Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Impeachment is a legal process as laid out in the book of rules, i.e. the Constitution.
The reason that people decide to act on impeachment though is generally political.
If, and it is a big if, the 2006 elections were to swing democrat, you would be singing a different tune.
The party in power is usually bold and boastful, and usually corrupted by that euphoric feeling that power over others brings.....
The reason that people decide to act on impeachment though is generally political.
If, and it is a big if, the 2006 elections were to swing democrat, you would be singing a different tune.
The party in power is usually bold and boastful, and usually corrupted by that euphoric feeling that power over others brings.....
Quote from dis:
Impeachment is a political matter, not a legal one. I dare congressional Democrats to start impeachment proceedings against Bush for monitoring the fifth column's electronic communications.
Not only is the President not obliged to obey laws he deems unconstitutional, he is not faithfully executing his constitutional duties if he meekly acquiesces in congressional power grabs. The Constitutional Balance of Power scheme envisions battles between the three co-equal Branches. That was the genius of the Founders. They set up a system of checks and balances, the ultimate one being that congress has the impeachment power and the authority to initiate constitutional amendments. Congress has basically let the Judicial Branch run all over it. To a lesser extent they have allowed various Presidents to erode powers delegated to congress by the constitution, eg the power to declare war. So I am not unsympathetic to an attempt by congress to clip the Executive's wings. I just feel that this is not an appropriate issue, and that in fact Bush has by far the better argument, legally and politically.
"Not only is the President not obliged to obey laws he deems unconstitutional....."
AAA, clearly you have gone insane....
You are now officially the Colonel Kurtz of Chit Chat...
I fully believe the founders did not want a King who would thumb his nose at the judicial and legislative branches. Never did they want that kind of power in the hands of one single individual.
They were escaping the tyranny of an autocratic self inspired King George, they would not look kindly on establishing a modern day King George Bush.
This is not ancient Rome, Bush is not Caesar ignoring the power of the Senate, simply because he controlled the military and because he had popular support.
AAA, clearly you have gone insane....
You are now officially the Colonel Kurtz of Chit Chat...
I fully believe the founders did not want a King who would thumb his nose at the judicial and legislative branches. Never did they want that kind of power in the hands of one single individual.
They were escaping the tyranny of an autocratic self inspired King George, they would not look kindly on establishing a modern day King George Bush.
This is not ancient Rome, Bush is not Caesar ignoring the power of the Senate, simply because he controlled the military and because he had popular support.
Kent,
Here is the provision I was referencing:
(b) âAgent of a foreign powerâ meansâ
(1) any person other than a United States person, whoâ
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such personâs presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
(2) any person whoâ
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C). 18 USC15********
**************************************
Under subparagraph b(2), even a U.S citizen who is aiding or abetting al qaeda operations would be subject to warrantless surveillance. By definition, they are "agents of a foreign power".
Here is the provision I was referencing:
(b) âAgent of a foreign powerâ meansâ
(1) any person other than a United States person, whoâ
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such personâs presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
(2) any person whoâ
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C). 18 USC15********
**************************************
Under subparagraph b(2), even a U.S citizen who is aiding or abetting al qaeda operations would be subject to warrantless surveillance. By definition, they are "agents of a foreign power".
You do not seem to understand the balance of powers established by the Constitution. If Congress feels the President is overstepping his role, they have numerous ways to deal with it, beginning with the purse strings and ending with impeachment. The President is hardly a monarch who answers to no one. But he does have a constitutional responsibility to defend the powers of his office, and as a co-equal branch, he has a responsibility not to inflict unconstitutional laws on the country, even if they have been enacted by congress.
The president doesn't decide whether a law is constitutional or not, that's the job of the courts.
Man, sorry to say but you are really twisted.....
Man, sorry to say but you are really twisted.....
Sometimes I miss Nixon. Strange guy but seemed very sharp on politics - not at all like these dolts Bush-Kerry. Never figured out how the heck they believed they we're going to lose that election.
http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=4499&pv=1
http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=4499&pv=1
No, as I stated above 50 U.S.C 1802 specifically restricts the warrantless search provisions to exclude the definitions of "foreign agent." The statute is designed to make it VERY difficult to execute a warrantless wiretap of a "U.S. person," even if that person is suspected of being a "foreign agent."
I think that Congress' intent is that, if the government suspects treasonous actions (i.e., U.S. citizen engaged in espionage or terrorism), then the government needs a warrant from the FISA court.
So this argument won't get the Pres where he wants to go.
And, while I hear you on the argument that among the President's duties is to protect the Separation of Powers, however, I don't see the President as having the inherent power that you apparently believe exists.
You are arguing an extreme version of the Unitary Executive Doctrine, i.e., that the Executive as a separate branch is not actually subject to U.S. Law.
This makes no rational sense to me, because taken to its logical extreme, it means that all administrative agencies of the Executive Branch are merely honoring Congress' Acts, and are actually subject only to Presidential authority, except where expressly provided for in the Constitution.
No reasonable jurist will interpret the Constitution to give the President the power to ignore a valid law. If that were true, then why would the Constitution require the President to sign or veto legislation to make it valid? The President, by signing Congressional legislation is agreeing to be bound by it.
This latest nonsense about signing statements is not going to survive long, because it's the rough equivalent of a line item veto, and that's already been struck down by the USSC.
Kent,
Let me add something.
(a) âForeign powerâ meansâ
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. 50 USC 1801.
**********
Under sec. 1802 the government can wiretap "foreign powers" without a warrant. 1801(a)4 defines groups like al qaeda as foreign powers. 1801(b)2 makes it clear that "agents of a foreign power" can include US citizens. While perhaps not a model of clarity, the staute therefore would seem to allow warrantless tapping of citizens in communications with overseas terrorists groups.
Let me add something.
(a) âForeign powerâ meansâ
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. 50 USC 1801.
**********
Under sec. 1802 the government can wiretap "foreign powers" without a warrant. 1801(a)4 defines groups like al qaeda as foreign powers. 1801(b)2 makes it clear that "agents of a foreign power" can include US citizens. While perhaps not a model of clarity, the staute therefore would seem to allow warrantless tapping of citizens in communications with overseas terrorists groups.