Last Shout - Posted by: Rother - Thursday, 08 June 2017 08:01
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but please close the door to your hotel room first.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 25, 2017, 05:16:54 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: HTTPS Secure access now enabled.  https://dosomefink.com

+  DoSomefink.com
|-+  Politics & World Affairs
| |-+  Politics & World Affairs
| | |-+  Over/Under on Impeachment
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Over/Under on Impeachment  (Read 2490 times)
bboyle
Opening Day Veteran
Loquitur Maximus
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6781



View Profile
« Reply #75 on: April 12, 2017, 06:25:36 PM »

Oh, dear:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/paul-manafort-donald-trump.html?_r=0
Logged

"BB is correct though. The vetting process has been very problematic."
bboyle
Opening Day Veteran
Loquitur Maximus
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6781



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: April 12, 2017, 06:31:02 PM »

I think both sides mis-used the war powers resolution. You are mono-maniacally focused on Democrats.

I have a harder time coming up with GOP president violations. 
I know Reagan got authorization for his ill fated Lebanon nation building.
Bush I was told by Democratic Speaker Foley that he didn't need to worry about it when he planned to dump 28k men into Somalia, but he also only had 47 days left when he started, so it was hard for the clock to run out on him.  Of course he got authorization for the first war with Iraq.
Clinton openly defied its stipulations after tried, and failed, to pass a support resolution for his bombing campaign with Serbia.  He should have been impeached for that reason.
Bush got authorization for his regime change and nation building, but you're right they used the AUMF regarding the 9/11 attacks to hit a host of countries.
Obama went for regime change Libya, but without the congressional authorization, and I think that's bad not because he's a democrat, but because it violates the separation of powers and sends us farther down the road of the Imperial Presidency.


We disagree on this only in degree, not substance. Presidents should be required to get authorization from Congress except under clearly stipulated and limited conditions. Unfortunately, nobody in Congress is at all motivated to responsibly deal with this issue when their own party is in power.
Logged

"BB is correct though. The vetting process has been very problematic."
Soddball
Cobra Kai - No Mercy
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5221



View Profile
« Reply #77 on: April 12, 2017, 10:55:28 PM »

Imperial Presidency only works when the Emperor pays the wages of the army directly out of his own pocket (a la Roman Empire).  Otherwise they aren't 'his' armed forces. 
Logged
mididoctors
Opening Day Veteran
Hoopy Frood
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3844



View Profile
« Reply #78 on: April 13, 2017, 04:07:58 AM »

Imperial Presidency only works when the Emperor pays the wages of the army directly out of his own pocket (a la Roman Empire).  Otherwise they aren't 'his' armed forces. 

could be argued he can steer federal funds into the generals agenda thou..

but yeah the analogy only stretches so far.

we have to contend with the idea of something new that has its own dynamics.

same is true of the new authoritarian democracies we see being established.  this is a new mode of tyranny that is very difficult to pin down and counter due to its constantly shifting identity and use of new media.

at some point we have to come up with new definitions.
Logged

"Oversimplifying greatly, it's as though the US borrowed a pile of money from China in order to fight a war to free up oil supply in Iraq in order that China could become the greatest industrial power the world has ever seen.."
dfgardner
Cobra Kai - No Mercy
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5799



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: April 13, 2017, 06:59:59 AM »

I think both sides mis-used the war powers resolution. You are mono-maniacally focused on Democrats.

I have a harder time coming up with GOP president violations. 
I know Reagan got authorization for his ill fated Lebanon nation building.
Bush I was told by Democratic Speaker Foley that he didn't need to worry about it when he planned to dump 28k men into Somalia, but he also only had 47 days left when he started, so it was hard for the clock to run out on him.  Of course he got authorization for the first war with Iraq.
Clinton openly defied its stipulations after tried, and failed, to pass a support resolution for his bombing campaign with Serbia.  He should have been impeached for that reason.
Bush got authorization for his regime change and nation building, but you're right they used the AUMF regarding the 9/11 attacks to hit a host of countries.
Obama went for regime change Libya, but without the congressional authorization, and I think that's bad not because he's a democrat, but because it violates the separation of powers and sends us farther down the road of the Imperial Presidency.


We disagree on this only in degree, not substance. Presidents should be required to get authorization from Congress except under clearly stipulated and limited conditions. Unfortunately, nobody in Congress is at all motivated to responsibly deal with this issue when their own party is in power.

The above is true only to a point.  No POTUS, of any party, will cede POTUS power to Congress.  Congress, for many reasons (our guy in power and we don't want to cripple him, fecklessness or not really wanting to be the ones who stop a POTUS from taking action because POTUS can then blame Congress on any bad stuff..the finger pointing game) is not empowered with Executive Powers. 

You want to take the first step toward empowering Congress?  Repeal the direct election of Senators.  Make the State Legislatures/State Executive appoint Senators.
Logged
Hakko
Cobra Kai - No Mercy
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5113



View Profile
« Reply #80 on: April 13, 2017, 08:37:23 AM »

I think both sides mis-used the war powers resolution. You are mono-maniacally focused on Democrats.

I have a harder time coming up with GOP president violations. 
I know Reagan got authorization for his ill fated Lebanon nation building.
Bush I was told by Democratic Speaker Foley that he didn't need to worry about it when he planned to dump 28k men into Somalia, but he also only had 47 days left when he started, so it was hard for the clock to run out on him.  Of course he got authorization for the first war with Iraq.
Clinton openly defied its stipulations after tried, and failed, to pass a support resolution for his bombing campaign with Serbia.  He should have been impeached for that reason.
Bush got authorization for his regime change and nation building, but you're right they used the AUMF regarding the 9/11 attacks to hit a host of countries.
Obama went for regime change Libya, but without the congressional authorization, and I think that's bad not because he's a democrat, but because it violates the separation of powers and sends us farther down the road of the Imperial Presidency.


We disagree on this only in degree, not substance. Presidents should be required to get authorization from Congress except under clearly stipulated and limited conditions. Unfortunately, nobody in Congress is at all motivated to responsibly deal with this issue when their own party is in power.

The above is true only to a point.  No POTUS, of any party, will cede POTUS power to Congress.  Congress, for many reasons (our guy in power and we don't want to cripple him, fecklessness or not really wanting to be the ones who stop a POTUS from taking action because POTUS can then blame Congress on any bad stuff..the finger pointing game) is not empowered with Executive Powers. 

You want to take the first step toward empowering Congress?  Repeal the direct election of Senators.  Make the State Legislatures/State Executive appoint Senators.

I'm down with that.
Logged

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. -- Jonathan Swift
Seminole
Master Blaster
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10275



View Profile
« Reply #81 on: April 23, 2017, 06:57:35 PM »

Imperial Presidency only works when the Emperor pays the wages of the army directly out of his own pocket (a la Roman Empire).  Otherwise they aren't 'his' armed forces. 

I'm trying to fathom a scenario where the President tells the Chairman of the JCS to bomb country X and is told, "No, you don't pay my salary."

Members of Congress can't do that.  No one else can do that.  Makes them effectively 'his' in my book.

When Clinton openly and wantonly violated the stipulations of the War Powers resolution (namely, not ending combat when he failed to get Congressional authorization within 30 days of initiating hostilities (and then he even carried on beyond the additional 30 days the President is given to extricate forces - in this case, quit launching bombers)) it left me wondering if a President would ever bother again in my lifetime.  Bush II did, but our Nobel Prize winner decided the 2001 AUMF was actually open season on nation on earth he wanted to bomb, and he acted accordingly.

How do we rein this in?
Logged
Soddball
Cobra Kai - No Mercy
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5221



View Profile
« Reply #82 on: April 24, 2017, 09:25:43 AM »

If we take the Roman Empire as an analogy, you can't.  The senate becomes weaker and less effective and the Emperor and his dynasty rules until the Huns and Goths set fire to everything.
Logged
dfgardner
Cobra Kai - No Mercy
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5799



View Profile
« Reply #83 on: April 24, 2017, 09:57:43 AM »

Imperial Presidency only works when the Emperor pays the wages of the army directly out of his own pocket (a la Roman Empire).  Otherwise they aren't 'his' armed forces. 

I'm trying to fathom a scenario where the President tells the Chairman of the JCS to bomb country X and is told, "No, you don't pay my salary."


In order to refuse an officer has to prove (and note the burden is upon the person rejecting the order) that the order was unlawful.  Or, the officer has to resign...that's it, no other options.
You don't want the military saying 'nah, we're not doing that'.....that slope won't end where you think it will.

Quote
Members of Congress can't do that.  No one else can do that.  Makes them effectively 'his' in my book.

Not true at all; Congress has the power of the purse...which can lead to impeachment and removal from office for doing 'unfunded' stuff.

Quote
When Clinton openly and wantonly violated the stipulations of the War Powers resolution (namely, not ending combat when he failed to get Congressional authorization within 30 days of initiating hostilities (and then he even carried on beyond the additional 30 days the President is given to extricate forces - in this case, quit launching bombers)) it left me wondering if a President would ever bother again in my lifetime.  Bush II did, but our Nobel Prize winner decided the 2001 AUMF was actually open season on nation on earth he wanted to bomb, and he acted accordingly.

See above for the answer.

Quote
How do we rein this in?

Right now YOU directly elect your representatives (both in the House and Senate).  The fault, Dear Seminole, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.
Logged
Seminole
Master Blaster
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10275



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: April 24, 2017, 10:56:31 AM »

Quote
Not true at all; Congress has the power of the purse...which can lead to impeachment and removal from office for doing 'unfunded' stuff

I meant McCain can't order bombers into Syria, no matter how badly he wants it.

I'm trying to remember the last time Congress told the president he couldn't bomb somewhere because they bought those bombs for some other purpose.

Each election the choice seems to always be Kang or Kodos. American people voted for Bush when he said no more nation building. Then they voted for Obama and even the Nobel fell hook, line, and sinker for that stinker. Then we vote in the guy who says no more stupid wars, why are we borrowing with no end in site to protect first world nations, and even said the president would be making a mistake to bomb Syria without congressional approval.

American voter keeps thinking they have options, but the only option is always more of the same.

I think Butler was right, only real way to stop this shit is to conscript capital. The rich would put an end to this if it cost them money instead of made them money.
Logged
dfgardner
Cobra Kai - No Mercy
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5799



View Profile
« Reply #85 on: April 24, 2017, 01:14:09 PM »

Bombs are not bought for other purposes; however Congress can say 'spend no money doing X Y or Z.'

Happens all the time; the DoD name for funds like that is 'fenced funds.' 

The larger issue is POTUS has Commander in Chief powers.  However, Congress can impeach and remove from office for about any issue they want:  High Crimes and Misdemeanors has never, IIRC, been defined.

Impeachment and removal is a political act/ not a legal one.

Flip he coin:  POTUS could be removed for failure to act as well.
Logged
Seminole
Master Blaster
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10275



View Profile
« Reply #86 on: April 24, 2017, 06:49:32 PM »

Bombs are not bought for other purposes; however Congress can say 'spend no money doing X Y or Z.'

I think that interpretation turns the express intent of the law on its head. It is the perogative of the Congress to declare what wars we will have, not to declare what wars we won't have and then leave the president to whip up any not thusly forbidden.
Logged
dfgardner
Cobra Kai - No Mercy
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5799



View Profile
« Reply #87 on: April 25, 2017, 04:38:20 AM »

Then you don't understand how funding actually works.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
 


MKPortal M1.1.2b ©2003-2007 mkportal.it
Page generated in 0.01051 seconds with 13 queries