill without vetoing the bill in whole (or in part, if we came up with line item vetoes)?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not "all for separation of powers." I'm generally opposed to powerful executives; I don't think we need a balance; I think we need a parliament.
Fine. Then be honest about it and demand a Constitutional amendment. Don't backdoor it in by desiring criminal charges against someone for using a form of interpretation that has been expressly mandated by the Supreme Court.
quote:Honestly? Because a better method of dealing with the same situation, which does not require "interpreting" Congress, is to either veto the bill or, when Congress attempts to exercise unconstitutional power, put it before the Supreme Court at that time.
Why is that better? It still requires interpreting Congress in order to determine if the bill should be vetoed. What you're asking for is impossible. You've yet to demonstrate that you appreciate at all the actual complexity involved here.
Congress (its legislation, specifically) must be interpreted. You've continually skipped over this point. Every section of that bill is open to multiple interpretations. There's no way to draft it otherwise. And some of those interpretations will be either clearly unconstitutional or be of doubtful constitutionality.
Quite frankly, I'd prefer it if the President didn't issue the signing statements, but instead acted as he believes is constitutional when the situation arises.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:According, certainly, to one interpretation of the Constitution. Why should the president get to make that decision without first having to obey it, or at least challenge it in court?
Why shouldn't he?
quote:Why should he be entitled to an "interpretation" that changes the entire nature of that section of the bill without vetoing the bill in whole (or in part, if we came up with line item vetoes)?
Because I could probably find a couple hundred places where "shall" does not mean "must absolutely do." Implicit conditions on "shall" run rampant through the law, many of which were endorsed - indeed, created - by SCOTUS.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Implicit conditions on "shall" run rampant through the law, many of which were endorsed - indeed, created - by SCOTUS.
I'd argue that this is an excellent example of bad precedent being used to justify bad policy. When "shall" is "interpreted" to mean "shall never," something's broken.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Gee. Who would have thought that I would be arguing with Tom and agreeing with Blackblade?
Didn't realize we had a track record for dissent.
I should point out that I don't think that impeachment of a president should ALWAYS be trumped by foreign policy, but Bush to me would have to be doing more then he is now for me to see impeachment as worth persuing in spite of some of the unintended side effects.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd argue that this is an excellent example of bad precedent being used to justify bad policy. [Smile] When "shall" is "interpreted" to mean "shall never," something's broken.
Why restate it? It's not interpreted as "shall never."
However, legislatures have a history of not reconciling existing laws with new laws, leaving courts in the position of deciding if a pre-existing law that mandates an exception to a new law should be treated as an exception or not. And that's only one of the times it's necessary.
For another type of example, if the laws is "Official Y shall do X when Z occurs," and sometimes doing X when Z occurs is unconstitutional, then it is assumed Congress meant for that to be an exception.
For example, Congress is fed up with drunk driving and passes a law, "If there is probable cause that any person authorized to access classified information has knowingly disclosed information which has properly been classified as top secret, the U.S. Attorney of the district in which such disclosure occurs shall seek an indictment from the grand jury of that district and, if such indictment is returned true bill, shall prosecute the person who has disclosed the information."
Pretty straightforward, right?
However, it would be unconstitutional to arrest or prosecute a congressman for disclosing such a secret on the House floor during deliberations. A U.S. attorney facing that "shall" is constitutionally required to not seek and indictment and to not prosecute if an indictment is returned.
The thing is, laws are written in light of these rules of interpretation (at least a large part of the time and when they're not being sloppy). And Congress is on good notice that this is how the laws are interpreted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I think where we disagree, then, is on which body should be "on notice" in this regard. I'm much happier requiring that the executive branch make a good-faith effort to prosecute a law as written, in its entirety, and then require a court intervention, than I am with the reverse. (Simply saying "I think X is unconstitutional, and thus won't do it," is not a "good faith" attempt to carry out a law, IMO.) Otherwise, we're essentially allowing the executive to make law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:*nod* I think where we disagree, then, is on which body should be "on notice" in this regard. I'm much happier requiring that the executive branch make a good-faith effort to prosecute a law as written, in its entirety, and then require a court intervention, than I am with the reverse. (Simply saying "I think X is unconstitutional, and thus won't do it," is not a "good faith" attempt to carry out a law, IMO.) Otherwise, we're essentially allowing the executive to make law.
Fine, pass a constitutional amendment then. By all means let such a theory guide your voting behavior.
That's not how it works now, though: laws are written with the knowledge that such exceptions will be read in by both the judiciary and the executive, and, in fact, the executive is subject to serious liability for not doing that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Fine, pass a constitutional amendment then.
Why should that be necessary?
quote:the executive is subject to serious liability for not doing that
Isn't it more correct to say "the government" is subject to liability? It's not like people are suing the executive branch specifically when they sue the United States.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It should be necessary because the legal precendents of nearly the entire history of the US contradict it. And more practically, because the Supreme Court, the Executive, and the Congress all endorse the practice to at least some degree. If you want it to change, you're either going to have to work to replace all three branches of government in some way, or pass an amendment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why should that be necessary?
Well, it's not, if you can get enough people to elect presidents who agree with you.
Otherwise, that's not how it's done, Tom, nor is there constitutional justification for doing it that way. Further, there have been cases requiring the executive to exercise this discretion, not just approving it. At the very least, get SCOTUS to back up your view.
Also, Congress writes laws in light of these rules of interpretation.
quote:Isn't it more correct to say "the government" is subject to liability? It's not like people are suing the executive branch specifically when they sue the United States.
Not really. They are protected under qualified immunity, but that immunity can be overcome if the constitutional justification for the officer's actions aren't strong enough. A lawyer violating the speech and debate clause might have a hard time claiming qualified immunity.
The government would face liability as well, of course.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you want it to change, you're either going to have to work to replace all three branches of government in some way, or pass an amendment.
Like I said, impeaching the executive and slowly replacing the judiciary is a good start.
------
quote:They are protected under qualified immunity, but that immunity can be overcome if the constitutional justification for the officer's actions aren't strong enough.
But isn't that just as true of a situation in which the president has issued a "signing statement?" If -- for example -- we wind up prosecuting individual torturers for violating specific laws on the books banning torture, but they point to executive statements which indicate that the executive endorsed specific forms of torture as constitutional under his interpretation, they aren't any more shielded if SCOTUS disagrees with that interpretation than if that interpretation didn't exist in the first place, are they?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Impeaching the President isn't a good start, for several reasons.
1) he would never be impeached on those grounds, but on others, if he was impeached at all (which would be a stupid and wasteful move at this point, anyways).
2) whoever replaced him would be just as willing to have the President interpret statutes as not violating the Constitution. Part of executive power is interpretation of what is being executed, at least as it has been done at all levels of our government (and, I believe you will find, the government of every other world power) for quite some time.
And you aren't going to be able to replace members of the Supreme Court with people who think otherwise unless you also intend to persuade law schools to train lawyers differently, or convince a President to start appointing people without legal training to the SC.
Out of curiousity, how do you feel about mandatory minimum sentencing, or punishing police officers who use discretion when dealing with some offenses?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and lets be quite clear here:
Do you feel the President should be brought up on criminal charges via impeachment for doing things that have been part of the American legal tradition for centuries, that are commonly accepted as reasonable practice here and in many other countries, and that has been specifically advised to be sound practice (and even told to do so) by the Supreme Court? Furthermore, do you feel that these criminal charges are a better way of changing the legal system of the United States, despite having no binding precedent even if successfully prosecuted, than amending the Constitution?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:how do you feel about mandatory minimum sentencing, or punishing police officers who use discretion when dealing with some offenses?
Again, I draw a distinction between "exercising discretion" and deciding, "Okay, we're just not going to enforce this particular part of the law, ever." There's a difference between "using discretion" and saying, "I believe this law is wrong, so I'm not actually going to try to get it changed but will instead simply tell people to ignore it."
quote:Furthermore, do you feel that these criminal charges are a better way of changing the legal system of the United States, despite having no binding precedent even if successfully prosecuted, than amending the Constitution?
Somewhat unfortunately, yes. Because it would help remind Congress that they have the power and discretion to do it. I don't think anything else would help them remember that they're supposed to be wearing the long pants. Permitting the Executive Branch to tell them what is or is not "good law" is just laziness on their part, and is a good chunk of the reason for the abuse in the first place.
Because here's the thing: the changes I'm talking about would probably require an armed revolution before they'd happen otherwise -- not because that's the only way they could happen legally, but because sheer inertia and apathy will prevent them. I think impeachment is a considerably less ruinous alternative to that end, but still shocking enough to get the system unclogged.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:not because that's the only way they could happen legally
But it's not the only way it could happen legally.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Could you point out a place where Bush has said he isn't going to enforce a part of law?
And Congress hardly needs reminding they can impeach people. It has been done or nearly done several times in recent memory, and people repeatedly remind them in very noisy ways. What evidence do you have that Congress is in danger of forgetting they can impeach people?
As for it being a reason for the abuse, would you care to point out a single nation that is more than a minor power where the executive does not have discretion in executing laws?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But it's not the only way it could happen legally.
Yes, Dag. I know. That's actually specifically why I put that line in, in fact. I just don't think that any of the other legal methods are ones that will be practical within our lifetime(s). I am, as you may have noticed, extraordinarily cynical about the ability of our government to recover from what I consider its enormously kludged-up position.
---------
quote:Could you point out a place where Bush has said he isn't going to enforce a part of law?
I can point out lots of places he's said "we'll enforce this part of the law consistent with my understanding of the Constitution, which means we won't be enforcing it." His people aren't stupid enough to actually have him SAY the other bit.
quote:And Congress hardly needs reminding they can impeach people.
That's not what they need to be reminded of. They need to be reminded that the ultimate responsibility for good law lies with them -- and that the president serves at their discretion. They've blamed the president for bad law for too long without actually doing anything about it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:and that the president serves at their discretion.
This is exactly the thing I want to avoid with your impeachment rationale. The President does not serve at Congress's discretion. Even though there's nothing to stop Congress from using impeachment in such a manner, it is not intended to be that.
A government based on an executive that serves at the legislature's discretion might be a good thing. It might be better than what we have now. But sneaking it in the way you want to is an end run around the agreed-upon procedures for altering our core framework of government.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But the President does not legislate. The Supreme Court has already ruled against the line-item veto for violating bicameralism and presentment, why is this different?
If the President finds that any part of the law is unconstitutional, he should veto it. That part is fairly clear, being described in the Constitution in Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 & 3. He should not be cherry picking the parts that the government will and won't follow as that puts him in the position of both legislator and final arbiter of law.
The McCain Detainee Bill set out to very clearly state that the US will not torture under any circumstances, and defined what physical methods may be used for prisoner interrogation by restricting them to the Army field guide.
President Bush' signing statement read as follows:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
If the President did not intend to ignore the Act if he felt justified, why bother to issue this statement at all?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As Dagonee notes, the President most definitely does not serve at their discretion in our form of government. I know you do not like our form of government, but that does not mean the form of government is magically changed to one you do like.
And, can you produce evidence the President has acted on your interpretation of his statements? It is extremely easy to impute smarmy purposes for anyone. One would usually hope grave criminal charges would involve proving them, at very least.
I agree the Congress could do a lot to shape up, but impeaching the President for things that are commonplace and have never been grounds for impeachment is not a very good way of going about it. In fact, it sounds like a way to ensure that most of the laws passed during that period are even worse laws than normal, and to get a President much more likely to avoid getting in the way of Congress passing bad laws (of course, this President hasn't been great on that record, so imagine what an even more accommodating President would be like!)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Signing statements may have been commonplace, but until fairly recently they were not used for constitutional challenges. With a few exceptions they were PR bits, for the most part. "I'm signing this! Yay me!" It was, among other things, Samuel Alito's memo in 1986 on how to start using them to intepret laws that really kicked off the "don't wanna, don't hafta" era of signing statements.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the President does not legislate. The Supreme Court has already ruled against the line-item veto for violating bicameralism and presentment, why is this different?
If the President finds that any part of the law is unconstitutional, he should veto it. That part is fairly clear, being described in the Constitution in Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 & 3. He should not be cherry picking the parts that the government will and won't follow as that puts him in the position of both legislator and final arbiter of law.
Or he can interpret the law in a constitutional fashion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:can you produce evidence the President has acted on your interpretation of his statements? It is extremely easy to impute smarmy purposes for anyone.
One of the specific difficulties with Bush's use of signing statements is that they've often been on bills related to issues which, due to security concerns, are impossible to independently verify.
That said, can you put forward a reason to say "I will enforce this according to my interpretation of the Constitution" about a specific bill (as opposed to every bill) that would not amount to "I will not enforce this as written, because I think it's unconstitutional?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That said, can you put forward a reason to say "I will enforce this according to my interpretation of the Constitution" about a specific bill (as opposed to every bill) that would not amount to "I will not enforce this as written, because I think it's unconstitutional?"
Yes. To send a continuing message to Congress to cut that crap out. Or to make it clear from the outset that this area may be problematic, which would allow Congress to react prior to the event in question.
The GAO report linked by Paul earlier found explicit examples of compliance with some laws for which such signing statements had been issued. SO it clearly doesn't only mean what you say it does.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What is really being damaged is the American people's faith in their government.
Even if he never acts on that detainee bill signing statement, perception will be that he's ignoring what was seen as a clear cut "don't do it" directive from the legislature. The demand for secrecy at an unheard of level, the refusal to respond to subpoenas, the sheer number of constitutional challenge signing statements, the politicalizing of the appointed positions and the pressure for department heads to follow party loyalty lines and avoid any public statements that do not conform to the official ideology, along with the avoidance of nonvetted public appearances and the diminishing press conferences all suggests an executive that plans to follow his agenda despite Congress, the courts, or the American people.
It may be entirely legal and above board, although it's hard to tell when investigations don't get very far. It may not be an impeachable offense. But it is, in my opinion, a piss-poor way of running the country that not only lessens our government's effectiveness but establishes a powerful precedent for future presidents.
I can't point to chapter and verse, or present an iron-clad argument against the actions of this President. I can tell you that with every new signing statement or every political appointment chosen for loyalty over ability, I become more and more frightened for the future of my country.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To send a continuing message to Congress to cut that crap out.
While STILL saying "I will not enforce this as written," of course. Unless you think that it's "okay, you guys. I'll go along with you this once, but I just wanted to, y'know, voice my objections." Because -- and I don't mean to be sarcastic here, but I can't help it -- that's completely consistent with what we've seen from the Bush Administration.
quote:The GAO report linked by Paul earlier found explicit examples of compliance with some laws for which such signing statements had been issued.
But, see, that's the corrupting beauty -- and laziness -- of a signing statement that asserts your authority to "interpret" the meaning of a given law. You only need to ignore the law when it would actually inconvenience something you're doing; if you don't care whether or not your underlings shuffle paper back and forth on a less sensitive topic, you go ahead and let them be bound by it -- and then, when you run across a specific piece of paper you don't want shuffled, you can tell them, "it's unconstitutional to shuffle this piece of paper" and it goes away. That's actually one of the specific reasons I'd prefer a veto.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While STILL saying "I will not enforce this as written," of course.
Not really. For example, knowing that Congress has asked for specific recommendations, the President might decide that giving them is necessary and expedient.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Heck, he might even decide that giving them is still unconstitutional, but would go ahead and do it anyway out of the kindness of his heart. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, he wouldn't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But he might. You never know. "Gee, the American people would really like to know whom I invited to that Energy Task Force. Maybe I'll just, y'know, tell them."
If anything, the icy-cold conditions at the center of the Earth might solve our global warming problem for us. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But he might. You never know. "Gee, the American people would really like to know whom I invited to that Energy Task Force. Maybe I'll just, y'know, tell them."
It wouldn't be unconstitutional to tell them.
You do know that the smilies don't actually make you seem nice, well-meaning, or funny, right?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You do know that the smilies don't actually make you seem nice, well-meaning, or funny, right?
Not that I'm an expert myself, but I'm almost certain there's some kind of rule preventing lawyers from offering advice concerning one's sense of humor. If there isn't, there absolutely should be.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And with that Tom drew his sword and rushed at Dagonee who brandished a lawyer's briefcase in a defensive manner. For Dag had questioned Tom's use of the forum graemlins.
But seriously, Dag, certainly the use of smilies is important in a forum as words can appear to be unduely hostile without them. We don't have tone of voice or facial expressions to cross reference in a forum.
Maybe you know something I don't but I take Tom's comments with smilies to be more friendly then the ones without.
edit: How else can we convey our sentiments in a forum if not with emoticons or by following every statement with <wink> *Smiles* etc? Simply trying to sound friendly in your diction by itself just does not work IMO.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I take Tom's (and this is specific to Tom) statements with smilies as much more hostile than those without them. They usually involve a concerted effort to refuse to address a significant element of the discussion or to make wildly exaggerated statements about the other person's position.
In short, he's almost always nicer, more well-meaning, and funnier when he doesn't use them. Usually because the lack of them is a good indication that he's really trying to be nice, well-meaning, and funny rather than just look like he is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, not quite. In general, I use a smiley when I know there's a hostile or dismissive interpretation possible for what I'm saying, and want to acknowledge that -- while indicating that what I'm saying is not meant to be hostile or dismissive. When I'm intentionally hostile or dismissive, I'm generally disinclined to use a phrasing that could be interpreted more innocently.
It's not unreasonable for Dag, then, to associate them with hostile or dismissive statements, because that IS when I generally take care to use them; if, despite their presence, he chooses to interpret those statements in a hostile or dismissive way, it must certainly seem to him (or anyone else who does the same thing) that I use smilies to accentuate my hostility.
For my part, I intend a smiley to indicate "just kidding" or "you don't really need to take this part of the post seriously." I understand that this is anathema to Dag, especially when discussing issues he considers important, but frankly I wouldn't be able to have a conversation without interjecting things for humorous value that I intend to be taken lightly; I suspect that I would expire halfway through any remotely serious thread -- out of ennui, if not self-importance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's not unreasonable for Dag, then, to associate them with hostile or dismissive statements, because that IS when I generally take care to use them; if, despite their presence, he chooses to interpret those statements in a hostile or dismissive way, it must certainly seem to him (or anyone else who does the same thing) that I use smilies to accentuate my hostility.
Tom, it's not just the wording of the statements. It's the history of using them to actually dismiss.
To me, it appears that they are only associated with conversations in which you steadfastedly ignore important portions of the other sides case - portions that already explain away the usually absurd result you are attributing to the other side's positions in your smilied statements.
I don't have any problem with humor even in a serious thread, but your humor in these situations seems tactical, not humorous.
For example, despite the smiley, it was clearly a serious comment central to your point when you said "While STILL saying 'I will not enforce this as written,' of course. Unless you think that it's 'okay, you guys. I'll go along with you this once, but I just wanted to, y'know, voice my objections.'" I then presented reasons why there are other very possible interpretations than the one you've given them.
At this point, that hasn't been addressed except by your "humorous" statement. Hence, it seems as if you are using humor to dismiss.
Edit: to be clear, I'm talking about my perceptions of your use of smileys. I'm not doubting your intentions, and I'll try to keep them in mind.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
First, I want to apologize for not getting back to this thread earlier, and then apologize again because I'm just skimming right now since I don't have time today, either, to deal with most of the stuff here. I have't dissapeard, I promise, I'm simply taking a 9 hour a day course that is an hour away from me last week and this.
Second, " Even though there's nothing to stop Congress from using impeachment in such a manner, it is not intended to be that."
This is unclear. I can't remember which federalist paper it is, but at least one points out that impeachment can and should be used anytime the president or another impeachable officer starts behaving badly.
Within the constitution, the guidelines are obviously illegal behavior for the president, although it is "good behavior" for supreme court justices that determines whether they can keep their jobs. And I do think its important not to impeach unless an illegal action has been undertaken. Of course, I would argue that the president saying that a bill that contains "must" or "shall" language is advisory is enough of an illegal action for me to support impeachment.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I believe Dagonee has pointed out times the Supreme Court has interpreted "must" or "shall" as advisory.
quote:A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
Of course, keep reading. He is clear that
1. Impeachment is a criminal proceedings (not a purely civil one), for criminal offenses (he talks about how the weight of an impeachment conviction means that it is very careful the Senate consider not just the politics, but the actual violation).
2. The reason the Senate was chosen was an attempt to divorce the proceedings from politics as much as possible.
3. In the end, the whole discussion of impeachment is mostly a vehicle (and metaphor) to trash the anti-federalists for being nit-pickers.
And even if it were pointing out what you assert, a political polemic designed to persuade people to support the Constitution is not a final authority (though it should be considered). We know of debate at the convention on the issue. What went into the document states "high crimes and misdeameanors" (misdemeanors were more serious offenses then), not "doing things we don't like" or even "interpeting the law wrong, but in a way in a way supported by precedent and the Supreme Court".
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And unless he's actually acted on that interpretation, as Dagonee has pointed out there are several instances he hasn't (such as with providing reports to Congress), he hasn't even done anything legally wrong by the standards you have proposed. It doesn't much matter what he says, from a legal perspective, it matters what actions he takes. If he says something is advisory, but does it anyways, no violation has taken place. Signing statements are not law, and are not binding (though the President might not like it if members of the executive branch don't go along with them; his recourses are any that he normally has with executive branch employees not supporting the President's positions).
actually edit: I guess I hit reply, not edit . . .
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ahhhh. I love Google News snapshots.
quote:The White House is also claiming executive privilege on e-mails on the firings sent by White House officials on Republican National Committee-sponsored accounts. Those documents also have been subpoenaed with a Tuesday return date, but Conyers agreed to give the RNC until July 31 to turn over the documents or explain why not.
quote:President Bush has the legal right to claim executive privilege. However, if a potential criminal investigation can supply valid reasons for needing the materials in question, a claim of executive privilege is insufficient unless issues of national security are at stake.
quote:What does this mean for the current standoff? Only time will tell, but it does not appear to bode well for the president. Discussions regarding the firing of Justice Department officials for partisan political reasons seem unlikely to be regarded by the courts as vital to protecting national security. Because lying to Congress and obstructing the proper administration of the law are crimes and because the Constitution gives Congress oversight responsibilities, it also seems unlikely the Courts will recognize a general claim of executive privilege as sufficient.
quote:The Nixon case made clear the executive cannot decide unilaterally what is and is not privileged, as this administration seems to believe it can. The public's records should be public. As Wigmore instructed, public officials have the responsibility "to explain and justify their acts," or oppression and corruption is sure to follow.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And just for the record, you didn't obligate yourself to me (or anyone else... sorry Squick) near as I can tell, I was just curious cause I value your opinion on these things. You're wicked smart and highly informed, and it's also interesting to see your take on things from your position of solid detailed legal knowledge and understanding.![[Wink]](wink.gif)