Bush has described himself as “the Decider” and now “the Decision Maker.” Kathleen folded that into “the Decisioner,” but Ariel then came up with one I like even better: The Decisionator.
But here’s my question: Is he really?
From my admittedly layman’s understanding of these things, the President serves as the instrument of Congress. Congress has the power to declare war (or, as was the case with Iraq, the power to abrogate that power, apparently) and the President, as the Commander-in-Chief or, if you will the Decisionator, then wages the war on Congress’s behalf.
What I’m a little unclear on is: Does Congress has the power to *un*declare war?
The Decisionator is determined to send in more troops, and Congress seems determined to voice its objections via a nonbinding resolution, which is kind of like parents setting a curfew and then enforcing it by announcing that they’re going to snore really loudly in protest when the kid breaks it. What I want to know is whether Congress has the power to say, “We’re done. We were told the United States was going to war for these reasons. These reasons no longer exist. The war is over. We’re pulling out,” and then inform the President that he no longer has Congressional authority to wage war, and that if he continues to do so, he will be impeached. In which case, does the Decisionator obey their will or does he tell them to go screw themselves, in which case we have a full blown constitutional crisis.
I’m no con law scholar. I honestly don’t have any idea. But it would be interesting in that it would be the second time in the last seven years that matters relating to George Bush suddenly send everyone scrambling to the constitution to see what should happen next.
PAD
• 
“An Den…” stated:
“Nixon resigned just as an impeachment resolution was being prepared and he realized that he had less than ten GOP Senators still on his side. I’m not sure what can happen to convince Bush that he’s going to get the boot anyway.”
Right now a good number of GOP Senators are not happy. What if it turns out that when Scooter Libby uses as a defense in his perjury case that he was told to leak Valarie Plame’s name by higher ups like the President and Vice President, AND IT WORKS? What does the GOP do then?
Then the GOP Senators will be thinking about how their party can run in 2008 with the taint of a huge war-causing scandal. Just as Republicans were afraid of losing the White House in 1976 if they did not completely separate themselves from the President in 1974. They lost House/Senate seats in November 74, but nearly gained the White House by 76 because they made Watergate a Nixon issue not a Republican one.
–Captain Naraht
An Official Cutsy Moniker
“I don’t think the Senate can force Bush to negotiate a treaty. They can only ratify a treaty that has already been presented to him.”
Thanx Capt. Naraht (A.O.C.M.). I forgot about that little turd in the political crap mixer. Only problem I see is that at best they would get a clean shot a Cheney. (Irony, anyone?).
To end the war by impeachment, you need a twofer. Get Bush and Cheney both. Cheney has got the Plame leak affair, the Vice President’s energy commitee (basically a giant circle jerk for Halliburton et. al.), Halliburton’s no bid contracts in Iraq, and don’t even go into quail hunting. There is also his actions as President of the Senate.
For Bush, outside the war, there is the longshot of the whole Katrina debacle. It’s shakey at best, but “Sometimes you gotta roll a hard six.”
I remember all the talk from the far right that Clinton wasn’t going to step down at the end of his second term and it seemed nuts back then, too. They held up a statement by him to the effect that if the Constitution didn’t prevent it, he’d have considered running for a third term as proof.
Amen, bro. There’s also the little matter that any coup would require the complicity of the armed forces and I doubt that anyone other than the absolute fringe black helicopter crowd on the right and left think that the military is just itching to take over the country.
GWB: “I’m the decision-maker [when it comes to Iraq].”
72% of Americans: “Dude, that’s not anything to brag about.”
Paul
Ixnay on the ilitarymay not unningray the ountryray. You don’t want to let them in on the secret that they don’t all ready.
While the Senate can’t force the president to negotiate a treaty, they can remove a president that fails to abide by the overwhelming desires of Congress. Failing to pursue a peace that is advocated by a large portion of the populace, and has the backing of Congress, could be seen as treason.
“Failing to pursue a peace that is advocated by a large portion of the populace, and has the backing of Congress, could be seen as treason.”
Lying about the reasons for going to war could be seen as treason. Handing foreign policy over to Halliburton, KRB and large commercial mercenary corporations,outing a covert CIA field officer to punish her husband, illegal wire taps, firing generals for giving their honest proffessional opinions on the current military situation…
Who needs the guy to refuse to negotiate a peace in Iraq? The Hole in the Head Gang on the hill just need the political balls to pull the trigger.
There’s also the little matter that any coup would require the complicity of the armed forces and I doubt that anyone other than the absolute fringe black helicopter crowd on the right and left think that the military is just itching to take over the country.
Absolutely. And I’d also like to believe that the Secret Service would also respect the Constitution and not back a president that refused to vacate the White House when his time was up.
Bush’s approval ratings are so low, even the republicans are now counting down the days for when he leaves, if only because he’s becoming largely irrelevent to the domestic side of policy.
As for Clinton, it was ludicrous to say that he’d be willing to run for a third term if the law allowed it as proof that he wasn’t planning on leaving at the end of his second term. That’s like claiming that somene saying they might try smoking marijuana if it were legal is proof that they’re a smack addict.
“They held up a statement by him to the effect that if the Constitution didn’t prevent it, he’d have considered running for a third term as proof.”
God, that was a fun time. We had a several from that crowd working for us at the time. They used that line to point out what a power hungry scumball Clinton was for wanting to subvert the American process like that.
I loved pointing them to the same quote made by their hero, Big Ronnie, and to the fact that, before being hit hard by his illness, he said that he had wanted to work to get the law changed to allow that kind of thing again. Oh, it was so much fun to watch them sputter on about how, when Reagan said it, it was totally different and maybe even a good idea. it was just evil when Clinton said it.
And that one line in there often confused most of them. Most of them had no idea that you could serve more then two terms in America for a longer time then you couldn’t. It also shocked them a bit to learn that it was an R thing that came back to bite them in the butt when they most wanted a three termer themselves.
Gotta love politics sometimes.
😉
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at January 29, 2007 03:21 PM
Failing to pursue a peace that is advocated by a large portion of the populace, and has the backing of Congress, could be seen as treason.
That would dilute the term “treason” to the point of meaninglessness. According to the Microsoft Encarta dictionary, treason is a “violation of the allegiance owed by a person to his or her own country, for example, by aiding an enemy.” Merely pursuing an unpopular course of action clearly falls short of any reasonable interpretation of the definition above.
And yes, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am aware that Bush’s actions have made this country less secure. But incompetence in and of itself is not treasonous.
I recall nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the president to only pursue popular courses of action.
its a common trip going back 200 year where a president is faced with a congress not willing to pay for the millatry action he want to take, so he will sent them out anyways then congress will be have to pay for it reguardless of where they want to or not. Example that come to mind is Teddy Rosvent wanting to show the world the new upgraded 7 fleet with a round the world tour. congress send no but teddy had enough money in the budget to get them half way there knowing that congress would have to pay to bring them back.
In this case bush can send troops, but should congress choose to end the war that would be the end of it. But for some reason the dems woudl rather pass non binding resoltion rather doing something that does more that point fingers.
And yes, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am aware that Bush’s actions have made this country less secure. But incompetence in and of itself is not treasonous.
Well, could gross negligence rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Posted by: Sasha at January 29, 2007 05:01 PM
Well, could gross negligence rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
The U.S. Constitution provides no guidance on what is meant by “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” So, really, the term can mean whatever we want it to mean.
The problem with actions is that they have consequences. In spite of the rationalizations offered on the surface, Clinton was impeached because Republicans didn’t like his policies and hated the man. The people I’ve heard advocating Bush’s impeachment have been offering rationales that pretty much amount to the same thing. Do we want to see farcical impeachment proceedings every four to eight years? I sure don’t.
Also, bear in mind that you can’t summon the devil and then expect him to behave. Using impeachment as a weapon in a policy dispute now will hamper the ability of future presidents to lead… including ones whose policies you agree with.
“Well, could gross negligence rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?”
I don’t know. How badly do you really want to devalue the meaning of those words?
From a photo of the protests over the weekend, somebody had a sign that read:
“Impeachment, it’s not just for bløwjøbš any more”.
The U.S. Constitution provides no guidance on what is meant by “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” So, really, the term can mean whatever we want it to mean.
Possibly, but I think the Supreme Court would knock down any attempt that did not include an actual crime or misdemeanor.
Now, they could just make something up and convict him of an actual crime for which there is no evidence. I’m not sure that there are penalties for a jury knowingly delivering a verdict they know to be unjust.
Of course, the idea that you could get 60 senators to go along with such a radical plan is so unlikely it strains credibility.
Bill Mulligan, I don’t believe the Supreme Court has any authority to stop such proceedings. The U.S. Consitution states that “The House of Representatives shall… have the sole Power of Impeachment,” and that “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
If the President of the United States is tried, the U.S. Constitution does stipulate that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will preside. But nowhere do I see anything that would give him the power to set aside the Senate’s verdict.
Mind you, I’m not advocating that we go crazy with impeachment just because we can. As I said in a prior thread about impeachment, it’s like a hammer. You can do a lot of things with both, but that doesn’t mean you should do all of those things.
Wow. It’s a hoot reading so many constitutional scholars argue back and forth. If only some of the arguements held any water…
High crimes or misdemeanors are felonies or misdemeanors. Period. Lying to a grand jury is a crime. Doing something that people don’t agree with isn’t a crime. So, in order to cause a constitutional crisis, all the house and senate would have to do is attempt impeachment at this point.
Next, if Bush were to be impeached and forced out of office, there’s Cheney waiting in the wings. If Bush scares you as President, then Cheney should scare you even more. Oh, but wait…someone said something along the lines of “let’s get them both at once”. Nice try, but it doesn’t work that way. If somehow both were going thru the impeachment process, then I have no doubt that Cheney would resign and someone like McCain, or Giuliani or even Jeb Bush would be nominated as VP. At that point, impeachment would have to stop and confirmation of the VP would begin.
Jeff in NC, are you a Constitutional scholar? Because in the articles I’ve read, actual Constitutional scholars have generally stated that “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is an “art term,” and that impeachment was intended by the framers of the Constitutional to be a political rather than a judicial process.
Attitude is no substitute for knowledge.
Sigh… I’m tired, not feeling well, and not writing well either. I’m not sure I made this clear in my post above: by “art term,” the scholars quoted in articles I’ve read (and interviewed on television shows I’ve watched, like the Jim Lehrer News Hour) meant that the phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” was deliberately left wide, wide, w-i-d-e open to interpretation by the framers of the Constitution.
Blessedly, throughout history impeachment has been a rarity and in general only applied in extreme cases. Unfortunately, there have been frivolous impeachments of government officials. I would argue that the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton fall into that category.
If that was already clear, sorry, no intent to condescend. I’m just tired and headachey right now. Off to bed soon.
Your sheltering of a predator who arbitrarily sacrificed over 3,000 and counting of the best of their generation — for the ivory-tower principle of preventing a presidential impeachment every 4-8 years — is nauseating.
It isn’t an issue of trading Bush’s life for the many, or even of his mortgage hanging in the balance. To you sheltering the president’s job is more important than the lives of 3,000 soldiers and their families. Vanity is the currency of your world.
Bush is subject to the uniform code of military justice. He ordered the invasion of an oil-rich Muslin nation on no evidence. Let him be fired for the crime of fraud, waste, and abuse.
Bill Myers, no offense taken. : )
My point was that there has to be some reason other than “we disagree” to go for impeachment. I don’t remember the details about Andrew Jackson, but for Clinton, he lied to the grand jury. That is a crime. I do agree, however, that how it got to the grand jury was a waste of time and energy. Without something that falls into the legal definition of a crime, I think it would be very difficult to bring impeachment procedures against any politician.
And Mike, even though the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, he isn’t bound by the UCMJ since he isn’t an actual active member of any of the armed forces. The US was set up to have civilians in charge of the military.
Unfortunately, there have been frivolous impeachments of government officials. I would argue that the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton fall into that category.
But those are the only two impeachments of US presidents, so what were the reasonable ones?
If the President of the United States is tried, the U.S. Constitution does stipulate that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will preside. But nowhere do I see anything that would give him the power to set aside the Senate’s verdict.
No but if the President were to appeal to the court on the grounds that the Senate was violating the constitution for bringing about impeachment for a non-crime, they would have the power to do something about it.
My guess–purely a guess since, as I’ve said, this is not going to happen–is that even the most liberal members of the court (who might be thrilled to see Bush gone) would be very reluctant to give so much power to the Senate and throw the balance of power out of whack.
At any rate, I see little evidence that there is any groundswell of desire in the Senate for such a confrontation. Hey, did anyone fromthe Senate even bother to speak at the big war protest the otehr day?
I have to agree with Bill Myers about SCOTUS and impeachment. There really is no provision for appealing an impeachment. If the Senate votes to remove a president from office, it’s a done deal.
I do wish there was some way we could argue that gross incompetence is a high crime and misdemeanor. But, having bad policies as a reason for impeachment is probably a bad precedent to set.
As it is, I predict the GOP will introduce their first impeachment measure against the next democratic president about five seconds after he/she is sworn in anyway.
My guess–purely a guess since, as I’ve said, this is not going to happen–is that even the most liberal members of the court (who might be thrilled to see Bush gone) would be very reluctant to give so much power to the Senate and throw the balance of power out of whack.
I don’t know about that. A 2/3’s majority is required in the Senate to remove the president. SCOTUS may be reluctant to interfere if that many Senators have agreed that the president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”. The court has in recent years (Kelo) given the elected officials wide latitude when the limits are not clearly spelled out in the law.
Scalia and his sock puppet (Thomas) would of course, vote in favor of a republican even if he was caught on video tape raping a girl scout. It’s still uncertain about Alito and Roberts.
Posted by: Jeff In NC at January 29, 2007 11:25 PM
Bill Myers, no offense taken. : )
Sorry about the confrontational nature of that last post. I really wasn’t feeling well last night and should’ve stayed away from the keyboard.
Posted by: Jeff In NC at January 29, 2007 11:25 PM
My point was that there has to be some reason other than “we disagree” to go for impeachment.
Oh, I absolutely agree. While the framers of the Constitution provided little guidance as to what constitutes (no pun intended) “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” they clearly intended the impeachment process to be a remedy for criminal behavior. In fact, I believe George Mason wanted to include “maladministration” as grounds for impeachment, but James Madison, who favored criminal behavior as the only grounds, won out.
Posted by: Jeff In NC at January 29, 2007 11:25 PM
Without something that falls into the legal definition of a crime, I think it would be very difficult to bring impeachment procedures against any politician.
Ultimately, I believe “We the People” are the “check and balance” in the process as the House and Senate are ultimately answerable to the voters. Of course, that only works if people a.) vote and b.) make an informed vote.
Posted by: Den at January 29, 2007 11:26 PM
But those are the only two impeachments of US presidents, so what were the reasonable ones?
Per the Constitution, “civil Officers of the United States” may be subject to impeachment. At the Federal level, one Senator and more than a dozen judges have been impeached throughout our nation’s history, as well as one Presidential Cabinet member.
Of course, I’m not sure that all of those were “reasonable” because I don’t know the exact details of all of those impeachments. 🙂
Personally, all I want is if Bush or Cheney is Impeached, is to show anyone running for Presidential office that there is some distinct accountability for your bad decisions. Especially when you start a failing War, and your direct inability for decisive action at the proper moment directly lead to the death of thousands of American Civilians. See, the way I see it, giving Bush or anyone like him a lifelong pension, Secret Service security, and a Library are simply rewards after failing being a proper leader. Screw that. Maybe thats how things work in a corporation, but for public office, hëll no. More people need to realize that if enough of us push the issue to these people we voted in, things may change.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors are whatever the House says they are. Under our presidential impeachment process, the House draws up the articles of impeachment, which must be passed by a simple majority. The Senate then conducts the trial. It really is as simple as that. Is it a good thing, government wise, to go about impeaching a president that’s unpopular, or politically unfavored? Perhaps not. But when the reason for those low opinions is because of his actions, and those actions make the country less safe, cost the lives of American soldiers, and waste billions of American taxpayer dollars, I’d say hëll yes.
We can argue about what High Crimes and Misdemeanors should mean, or might mean. but in the end, if Congress is uniformly displeased by the president, for whatever reason, they have the means to remove him. It’s part of the checks and balances built into our government. The main reason they don’t use that power willy nilly is because they have something to lose…their seats. Moreso today than maybe ever before, the value of holding onto a seat is extremely high, and few are willing to take an action that could cost them votes in the next election cycle.
Persons subject to [the UCMJ]:
The CinC is a regular component of the armed forces. Unless you are referring to a specific disqualification for the president, the UCMJ applies to him.
*Extra long post warning*
Jeff from NC stated: “If somehow both were going thru the impeachment process, then I have no doubt that Cheney would resign and someone like McCain, or Giuliani or even Jeb Bush would be nominated as VP. At that point, impeachment would have to stop and confirmation of the VP would begin.”
To this I say “so?”. Like with House Majority Leader Gerald Ford, the President has to pick a likable candidate or the Speaker would be President. (Bella Abzug tried this during the Watergate in 74, but failed)
Expect a VP candidate like Sen Richard Lugar (R)IN or Sen Olympia Snowe (R)ME. A Republican the President is on good terms with that a Democratic Senate would still approve.
Bill Myers stated: “Unfortunately, there have been frivolous impeachments of government officials. I would argue that the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton fall into that category.”
Let’s not let a frivolous impeachment get in the way of the fact that President Andrew Johnson was a two-legged colostomy bag, and a racist, murdering, scumbag.
Mike stated in response to Bill Myers: “Your sheltering of a predator who arbitrarily sacrificed over 3,000 and counting of the best of their generation — for the ivory-tower principle of preventing a presidential impeachment every 4-8 years — is nauseating.
…To you sheltering the president’s job is more important than the lives of 3,000 soldiers and their families. Vanity is the currency of your world.”
Do you get the feeling that Mike isn’t a kindergarten teacher or that he doesn’t have his own TV kids show on PBS called “Happy Smiley Time with Jungle Mike”.
SHEESH Mike I agree with you about 90% of the time, but do you mind dialing the abuse down a few dozen notches?
–Captain Naraht
(An Official Cutsy
Moniker by Ray in NH)
Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 30, 2007 09:36 AM
SHEESH Mike I agree with you about 90% of the time, but do you mind dialing the abuse down a few dozen notches?
Ray, I appreciate your taking a stand for civility, but don’t waste your effort trying to get Mike on board. He is convinced that he has the moral high ground.
In case you missed it, a little while back Mike picked a fight with me because I had the temerity to tell him that an analogy he offered was inflammatory and without substance. He took it as a personal attack and then unleashed invective at me. He then expanded his “enemies list” to include Bill Mulligan, Micha, Jerry Chandler, and Sean Scullion.
Mike’s M.O. is to use personal attacks and insults to provoke anger, and then to claim the mantle of the innocent victim. When confronted with this, he demands that one cite evidence. When evidence is cited, however, he dismisses what is “plainly observable” (to use one of his favorite phrases).
Bill Mulligan, Micha, Jerry, Sean, and most especially myself, got so angry with him that we began meeting his insults with our own. The result? Peter felt forced to shut down a thread. Mike declared that this proved it was we, and not he, that were the trolls.
Since then, we’ve begun ignoring Mike. Desperate for attention, he began looking for a new sparring partner. He picked the wrong guy — Luigi Novi — and got smacked down pretty hard. In about the space of a day, Luigi came to the conclusion that took me weeks to reach — that it is best to ignore Mike.
Those of you who witnessed that meltdown, worry not. This is not going to escalate into another flame war. I’ve stopped reading Mike’s posts.
But I’ve apologized profusely for contributing to the mess that led Peter to lock down the “A Smart Move” thread, while the one person who is most to blame for that mess — Mike — has claimed that he was blameless. For all of my lapses and mistakes, I think I’ve demonstrated here a willingness to admit to my failings and to correct them. Mike has not done the same. I therefore believe I am entitled to set the record straight on this issue.
I fully expect Mike to respond with accusations, taunts, and insults. Don’t worry. I won’t read them. If Mike wants to re-kindle our flame war, he’ll find that it resembles the “sound of one hand clapping” because I will not participate.
“I have to agree with Bill Myers about SCOTUS and impeachment. There really is no provision for appealing an impeachment. If the Senate votes to remove a president from office, it’s a done deal.”
Ohhhh, I dunno. I can just see it: A lawsuit entitled Bush v. the United States asserting that the impeachment was unconstitutional, and it goes directly to SCOTUS.
NOW we’ve got a crisis.
PAD
Posted by: Peter David at January 30, 2007 10:16 AM
Ohhhh, I dunno. I can just see it: A lawsuit entitled Bush v. the United States asserting that the impeachment was unconstitutional, and it goes directly to SCOTUS.
NOW we’ve got a crisis.
THAT is a scary-ášš thought. Seriously.
Mike, did you even read the UCMJ info you cut and pasted? The Commander-in-Chief is not active duty military. He’s a civilian. UCMJ does not apply.
Captain Naraht, why would Bush go out of his way to find someone the senate would agree with immediately? He would go for someone that would cause controversy and take a lot of time to either confirm or reject. By the time anything happens, Bush’s term in office would be over anyway.
Mike, the president is not a member of any armed force. He’s the commander of them all. Were he a memeber, upon his election he’d have to go through at least basic training.
The Founders explicitly rejected the idea that one had to be a member of the military to be president. Clearly they weren’t against the idea that a military person be eligible, but they didn’t make it a requirement.
Jeff in NC:
“Why would Bush go out of his way to find someone the senate would agree with immediately? He would go for someone that would cause controversy and take a lot of time to either confirm or reject.”
You may be mistaken in assuming that a) You can’t impeach the president and the vice-president at the same time. b) The foot dragging sceme wouldn’t pìšš øff the House and Senate and c) that even the most well laid plan meant to subvert a majority in the House, Senate and the Nation would not mean doom for the Republican Party.
a.) No law against impeachment at the same time. While unruly, it could happen.
b.) One thing stops him: Nanci Pelosi. If some Presidential footdragging plan caused gave anyone the idea that the President was stalling, that would just piss Congress off and the Speaker would become President. Google “Bella Abzug” NY(D) and “Watergate” and see how she wanted to impeach Nixon before Ford could replace Spiro Agnew– thus making the Speaker President.
c.) I think you forget that there are a lot of Republicans that want to distance themselves from Bush without voting with the Dems. They would push the President for a Republican replacement (a Gerald Ford for the 21st Century) instead of letting it go to Pelosi
If it really got to the point of some minority in Congress and the President with some foot dragging plan or somehow getting SCOTUS involved (sorry Peter D., I don’t think a Court majority would allow a Bush v. US scenario that you outline. Maybe Alito and Thomas tops, but I think even they would not touch it with a ten foot pole.) the VP/and Prez would be so unpopular as to be political poison to the Republicans in the Congress.
Republicans want this to be a Bush/Cheney thing not a Republican Party thing.
Otherwise this would mean overwhelming victory for the Democrats in 2008 and any Republican with the stink of GW/Cheney on them would be defeated in their own states and congressional districts.
Republicans are not THAT stupid.
–Captain Naraht
(President: Cutsy Monikers “r” Us)
Peter David Stated: “I can just see it: A lawsuit entitled Bush v. the United States asserting that the impeachment was unconstitutional, and it goes directly to SCOTUS.”
To clarify my earlier post, SCOTUS reserves the right to not even hear a case. As conservative as some justices are, I think SCOTUS would bat that back like a hot potato. I think that is the most likly outcome for a potential Bush v. US.
–Capt Naraht
Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 30, 2007 11:25 AM
Republicans are not THAT stupid.
I never bet against the stupidity of politicians, whatever their party affiliation.
A quick note on impeachment, which is related to “undeclaring war”. If Bush was impeached he would not have to sue congress. He would just ignore the impeachment. Congress would then have to sue Bush to have him forcibly removed (assuming the court ruled in their favor). SCOTUS may refuse to hear the case, but that does not mean the case would not be heard. The case would first be heard by a lower court which would make a ruling and then the appeals would begin.
That’s why the process is so important here. The courts have consistently ruled for congresses legal. However, if congress does’t dot all the eyes and cross all the t’s the courts have also shown a willingness to dismiss cases.
Having served in the military, I would not dismiss the potential for any Commander in Chief (correctly used in this case) to ignore the courts order to step down and have the support of the military.
Loyalty to the chain of command runs *very* *very* deep in the military. Even if a soldier, marine, etc thought an order was wrong, they are, in my experience, likely to execute it anyway because they were ordered too.
My point about bringing the court into it was to saythat if congress, as some have suggested, just arbitarily impeached a president NOT for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but “becuae they don’t like him” I could see the executive branch appealling to the supreme court on the grounds that the impeachment was unconstitutional.
In a case like that I think the Court might agree to hear the case quickly, without having to go through the usual channels.
I still say we are arguing about something so remote as to be on the level of fantasy.
Having served in the military, I would not dismiss the potential for any Commander in Chief (correctly used in this case) to ignore the courts order to step down and have the support of the military.
Loyalty to the chain of command runs *very* *very* deep in the military. Even if a soldier, marine, etc thought an order was wrong, they are, in my experience, likely to execute it anyway because they were ordered too.
I can’t speak from experience but from the military folks I know there is no way they would support the overthrow of the government.
Again, I can only urge people to go back to 2000, read the far right websites claiming that Clinton was going to never ever ever relinquish power, especially to a Republican, marvel at the elaborate scenarios presented for how this coup would occur, and, hopefully, recognize how derange-o it all seems now. You can file this away along with other classics like “Bin Laden has been captured and will be released right beofre the 2002 election, I mean the 2004 elections, I mean the 2006 elections, I mean…” or “Karl Rove will use his control of diebold voting machines to ensure the Republicans keep control of both houses of congress”.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 30, 2007 12:41 PM
I still say we are arguing about something so remote as to be on the level of fantasy.
Well, a lot of us are comic-book readers… 😉
Well then make it a good fantasy! Let’s do a version of A Christmas Carol where he gets visited by the ghost of Richard Nixon and then revisits his coke snorting youth, is shown the hardships of soldiers in Iraq and then ends up at his graffiti defaced tombstone. He emerges into the new day a Changed Man. Lame, sure, but at least as likely as some of these scenarios. Also, I firmly believe that EVERYTHING should have a version of A Christmas Carol attached to it. Everything. There should be a law that any show that lasts more than 4 seasons HAS to have a Very Special Christmas episode that is a takeoff of A Christmas Carol.
Pdog, just a point of contention…if Congress were to draw up lawful articles of impeachment, and the Senate were to conduct a trial on those articles…and the president just failed to respond…which seems to be beyond belief, but I won’t put anything past Bush at this time…if all that were to happen, and the Senate decided to remove him from office, and the president just tried to ignore it…that wouldn’t go before a lower court, if it went to a court at all. It’d go directly to the SCOTUS, as no lesser court could really be seen as having the proper authority to rule on it. What’s more likely to happen is that the Congress would go about appointing a replacement for the remainder of the current presidential term, and have that person assume command over the Joint Chiefs, at which point the military would have to decide who to follow…the guy appointed by Congress after a lawful impeachment and removal of the previous president, or the buy sitting in the oval office trying to deny that anyone has any authority over him. And if the Joint Chiefs should split over that decision at all, we’d have a total cessation of our government while the military branches decided if they wanted to open fire on other US soldiers. In other words, a near total breakdown of our government. Not that whoever were left after the shooting stopped couldn’t work to put everything back together again, but it sure would strain the credibility with the People.
…
Both of you are wrong.
You do not have to be active duty to be subject to the UCMJ. “Uniform” does not mean the accused has to wear a uniform — it’s uniform as in the standards are uniform for all military.
As someone who received training in the UCMJ, it was pointed out to me — for one thing — that the section “volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces” says the UCMJ applies to someone once active duty begins, but no qualification is given for when that jurisdiction ends. In that sense alone, Bush is subject to it for his TANG service.
When you say the UCMJ only applies to active duty members, you are speaking from the ignorance of someone who has never gone through basic military training.
As worded, the reach of the UCMJ applies to the CinC.
Almost all of my comments cite the comments they are referring to. Unlike you, I have no purely antagonistic comments, which you have plenty of archived on this site.
I’d like to see any plainly observable comment I’ve made that said I’m innocent or a victim.
I’ve said previously that you abandoned any moral ground, but I don’t have to be a saint for that to be true. If you don’t want to be called a moral cretin, don’t shelter a president who sacrificed the lives of 3,000 soldiers over the ivory-tower principle of thwarting impeachment.
Luigi accused me of lying, I asked him to cite one lie from me, and he walked like someone who wrote a check with his mouth his butt couldn’t cash.
You are all welcome to help Luigi find my lie. You Can Be First.™
I didn’t say I was blameless.
I said for a thread discourse so outrageous, a writer who raises money for the CBLDF (and is also a boardmember) shut it down out of disgust, I had only responded to comments directed to me 3 times in the last 3 days — and my last post to that thread was barely 24 hours old when he shut it down.
To characterize me as “most to blame” is transparently an attempt to mitigate your credentials as a troll. That isn’t contrite at all.
I have to agree with Bill Mulligan — we’re tossing around a lot of scenarios that will happen only when pigs fly out of all of our butts. Our nation has experienced peaceful transitions of power for more than two centuries. For all of its flaws, our system of governance has a good track record and is quite stable.
I’m far more worried about what Bush will do in Iraq over the next two years; and about whether Congress will attempt to do something substantive to force Bush to correct course, or opt for something stupid like an unwarranted impeachment.
Mike, the UCMJ doesn’t apply to the president because he’s not a member of the military. He’s the commander, yes, through the constitution, but he’s not a member, period. Not active, not a volunteer, not anything that’s subject to the UCMJ. He’s a Federal Employee, pretty much the same as me, only I didn’t have to get voted into my job. He’s a civilian, and the UCMJ only applies to members of the military.
Just because you received training on the UCMJ as a member doesn’t make you an expert on the issue of it’s jurisdiction. Unless you’d care to post a link to a teaching manual on the UCMJ where it states explicitly that the office of the president is subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.
Not to question Pdog’s experience with the military, but to bring this scenario back to Bush himself, if the reports that a lot of active duty generals are dissatisfied with Bush, then really, respect for the chain of command is the only thing that is keeping them from revolt now.
But, once Bush’s term is up, then he is no longer the commander-in-chief and therefore, he would be out of the chain of command they would have no obligation to obey his orders any more.
I still don’t believe that he’ll refuse to step down for the reasons outlined above: 1) he’s so unpopular now that he’d lose the last shred of support he has within his own party, 2) the “future presidents” in the Senate won’t stand for him gumming up their destiny, 3) I think he is genuinely tired of the job and wants to go back to permanent vacation, and 4) The PNAC can always find a new stooge to replace him.
Pdog is right as far as the military goes. They support the war. Even the generals that are in disagreement support. What the military doesn’t support is how the war is being fought.
Someone mentioned Korea. The similarities between this Iraq and Korea are closer than Vietnam and Iraq. In Korea, China’s influence is what turned the war. That and the idiocy of MacArthur. Anyone know he tried a coup. In Iraq, Iran’s influence is what is really killing us. We have more to fear from Iran because of Operation Iraqi Freedom than what we felt right after 9/11. We cannot invade Iran, but I bet you there are plans.
As far as impeachment, is it a criminal court that charges a president or the Senate? The Bush Administration’s refusal to follow the law could be at issue. Why have a secret court if you do not use it?
Flash Fact: Could be open to debate, though. By putting terror suspects on U.S. soil gives them right to a fair trial. Case in point. Illegal kills someone. Are they held indefinitely? No they go to trial.
Your interpretation that the UCMJ refers exclusively to active duty military is plainly wrong:
The above doesn’t say “active duty serving with or accompanying…” it says “persons serving with or accompanying…” and nowhere does it say that “persons” refers exclusively to active duty military. Were you to accompany an armed force in the field during wartime, the UCMJ would apply to you.
The first qualification listed in the UCMJ is “Members of a regular component of the armed forces…” The CinC is a regular component of the US military. Without orders from the CinC, everyone in Iraq can come home.
I’m not asking you to take my word on anything. You insist we take your word over the plainly worded qualifications of the UCMJ. Pull your head out of your ášš.