quote:For many people, the issue is not just one of this specific situation, but rather of the precedent it sets.
This is also the issue many of us have with respect to impeachment based on the signing statements themselves.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, As far as I can tell, the overisght issue I just presented is legitimate grounds for impeachment. Do you agree?
edit: I realize that you may think that there are other recourses that they can/should try. That's not what I'm asking.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, As far as I can tell, the overisght issue I just presented is legitimate grounds for impeachment. Do you agree?
On the refusal to actually respond to requests for information, and after SCOTUS interpretation, yes. Not based on the signing statements alone.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:His standards amount to either an at-will removal by Congress of the President or a much higher standard of accountability for interpretative functions as a prerequisite to remaining in office.
Both of which are entirely in keeping with my philosophy, so thanks for noticing. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:edit: I realize that you may think that there are other recourses that they can/should try. That's not what I'm asking.
If they impeach absent SCOTUS interpretation of the constitutionality of the demand for oversight, I think they are doing essentially what Bush is accused of doing - taking on the final interpretive function of the law and the constitution. Once SCOTUS says, "Yes, Congress can demand that" then the President is committing an impeachable offense by continuing to refuse. But he needs the chance to see if SCOTUS would say, "No, Congress cannot demand that."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the refusal to actually respond to requests for information, and after SCOTUS interpretation, yes.
Is this required by the Constitution? Or rather, is this the accepted view of what the Constitution says?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both of which are entirely in keeping with my philosophy, so thanks for noticing.
So...to hell with the Constitution, then, and in with Tom's philosophy?
For all of the (justified) bitching a lot of people did about a Republican Congress interfering with a Clinton White House, the idea of an at-will removal by Congress of the President is bitterly ironic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure why we're imparting to the Supreme Court the right to determine whether someone should be impeached.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the refusal to actually respond to requests for information, and after SCOTUS interpretation, yes.
Is this required by the Constitution? Or rather, is this the accepted view of what the Constitution says?
I think it's required by the Constitution, because I don't think you can say a government official has committed a crime by making a colorable constitutional interpretation.
It's a requirement without a remedy, of course, because impeachment/conviction is not appealable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that Supreme Court justices had been pretty clear in the past about not being the ones to decide if something is impeachable, but I might be misremembering.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the matter of oversight, the right of Congress to demand it is well established. However, the Bush administration has offered what many view as extremely poor reasons why they don't have to comply (e.g. the war authorizations equate to the executive branch doing whatever they want in pursuit of goals associated with it - an interpretation that has been denied by the people who wrote the law).
In this case (or really in any case, but this one is more egregious), I was under the impression that Congress doesn't need anything other than the Constitutionally granted abilities to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, which this could reasonably could fall under the definition of.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So...to hell with the Constitution, then, and in with Tom's philosophy?
For all of the (justified) bitching a lot of people did about a Republican Congress interfering with a Clinton White House, the idea of an at-will removal by Congress of the President is bitterly ironic.
Congress has the power to do at-will removal of the President. The remedy for that is removal of our Congressional representatives; if we don't feel like they impeached a president for good reasons, we don't elect them again. I firmly reject the model of executive power that we've been permitting since the '40s.
Congress does not need to run with its tail between its legs to the Supreme Court to ask if the President did something illegal -- in that flawed court's opinion -- before impeaching the President.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So...to hell with the Constitution, then, and in with Tom's philosophy?
Rakeesh, As far as I can tell, Tom has not suggested anything that is un-Constitutional. Can you point out where you think that he has?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's required by the Constitution, because I don't think you can say a government official has committed a crime by making a colorable constitutional interpretation.
But that's neither explicitly written into the Constitution and associated law/practice nor a near universal interpretation, is it?
edit: You may have strong opinions about it, but there is plenty of room for people to legitimately disagree with you on it, correct?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Congress has the power to do at-will removal of the President.
I believe it says Congress can remove the President, but only in certain situations - when a serious crime has been committed. I don't think that qualifies as having the power to do "at-will" removal.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:His standards amount to either an at-will removal by Congress of the President or a much higher standard of accountability for interpretative functions as a prerequisite to remaining in office.
Both of which are entirely in keeping with my philosophy, so thanks for noticing.
Yes. Now, could you please respond to the part about radical changes to the government structure being made in the manner which has been written into our constitution? That's my primary objection to moving impeachment in this direction.
quote:I'm not sure why we're imparting to the Supreme Court the right to determine whether someone should be impeached.
We're not. Congress CAN impeach for anything. I thought the question is "should they" and "are they following the Constitution when they do"?
quote:I thought that Supreme Court justices had been pretty clear in the past about not being the ones to decide if something is impeachable, but I might be misremembering.
They have. But they are the ones who decide if Congress has the right to demand specific items as part of oversight.
quote:In the matter of oversight, the right of Congress to demand it is well established. However, the Bush administration has offered what many view as extremely poor reasons why they don't have to comply (e.g. the war authorizations equate to the executive branch doing whatever they want in pursuit of goals associated with it - an interpretation that has been denied by the people who wrote the law).
You need to define "it" first. There are specific things Congress may not demand. It needs to be tied to a specific failure to deliver the requested oversight.
quote:In this case (or really in any case, but this one is more egregious), I was under the impression that Congress doesn't need anything other than the Constitutionally granted abilities to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, which this could reasonably could fall under the definition of.
Just as the Supreme Court does not need anything other than a case and controversy and 5 justices to strike down a law. The real question isn't "can they do it" but "are they complying with the Constitution."
The Taney court did not have the right to decide what they did in Dred Scott, but it had the power to do so. (Yes, I've jumped to an extreme example to make a distinction between right and power. No, I don't think impeaching Bush based on the signing statements would be nearly as morally reprehensible as Dred Scott.)
Here, Congress can indict Bush for putting ketchup on his eggs, and, if convicted, he would no longer be President. That wouldn't make it the proper decision or the constitutional one. (And, again, I'm not equating the two but using an extreme example to highlight a distinction.)
Impeaching based on the signing statement alone would be terribly egregious. Impeaching on a refusal to provide oversight prior to SCOTUS's disposition of the issue would be less, but still egregious. Impeaching on refusal after SCOTUS telling him he may not withhold would be a proper exercise of impeachment authority.
quote:But that's neither explicitly written into the Constitution and associated law/practice nor a near universal interpretation, is it?
edit: You may have strong opinions about it, but there is plenty of room for people to legitimately disagree with you on it, correct?
Of course. But that "room for people to disagree" is also there regarding Bush's signing statements. A significant number of constitutional scholars view them as the equivalent of legislative history. Room for people to disagree is a far greater defense for a non-final action such as announcing one's interpretation of the law than it is for final actions such as removing the president from power.
quote:Congress has the power to do at-will removal of the President. The remedy for that is removal of our Congressional representatives; if we don't feel like they impeached a president for good reasons, we don't elect them again. I firmly reject the model of executive power that we've been permitting since the '40s.
Congress does not need to run with its tail between its legs to the Supreme Court to ask if the President did something illegal -- in that flawed court's opinion -- before impeaching the President.
No, it does not need to. But when whether the President did something illegal turns entirely on functions that are reserved int their final form to the Supreme Court - that is, interpretations of the constitution and statutes - protestations about usurpation of constitutional powers start to ring very hollow.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, could you please respond to the part about radical changes to the government structure being made in the manner which has been written into our constitution?
I don't see any changes in structure that would be necessary. We'd go through Presidents a bit more often, perhaps, and perhaps people would be a bit more careful when electing Congressional representatives.
The President, when writing up his "interpretations" of existing law, would be well-advised to check with Congress to see what they intended and make sure that his "interpretations" are consistent with the law's intent. If he doesn't believe that any interpretation consistent with the law's intent would be constitutional, he should veto it.
quote:Congress CAN impeach for anything. I thought the question is "should they" and "are they following the Constitution when they do"?
I thought you felt that "following the Constitution" was a legal question. If Congress can do it, aren't they following the Constitution -- by definition? Isn't the question of "should Congress impeach" a political question and not a legal one?
quote:But when whether the President did something illegal turns entirely on functions that are reserved in their final form to the Supreme Court - that is, interpretations of the constitution and statutes - protestations about usurpation of constitutional powers start to ring very hollow.
It's worth noting that I ALSO disapprove of the expansion of power to the Supreme Court that we've suffered under for the last two hundred years. Only if members of the Supreme Court were elected and not merely ratified by Congress would I be comfortable with the expectation that it would be the first screen of "constitutionality" on questions of impeachment.
See, I believe that Bush is deliberately forcing this issue. By packing the court and issuing deliberately contraventive signing statements, he is forcing Congress into a situation where the only viable option is impeachment. And I think he's doing this INTENTIONALLY, to see if they blink -- and if they do blink, I think this example will be used in the future to justify even further abuses of power.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought you felt that "following the Constitution" was a legal question. If Congress can do it, aren't they following the Constitution -- by definition?
No. The lack of a remedy does not mean that no wrong has been committed.
quote:See, I believe that Bush is deliberately forcing this issue. By packing the court and issuing deliberately contraventive signing statements, he is forcing Congress into a situation where the only viable option is impeachment. And I think he's doing this INTENTIONALLY, to see if they blink -- and if they do blink, I think this example will be used in the future to justify even further abuses of power.
posted
On what grounds do you assert that legal removal of the President by Congress without the approval of the Supreme Court was not specifically intended by the framers of the Constitution?
quote:I don't see any changes in structure that would be necessary. We'd go through Presidents a bit more often, perhaps, and perhaps people would be a bit more careful when electing Congressional representatives.
The President, when writing up his "interpretations" of existing law, would be well-advised to check with Congress to see what they intended and make sure that his "interpretations" are consistent with the law's intent. If he doesn't believe that any interpretation consistent with the law's intent would be constitutional, he should veto it.
It destroys separation of powers. I know you want that in many ways, but it is definitely a radical change to the balance of powers in the government.
There are also significant problems with "Congress's intent," especially for multi-member bodies. What is "Congress's intent"? Does the drafter get more say in it? If so, why? Unless he communicated that intent to members, we don't know that they would have voted for that intent. How about amendment sponsors?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On what grounds do you assert that legal removal of the President by Congress without the approval of the Supreme Court was not specifically intended by the framers of the Constitution?
I don't think Supreme Court approval is required for every impeachment. I do think it's required (to be proper) for impeachments arising out of close, disputed interpretations of the Constitution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Rather, it creates "separation of powers" as it was originally intended, and returns the Supreme Court to the slightly reduced role it was designed to have and removes most of the imperial power that's been abrogated to the executive.
quote:What is "Congress's intent"?
That's one of the questions which the President should be asking before he signs a law, I agree.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when whether the President did something illegal turns entirely on functions that are reserved int their final form to the Supreme Court - that is, interpretations of the constitution and statutes - protestations about usurpation of constitutional powers start to ring very hollow.
In the case I'm talking about, where the President has claimed much broader powers from an act of Congress than is either made in the act itself or, as per their own statements, was at all part of the intent of the people who wrote and/or voted on the act, I think Congress has some say in this process.
And the oversight issues is only one of many. This, to me, is far from the individual cases of differences of opinion as to laws that you seem to be making it out as. Especially in light of the other actions of this administration, it seems more part of a widespread strategy to expand executive powers far beyond what went before or is, in my opinion, justifiable by the spirit and in many cases text of the law or good for the country.
That is one of the classic definitions of high crimes and misdemeanors and one of the things that impeachment was set up to guard against.
Ultimately, Congress has the ability to do this. It is not, as some people claimed, illegal for them to do so. Your personal opinion may be that it is not in keeping with the Constitution. Many other people disagree, often for complex reasons other than those you seemed to be addressing before I entered this discussion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather, it creates "separation of powers" as it was originally intended, and returns the Supreme Court to the slightly reduced role it was designed to have and removes most of the imperial power that's been abrogated to the executive.
Impeachment at will does NOT create separation of powers.
quote:That's one of the questions which the President should be asking before he signs a law, I agree.
My point is that, as a concept, it doesn't exist. Congress's intent is expressed in the legislation text.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Impeachment at will does NOT create separation of powers.
And yet, even though Congress is already capable of impeaching at will, we say we live under a "separation of powers" today. Do you think Congress will start impeaching presidents willy-nilly once the ball gets rolling?
quote:Congress's intent is expressed in the legislation text.
So it should be rather unnecessary for "signing statements," really. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think it's required (to be proper) for impeachments arising out of close, disputed interpretations of the Constitution.
Which is not an issue in several of the items in this particular case.
Congress - "You have to submit to oversight if you are going to exercise the powers we are granting you in this legislation." Bush - "No I don't. You signed the authorization for war, so I can do whatever I want in pursuit of that." C - "That's not part of the authorization as it is written, nor was it the intent." B - "So what?"
This doesn't appear to me to be a matter of close interpretations, but rather of using a seemingly flimsy excuse to ignore people keeping an eye on what you are doing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is not, as some people claimed, illegal for them to do so.
I have not claimed that it is illegal.
quote: Many other people disagree, often for complex reasons other than those you seemed to be addressing before I entered this discussion.
And if some of those complex reasons were presented, I would have responded. But they weren't, and they still haven't been. I have been dealing specifically with Tom's proposal here, to which most of the deeper analysis is not relevant at all.
This is very ironic, because my whole point has been that this issue is very complex. Complexity supports my side of the issue.
quote:And the oversight issues is only one of many. This, to me, is far from the individual cases of differences of opinion as to laws that you seem to be making it out as.
I've yet to see anyone post a constitutional analysis that the mere signing statements - and not subsequent noncompliance - are worthy of impeachments. I was not responding to the claim "Bush should be impeached." I was responding to the claim that Bush should be impeached because of the signing statements themselves.
quote:where the President has claimed much broader powers from an act of Congress than is either made in the act itself
You need to reconcile this as an impeachable offense with Hamdi, which read a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus into the authorization for the use of force. "Made in the act itself" is not a simple as you make it out to be.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You need to reconcile this as an impeachable offense with Hamdi, which read a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus into the authorization for the use of force.
Why? The Supreme Court could simply have gotten it wrong, as Congress has every right to conclude.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, even though Congress is already capable of impeaching at will, we say we live under a "separation of powers" today. Do you think Congress will start impeaching presidents willy-nilly once the ball gets rolling?
Yes. For example, were this philosophy to be well-ensconced during Clinton's term, I bet he would have been impeached.
quote:Which is not an issue in several of the items in this particular case.
Congress - "You have to submit to oversight if you are goign to exercise the powers we are granting you in this legislation." Bush - "No I don't. You signed the authorization for war, so I can do whatever I want in pursuit of that." C - "That's not part of the authorization as it is written, nor was it the intent." B - "So what?"
This doesn't appear to me to be a matter of close interpretations, but rather of using a seemingly flimsy excuse to ignore people keeping an eye on what you are doing.
Well, no, your caricature of Bush's position is not a matter of close interpretation. However, in the world in which we don't let hostile internet posters speak for their opponents, the matter is much closer than you are pretending it to be.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Impeachment at will does NOT create separation of powers.
No, it is part of the current set up of the separation of powers. It was laid out this way by the Founding Fathers as an important, though expensive check on the power of a unified executive.
This situation has existed for as long as the Consitution has been the law of the land. And yet, impeachment proceding have been pretty rare.
That's because it is, as I mentioned above, expensive. There are severe cost associated, both those written into the system, and the political cost of going through impeachment for things that don't warrant it.
In the matter of impeachment, the check on the legislature lies largely in the hands of the electorate, who are expected to react with extreme disfavor to frivolous impeachments. That's one of the reasons why moving for impeachment is solely reserved for the House, whose members are up for re-election every two years.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You need to reconcile this as an impeachable offense with Hamdi, which read a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus into the authorization for the use of force.
Why? The Supreme Court could simply have gotten it wrong, as Congress has every right to conclude.
If Congress has every right to conclude that, then we're back to a radical restructuring of the separation of powers.
The proper response to Congress screwing up and writing a vague law (which is very common) is for Congress to redraft the law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was responding to the claim that Bush should be impeached because of the signing statements themselves.
No one has made that claim. I believe that "signing statements" as indicators of how a law should be enacted are quite useful. I think "signing statements" that directly contravene explicit pieces of the law, however, are -- and should be -- illegal, literally by definition.
quote:For example, were this philosophy to be well-ensconced during Clinton's term, I bet he would have been impeached.
Why? They already had "legal grounds" to impeach, after all. What prevented Clinton's impeachment was a political decision -- and that's all that prevents any impeachment. The check on Congress' power is the voter.
--------
quote:The proper response to Congress screwing up and writing a vague law (which is very common) is for Congress to redraft the law.
I'll address this broader point in a second. But before I do: do you really think that the president, by directly contradicting the intent of written law in his signing statements, is trying to just "clarify" the law?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Impeachment at will does NOT create separation of powers.
No, it is part of the current set up of the separation of powers. It was laid out this way by the Founding Fathers as an important, though expensive check on the power of a unified executive.
This situation has existed for as long as the Consitution has been the law of the land. And yet, impeachment proceding have been pretty rare.
That's because it is, as I mentioned above, expensive. There are severe cost associated, both those written into the system, and the political cost of going through impeachment for things that don't warrant it.
In the matter of impeachment, the check on the legislature lies largely in the hands of the electorate, who are expected to react with extreme disfavor to frivolous impeachments. That's one of the reasons why moving for impeachment is solely reserved for the House, whose members are up for re-election every two years.
Squicky, I'm having a different discussion with Tom, one in which he has already admitted that he wants impeachment to not be tied to crimes.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've yet to see anyone post a constitutional analysis that the mere signing statements
You may want to read my statement again, then.
quote:Complexity supports my side of the issue.
It appears to me that I've had to drag out of yuo concessions that your implied expert opinion is actually just a personal opinion. It seems to me that you've dealt with the complexity of this issue in a one-sided, simplistic way.
posted
It's not that I want impeachment to not be tied to crimes. It's that impeachment isn't tied to crimes, and specifically that Congress has the explicitly granted right to stand in judgement of what constitutes a crime in the case of impeachment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one has made that claim. I believe that "signing statements" as indicators of how a law should be enacted are quite useful. I think "signing statements" that directly contravene explicit pieces of the law, however, are -- and should be -- illegal, literally by definition.
This is what I meant - the mere act of issuing a signing statement can be grounds for impeachment. I assumed you meant certain types of signing statements and not any old signing statement. But even here it's the mere act of issuing a certain type of signing statement that you find to be suitable grounds for impeachment.
quote:Why? They already had "legal grounds" to impeach, after all. What prevented Clinton's impeachment was a political decision -- and that's all that prevents any impeachment. The check on Congress' power is the voter.
And if impeachment were viewed simply as something for Congress to do at will - which, despite Congress's ability to do so, is not how impeachment is viewed right now - then the political check would not have been as feared.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is what I meant - the mere act of issuing a signing statement can be grounds for impeachment.
Absolutely. As it currently stands, the mere act of breathing is grounds for impeachment. And yet Congress has so far failed to impeach presidents they disliked for breathing. Even when they've found presidents guilty of crimes (like perjury), they have occasionally chosen not to impeach. I submit that there is a strong check on the use of impeachment as a political tool that is far more powerful than the arbitrary requirement of "criminality."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, because I've had to drag out of yuo concessions that your implied expert opinion is atually just a personal opinion. You've really dealt with the complexity of this issue, in a one-sided, simplistic way.
You haven't had to "drag" anything out of me. I regret even acknowledging your posts to me in this thread, because I KNEW you would start lying about what happened.
quote:Oh great. Dag games again.
quote:I have not claimed that it is illegal.
I never said that you did.
It's not a game, it's a clarification. Some people would interpret your statement as saying that, and I wanted it clarified. Cut the crap. Please, for the love of God, just cut it out.
STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!
IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH!!!!!!!
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the mere act of issuing a signing statement can be grounds for impeachment.
Just as a note, I'm not making that argument. The mere act of issuing the statement isn't what I think is the major problem (although it is a problem), but rather acting on the signing statements (e.g. by doing domestic surveillence without oversight).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:the mere act of issuing a signing statement can be grounds for impeachment.
Just as a note, I'm not making that argument.
Yeah, I know. That is, however, the principle argument I am addressing - as I qualified it above regarding only certain types of signing statements - and the only one I have addressed in depth.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm making the argument that merely serving as president is currently sufficient "grounds" for impeachment. The reason Congress does not impeach presidents at will is that impeachment is an incredibly serious decision that circumvents the will of the electorate and can be expected to have political ramifications.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Absolutely. As it currently stands, the mere act of breathing is grounds for impeachment. And yet Congress has so far failed to impeach presidents they disliked for breathing. Even when they've found presidents guilty of crimes (like perjury), they have occasionally chosen not to impeach. I submit that there is a strong check on the use of impeachment as a political tool that is far more powerful than the arbitrary requirement of "criminality."
This is the heart of what we disagree about, Tom. If impeachment for the mere act of issuing signing statements - make one as horribly bad as you wish - becomes acceptable, that check will be eroded to uselessness.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think so? Would you vote for your representative again if he impeached someone for writing a signing statement?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If impeachment for the mere act of issuing signing statements - make one as horribly bad as you wish - becomes acceptable, that check will be eroded to uselessness.
Is anyone, anywhere making a serious case built on just issuing signing statements? I am unaware of this.
The real world stuff I've seen (and partially reflected here) seems to be based on a great deal more.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah. For some inexplicable reason, a number of social networking sites are going nuts over articles about signing statements. *shrug*
You know I think Bush should be impeached for 'em. We've had that conversation.
quote:I think "signing statements" that directly contravene explicit pieces of the law, however, are -- and should be -- illegal, literally by definition.
And my principle objection is to this aspect of Tom's stance, one that he readily :
quote:His standards amount to either an at-will removal by Congress of the President or a much higher standard of accountability for interpretative functions as a prerequisite to remaining in office.
quote:Both of which are entirely in keeping with my philosophy, so thanks for noticing. [Wink]
And it should be quite clear that this is what I have been talking about:
quote:This is also the issue many of us have with respect to impeachment based on the signing statements themselves.
quote:On the refusal to actually respond to requests for information, and after SCOTUS interpretation, yes. Not based on the signing statements alone.
I gave an explicit statement of what I thought - and no, you didn't drag it out of me:
quote:Impeaching based on the signing statement alone would be terribly egregious. Impeaching on a refusal to provide oversight prior to SCOTUS's disposition of the issue would be less, but still egregious. Impeaching on refusal after SCOTUS telling him he may not withhold would be a proper exercise of impeachment authority.
posted
The conversation started with Tom saying "I think Bush should be impeached for 'em."
That's what I've been talking about.
I presume Tom is serious about this.
As for anyone else who might or might not be advocating this, I'm not sure why I should bother to go looking for that. I responded to Tom. Not to a general statement, but to a specific one.
Whether or not anyone else is advocating what Tom is has no relevance to me here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. If you're not interested in answering my question, you could just say "I'm not interested in answering that." as opposed to posting some things that don't answer it and only expressing your actual meaning after being challenged on it.
To me, that would be the difference between playing a game and not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Ok. If you're not interested in answering my question, you could just say "I'm not interested in answering that."
I just told you that I considered Tom's post to be serious. Which, to someone not interested in continually bringing up this B.S. about games-playing, might suggest that I THOUGHT IT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
quote: as opposed to posting some things that don't answer it and only expressing your actual meaning after being challenged on it.
To me, that would be the difference between playing a game and not.
You mean as opposed to posting "Dag, I don't think any of those answer what I asked for" without bothering to explain what you asked for?
But no. Instead of thinking, despite my pains to mention that I thought Tom met the qualification of "seriousness" that you raised, you have once again taken the opportunity to raise this tired and dishonest charge about me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Only if members of the Supreme Court were elected and not merely ratified by Congress would I be comfortable with the expectation that it would be the first screen of "constitutionality" on questions of impeachment.
