FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Bush, Executive Privilege and the War... with Congress? (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Bush, Executive Privilege and the War... with Congress?
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.)

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
re: signing statements

Recess appointments

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.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Bush's statement:

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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
roarr boom bang crash

MEANWHILE, ELSEWHERE

how about that executive privilege thing huh

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Smile] 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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
OK, if it's one of these longstanding grudges I should probably withold judgment. Sorry!
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

[Smile]

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I can't see any Congress passing such a law. Not when there are members that have executive office envy...er...ambition.

[Smile]

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puppy
Member
Member # 6721

 - posted      Profile for Puppy   Email Puppy         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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!

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

(Speaking of which, a rather good point...)

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You have repeatedly dismissed certain points of view by assuming bias exists.
Do you believe it is unreasonable to assume bias?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"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?

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"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?

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2