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
• 
Oh, gods, not plainly worded dictionary definitions again.
Someone call the jukebox repairman, the record is stuck….
Mike~
As a former member of the armed services who’s head is not in his ášš I can state categorically the UCMJ des not apply to anyone. The UCMJ applies only to those who have agreed to wave their constitutional rights, as every member of the armed services has for the duration of their enlistment and cannot supercede the constitution.
The term “person” is used because various branches of the military refer to their, well, persons differently and it avoids technical issues. Just as, in theory, The President is only commander in chief of the Army and Navy, and not the Air Force since it isn’t explicitly called out.
Although it does not address the issue of War Powers conclusively, Glenn Greenwald (can you tell i like him yet) has a post touching on the debate within congress itself and is probaly a preude to multiple posts.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
I meant *anyone accompanying ….” not anyone in general. That would be wrong since it does apply to Members of the Armed Forces.
Mike~
Re: Bush being subject to UCMJ due to his previous service.
I don’t have the court case in question in front but there have been a couple recent cases that have affirmed that once your inactive term is up you no longer have any obligation to the military. The cases specifically dealt with attempts to recall former military personel to active duty well after they had completed the terms of thier enlistment (including completing thier inactive reserve duty).
If there are other cases that found differently please cite.
I am going to use the same lame excuse I used with Bill.. baby pressure is severely hampering my ability to really do the research I want here or write our articulate posts. That said here’s another way of phrasing it:
The UCMJ can say whatever it likes, but are there any examples were the Supreme Court or any lower courts have affirmed the military’s right to extend to civilians and/or to former military personel who have been fully discharged (excepting non-citizens who do not reside in the US, they are a different legal animal altogether)?
Den~
I think you are actually agreeing with my statement, so I am not sure how that questions my military experience.
I also want to be clear, I am not saying that the military would definitely do X or Y. I am just suggesting that we may not want to find out becuase the probability that the answer is not one we will like is significant. Maybe not 50 or 60%, but not 0 either.
I think once Bush’s term expires, there wouldn’t be an issue. The military’s loyalty would be tested if Congress were to impeach Bush and he refused to step down. His line of defense would be that Congress doesn’t have the power to do that. The military would then have to decide who had the greater legal authority. I am not positive that the the military wouldn’t take the path of least moral anguish and do what their Commander in Chief told them to do. Following orders and all that. They may disagree privately, but not take action. I am not saying that is what would happen. I just am not so sure anymore after Abu Graib, Gitmo, et al. These are all situations that I was very specifically trained to deal with and very specifically instructed in how to stop. As an officer, I was told that it was my moral obligation to ignore such orders. My particular unit was the one that was charged with preventing these things. Yet, when push came to shove, everyone just said “I object” but deferred to the Chain of Command. If years of post-vietnam training didn’t work there, I am not sure where the current officer corps point of taking the so-called “hard right” occurs.
Pdog, as someone with some experience in these kind of discussion, I can tell you that you can’t really win, since it does not really say anywhere explicitly that the president is NOT subject to the UCMJ. So, as far as Mike is concerned, it all depends on his interpretation of the text he quotes from the UCMJ, i.e. the “plainly worded definition.” If you could find somewhere a legal text stating explicitly that the president is subject to civilian laws, that should help, but it probably won’t, even if you found such a text. I wonder if someone ever felt the need to put that in writing?
I assume you, and the others who think that the president is not subject to the UCMJ, base their assumpton on a combination of geveral knowledge and common sense, and not on a familiarity with any specific quote from a text. But you will find such knowledge useless in this case. That is not how such discussions work.
I didn’t say the UCMJ applies to anyone. I said the assertion that one must be active duty for the UCMJ to apply is wrong. I cite the UCMJ:
…
Look at the first line:
“Persons” literally means “persons.” Then they begin to qualify who is subject to the UCMJ. There is no ambiguity.
I never said Bush was subject to a recall due exclusively to having served. I said, having served, he is open to presecution for violating the UCMJ. I cite the UCMJ:
No expiration for jurisdiction of the UCMJ is given.
If you bring me strawmen, I have no reservation against burning them.
The UCMJ and civilian laws are not mutually exclusive, just as anyone who watches “Law & Order” (Donk-Donk!) knows that citizens must abide both federal and state laws.
Jesus Christ, hëávëņ-fûçkìņg-førbìd the President of the United States be held to as high a standard of law as a shaven-headed high school graduate (is that even a qualification any more?) receiving instruction how to fold his gøddámņ underwear in basic training.
The idea of the government of the US or Britain (in V for Vendetta for example) — two countries with a long democratic tradition — being replaced in a coup with a tyranny seems to be a recurring theme in sci-fi and sometimes even political discussions. I find that interesting. Maybe people are looking at their democracies, and then looking at other countries that live or have lived under tyranny, and they ask themselves how come it didn’t happen to us?
His line of defense would be that Congress doesn’t have the power to do that.
Given that the Constitution very explicitly grants Congress the power to impeach the president, Alberto Gonzales would definitely earn his pay if he could sell that line of defense. If the House impeaches and 2/3 of the Senate votes for removal, that’s it, game over, the president is removed from office. There is no appeal to such a vote in the Constitution. I would be shocked if the military brass would even want to insert themselves into such a mess by backing a clear violation of the language of the Constitution.
I am not positive that the the military wouldn’t take the path of least moral anguish and do what their Commander in Chief told them to do. Following orders and all that.
But how would instituting a coup, betraying their country, and, in all liklihood, condemning themselves to infamy, jail and quite possibly execution possibly be the path of least moral anguish?
It would be interesting though, to actually have a real idea of what the troops actually on the ground feel. Not about coups–just on the war in general. For that matter, it surprises me that one does not often see major polls on military members–everyone else gets polled up teh wazoo but can anyone give me an actual scientific poll that measured how troops voted in teh last presidential election?
The idea of the government of the US or Britain (in V for Vendetta for example) — two countries with a long democratic tradition — being replaced in a coup with a tyranny seems to be a recurring theme in sci-fi and sometimes even political discussions. I find that interesting. Maybe people are looking at their democracies, and then looking at other countries that live or have lived under tyranny, and they ask themselves how come it didn’t happen to us?
I honestly don’t think most–most–of the people who say stuff like that as though it is going to happen actually believe it. Actions speak louder than words. If I thought there qwas a reasonable chance of a military dictatorship or civil war or zombie attack I’d be preparing for it. When people tell me they fully expect to hear the sound of jackbooted gestapo theocrats pounding on their doors after the Great Coup of 2008….and then tell me how great their 401 K plan is doing…I dunno, seems kind of contradictary.
Though keeping a ready supply of duct tape on hand for possible zombie outbreaks seems prudent.
Mussolini felt free to use the terms fascism and corporatism interchangeably. Where does it say fascism and profits are mutually exclusive? Where is the contradiction?
And there was no coup in V for Vendetta. After a nuclear war, the people embraced fascism to restore order. In Moore’s introduction to the US editions of V for Vendetta, he said in the time since he started writing it, he’d become convinced a nuclear war wasn’t necessary for a democracy to turn to fascism.
Micha and Mike~
I am not basing my statement on my personal reading of lines of the text. It doesn’t matter how any of *us* read this text. We aren’t the ones who interprit what it means. It matters what the *courts* interprit it to mean.
And to my knowledge (i.e. court cases which are readily available for revue), the courts have interprited the word *person* to refer *soley* to those who are members of the armed forces. For example, the UMCJ not imbedded reporters.
If you can find an example of a reporter or civilian contracter being subjected to the UCMJ then that would be evidence that my understanding is incorrect.
Mike~ I think I may be confused as to what you mean. You said:
“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.”
While you started by specifying Active Duty, you ended by using the word “you”. I interprited you as being a synonym for anyone, meaning anyone accompanying an armed force in the field during wartime would be subject to the UCMJ regardless of whether they were members of the armed forces.
Your next quote from the UCMJ
“A. The following persons are subject to [the UCMJ]: 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; 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; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.”
quote actually conmfirms my statement, which is that *you* have to be in the armed forces to be subject to the military code of justice, and that it doesn’t apply to someone who has been discharged or has not joined.
I guess the question I have is, by you/persons did you mean “anyone in the armed forces, regardless of status” or “anyone accompanying an armed force in the field during wartime”
If the former I think we agree. If the latter then we don’t.
Micha/Mike~
Also, I think the pertinent *legal* question isn’t does it say that the President has to abide by the law. The pertinent question is does it say he doesn’t have to?
Hamden v Bush, the NSA Wiretap ruling, et al have explicitly stated that the president is bound by the law. The problem, as I see it, isn’t whether it’s the law. It’s whether Bush will abide by the rulings or just decide the executive doesn’t have to listen to the courts. Gonzales is on record as saying the the Executive is the primary branch and the judiciary is simply advisory.
Bill~
There were polls done for the election and IIRC it was something like 60%-40% Bush – Kerry. The interesting part (again, IIRC) was that the breakdown of issues was significantly not pro-Bush. So there was a disconnect. Also, I believe the poll found that enlisted personell were significantly more pro-Bush than the Officer Corp. I think the Officer Corp was still slightly pro-Bush but may have actually been pro-Kerry.
I would not be surprised if even now, most would vote for Bush again. I also would not be surprised if a poll was done that found that voting paterns changed after military personel returned to civilian life. IOW, I wouldn’t be surprised if a person who is currently in Iraq serving would vote for Bush, but once discharged would vote for Kerry. That is conjecture, but again loyatly to the Chain of Command runs very deep and I *suspect* a significant portion of enlisted men and women vote for the Commander in Chief regardless of who it is.
I’d be interested to see a comparison of military voting patterns from Clinton and Bush. I don’t think Clinton cultivated the image as Commander in Chief. At least in my Battalian, we thought of him as the President, not the Commander in Chief and I can’t remember his people pushing the Militay Leader thing like Bush does.
Again, that’s all memory and conjecture and subject to being completely wrong.
Bill~
But how would instituting a coup, betraying their country, and, in all liklihood, condemning themselves to infamy, jail and quite possibly execution possibly be the path of least moral anguish?
I would see it that way sure. Heck, I would have seen it that way when I was still in the Army. And I used to believe that most of the military would too. I still hope they would. But, I just am not 100% sure anymore. Many of the incidents we’ve seen, specifically Abu graib and Gitmo are also incidents were the officers in charge should have stood up and stopped the torture from happening. This was not a grey area. For example, if I felt a Soldier was about to kill or torture a non-combatant I was trained to disable and disarm him or her immediately with force. Think about that. It was a big deal. It was a big enough deal I was required to take immediate action unless I felt it would endanger my own life. Yet, when push came to shove what happened? The officers in charge simply objected and requested reassignment so they could be replaced with Officers who would look the other way. It was easier than to risk their careers by refusing to obey orders that were illegal and taking action.
Bill Mulligan,
“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.”
See, I go the other way on that argument. I think that there should be a law that says that you can only do one of those shows if you can do it better then the last guy. Man, do I get tired of the annual parade of cliché stories based on A Christmas Carol that just suck year old eggnog.
Bobb Alfred, Pdog, Den, etc.,
I haven’t been reading Mikes posts, but I have been catching everybody else’s in response to Mike. Nice debate, but, for the anti-Bush crowd, pointless.
Anybody who wants to actually read the UCMJ can see it at:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/ucmj19970615.htm
Look for 802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
Everything in there seems to me to exclude the president.
I would also point out that we have at least one recent historical point that showed that the authority of the UCMJ does not automatically cover the President. Clinton wanted to use the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act back during the Lewinski garbage. He was told that, should he try and invoke or claim military status for himself as the ranking CiC (as he did not actually or automatically have it) as cover for himself that he would then end up making himself subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which would be far less kindly disposed to his predicament.
Moreover:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20050815.html
“Still, the notion that adultery bespeaks a general lack of trustworthiness is open to question. Certainly, those who argued that President Clinton should not have been impeached for dishonesty relating to an extra-marital affair thought otherwise: Clinton’s misdeeds, they argued, were of a private rather than a public nature. (Clinton, though Commander in Chief, was not subject to military law, but note that even if he had been, he would not have been guilty of adultery, because he “did not have sex,” i.e., sexual intercourse, “with that woman.”)”
That’s part of an article written by Michael C. Dorf, the Isidor & Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia University School of Law. I think he knows his stuff better then anybody posting here.
PDog,
“There were polls done for the election and IIRC it was something like 60%-40% Bush – Kerry. The interesting part (again, IIRC) was that the breakdown of issues was significantly not pro-Bush. So there was a disconnect. Also, I believe the poll found that enlisted personell were significantly more pro-Bush than the Officer Corp. I think the Officer Corp was still slightly pro-Bush but may have actually been pro-Kerry.”
I’d love it if you could post a link to some of the military personnel. We were talking about that shortly after the election and NONE of us could find more then one poorly done poll of the military to look at. It’s come up several other times outside of the blog and all I’ve been able to find is a Fox Non-News poll that looked as iffy as the first.
“But how would instituting a coup, betraying their country, and, in all likelihood, condemning themselves to infamy, jail and quite possibly execution possibly be the path of least moral anguish?”
“I would see it that way sure. Heck, I would have seen it that way when I was still in the Army. And I used to believe that most of the military would too. I still hope they would. But, I just am not 100% sure anymore. Many of the incidents we’ve seen, specifically Abu graib and Gitmo are also incidents were the officers in charge should have stood up and stopped the torture from happening.”
See, I kinda think that the whacko theories about the military backing Bush (or Clinton) in a coup to take control of the U.S. is just too far fetched to be worth any lengthy debate. I also think that it sells short the integrity of the majority of the soldiers out there.
I’ve got too many soldier friends to think that the military would just turn its guns on their own friends, family and countrymen for Bush. And your examples kinda fall down here because those weren’t atrocities inflicted on fellow Americans, they weren’t as widespread and across the board as a full coup would have to be and they were done while already in an active war. It’s easier to get someone to abuse an enemy that you’ve been fighting or that has attacked your friends, family or homeland then it is to go from zero to coup.
Besides, even Bush and his handlers would be smart enough to not go that route. Even they could see that a coup would likely split the military in half as a new American Civil War broke out. The devastation caused by the military and civilian combat wouldn’t leave a whole lot to rule. And after that fight, there would be more then a few vultures waiting in the wings to try and finish the job that the loser of the Civil War started.
Great speculative fiction novel, but not very realistic.
“A. 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; 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; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
No expiration for jurisdiction of the UCMJ is given.”
You’re wrong. The stated limitation you’re seeking is right in the first sentence: “including those awaiting discharge after expiration.” Implicit in that is the concept that, once you ARE discharged, military justice no longer applies. They wouldn’t have had to spell it out in the first sentence if it weren’t understood that “expiration” includes the end of one’s being subject to those laws.
It’s absurd on the face of it to think that one is indefinitely subject to military law even after one has been mustered out. It’s like saying a woman is pregnant even after she’s given birth.
Bush is not subject to military justice because he not in the military, period.
PAD
Bill Mulligan, it was not my intention to claim that most American actually fear an imminent coup. My (not really that important) point was to ask what does the recurrence of the theme of a the fall of democracy to tyranny tell us about American/Western culture and mass psychology. It’s more a question of cultural and literary interpretation than politics. We could similarly ask what do zombie movies tell us of American culture, considering nobody expects a zombie outbreak (the blind fools)?
PDog, please don’t conflate my opinons with Mike’s. I certainly was not trying to support Mike’s opinions on this subject — I know too little on military law and too much about Mike — only to tell you that discussions with Mike follow a different set of rules than you’re used to. If you do not adjust — and even if you do — you will probably end up going around in circles. Jerry has done a better job. He found a text saying explicitly that the president is not subject to the UCMJ. It won’t work either, but it is a better strategy.
On the issue of a miltary coup. It is quite true that the military mindset of blind obedience to the chain of command and deference toward authority, combined with the psychological circumstances of war and peer pressure, cause normal people to do in the military things that they would consider unthinkable in civilian life. It is also true that tyrannies have made use of that mindset in the past. History is full of examples. However, this is only one necessary ingredient for a miltary coup to occcur. I also would like to think that there are sufficient qualities of the American mindset that would stand in the way of the military mindset taking over completely in a case of a coup. But this is the question that has troubled people, and in my opinion the reason why the replacement of democracy with tyranny is such a recurrent theme in literature. But maybe the fact that people ask themselves this question is a good sign?
By the way, have there been cases of enlisted soldiers refusing to serve in Iraq for conscientious reasons? Israel has seen a movement of conscientious objection from the left and then from the right (during the withdrawl from Gaza), but the more moderates tended to continue supporting the government even when they strongly objected to its policies. During the withdrawl from Gaza I was in a car with an old Commie (literaly) whose grandson has spent some time in Jail for consientious objection, and he had some mixed feelings about the right-wing conscientious objection, since he naturally was inclined to oppose the establishment.
an Den: “Given that the Constitution very explicitly grants Congress the power to impeach the president, Alberto Gonzales would definitely earn his pay if he could sell that line of defense. If the House impeaches and 2/3 of the Senate votes for removal, that’s it, game over, the president is removed from office. “
Absolutely correct.
Bill Myers: “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.”
To quote Admiral Kirk in the first movie, “What do you view as unwarranted?” I think a situation like a President conducting a war in a way without the consent of the people and Congress is EXACTLY what they had in mind when they wrote the impeachment rules. Without the threat of unappealable impeachment, what’s to stop any President from doing anything they want? Congress and the people may want to win in Iraq, but if Bush keeps ignoring their will he does it at his peril.
Jerry Chandler: “See, I kinda think that the whacko theories about the military backing Bush (or Clinton) in a coup to take control of the U.S. is just too far fetched to be worth any lengthy debate. I also think that it sells short the integrity of the majority of the soldiers out there. I’ve got too many soldier friends to think that the military would just turn its guns on their own friends, family and countrymen for Bush. “
On this I agree as well. For 230 years the military has fought under 43 CiCs they agree with and disagree with. I find it hard to swallow that somehow the military would regard THIS PARTICULAR President so highly as to throw away civilian control of the military.
I also think that it is highly unlikely that the military would ever think to install itself as ruler. What General would be in command? How long until that General is assasinated by a “crazy Colonel”?
Thing about democracy vs. dictatorship is that in a democracy transition from power (whether through impeachment or the ballot) doesn’t end in bloodshed. I think the military would like to keep it that way.
–Captain Naraht
(Cutsy Monikers: Not just for Pikachu anymore)
We could similarly ask what do zombie movies tell us of American culture, considering nobody expects a zombie outbreak (the blind fools)?
Don’t get me started.
By the way, have there been cases of enlisted soldiers refusing to serve in Iraq for conscientious reasons?
A few, though they haven’t had much of an outpouring of sympathy–unlike Israel this is a purely volunteer army. Joining to get some nice student loans and other benefits and trying to bail when you ar actually expected to DO something is not likely to gain massive public support.
“Without the threat of unappealable impeachment, what’s to stop any President from doing anything they want?”
Isn’t it more appropriate for Congess to use the other tool at its disposal, namely cutting the funding, before it goes for impeachment?
“…after expiration of their terms of enlistment,” which can mean anything — but ok. An expiration after military service is unambiguously addressed. Thank you.
Since Bush was reserve — and numerous conditions are established to subject reservists to the UCMJ — his being subject to the UCMJ for his having served at all is wrong regardless of this issue (which is not to say he can’t be called to answer for desertion, for which there is no statute of limitation).
But if you are saying “he [is] not in the military, period” based on “including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment,” from the wording, “those” doesn’t necessarily include all “Members of a regular component of the armed forces…”
A corrupt e-1 enlistee can’t cause anywhere near as much damage as a corrupt CinC. I’d like to hear where it says the first is held to a higher standard of law than the second (and why that should be would be nice to hear too).
When A. opens “The following persons are subject to [the UCMJ]” and uses such language as “A. 10. In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field,” yes, I am saying an embedded reporter enjoying any protection from the US military must abide by the UCMJ. From the wording, if he’s guilty as a saboteur for the Iranians, bûllšhìŧ charges against adultery can be piled on. I don’t think that’s a bad thing (and I’m not advocating the bûllšhìŧ conviction of such).
Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 31, 2007 09:13 AM
I think a situation like a President conducting a war in a way without the consent of the people and Congress is EXACTLY what they had in mind when they wrote the impeachment rules.
Congress did give consent when it passed Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502, also known as the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. The U.S. Constitution delegates the power to declare war to the Congress, but clearly gives the president the authority to determine how that war should be waged.
And no, this is decidedly not the sort of thing the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Founding Father George Mason had argued that “maladministration” should be included in the list of impeachable offenses, but James Madison, who favored reserving impeachment for criminal behavior, won the issue.
What the president is doing is unwise, and perhaps immoral. It is, however, not criminal. And it would be unwise to use impeachment as a tool for shaping policy. To do so would open up a Pandora’s Box that would hamper the ability of future presidents to lead.
Look, I am as appalled as anyone by the war in Iraq. But unless someone can find evidence that Bush’s decision to invade Iraq constitutes a crime, impeachment is not the correct tool for bringing him to heel.
“A corrupt e-1 enlistee can’t cause anywhere near as much damage as a corrupt CinC. I’d like to hear where it says the first is held to a higher standard of law than the second (and why that should be would be nice to hear too).”
The president is subject to civilian laws because he is a civilian. Period.
There are court cases that deal unequivocally with the issue. Here is a link to an article that discusses them:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/13-commander-of-armed-forces.html
Micha: Isn’t it more appropriate for Congess to use the other tool at its disposal, namely cutting the funding, before it goes for impeachment?
Yes. That’s the whole point, whether its cutting funding or some other appropriate tool (Comprehensive Sumit, anyone?). Order the President to do the will of Congress, whatever that may be. But if cutting funding was the ONLY means to stop the war, and the President just ordered various Departments to divert funds to the war, what then?
Bill Myers: “…this is decidedly not the sort of thing the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Founding Father George Mason had argued that “maladministration” should be included in the list of impeachable offenses, but James Madison, who favored reserving impeachment for criminal behavior, won the issue.”
Impeachment should not be used frivolously and should have specific charges behind it. It would be too easy to mix the apples and oranges rules of Parlamentary vs Bi-Cameral/separate Executive. Impeachment would become a vote of confidence (as used in a Parlamentary form of government) with the word “maladministration” in the language .
Madison was looking to make a “difficult but not impossible” way to remove the President in this new non-Parlamentary government. I believe that is what Madison meant by “criminal”, as well as the 2/3rds needed to impeach fits this intent. (It’s not easy to get 2/3rds of the Senate agree on anything.)
–Captain Naraht
(Again with the Cutsy Monikers!)
Mike, get over yourself.
Here, you want to pull rank? I’ll pull rank. So, you’ve had some military exposure. Service, training, whatever, I don’t know and I don’t care. Let me ask you this: Were you a JAG? That’s Judge Advocate General for those that don’t watch TV. It’s the military’s legal branch, the lawyers with guns. I know a bit about it because I considered applying some years ago, before I came to my senses and realized they were serious when they say that you’re a soldier first, and a lawyer second. I didn’t like the implications of that statement.
Saying you’re an expert in the UCMJ because you were once subject to it is like saying you can brew beer because you were drunk on Miller once.
Mike, are you a lawyer? ‘Cause I am. I’m trained and experienced in reading legal text an interpreting it. And let me tell you, the UCMJ is legal text. I don’t have to have had training in it, be subject to it, or even have read it prior to this debate to tell you, unequivocably, the office of the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. Have you ever had a basic course on the Constitution, or basic American history? The last thing the founders wanted was a military running the country. Most of the founders didn’t even want a Federal armed forces. Yes, the president is the CinC, but he’s not a part of the armed forces. He’s not required to be trained as a soldier, he’s not required to have any kind of service record or training whatsoever. He’s a civilian employee of the government. And I’m pretty certain that, much like my job, any active member of the military is prohibited from running for any Federal elected office.
While I’m certain there are many things I “have my head up my ášš” about, I can assure you this isn’t one of them. But you can happily take your attitude and shove it up yours.
Saying you’re an expert in the UCMJ because you were once subject to it is like saying you can brew beer because you were drunk on Miller once.
Line of the day.
Guys, I’ve been trying to keep silent about, and towards, Mike Leung. I regret having given him more attention with an unneeded attempt to vindicate myself. After all, my actions following the closure of the “A Smart Move” thread demonstrated that I am the better person.
In fact, 99 percent of the people on this board are better people than Mike. This is my final word about Mike Leung: he’s beneath us, guys. He’s not worth our anger, irritation, annoyance, whatever.
Suggestion? If he makes a factual error you’d like to correct, correct it without acknowledging him. He’s acted poorly, and deserves to be shunned. Ignored. Forgotten about.
I generally try to ignore Mike. He’s made the occasional good point. He’s made more bad arguments and inflamatory comments. He may be the nicest guy in the world to hang out with, but his on-line persona is 98% jerk. But when he starts stating things that are not supported by fact, and he presents them as something he not only knows for certain, but the rest of us are idiots for questioning him, I have a hard time letting that lie. I’m not much for bullies, and when one opens up the opportunity to knock him down a peg or two, it’s hard for me to resist.
Bill Myers, tthanks for the link. Very informative regardless of the circumstances.
Bob~
Well said.
I don’t read him any more. It can be tempting, like when you notice that his replies come almost immediately after a posting, filling you with curiosity as to whether he is STILL demanding responses from people who have clearly stated they are uninterested in anything he has to say. I just assume that if, like the proverbial blind sqirrel, he makes a good comment, others will repeat it and it’ll get out that way. Similarly, while I’m curious as to whether he had the poor judgement to tell PAD to pull his head out of his ášš for having the temerity to call him wrong on his misreading of the USMJ, I know that if he did others will call him on it and I’ll hear about it then.
Ignoring him clearly doesn’t make him go away but it also makes it unnecessary for him to do so. Who gave me that suggestion? Sean? Thanks, bro.
Though even this much attention will only feed the neediness that is his affliction.
Here’s the latest from the Decisionator:
“President Bush took aim Wednesday at lavish salaries and bonuses for corporate executives, standing on Wall Street to issue a sharp warning for corporate boards to “step up to their responsibilities” and tie compensation packages to performance.”
I need to go laugh now. I’ll be back some time next week.
Awww, darn. When Bush said he wanted the government to run more like a business, I was looking forward to maybe getting a managerial position where I could totally fail in my assignments, and then get a big raise and a promotion. Now he’s going to ask businesses to tie pay to performance? Lying bášŧárd….. 😉
Actually, Bill Mulligan, it was Jerry who gave you the suggestion.
And yes, I’ve found that even if Mike doesn’t disappear, if I don’t read his posts he’s like a tree that falls in the woods when I’m not around to hear it. 🙂
It must be stated for the record that Mike did not tell PAD to to pull his head out of his ášš. He told Bob. He also accepted PAD’s corrections of his reading of the UCMJ when PAD wrote them. Now, personaly I think it is equally wrong to address Bob in this way, and that the opinions of Bob and PDog and the others who have addressed Mike deserve to be regarded with the same respect. But that’s only my opinion.
——————–
Back to our regularly scheduled programs:
Captain Naharat wrote:
“That’s the whole point, whether its cutting funding or some other appropriate tool (Comprehensive Sumit, anyone?). Order the President to do the will of Congress, whatever that may be. But if cutting funding was the ONLY means to stop the war, and the President just ordered various Departments to divert funds to the war, what then?”
It seems to me that the questions here are:
1) If impeachment is a legitimate constitutional tool of the Congress to deal with a president whose policies they oppose?
I think Bill Myers made a good case that it isn’t.
2) Is there a legitimate legal basis to impeach Bush?
I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer.
3) What are the tools the constitution provides the Congress to deal with a president who follows policies they disagree with, and are those tools sufficient?
I don’t know the answer to this question either. It would seem that if Bush found a way to continue with his policies despite the Congress having used all the methods at its disposal that are not impeachment, this would mean that he either (a) was bahaving badly but according to the limits of his job as outlined by the constitution; or (b) was exceeding the limits of his job as defined by the constitution, which would make it a legal and constitutional crisis.
4) Has the Congress used all the tools at its disposal to force Bush to change his policies, and if not, why?
It would seem that the Congress itself is hesitating for its own reasons to employ a more aggressive course against Bush’s policies. Does that mean that the Congress is not that strongly opposed to Bush’s policies? Are they afraid of public opinion were they to take more aggressive measures, or are they ignoring the will of the people who elected them as a result of other political considerations? In this case the people should direct their anger also toward the congress, as their representative.
5) What is the opinion of the people concerning Bush’s policies, and what are the tools of the people to show their disapproval and to affect Bush and/or the Congress?
Micha, I knew he told someone else to do the head removal, based on what other comments said. I just wondered if he would dare use the same insult when PAD corrected him–actually, I sort of knew he wouldn’t. He’s arrogant to everyone else but he’s smart enough to not honk off the Big Guy, one hopes.
I never said he wasn’t a civilian. I cited qualifications in the UCMJ that are not exclusively military.
Sadly for you, your link does not mention the UCMJ.
I never said I was an expert in the UCMJ, and I’m not asking anyone to take my word on anything.
Obviously the person who has to get over himself is the Lawyer™ who denies the plain English put in front of him.
If you aren’t reading me, how would you know I told anyone to “pull” his head out of his ášš?
That’s Totally Normal Psychology.™
“President Bush took aim Wednesday at lavish salaries and bonuses for corporate executives, standing on Wall Street to issue a sharp warning for corporate boards to “step up to their responsibilities” and tie compensation packages to performance.”
Man, if the president of United States was subject to that, he’d owe us money by now!
Posted by: Micha at January 31, 2007 01:45 PM
It would seem that the Congress itself is hesitating for its own reasons to employ a more aggressive course against Bush’s policies. Does that mean that the Congress is not that strongly opposed to Bush’s policies? Are they afraid of public opinion were they to take more aggressive measures, or are they ignoring the will of the people who elected them as a result of other political considerations?
I think the answer is “a little from Column A, a little from Column B.”
I think Congress prefers to point fingers at Bush rather than try to do anything substantive to force him to change course in Iraq. To do the latter would expose Democrats to criticism and provide political ammunition to the Republicans, and I think they want to avoid that as they gear up for the 2008 presidential race.
Second, I think there is something of a reluctance to engage in a true tug-of-war with the president while our troops are fighting overseas. I reject the idea that “supporting the troops” means refraining from criticizing the president. But a true leadership struggle between the president and Congress could leave our troops with even less of a clear direction than they have now at a time when they need a rock-solid strategy because their lives depend on it.
That said, I’m starting to believe Congress needs to engage in a power struggle with the president, even knowing the potential consequences. His actions in Iraq have left this nation less secure, have caused great suffering for the Iraqi people, and have destabilized an already unstable region of the world. I believe it is time that Congress draws its own “line in the sand.”
The idea of a military coup in the US is pretty far-fetched under the current situation. We have literally thousands of generals and even among the joint chiefs, there’s a lot of inter-force rivalry going on. It doesn’t seem likely that a single general could command enough of the military to succeed in a take over, especially given that, as Pdog noted, respect for orders given by the commander-in-chief is deeply ingrained in the culture.
So, given that, I’d say that, hypothetically speaking, if Bush were impeached and removed from office and her refused to step down, the reaction from the military brass would be, “Call us when the VP-now-president is ready to give us our orders.”
“If he makes a factual error you’d like to correct, correct it without acknowledging him. “
Yeah, sorta threw my two cents in while making it clear that I don’t read Mike’s posts anymore to make clear that I wouldn’t be going round and round with him. Thing is, on this topic, I won’t be going round and round with anybody. Civilian and Military legal scholars were dragged out of the woodwork when Clinton was in office because half the rightwing radio and TV nuts were claiming that Clinton could and should be impeached for violations of the UCMJ. They all said that the President of the United States is a civilian post and in no way falls under the UCMJ at any time. We were bombing another country during part of this debate. Some of the best minds from the civilian law schools and the military’s own legal people all said the exact same thing.
These guys know more about it then likely anyone on this board will ever know. Case closed.
But thanks for the whack on the head. It’s a bit like an AA meeting I suppose.
***********************************
Now for the wild breaking news of the day.
***********************************
I’m typing the above and the XM station I’m listening to (God, I love this thing) had a news report about the Libby trial. I’d already heard that there was a note that was likely in the VP’s handwriting. No bombshell there. But has anyone else heard a report that court testimony today involved reading a note that was in Cheney’s handwriting and clearly said that this whole Plame fiasco was at the request of Bush himself? I’ve gotta see how this plays out in the next two or three days. It may not matter if some moderates haven’t wanted to see Bush impeached or not if this is true. If this case reveals that Bush himself ordered this, thus committing a 100% verifiable federal crime, there will be a firestorm of demands for impeachment.
Gonna be a fun February.
I’m typing the above and the XM station I’m listening to (God, I love this thing)
Somehow when I read that it came off as “I’m typing the above and the XM station I’m listening to (God,) (I love this thing)” and I thought, well, yeah, being able to hear God is well worth the $15 a month. Then I thought “maybe he means Howard Stern” but he’s Sirius.
I’m looking around at the usual sources and see nothing about any bombshells at the Libby trial. On the other hand, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force almost brought Boston to its knees. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-31T231338Z_01_N31216023_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BOSTON.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
What violation of the UCMJ would Clinton have been charged with? It seems the wingnuttery would have been grounded in charging Clinton with something there was no evidence for.
I never denied the president was a civilian. The UCMJ is plainly worded to not exclude civilians. What text was cited to exclude the CinC from the UCMJ?
What is this drive to deny plainly-worded English? What is this drive to keep the CinC from being held to as high a standard of law as an underwear-folding basic trainee?
One of the reasons the Senate, and not the Supreme Court, is charged with judging impeachment trials is because removing a sitting President is a political act, not a criminal one. The Constitution explicitly says that a person so removed may still be put on trial in the regular court system. That’s why Ford’s pardon of Nixon was controversial.
Here’s a real good read on “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” from C-SPAN: http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm
Some is quoted below:
…
“On the other hand, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force almost brought Boston to its knees.”
Yeah, that’s funny and scary at the same time. It’s kind of nice to know that Boston PD has it together enough to deal with a citywide threat that well. It gets a little “better late then never” scary when, as they were just saying on Hardball, that Turner people have said that the things have been up for two weeks now.
“I’m looking around at the usual sources and see nothing about any bombshells at the Libby trial.”
Yeah, so far since posting that I’ve seen lots of fun bits about the trial today, but nothing on that topic. Either I heard it wrong or the newsreader read it wrong.
Ok, maybe not.
I’ve been playing with various key words in the google search and I finally got two hits. One doesn’t matter as it’s just a link to the second.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
That’s the only thing I’ve found that’s close to a news source and I’ve never heard of truthout.com before. I have heard of one of the writers before. Nothing bad, so I just don’t know yet.