Journal pudge's Journal: Things I Want To Be Told 40
Why do Democrats pretend they cannot revoke Bush's authorization for war in Iraq, and that their only power is the one of the purse?
Why is it acceptable for the Democrats to say it is a "false assumption" that more troops means more security, when they are asserting their own false assumption, that the proposal will necessarily fail?
Why does anyone at all think that the federal government should be responsible for minimum wage, when the states are obviously fully capable of deciding it on their own?
How does it actually matter, make any substantive difference at all, how many days a week that Congress will be in session, as long as they get the job done?
Why does anyone actually care that Pelosi is the first woman Speaker? What substantive meaning exists in this "accomplishment"?
I honestly want good answers to these questions, if any exist.
cuz it's something that "wasn't possible before" (Score:1)
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who see people based on arbitrary groupings, such as gender, race, etc., and those who see people generally as unique individuals, not all clumpable into such overly-broad-as-to-be-meaningless categories. The latter don't see any particular problem with women being Speaker of the House. Nor any particular benefit. But the former 1) couldn't really envision there being a female speaker befor
Re:cuz it's something that "wasn't possible before (Score:2)
wasn't possible before
Wasn't possible before what? Before the Democrats won the Congress last November? Personally, I thought that it became possible for a woman to be Speaker of the House a long time ago. (In fact, I did not realize Pelosi was the first.) I also thought Democrats once controlled the Congress a long time ago, so I'm not sure what's new. This smacks of today's Democrats taking credit for the civil rights victories of more important people, a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, and I am questioning the thinking of those people, not him. :) Elaborating on his comment, not disagreeing with it.
The purse... (Score:2)
Their only clearly defined and not constitutionally troublesome power is the power of the purse strings. The President is the Commander in Chief and Congress has the power to declare war, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can prevent the President from doing what he will with his troops.
The War Powers Act is not necessarily constitutional. And there are some very good argu [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The President is the Commander in Chief and Congress has the power to declare war, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can prevent the President from doing what he will with his troops.
The War Powers Act is not necessarily constitutional.
First, I think if the WPA is not constitutional, it is probably only because it gives the President too much power. But that's beside the point: they act like it is the law (which it is), and say Bush cannot go into Iran or Iraq without authorization, but then because they don't want the responsibility for pulling us out of Iraq but just want to snipe from the sidelines, they pretend they can't revoke the authorization.
If the Democrats were to invoke the War Powers Act, it would accomplish nothing other than putting the country into a constitutional crisis.
Nonsense. The WPA has been followed despite its questionable Constitutionality. Bush
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that if Congress cited the WPA and told him, "Get out of Iraq NOW," that he would comply? I don't believ
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that if Congress cited the WPA and told him, "Get out of Iraq NOW," that he would comply?
I think that regardless of what the President would do, the left has made the case that the need to exit Iraq is strong enough that, if they are correct, this is what Congress should do. If it is as serious as the left made it out to be, the Constitutional crisis, Presidential impeachment, whatever, is preferable to staying in Iraq. Of course, it could be that the left exaggerated just a smidgeon for
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, not all Democratic senators are in favor of leaving Iraq. Lieberman is one obvious example. It only takes one to jump ship and prevent passage.
So the likelihood of getting even a simple majority is very slim. I am sure that their foes would love to see them propose legislation that doesn't have any chance of either passing or being enforceable. But it would not serve either themselves or
Re: (Score:2)
It only takes one to jump ship and prevent passage.
And it only takes one Republican to jump ship and make it pass.
Re: (Score:2)
True. But can you think of one Republican senator that would?
I can't. And even if it could pass, it would be vetoed, and there is no chance of overriding it yet.
The Democrats took over Congress pledging to bring in a new era of bipartisanship. They might squander their political capital, but not so quickly, and not in such an obvious way.
Re: (Score:2)
And it only takes one Republican to jump ship and make it pass.
True. But can you think of one Republican senator that would?
I can't.
So you've never heard of Senator Hagel?
The Democrats took over Congress pledging to bring in a new era of bipartisanship. They might squander their political capital, but not so quickly, and not in such an obvious way.
Heh, they already have started "squandering" it. OK, so not much in the Senate yet, but it's only a matter of time before Jay Rockefeller steamrolls more unsubstantiated conclusions through the Intelligence committee.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard of him, but I don't listen to him much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I try not to think of Senators. :)
But actually, I've been rather under the impression that there's a significant number of moderate Republicans in both houses who might be willing to go along with a Democratic plan, particularly the plan of a Democratic majority, in order to either accomplish their own goals through compromise, accomplish their own goals because they agree with the Dems, or just to score political points.
Re: (Score:2)
That was quick. [myway.com]. Of course, it's a wussy non-binding resolution. Just a way to maintain what is apparently the Democratic Party's official stance of "I voted for the war before I voted against it."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. The WPA has been followed despite its questionable Constitutionality. Bush went to Congress to get the Iraq AUMF. He reports as required by the WPA. And so on. To say you won't abide by the WPA now when you've followed it all along is nonsense (which is why I defend the President when he refuses to do something the Congress says based on principle alone, because precedents matter).
So you think that if Congress cited the WPA and told him, "Get out of Iraq NOW," that he would comply?
No, I am saying he has complied with the WPA all along -- before going into Iraq, and while there -- and it would be a hard sell based on that to say that he won't follow it now. I am saying it's a BS argument to follow the WPA when it suits you and to deny it when it doesn't. If they are really against the WPA they should have denied it from the start.
Re: (Score:2)
But they have. [cnn.com]
"Fleischer said White House lawyers believe the president can act on his own for several reasons, including his authority as commander in chief to make military decisions."
Re: (Score:2)
If they are really against the WPA they should have denied it from the start.
But they have. [cnn.com]
No, you are slightly misquoting me. The preceding sentence was, "I am saying it's a BS argument to follow the WPA when it suits you and to deny it when it doesn't." "Deny" was set in contrast to "follow." So it is not a verbal denial I was looking for, but a refusal to follow, or comply with, the WPA.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your premise is that a president would have to always break a law that he disagrees with, regardless of whether acting in compliance with it was the most efficient way to go. The President would have to choose between preserving the powers of his office (by violating the statute just because it's there) or doing the most efficient and practical thing in a given situation.
That would be a ludicro
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your premise is that a president would have to always break a law that he disagrees with, regardless of whether acting in compliance with it was the most efficient way to go.
That is not m premise. My premise is that he should not follow a law and later expect anyone to care that he thinks it is unconstitutional. And in fact, this President has acted that way in the past. Often.
The President would have to choose between preserving the powers of his office (by violating the statute just because it's there) or doing the most efficient and practical thing in a given situation.
Which is what he normally does, yes: choosing to preserve the powers of his office even when it is less efficient or practical.
Re: (Score:2)
But he hasn't "followed" the law. He has done things which just happen to be consistent with it. You will notice that they never use the phrase "pursuant to" (the WPA) in those reports they send to Congress.
It doesn't matter whether anyone else cares that he thinks it is unconstitutional. He is the Pre
Re: (Score:2)
But he hasn't "followed" the law. He has done things which just happen to be consistent with it. You will notice that they never use the phrase "pursuant to" (the WPA) in those reports they send to Congress.
Yes, I am painfully well aware of this, and it's a cheap and meaningless CYA move. They wouldn't do it if not for the WPA.
It doesn't matter whether anyone else cares that he thinks it is unconstitutional. He is the President. If he thinks it's unconstitutional, he makes that decision. Courts will not interfere in this issue, because it goes to the heart of the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branch.
Well, no. The Courts very well may decide this issue, because it is the Court's responsibility to interpret the Constitution and to settle disputes between the legislative and executive branches. Other than that, you're right that the President gets to make that decision, but that doesn't mean it "doesn't matter" what anyone else thinks. I am not saying Bush can't do this legally o
Re: (Score:2)
That court leaves the option open. I don't think the other courts would do it. Strange though. I have to concede that your reading of the case (which is a valid one) is a little different from the professor's discussion that I linked.
Even if the court would address the merits, it's something that Congress has to be very hesitant to raise in court.
A loss would be devastating, not just for the individual
Re: (Score:2)
See what I mean? If there were a real dispute between the two branches, the Court very well may step in.
That court leaves the option open. I don't think the other courts would do it.
I do. If there is a true and legitimate Constitutional "crisis," I think that is precisely when the Court would step in.
Even if the court would address the merits, it's something that Congress has to be very hesitant to raise in court.
A loss would be devastating, not just for the individual politicians, but for future Congresses.
Yes, that is a very different question. And it is probably a smaller part of why the Congress is saying they cannot step in and force our troops out of Iraq except to remove funding from the troops altogether. I still think the bigger reason is because they simply either do not want to take on the responsibility for what happens if they do (I don't blame them!), or they actually think
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I don't think they would is that it would up the ante too high. Not only is it a risk for Congress, it is a risk for the judiciary to handle the case. All the way back to Marbury v. Madison, the court has been careful in how it handles its limited power. The only resource it has in a conflict with the executive branch is the will of the people to respect its holdings.
You migh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll concede that they might take the case. It's obviously up to the particular judges and/or justices involved.
It would depend on how dangerous of a result we were talking about. If the executive was already asserting that neither the Court nor the Congress had any say in the matter, then there would be no one to enforce the co
Re: (Score:2)
If the executive was already asserting that neither the Court nor the Congress had any say in the matter, then there would be no one to enforce the court's judgment. That could be quite dangerous too.
Well, sorta. Think of it this way: going into the case, ideally, the Justices are undecided on the case. And they know the case can end basically three ways: in favor of the Congress, in favor of the President, or a non-decision. If the latter, well, they have just wasted some time. If the latter, well, as far as any crisis is concerned, that's a good result: no crisis, no question, President can do what he says (the only "crisis" is the President still says it doesn't matter what the Court says, but t
Re: (Score:2)
It can impeach. But that's only fo
Re: (Score:2)
So, you could have the court saying that he has to do it but it's not impeachable if he violates it.
No. The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected that they have any say whatsoever over impeachment, which is a purely political issue, and is the purview of the House and Senate alone. They would not say such a thing.
The problem here, for me, is that Congress clearly has more power than the other two departments. We do not have "coequal branches."
It depends on the given situation. If you have a situation where people working for the executive branch are completely loyal to the President (even above their loyalty to the nation or with blindness to their wrongs), then the President is more powerful. He could get away with almost anything if he filled the executive branch with very loyal people and defied the civil service laws to put in more loyal people under them.
Of course, the President has the most extra-legal "power," but I am talking about legal power. To wit:
Normally, Congress has more power, because it is more directly answerable to the people. It has the respect of the people because the people's voice is heard more directly through them.
That is not why they have more legal power. They have more legal power because they can make and change any laws (again, including the Constitution, with the help of enough states). They
Re: (Score:2)
The case you are talking about (Nixon v. United States) was about the "Senate shall have the power to try all impeachments" clause. It did not cover the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause. I think it's more likely that they would interpret the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Eve
Re: (Score:2)
The case you are talking about (Nixon v. United States) was about the "Senate shall have the power to try all impeachments" clause. It did not cover the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause. I think it's more likely that they would interpret the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
(Note to those following along: this is Walter Nixon, not Richard!)
More likely, yes. But still unlikely. The phrases are left undefined, and I can't see the Court making up definitions when the Constitution and precedent and early writings give no guidance.
And as Rehnquist said in that decision, "... judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and balances." Now you could argue that this argument applies specifically to judicial impeachments only (
Re: (Score:2)
Wha? People are following along?
More likely, yes. But still unlikely. The phrases are left undefined, and I can't see the Court making up definitions when the Constitution and precedent and early writings give no guidance.
The Court makes up definitions all the time where there is no guidance. That is the purpose of the Court, and that's why it's called a "constitution." "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding
Re: (Score:2)
Wha? People are following along? ;-)
You never know!
The Court makes up definitions all the time where there is no guidance. That is the purpose of the Court, and that's why it's called a "constitution." "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." --John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland.
Expounding does not mean making up, but interpreting or explaining. To the extent the Court makes things up, it almost invariably should not.
Rehnquist was quite clear (even though the context of the case is judicial impeachment, again, neither the Constitution nor Hamilton distinguish) that the courts have no place in impeachent, period.
And he was writing a concurring opinion, not a majority opinion. While his arguments might be persuasive to you, I, or a future Court, they are not the law.
No, you're mistaken. He wrote the majority opinion, and that is what I was quoting. To quote the decision:
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I confused it with the case we were talking about earlier... my head hurts now. Thanks
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it is not Constitutional because it gives a power to the Congress that the Constitution gives to the President. That can not be shifted by a plain old law, it must be shifted by an Amendment to the Constitution.
The 1974 Anti-Impoundment Control Act restored an unused power to the Congress that they had abdicated through lack of use (I am still not clear on why that is legal, but the
Re: (Score:2)
First, I think if the WPA is not constitutional, it is probably only because it gives the President too much power.
Actually, it is not Constitutional because it gives a power to the Congress that the Constitution gives to the President.
I disagree. I think if anything it gives power to the President that Congress has. And I am not sure Congress can't do that.
I did not think that control over spending was a Congressional power.
I disagree. Sure, Congress cannot micromanage spending, but whether or not money is used for a war is not micromanaging.
Anyway, when Congresscritters and others say that the only real power they have over the Executive is spending, or the threat of removal from office, those are rare occasions when they are not BSing you.
Here, they are. Maybe YOU think the WPA is unconstitutional, but THEY think it is not, and expect the President to abide by it, and it gives them the power to end this conflict.
Anyway, as I mentioned in the other reply, I think the power of the purse, and what
pudge asks :) (Score:2)
Why do Democrats pretend they cannot revoke Bush's authorization for war in Iraq, and that their only power is the one of the purse?
This one has been mystifying me, too, although until you enunciated it I couldn't quite put my finger on why it bothered me.
I'm at a loss as to why the Congress doesn't pull us out of Iraq tomorrow. It wouldn't bother me if they did. I lean toward the belief that the war was rational and likely necessary, and that pulling out is probably not the best idea, but I also be