posted
Here is the true test of the Signing Statements--the Emergency Military Funding Bill.
So far President Bush simply vetoed the bill.
If he signs one, then does a signing statement claiming that what ever benchmarks or timetables included in the bill are unconstitutional, then procedes to ignore them, then he will see impeachment proceedings begin.
I don't think he'll risk it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ironic thing there is that I would tentatively agree that tying tactical military decisions to a spending bill is unconstitutional.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There is a common canon of construction called "avoidance of constitutional doubt" that states that a statute should, if possible, be interpreted in a manner that avoids raising a constitutional issue.
Note that this is "avoids raising" - a far lesser standard than simply interpreting a statute so that it is not unconstitutional.
This canon is used frequently by the Supreme Court - it's not an off-the-wall, fringe legal theory, but a centerpiece of statutory construction.
Note that this presupposes the existence of doubt. It also presupposes that the Executive will interpret the law when deciding how to execute it and that it will rely on canons such as this one.
The President - and his officers - have a specific duty to interpret the Constitution. There is an entire office at DoJ whose job it is to present the President's interpretation of the Constitution to the courts.
What about when the President is at odds with his own Justice Department and Attorney General about the legality of his programs, and ignores their concerns (at least for a time)?
This came out in former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's recent Senate testimony. Deputy AG Comey, Attorney General Ashcroft,FBI Director Robert Mueller and other Justice Department officials were all willing to resign over warrent-less wiretap program.
quote:http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May16/0,4670,Eavesdropping,00.html WASHINGTON (AP) — A top Justice Department official thought President Bush's no-warrant wiretapping program was so questionable that he refused for a time to reauthorize it, leading to a standoff with White House officials at the bedside of the ailing attorney general, a Senate panel was told Tuesday. Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he refused to recertify the program because Attorney General John Ashcroft had reservations about its legality just before falling ill with pancreatitis in March 2004.
The White House, Comey said, recertified the program without the Justice Department's signoff, allowing it to operate for about three weeks without concurrence on whether it was legal. Comey, Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other Justice Department officials at one point considered resigning, Comey said.
quote: Comey recalled that after the bedside incident he started to offer his resignation and was persuaded to wait a few days until Ashcroft could resign with him. "Mr. Ashcroft's chief of staff asked me something that meant a great deal to him, and that is that I not resign until Mr. Ashcroft was well enough to resign with me," Comey said.
On March 12 at their daily briefing of the president, Bush asked Comey and Mueller for separate private conversations on Justice's concerns about the eavesdropping program. There, Comey said, Bush agreed to do "the right thing."
After the no-warrant wiretapping program was outed, the administration trumpeted the fact that it had "independent" oversight.
When in fact, it bitterly resisted any oversight from it's own Justice Department.
I have to say, Ashcroft's stock has risen for me because of this story.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note the word "reauthorize." This wasn't about the start of the program, but it's continuation. And it was a recertification. We aren't told, but my impression is that the DoJ had certified it before.
Note also this paragraph:
quote:"We had the president's direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed, was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality," Comey said of the period after those private meetings. "We did that."
So we had original certification (probably) from the DoJ. We had recertification withheld by critics - critics who were willing to resign over the matter - in DoJ. We had adjustments made that convinced those critics to recertify.
This is very good evidence that the President did not ignore those concerns. He changed the program (how, we're not told) in a way that changed resignation-serious criticism into acceptance.
This suggests that, if they found the program unconstitutional or illegal, they would have resigned. Yet they didn't resign. The critic himself said he found the changes adequate.
In fact, he was ordered by the President to make changes that would meet his objections. In other words, far from ignoring their concerns, the President addressed them.
Additionally, not all concerns were about legality. Some were procedural. We aren't told the mix. We are told that even during the delayed recertification process, there was dissension - that is, DoJ officials who still supported the program.
Finally, the fact that recertification was necessary means that some oversight of the program was built in. There was a plan in place, presumably from the time of initial certification, to review the legality of the program.
quote:After the no-warrant wiretapping program was outed, the administration trumpeted the fact that it had "independent" oversight. [Roll Eyes]
When in fact, it bitterly resisted any oversight from it's own Justice Department.
All in all, this (if true) seems evidence that there was independent oversight. "Bush agreed to do 'the right thing'" based on that oversight.
You quoted this part in your story. Comey changed Bush's mind. That's oversight having an effect.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, read Comey's testimony and tell me if you think it sounds like an above-board, legitimite use of independent oversight, or if it was, in Comey's words, an attempted "end-run" around that oversight by going at night to the AG's sickroom in the ICU. It's very dramatic testimony. http://salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/05/15/comey_testimony/
quote: SCHUMER: Let me ask you this: So in sum, it was your belief that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card were trying to take advantage of an ill and maybe disoriented man to try and get him to do something that many, at least in the Justice Department, thought was against the law? Was that a correct summation?
COMEY: I was concerned that this was an effort to do an end-run around the acting attorney general and to get a very sick man to approve something that the Department of Justice had already concluded -- the department as a whole -- was unable to be certified as to its legality. And that was my concern.
Also, the program as set up required DoJ recertification every 45 days (some accounts say 90 days). The certification expired the day after the sickroom scene. According to the AP, the program went on for three weeks before the DoJ recertified it (although I don't see that in the testimony excerpt Salon has.)
The WH flouted it's own oversight protocols by allowing the program to proceed without DoJ recertification.
There were some changes made that led to an eventual recertification, but no details were given. Perhaps a deal was struck, a compromise made?
At this point Comey seems a prime candidate for the whistleblower to the Ny Times that outed the program. Maybe he thought the program remained illegal.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, read Comey's testimony and tell me if you think it sounds like an above-board, legitimite use of independent oversight, or if it was, in Comey's words, an attempted "end-run" around that oversight by going at night to the AG's sickroom in the ICU. It's very dramatic testimony.
That was his concern: that it was an end-run. However, what actually happened, as opposed to what he was concerned was happening, was that "Bush agreed to do 'the right thing'" and that DoJ "had the president's direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed, was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality.".
quote:Also, the program as set up required DoJ recertification every 45 days (some accounts say 90 days). The certification expired the day after the sickroom scene. According to the AP, the program went on for three weeks before the DoJ recertified it, although I don't see that in the testimony excerpt Salon has.
Sure. The limits imposed by the President on this program were not followed. That doesn't mean it was illegal. It means the independent oversight during one iteration didn't go exactly as planned, but that the oversight did have a direct impact on the direction of the program.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All in all, this (if true) seems evidence that there was independent oversight. "Bush agreed to do 'the right thing'" based on that oversight.
Why would they have needed to resign if they had oversight of the program? If the program continued and its critics felt forced to leave, how is that "oversight?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it took the resignation threats of half a dozen top DoJ officials to get through to President Bush. If it was legitimate oversight, it would never have gotten that far.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's take this back to your specific point: "What about when the President is at odds with his own Justice Department and Attorney General about the legality of his programs, and ignores their concerns (at least for a time)?" This was posted in response to my contention that the interpretation of the Constitution is the legitimate duty of the executive, and mere differences in such interpretation should not support criminal charges.
Here, the President made changes to his initial viewpoint in order to accommodate the legal viewpoints of his DoJ staff. He sought out their opinion, he modified his view in response, and the person with the serious criticisms stated that Bush did the right thing.
In the course of this, Bush (or, more accurately, Bush's representative) advocated for Bush's then-current viewpoint. This does not denigrate the quality of the oversight. It is expected.
In the end, the oversight generated changes in the program - changes Bush did not have to accept.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, do you really consider "If you don't do this, I quit!" to be oversight? In what way does that differ from a program over which someone has no oversight?
quote:In the end, the oversight generated changes in the program - changes Bush did not have to accept.
So your definition of "oversight" includes forms of oversight that are absolutely powerless?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, quit it. Please. I've said that I consider this oversight. I've listed my reasons - repeatedly now. Your mock incredulity is very annoying.
I get that you disagree. You've made that quite clear. Please do so without this cross examination style. If we want to engage in this style, I promise I can do it at least as well as you. But it won't be productive.
And, quite frankly, I don't believe that you are asking "In what way does that differ from a program over which someone has no oversight?" without already knowing the incredibly obvious answer: without this oversight, the White House wouldn't have modified the program. So clearly this oversight differs from no oversight in a significant and meaningful way.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:without this oversight, the White House wouldn't have modified the program
Why not? Are you suggesting that the principal players in this program wouldn't've still been involved without "oversight?" The three people mentioned in the article in question would still have known about it, and still could have threatened to quit. They gained no special Oversight Ray that gave them extra-special quitting powers.
I don't see why being able to threaten to quit when your boss insists on doing something illegal represents some safeguard on your boss' behavior.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why not? Are you suggesting that the principal players in this program wouldn't've still been involved without "oversight?" The three people mentioned in the article in question would still have known about it, and still could have threatened to quit. They gained no special Oversight Ray that gave them extra-special quitting powers.
No, they didn't get an Oversight Ray. They got a chance to provide ongoing oversight based on the periodic recertification process. Without that process, they would not have been asked to recertify. With the process, they were asked their views on the matter. Those views were accommodated.
I don't see any evidence for your contention that this would have happened absent the request for recertification.
quote:I don't see why being able to threaten to quit when your boss insists on doing something illegal represents some safeguard on your boss' behavior.
Clearly, it provided some safeguard here.
The White House implemented a process to have the legality of the program regularly reviewed, and this review resulted in a change to the program.
quote:At this point Comey seems a prime candidate for the whistleblower to the Ny Times that outed the program. Maybe he thought the program remained illegal.
Comey, a man willing to resign over the recertification of a program he thought illegal has stated, under oath, that the program that he did recertify was legal. On what do you base your contention that he thought the program remained illegal?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:With the process, they were asked their views on the matter. Those views were accommodated.
I have absolutely no idea why this would matter to you. They could have volunteered their views at any time. They already KNEW about the program, and knew what was going on. Having official "oversight" without having the power to stop the program as a function of that oversight granted them no knowledge that they didn't already have -- and certainly gave them no additional power over the program.
quote:Clearly, it provided some safeguard here.
How are you defining "safeguard," exactly? What additional security did the "oversight" grant that their knowledge of the ongoing program did not grant? Heck, the specific "security" implied by the requirement of oversight -- that the program would be stopped if it failed to meet certain standards -- was completely ignored.
...As for your questions, I freely grant all of the above. What I'm asserting, however, is that it's completely irrelevant. That the White House deigned to ask the DOJ their completely non-binding opinion does not constitute meaningful "oversight" of a given program.
To put that into perspective, it's like saying that I'm "watching over" Sophie, even if I've left her at home alone, if she decides to call me on my cell phone to ask if it's okay before eating rat poison. If there's nothing enforceable about the oversight, there's no oversight.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How are you defining "safeguard," exactly? What additional security did the "oversight" grant that their knowledge of the ongoing program did not grant?
Your evidence that, absent the certification program, they would have known about it?
quote:...As for your questions, I freely grant all of the above. What I'm asserting, however, is that it's completely irrelevant. That the White House deigned to ask the DOJ their completely non-binding opinion does not constitute meaningful "oversight" of a given program.
You mean it's irrelevant to the issue you've attempted to focus on, because the issue I've focused on is whether the Bush administration had meaningful review of the program and whether they disregarded DoJ opinions on the legality of the program.
Your definition of oversight is not one I accept. However, every point I've made stands whether I call the recertification program "oversight" or "fitzgripple."
Quite simply, Morbo's initial question prompted by this testimony - "What about when the President is at odds with his own Justice Department and Attorney General about the legality of his programs, and ignores their concerns (at least for a time)?" - can be answered very simply:
The President did not ignore their concerns, but, in fact, modified the program to address them. The concerns were discovered because the President sought out their opinion on the matter. The DoJ lawyers - including one who is quite critical of Bush in this matter - have deemed the programs as modified to comply with the law.
Focus on that, not whether we agree about the definition of a word.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the issue I've focused on is whether the Bush administration had meaningful review of the program and whether they disregarded DoJ opinions on the legality of the program.
As I'm reading it, though, and based on your use of phrases like "disregarded DoJ opinions," you believe the Bush administration was not required to submit to DoJ opinion.
quote:However, every point I've made stands whether I call the recertification program "oversight" or "fitzgripple."
I think calling the policy "you must obtain the opinion of X before doing anything, unless it's too inconvenient, and you don't actually have to do what they recommend" something like "fitzgripple" is absolutely appropriate, and firmly encourage you to use it instead of a more meaningful word like "oversight" when "fitzgripple" is what you mean.
quote:Focus on that, not whether we agree about the definition of a word.
Why? That's only remotely relevant if we assume that this state of affairs must continue. It relies on the goodwill and cooperation of all participants, and lacks any sort of teeth.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The President did not ignore their concerns, but, in fact, modified the program to address them. The concerns were discovered because the President sought out their opinion on the matter. The DoJ lawyers - including one who is quite critical of Bush in this matter - have deemed the programs as modified to comply with the law.
That's it. That's all I'm saying about Mr. Comey's testimony. The rest has been an attempt to explain this, which I will now cease, because you've agreed with it.
quote:That's only remotely relevant if we assume that this state of affairs must continue.
Well, no, because (and Morbo, correct me if I'm wrong), Morbo introduced this as evidence against a defense based on good-faith but differing constitutional and statutory interpretations. Which means the relevance goes to what has happened.
This is not my preferred form of verification of the legality of this program. I would far prefer to have it submitted to the courts, and I wish there was a mechanism for the administration and congress to seek declaratory judgments regarding the matter.
Absent that, I wish Congress would either make it explicitly illegal or make it explicitly legal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Morbo introduced this as evidence against a defense based on good-faith but differing constitutional and statutory interpretations.
Specifically, though, Morbo's point was that DESPITE the fact that approval was not given, the program continued. In poor faith, until such time as good faith was re-obtained.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Specifically, though, Morbo's point was that DESPITE the fact that approval was not given, the program continued. In poor faith, until such time as good faith was re-obtained.
Temporary continuation while the differing opinions were being worked out does not disprove good faith differing opinions.
Remember, at the time, there were still attorneys who considered the non-modified program legal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there will ALWAYS be attorneys who consider given abusive program X to be legal. Can that really be a valid yardstick? If so, that's grounds for the indefinite retention of any program.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But there will ALWAYS be attorneys who consider given abusive program X to be legal. Can that really be a valid yardstick? If so, that's grounds for the indefinite retention of any program.
I'm not talking about grounds for retention, about talking about their not being grounds for impeachment.
Seriously, Tom, I corrected you once already for saying I supported this program.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, is there no point at which a cumulatively overwhelming number of situations which fall just shy of "grounds for impeachment" would convince you that impeachment might be deserved? Or is there a bar for impeachment that cannot consider general malfeasance, and thus demands specific instances which in and of themselves -- with no possible legalistic excuse -- are deserving of impeachment?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, is there no point at which a cumulatively overwhelming number of situations which fall just shy of "grounds for impeachment"
Your question contains a faulty premise. I don't think any of these are "just shy." I think they fall far short.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not things that have colorable support for them under very recent SCOTUS rulings.
I can evaluate specific examples - and I have, including giving examples I think worthy of impeachment in this very thread. I can't articulate a general rule other than "things that rise to high crimes and misdemeanors."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this specific example, how long would the president have to let the program continue without oversight before it became a constitutional issue?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without knowing the details of the problems DoJ lawyers had with it, I can't tell you. Disagreement within the administration does not automatically make it rise to the level of impeachable offense.
The oversight isn't what makes this not rise to the level of impeachable offense. The fact that colorable legal arguments raised by the White House and DoJ lawyers supporting the legality of the program is what makes this not rise to the level of impeachable offense.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The President did not ignore their concerns, but, in fact, modified the program to address them. The concerns were discovered because the President sought out their opinion on the matter. The DoJ lawyers - including one who is quite critical of Bush in this matter - have deemed the programs as modified to comply with the law.
That's it. That's all I'm saying about Mr. Comey's testimony. The rest has been an attempt to explain this, which I will now cease, because you've agreed with it.
quote:That's only remotely relevant if we assume that this state of affairs must continue.
Well, no, because (and Morbo, correct me if I'm wrong), Morbo introduced this as evidence against a defense based on good-faith but differing constitutional and statutory interpretations. Which means the relevance goes to what has happened.
This is not my preferred form of verification of the legality of this program. I would far prefer to have it submitted to the courts, and I wish there was a mechanism for the administration and congress to seek declaratory judgments regarding the matter.
Absent that, I wish Congress would either make it explicitly illegal or make it explicitly legal.
Congress is deadlocked on the issue, or was last September. A federal court has ruled the program illegal, it's now under appeal.
I think the relevance is not only what happened, but what was attempted and almost happened. In my next post I'll highlight a few Comey quotes and why they are truly troubling.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A federal court has ruled the program illegal, it's now under appeal.
Yes, I know.
quote:I think the relevance is not only what happened, but what was attempted and almost happened. In my next post I'll highlight a few Comey quotes and why they are truly troubling.
I don't think that's relevant to the impeachment issue. It's relevant to other things.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that colorable legal arguments raised by the White House and DoJ lawyers supporting the legality of the program is what makes this not rise to the level of impeachable offense.
But that's the thing I find most pernicious, Dag: by your argument, as long as the President has a lawyer willing to back his claim, he's not impeachable. And the President gets to hire his own lawyers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that's the thing I find most pernicious, Dag: by your argument, as long as the President has a lawyer willing to back his claim, he's not impeachable. And the President gets to hire his own lawyers.
Not true.
First, the dispute is genuine and widespread. Beyond that, there are ways to remove this possibility from play. I've discussed them in detail, you've read and responded to them. you've even complained about them.
So don't go saying that "he's not impeachable" with a single lawyer by my standards. You know that's not the case.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, the dispute is genuine and widespread.
How do you establish whether a dispute is genuine and widespread? What's the criteria for that, insofar as Congress might look to it for impeachment guidelines?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One would examine the legal landscape. It's a case-by-case decision.
At this point, I'm less concerned with the details than with your ongoing dishonesty about my position.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I couldn't even begin to tell you what your position is, besides possibly "impeachment should really be for constitutional breaches as defined by the Supreme Court or violations of criminal code."
The whole "it's a case-by-case decision" thing baffles me, because I don't see how the "legal landscape" can possibly be an empirical, much less useful, criteria.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I couldn't even begin to tell you what your position is
Yes, but you know several things that my position is NOT, but you keep saying that it is. I think you're doing it on purpose in some attempt to get me to attempt to postulate a grand unified theory if impeachment. I don't have one.
I do have a few principles, such as impeachment for violating a specific law (say, FISA) should not be based on good-faith differing interpretations of the law and Constitution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but you know several things that my position is NOT, but you keep saying that it is.
Believe it or not, this isn't true. In cases where you feel I've misrepresented your position, it's more likely the case that I'm simply not comprehending your position. It IS a pretty baffling position, and I'm not as smart as you think I am.
I think the stumbling block here is your presumption of good faith. I don't HAVE any expectation of that from the executive branch.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In cases where you feel I've misrepresented your position, it's more likely the case that I'm simply not comprehending your position.
Then explain how you could post this as my position "impeachment should really be for constitutional breaches as defined by the Supreme Court or violations of criminal code" in the same thread in which this appears:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:On what grounds do you assert that legal removal of the President by Congress without the approval of the Supreme Court was not specifically intended by the framers of the Constitution?
I don't think Supreme Court approval is required for every impeachment. I do think it's required (to be proper) for impeachments arising out of close, disputed interpretations of the Constitution.
As for "criminal code," I have not limited the grounds for impeachment to the criminal code even once.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You appear to be missing an assumption that I am making: that since the executive branch hires its own lawyers, it will ALWAYS be able to claim that any Constitutional breach arises from a close, disputed interpretation of the Constitution.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're talking about MY position now Tom, not yours. You don't get to tack your assumptions onto my position. You can say that my position plus your assumptions will lead to a certain result.
But you haven't been saying that. You've been repeating statements of my position that I have already told you are inaccurate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
While it MAY be the case that some blueberries are in fact purple and therefore anathema to you, I think it would highly unfair to presume that my confusion is deliberate. When you've parsed out your opinions as narrowly as you have on this topic (and others), it's rather silly to take umbrage at misunderstandings.
It's like you've asked me to throw a baseball into a glove in your hand, but I have to do it blindfolded -- and you're standing inside a box with a single hole in it. And you're berating me for guessing. You've noted that I've worded my requests for clarifications as questions; this is specifically because I have trouble believing that you could possibly mean what I'm perceiving your meaning to be.
If you don't want people to logically extend your opinions based on their own assumptions, give them enough information to fill in the gaps. If you, for (ludicrous) example, believe that space aliens will prevent the President of the United States from committing impeachable offenses as long as the moon rock remains in the window of the National Cathedral, that's sufficiently relevant to the basis of your opinion on impeachment that people should be forgiven for not making the same logical leap.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
While it MAY be the case that some blueberries are in fact purple and therefore anathema to you, I think it would highly unfair to presume that my confusion is deliberate. When you've parsed out your opinions as narrowly as you have on this topic (and others), it's rather silly to take umbrage at misunderstandings.
It's like you've asked me to throw a baseball into a glove in your hand, but I have to do it blindfolded -- and you're standing inside a box with a single hole in it. And you're berating me for guessing. Get over it.
Bull, Tom. You have twice now applied YOUR assumptions - assumptions you KNOW I don't shared - to my position to reach a conclusion, then stated that I support that conclusion.
I'm not asking you to restate my position at all. In fact, at this point, I'd be just peachy if you stopped trying to do it. You suck at it. You continue to say the same thing over and over and over about my position in the face of specific denials.
There's no cause to do that.
quote:If you don't want people to logically extend your opinions based on their own assumptions, give them enough information to fill in the gaps.
You're not making assumptions about my opinion. Your making assumptions about different things.
Here's what you're doing, also a ludicrous example:
Person 1: I don't believe in God. Person 2: Why do you think murder is OK? Person 1: I don't think murder is OK. Person 2: But if there's no God, then murder must be OK.
To translate:
Me: In situations like FISA and oversight, where the President presents colorable legal arguments, Congress should not impeach until SCOTUS has evaluated those arguments. Tom: Why do you think SCOTUS must pass on every impeachment. Me: I don't. Tom: But there's always a colorable legal argument.
Person 1 does not think that if there is no God, then murder must be OK.
I do not think that there's always a colorable argument. You know this - we've argued about it.
For you to now insist that I think a SCOTUS decision (or violation of the criminal code, something you've yet to explain where it came from) is necessary before any impeachment is wrong - and, in the face of repeated explanations, simply a lie.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have twice now applied YOUR assumptions - assumptions you KNOW I don't shared...
But I DON'T know you don't share them. It is absolutely self-evident to me that the President's chosen Attorney General will attempt to find (or, at the very least, assert), when pressed, a valid Constitutional interpretation for any of the Executive Branch's maneuvers. It is equally clear to me that these assertions of the Attorney General will be considered with sufficient weight that the mere existence of these assertions will be seen by some as proof of "good-faith" differences of opinion over Constitutional interpretation.
It is, quite frankly, inconceivable to me that someone could believe otherwise. It would be like saying that I'm mischaracterizing you because I've been assuming this whole time that rain generally falls towards the Earth.
And when I've said things like "Dag, does that mean you don't think ... etc...," you've accused me of asking leading questions.
quote:I do not think that there's always a colorable argument. You know this - we've argued about it.
But, quite specifically, what we argued about is that there is no way for Congress to meaningfully draw the distinction between a "colorable legal argument" and a steaming pile of B.S. in this situation. And in this thread, you've indicated that you would in general accept the determination of the Supreme Court in that case, and would believe that Congress would be acting improperly without first obtaining it, thus indicating that you do expect a SCOTUS decision on pretty much every potential impeachment case (since, after all, we can reasonably expect the DoJ to assert that it has a legal argument.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is, quite frankly, inconceivable to me that someone could believe otherwise. It would be like saying that I'm mischaracterizing you because I've been assuming this whole time that rain generally falls towards the Earth.
Fine. We're done, then, because you are incapable of imagining something that is screamingly obvious to me.
And I'm not even asking you to admit that it's screamingly obvious, just that other people can think it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you explain to me why you think the Attorney General of the United States would not come up with an assertion of legality in this situation? And why, if he refused, the President would not simply demand his resignation and replace him with one more amenable to that "interpretation?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you explain to me why you think the Attorney General of the United States would not come up with an assertion of legality in this situation?
Counterexample 1: The visit to Ashcroft and subsequent events.
The more general answer is that I've qualified this with the word "colorable" repeatedly. That's not an empty word.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Ashcroft example is complicated in that firing him at that point would have been resulted in serious political damage to President Bush.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
