How to Make Impeachment Viable? Bipartisanship.
A fun discussion for the weekend even if it is unlikely. Promoted by Specter
(Originally posted, in slightly modified form, at DailyKos)
Bipartisan Impeachment?!
It sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? But this crackpot idea is so crazy, it might just work.
THE IMPETUS
Bush threatens our republic’s existence. This isn’t alarmism—his continuation in office has consequences: a catastrophic war with Iran, a fiscal trainwreck, irreparable erosion of cherished liberties in the wake of another terrorist atrocity comparable to 9/11, or some combination, are possible; deepening entanglement in Iraq, mulish stagnation on national priorities, and chronic abuses of power are expected; needless Iraqi and American deaths are certain. Worse yet, our country will endure the pernicious ramifications of his reign for decades after he vacates the White House.
I could inveigh endlessly against the incompetence, deception, and lawlessness of BushCo’s tenure, but most people closely following these issues have already coalesced around the urgency of impeachment. Now, proponents need to convince others whose lives don’t orbit politics.
Greater media exposure (such as Bill Moyer's Impeachment Special ) will deepen support, but it must also be broadened; an overwhelming majority—the sort necessary for success—cannot be amassed if impeachment is perceived as a political weapon rather than the final tool of constitutional accountability. By impeaching and removing, we establish precedent, but only with solid popular undergirding will the beacon endure for our successors’ travails.
There is one way to do this: bring Republicans on board.
THE METHOD
“We don’t have the votes” is the favorite rejoinder of impeachment realists. Its popularity stems from veracity: both fourthbranch and chimpy need to go, but that means a Pelosi presidency. Republicans will never, EVER sign off on this.
I abhor their ends, but can’t blame them.
Bush’s removal would complete the GOP’s fall from power; by endorsing it they’d simultaneously legitimate our grievances and abdicate their last defensive line against a popular Democratic agenda, thereby cementing their irrelevancy.
Political suicide, in other words.
Facile analysis would seem to close the door definitively, then, but it overlooks a critical reality: Bush is a radioactive albatross that portends electoral massacre, and they know it. They need a way to jettison him, but retain power.
There is such a way.
The Constitution does not require that the Speaker of the House be third in line, rather, that's a provision of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 . Congress could simply alter the process for instances when the vice-presidency is vacant, providing for election by both houses. After enactment of the law, Cheney would be removed, followed by Bush. A "caretaker president", publicly committed to not pardoning any BushCo officials, and having foresworn a 2008 campaign, would then be chosen.
Alternatively, the House could impeach both Cheney and Bush, elect the decider’s successor as temporary Speaker—there's no constitutional requirement that he even be a member of Congress—then, and only then, the Senate would convict.
The key similarity of each route is that it cuts Bush, who cannot be expected to facilitate his own removal, completely out of the loop.
As importantly, in both cases the “caretaker president” must be a moderate Republican—maybe an “elder statesman”—for two principal reasons: Democrats would be insulated from charges that impeachment was a naked power grab (or petty payback for Clinton), and Republicans would not lose the executive without an election. Though there’s no strict parliamentary analogue, this would be similar to a no-confidence vote, followed by formation of a national unity government.
THE PAYOFF
When I say bipartisan, I mean it; my proposal demands concessions from both parties, but benefits each.
The Republicans would get to shed their millstone, gaining a precious opportunity to show their constituencies that loyalty to the republic trumps loyalty to party and power, preserving some legacy other than enabling the worst president ever. Bush would, to a large extent, be neutralized as a 2008 election issue, rehabilitating the party (especially if the "caretaker" does a decent job).
Democrats, on the other hand, would dispel their image as practitioners of a particularly spineless political calculus, and fulfill the popular mandate of November 7th.
With a new administration not entrapped by increasingly desperate attempts to save face, we might begin to fashion an exit strategy for Iraq.
Having reasserted the principle of equality before the law, and punished the malfeasances of an utterly contemptible buffoon, the U.S.’s worldwide reputation would regain much luster. This is no small thing if we are genuinely interested in thwarting terrorism.
Moreover, Congress would have rediscovered its long dormant prerogatives, potentially reversing a dangerous accretion of executive power that spanned the 20th century; checks and balances would no longer be an empty slogan, and we’d all be better off for it.
- Autarkh's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Though I've made several lengthy comments...
...this is my first actual diary here. Let's see how it goes. =)
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
Sounds great...
...but will never happen.
It's a nice exercise on your part, and I commend you on your effort - it is really well thought out, but you know this will never occur.
Such a process would take so long to coordinate and gather support, that Bush's term will be nearly over before it could even come to fruition.
There's only 18 months left. Nature will run its course.
No matter how much we clamor for it, impeachment simply isn't going to happen.
Electorally... it might be better (for Democrats) for Bush to be left twisting in the wind as an unpopular president anyway. The people, angry and starving for his removal, will come to the polls in droves.
If Bush is removed... the anger of the populace will be dissipated.
Do not underestimate the power of an angry populace.
I survived the Bush Administration
It’s unlikely, to be sure...
...but I wouldn’t say never, for the very reasons you cite:
As I argue in the diary, Republicans would be politically insane to hand over the presidency to Democrats. At the same time, they’d be insane not to take an option that lets them keep the presidency while publicly throwing Bush under the bus.
Bush remaining in office helps Democrats’ considerably from the standpoint of political power. Absent impeachment, it may take several cycles for Republicans to regain enough credibility to become a governing party at the national level. I’m more interested in restoring the rule of law and dismantling the unitary executive than shadenfreude at their expense, however, regardless of how much they deserve a long purgatory in the opposition.
If we start considering political advantage, then impeachment runs the risk of becoming a political weapon. It doesn’t matter if his term is shortened by a year, a month, or a day, the reason to go forward is precedent: unchecked executive license and impunity will not be tolerated--irrespective of the party holding the presidency.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
Impeachment resolves a constitutional crises
According to Bruce Fein.
I'm only half stupid
What is this "contitutional crisis" of which you speak? n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Which one do you want to talk about?
1) Spying on Americans without warrants?
2) politicizing the Department of Justice?
3) Darth Cheney's 4th branch of government?
4) Having the Attorney General lie repeatedly to Congress?
5) Lying to the American people to attack and occupy a country that didn't threaten us?
6) Directing underlings & former underlings to defy Congressional Subpoenas?
7) Puting the US Military in jeopardy?
8) Torture?
9) Jailing legal citizens without charge?
10 Restricting habeas corpus in defiance of the Constitution?
There's a whole boatload more.
RE: Which one do you want to talk about?
Bah. None of these threatens our system of government.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bah! is what O'Reilly says when you nail him. Congratulations!
The Democrats would settle for resolution of the crisis. The Republicans would settle for losing the stinking albatross. It would be like the referee moving the clinched and stalemated ultimate fighters off the floor and onto their feet and then waving them back together.
We'd get rid of Bush, and Cheney, and maybe even get issue politics back.
Good call, Autarkh.
The Fourth Branch of Govt
The one that ignores the laws set forth in the constitution. Some call it the Cheney branch. They are using the White House as a base of operations.
I'm only half stupid
RE: The Fourth Branch of Govt
Nobody is claiming a fourth branch of government. This is a strawman meme contrived primarily by you, I think.
No one is ignoring the laws set forth in the constitution, as has been affirmed by all of the court cases which have been decided to date. [ I am refereing to the ones that apply to the Bush Administration on THESE topics, just to keep things specific. ]
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The defiance of congressional subpoena?
To argue that someone doesn't even need to show up? I'm just imagining what would happen if a lawyer claimed attorney client privelege but didn't even both to show to the hearing.
Executive privilege extending to RNC emails? (Which, by law cannot be for offiicial business)
RE: The defiance of congressional subpoena?
Already got it covered. This should do fine.
It's not a constitutional crisis if it has been done before and our government still stands.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Crises can be averted
Just because the government stands doesn't mean that there wasn't a crisis.
The one that you cited was averted via negotiations. Do you think a crisis can exist absent armed conflict?
I'd argue that if congress finds Feilding and/or Miers in contempt and the USAs refuse to prosecute than the crisis is then escalated. The crisis is that Congress may just let them run out the clock.
Putting an end to such crises is what inherent contempt and impeachment are for.
RE: Crises can be averted
Humbug. I refuse to believe that if Harriet Meiers doesn't show up at the Congressional Hearing that somehow our entire system of government is going to disintegrate before our very eyes.
And here I was thinking that was what the 2-term limit for Presidents was for...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Control of the Justice Department
Evaluating if USA's were fired because they didn't prosecute those in the opposing party is moderately important (I know you take it on faith that no executive would EVER do that and we should take their word for it)
Oddly, the idea that a President would lie about his sex life WAS considered a major constitutional issue that demanded impeachment.
Yet strangely Impeachment and Inherent Contempt both predate term limits. Actually, one has to wonder why they put it impeachment in the constitution in the first place. After all, eventually there would be an election and any serious crimes would still be within the statute of limitations, so why have it at all?
RE: Control of the Justice Department
Actually I agree with this. If those USA's were refusing to prosecute Democrats one has to wonder why. In my book, refusing to proescute crimes for political reasons should be grounds for firing them.
Actually, it was that whole perjury and obstruction of justice thing that really got him in hot water ... kind of like Libby. I see to remember something about being disbarred for that...
This is correct. Your point would be?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR's Wacky world
Perhaps they didn't prosecute the crimes because there was no evidence? Oh what's the use. Your entire moniker depends on defending Bush and bashing those to your left.
In your world Ann Coulter is reasonable, Dick Cheney's a nice guy, and the only reason career Republicans would refuse to prosecute Democratic politicians is that they are undercover Democrats trying to cover for their own.
OH please.....
....... what is this flaming strawman fondue. He dips his rhetoric into a hot oil slick and claims that the government is not going to disintegrate before our eyes.
Ack. Ack. Isn't that a pretty ridiculous thing to say. What would it take for the govt to disappear before our eyes...... hmmmm??
The issue is how our government (which will not disappear) is being run, in blatant defiance of constitutional checks and balances.
Sweet Harriet ignores a Congressional suponea....... as if she doesn't have to follow the law!
These folks claim executive privelege when it is not within their legal bounds as if there is a fourth branch of govt that doesn't have to answer to the people or the constitution. It is setting a precedent for a return to the monarchy.
The rulers have decreed that there is no law by which they are bound...... they use the excuse the pleasure of the President, executive privelege and invoke national security a little too often and a little too easily.
You think this is just hunky dory?
I'm only half stupid
Actually, I think it is all hogwash. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4PS
I'm still waiting for some court cases which hold that the Bush Administration ignored the constitution.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hamdan V Rumsfeld n/t
And where in there does it state
that Bush ignored the constitution?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4He claimed authority which was not granted to him
According to the court, the president was attempting to exercise authority not granted to him, but instead to the legislature. Ergo, he was ignoring the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine.
Whenever the Supreme Court rules against a president, it is stating, by definition, that he is ignoring the law or ignoring the Constitution. Now if you want to say it was from ignorance it that's fine (as if it is done knowingly, it would be defying the Constitution
No, I mean ...
point me to where the courts decision actually even discusses a point of constitutionality in the case. I see lots of verbiage related to the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions but nothing where there seems to have been a point related to ignoring or violating the constitution.
Here is the text: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why should I have to do that?
To argue that he is ignoring the constitution, one doesn't have to cite Supreme Court decisions that use those exact words.
One can argue that without bringing SCOTUS into it, for example, the court that stated that the wiretapping without a warrant was unconstitutional was overturned on standing grounds, not on the merits, so the highest court that has currently ruled HAS stated that it is unconstitutional.
Likewise, whenever the court states that the power to do X resides with the legislature and not with the executive, they are saying that the Constitution says so.
If you want specific statements about violating the constitution, Hamdi would proably a bit more on point, but since MissL stated that he was ignoring the constitution and not "SCOTUS says he is violating the constitution" that isn't really necessary. Now if you think holding US Citizens without a trial is constitutional, heck, argue away. Bush has done it for years and still says that he can if he wants to.
RE: Why should I have to do that?
Seems kind of obvious to me, actually.
I asked for court cases which have a finding that Bush has violated or ignored the Constitution. You replied with Hamden V. Rumsfeld. When I went there to see what was up I couldn't find anything where they claimed that Bush had violated or ignored the Constitution.
Violating the UCMJ and/or the Geneva Conventions is NOT the same thing as violating the Constitution, correct? [ And I don't want to chase some rabbit down the but their bad too hole. The point is she claimed that Bush has violated [all of] the Constitution, so we are arguing a very narrow point here. ]
So, if the court held that Bush has violated the Constitution in Hamden V Rumsfeld (which is what you responded to) I am asking you to show me where the court ACTUALLY SAID that.
Again, words have meanings. Why are liberals so against that concept. So if they SAID what you claimed then SHOW ME where.
Why focus on court cases? Because anything less than a court ruling is just us blowing in the wind. I want definitive evidence on this point or I consider it a strawman. My level of proof is settled court decisions. Is that unfair?
I am not demanding SCOTUS cases, you just provided one. I want examples of cases in whatever the latest stage of appeals they have progressed to.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Then I've succeeded
The highest ruling on the merits was that Bush was ignoring the consitution.
A higher court said "maybe, but we aren't going to rule on that and instead talk about standing"
And no, if the administration claims article II powers and SCOTUS replies by saying that the administration must instead obey Article I legislation, then they are ruling on Constitutional issues. ONLY if the court rules purely on statutary interpretation grounds can you argue that it wasn't about claiming powers outside of the constitution.
If you want to be a purist, then I'll switch to Hamdi instead where the court ruled that the manner in which Hamdi was being held (and that Bush claimed authority to hold him) violated his due process rights as guaranteed by the, get this.. Constitution
In actuality, I don't care.
My question was to missliberties to have her back up her claim. In reality, she is only a pawn in my argument with Specter on the whole inductive logic crusade he is on.
But, if you can point out where the court cases have actually ruled explicitly on Bush having violated the Constitution, rather than you infering that connection, then I will be happy to review it.
I reject your verbal slight of hand with the "merits" above. I am interested in cases where the courts have directly and unambiguously ruled against Bush on the issue of Consitutional Violations and where the highest level of appeal thus far has upheld the case as being valid.
BTW, missliberties claims that Bush has violated ALL of the Constitution. So, your task is actually to show me court cases which demonstrate that Bush has violated every conceivable aspect of the Constitution, not just one here and there ... assuming that your goal is to support her original statement.
What, exactly, IS your goal in this thread?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You continually misrepresent
what I said. In other words you are lying. For this to be clear just re-read the posts here.
I never said Bush has violated ALL of the Constitution.
Here you are I believe using bad inductive logic yet again.
Can you please site that specific phrase, those exact words in that exact order, anywhere on this thread as a quote by me?
The words are 'Bush has violated ALL of the constitution.'
You keep claiming I said this. I did not.
Your task is to stop putting words in my mouth that aren't there.
I'm only half stupid
RE: You continually misrepresent
Well then. I am not misrepresenting YOUR posts any more than --> MANY <-- liberals have been misrepresenting MY posts (and possibly with you included). If you don't like their logic I suggest that you take it up with them. *
Your original statement was:
So, collapsing all of the Bush --> his government --> one in the last statement we have your actual statement: "The Bush government ignores constitutional law." This is the clear meaning of your full text.
Now, since you did NOT include the qualifier "some" in front of "constitutional law" the standing interpretation of that statement on this site is equivalent to: "The Bush government ignores [ALL] constitutional law." This has been deemed the fair and appropriate way to interpret these types of statements on this site.
I obviously don't agree with that interpretation personally (since I have argued against it elsewhere), but until the prevailing interpretation of these types of statements by --> MOST <-- liberals on this site is adjusted to be more in line with the correct logical reading of the text my hands are tied. To be fair to all we must adopt this interpretation.
So, even though you didn't MEAN to say "ALL constitutional law", by NOT qualifying your statement that is, according to the interpretation employed by --> MOST <-- liberals on this site, what you DID say.
With all due respect, you don't have the foggiest idea what inductive logic is.
------------------------------------
* As we all know Specter has been on a crusade to claim that I somehow use bad inductive logic and there have been two extensive threads arguing the point. I have presented logically correct analysis to support my position yet he persists. So I have decided to adopt his interpretation and logic and to incorporate it into my own commentary.
The most recent thread began here
, to which I provided a clear and concise description of the fallacy of his claim. Brendan then objected here 
, and Specter agreed with Brendan's point here 
and here 
.
The thrust of these comments was, essentially, that unless you explicitly qualify a statement such as "the liberal bloggers do X" with the word "some" that the meaning of that statement is equivalent to "ALL liberal bloggers to X."
Since it is considered reasonable for them to apply this interpretation to MY posts, it is likewise reasonable for me to apply this interpretation to the posts of others such as yours.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Brendan and Specter ...
Am I misapplying the logic and interpretation of the statement:
"The Bush government ignores constitutional law"
based on your previous comments to me here, here, and here.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think so, yes
Note the parallel:
(1) Liberal bloggers go after people they don't agree with.
(2) The Bush govt ignores consitutional law.
In (1), my (and Specter's) contention is that "Liberal bloggers" ought to be prefaced with "some" -- but note that we don't object to "people" and we don't insist it should be "some people they don't agree with" because it's clear in context we're discussing a subgroup.*
In (2), the parallel claim would be that "The Bush government" should be "some of the Bush government" except that government is already singular (a collective noun) so that doesn't make sense. But "consitutional law" as "some constitutional laws" doesn't seem necessary to me, as with "people" I think it's implied in context. YMMV and maybe I'm twisting this to avoid agreeing with you ;-) but that's my initial take anyway.
Ask purpleface what she thinks, she took your side in that discussion...
*If your intent was to suggest that "[some] liberal bloggers go after [all] people they don't agree with" then I agree that this is a parallel case, but I now question even more strongly the omission of the qualifier since it's different (some/all) applied to the different groups, and IMHO difficult to intuit your meaning from context.
Edit: to expand and perhaps clarify, consider my example: "Republicans murder gays and blacks." The (IMO) intuitive way to read that is "[all] Republicans murder [some] gays and blacks" -- clearly it doesn't make sense for each Republican to murder all gays and blacks. If I understand your argument here correctly, you'd read that sentence as "[some] Republicans murder [all] gays and blacks" -- sorry, I just don't interpret it that way naturally.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sigh.
That is NOT the question at hand.
Is the statement, "Bush ignores constitutional law." semantically equivalent to "Bush ignores ALL constitutional law" or "Bush ignores SOME constitutional law."
The point that you both made in the quotes that I provided were dealing with the semantics of leaving off the word "some". Your position in the previous comments was CLEARLY that by not including "SOME" I was implying "ALL".
The "group" in this case is the "group" of constitutional provisions affected, NOT the "group" of people affected, by the inclusion or exclusion of the word "some".
So, again, using the same logic that you applied in the previous case (for groups of people, i.e. liberal bloggers) am I now mischaracterizing your logic as it is applied to the current case (for groups of constitutional provisions, i.e. articles, clauses, amendments or whatever).
Is it now your contention that this SOME/ALL rule only applies to groups of people? It shoud logically apply to groups of anything, should it not?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes, you're mischaracterizing my logic
in that your parallel... isn't. As I tried to explain, but perhaps not very clearly. The second group in each sentence I give above is (to me, anyway) defined in context as "some" -- again, I'm willing to consider that might not make sense and I'm interpreting it that way to match my bias, which is why I suggested you ask purpleface. That's how I see it, though.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You people are exasperating.
OK then, let me pull out a bit of Specter logic to include here and tell me why it does not apply either then.
When I gave my Group A, B, and C logic example to demontrate tha fallacy of your logic (which is correct just for the record), Specter complained that since I had not identified any explicit subgroups (of liberal bloggers) that I had implied ALL (liberal bloggers).
Since, in the context of her original statement, she did NOT identify any specific subsets of constitutional law to which her her statement applied, why then are you saying that the existence of those subsets is implied by her statement?
Using only her original statement:
exactly what subsets of constitutional law are you appealing to when you claim that "some" is implied here by context?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Does this mean
you fold on the Group A, B, and C example?
As GR says, 95% joking. I'll try to give an honest assessment tonight when I have more time.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
No, let me clarify.
Poorly worded. My intent was to assert that my A, B, C example accurately demonstrated tha fallacy of your logic.
My efforts to use mislsiberties statement are likewise showing the fallacy thereof because you are all changing what you said.
It is difficult to play the game when you all keep changing the rules to fit you case of the day. If this is how we are going to be interacting I am not sure that I wish to continue because you are being inherently dishonest.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4RE: Yes, you're mischaracterizing my logic
This actually is suggesting that the use of the word "some" in front of a group reference is somehow positionally dependent. Why should the use of the word "some" in front of the "first" group be any different that the use of the word "some" in front of any other groups in the sentences?
So, what exactly is the rule that you claim to be using in the previous thread? I took it to be:
"When referencing a group in a sentence an unqualified reference (i.e. one that does not include some, all, many, most or anything similar) is taken to mean ALL by default."
Is this not what you meant?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't do grammar
so I don't know what the technical rule is, but yes I think it's positionally dependent. In plain English:
If it is intuitively and commonly interpreted as all without a qualifier than a qualifier should be added so nobody misunderstands. If it is intuitively and commonly interpreted as some then no qualifier is required, although it could still be added for clarity.
Obviously that's a very subjective rule but OTOH I don't think it's really controversial in most cases unless people are looking to pick nits.
You do see the distinction between the subject and object in "Republicans murder gays", right? Would you read that as all gays? Maybe I'm missing something...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
RE: I don't do grammar
Not really. That is not more logical that assuming it means ALL Republicans. Why should there be a difference?
Now, given all of this I decided to go back to my original statement in the previous thread. Here it is
:
Since you like the parallel game, where in that statement is the parallel to your "Liberal bloggers go after people they don't agree with."
Lets look at this statement sentence by sentence:
This is simply a declaritive sentence that says that I am not surprised by pico's observation that liberal bloggers can be vicious.
This is simply a declarative statement that I have seen how liberal bloggers act. Strictly speaking, this is NOT claiming that my observations were exactly the same as pico's, although one might be able to infer that I meant my observations were similar.
This merely asserts that I believe that pico only recognizes the true nature of liberal bloggers when they go after one of his own, but that I see [their true nature] all the time. It does NOT make any claim as to what that nature is by my observation.
So, where is the inductive logic and where is the parallel to what you are claiming I even said?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You don't think my sentence
is an accurate consolidation of the last two blockquotes in your post? Perhaps you're right, I again suggest asking a neutral party such as purpleface... but regardless, if you were to accept (1) and (2) above then I think there's an implied "all" (or at least a "most", as discussed later in that original thread) that goes with the subject and an implied "some" that goes with the object. That honestly seems the most intuitive reading to me.
Since I've already said repeatedly I could be interpreting this incorrectly due to bias and that I'd like to get another perspective, I'm going to drop this now.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Oops, wrong comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm not 100% sure about
the technical rules regarding implied some vs all. None of my books had information on it, and a cursory search on the 'net did not offer much in the way of help either. The only direct advice is to state what we mean carefully and leave little to implication when discussing sensitive issues.
Interestingly, many of the articles about inductive fallacies on wikipedia do not use the word 'all' (instead some rely on no modifier--see a few of these examples
) and some use other modifiers such as 'most'. The lack of modifiers adds evidence to the 'all' interpretations when other modifiers are absent.
Pico, do you know the rules for this scenario?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Just drop it.
The point is now moot.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sorry
I did not see your other comments. Typing with one hand makes it harder to get back to the FP quickly to see responses.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I don't know what
you want me to say that I have not already. I admitted (and so did she) that she committed a hasty generalization. It is not a composition fallacy (it is not the same as what I call you on: particular -> group), but it is a type of inductive fallacy IMO. According to your Group A, B, and C example, it is not technically a fallacy, but I can see your point if you are being nit-picky.
I don't think anyone in an initial reading would interpret it as Bush ignored every statute in the Constitution, but interpretations are flexible, so your initial call is not totally absurd.
Bottom line: your interpretation of it as an inductive fallacy (hasty generalization) is technically correct.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I hereby agree to disagree on this thread too.
This topic has now become moot. See:
I hereby agree to disagree on the specifics.
As well as
No, let me clarify.
Since it is now clear that there will be no consistency in the respnses I receive there is no point in continuing this conversation. You free to believe what you want regarding the specifics of these threads.
I disagree not only with your (collective) positions on the specifics of these threads but I also believe that the substance of the underlying arguments is being shifted on a case by case basis to suit your (collective) purposes.
Without a stable understanding of the meanings of grammatical constructs and the definitions of terms no meaningful commnication can be achieved. Attempts to adopt my opponents definitions and terms and to achieve a common understanding appear to have failed.
It is a significant waste of everyone's time to continue at the level that we have been to try and build bridges of understanding and communications when the foundation of those bridges is constantly being shifted, at least from my perspective. YMMV.
Given this, I am at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Really?
I also believe that the substance of the underlying arguments is being shifted on a case by case basis to suit your (collective) purposes.
Hrmpf! Can't say I particularly appreciate that suggestion, particularly given how careful I was to acknowledge possible bias when pointing out why I believed this case was not an exact parallel to the other case.
Given this, I am at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed.
In my perfect world everyone would, as a sign of mutual respect, qualify broad generalizations of groups with which other posters self-identify (such as liberals or conservatives). Naturally those who choose to exercise similar diligence on behalf of groups such as "constitutional laws" are welcome to do so, regardless of whether or not I or anyone else thinks a modifier is required.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Does it have to collapse instantly? Would you go for ten years?
I guess if I preface all my remarks with some dismissive phrase I'd think better of myself. Floccinaucinihilipilification.
The inability to foresee the future by studying the present and the recent past is characteristic of an immature forebrain. This statistical predictive ability, and its late appearance in the maturing human, is the genesis of much annoyance, as teenagers don't think that 100mph is too much for the freeway in the rain.
Kids.
I would like to see this
Constitutional Question resolved.
How much power is in the Executive Branch. I think Bush/Cheney have taken executive privelege to an unconstrutive extreme, in the name of a Fanatical agenda.
It is a little frightening to think that the President and his apparently shrinking band of followers completely refuses to listen to anyone outside of his ideological bent.
The secrecy, and defiance of the rule of law, should not be tolerated. We are looking at Watergate style politics and Iran-Contra crimes on steroids, and it seems like the executive branch has decided to push the envelope to an unhealthy extreme.
It is frightening to think that the fanatacial obsession with reclaiming the Holy Land, has created a terrorist backlash which the President is chosing to ignore.
The best answer isn't the courts but Congress. Congress has suponea power and should exert it to the fullest extent. Harriet Miers ignoring Congress (the people's house) should not be tolerated for one second.
Either that, or we can wish for Barney to become a talking dog. Bush might listen to what Barney has to say, even though he is ignoring everyone else.
It is the fanatical aspect that I find most disturbing. In spite of all evidence the President truly believes he is on a mission from God, and his hardcore religous base is fully on board with it.
I think impeachment can be used for political pressure, but I think it would be too much of a distraction. There are many other very pressing issues that need to be dealt with.
Besides if the Congress went for impeachment the President would probably invoke executive privelege and veto it. He thinks he has the power.
I'm only half stupid
Here's a video discussion
on the impeachment issue..... as a cure for the constitutional crises.
Honoring the Separation of Powers
A consersation with Bruce Fein, and John Nichols who both support impeachment.
Mercy!
Bruce Fein says that the Nixon impeachment did not close the circle on Presidential power...... and that Bush should be impeached properly with full acknowledgement and confession that he has abused his powers.
I'm only half stupid
impeachment
I would urge everyone to go the PBS website and watch the Bill Moyers discussion . Fein was passionate about the issue.
What Americans dont realise is the excessive power that has been accumilated already in the Executive, and this is too much power for a future Dem or Republican.
On the issue of Congress , he calls them " invertebrates" , I agree completely. What are they so scared of ? A Pres. with 26% approval ???
sligowoman
my quick thoughts on the issue
Though I am no longer a republican and have a very low opinion of President Bush, I am very disinterested in impeaching him nor do I think it is warranted.
Almost no one on the Right thinks our Republic is threatened. We do not see any serious lawlessness either. Yes, incompetence is there and so is corruption but none of it rises to the level of even considering impeachment.
All the talk of impeachment to me sounds hysterical and it would be the quickest way to make me and many others on the Right, who currently disapprove of the Administration and GOP in general, go into the full Bush-defense mode. What it would accomplish is closing of ranks, destruction of any possible bipartisan projects, and energizing the GOP base.
You are dreaming if you think that we on the right want to enable the above.
Bush is a lame duck, Congressional GOP are currently stymieing Dem spending priorities, Economy is doing well - those are good things.
War in Iraq is the serious problem and that's what Dems should be concentrating on.
Impeachment is a fantasy and if Dems try to make it a reality it will be war.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Agreed. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Also agree, I thought the
left would have by now given up on the impeachment idea. BTW, I thought the Republican attempt to impeach Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury about cheating on his wife was ridiculous.
Also, I am not understanding what the impeachment charge re Bush is.
name the enemy, win the war
Lots of charges available if you need them
Reasons given by the James Madison for impeachment
AKA Scooter Libby
AKA US Attorney firiings.
And blithering incompetence as commander in chief, violations of FISA, the Geneva Conventions etc etc.
Personally, I fail to see how Bill Clinton's actions were based on or exacerbated by misuse of Presidential power vs just being a cad.
(As an aside, I consider adulterers in general to be unsuitable for presidential or congressional power (a) because they clearly don't take vows of any sort seriously but more so because (b) they enforce rules against it on the military and should therefore be forced to live by those rules themselves. I'd be perfectly happy with ALL congressional and executive folks forced to resign when caught, but until that happens, I'm not going to pick Clinton out)
Lame Duck Has Veto Power
Lame Duck ignores Congress.
The issue is there are Three (3) Branches of Govt. Bush seems to think there is a fourth branch. His government he calls it. The one that ignores constitutional law.
I'm only half stupid
RE: Lame Duck Has Veto Power
This is a lie by the prevailing definition here. Provide some court decisions to back this up, please.
Actually, since you didn't qualify the term "constitutional law" by Specter's reasoning you must mean that they ignore every aspect of constitutional law, right?
So, either provide court cases which demonstrate that the Bush Administration has been found to have ignored every conceivable part of the the constitution or admit your use of bad inductive logic.
Specter, I expect you to back me up here! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Interject
many.
The fourth branch of our government that one that ignores many of our constitutional laws.
Glad to see you now have a better understanding of bad inductive logic. I stand corrected by the new expert on the subject.....:)
I'm only half stupid
Not bad inductive logic
as you use it, but it is an over-generalization. The bad inductive logic that you use (and which angers me most) goes from a particular to a generalization. I don't see a particular in her original statement. She just had an over-generalization which I don't think is a big deal since it didn't try to define a group of people, well beyond the administration anyway, as yours often do.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Whew!
This inductive logic is a science unto itself.
Your explanation is illuminating! :+)
I'm only half stupid
Not that big of a deal,
but the 'particular to group' fallacy makes me mad because it is the basis for most racist comments. "This one _____ guy mugged me, so they are all jerks" or "look at that the participants in that riot. It shows ______ are all animals" is how it works, and as you can see, one (or even several) bad instances are too few to make such broad claims.
Not too difficult, but thanks for the compliment.
(edit): I saw a web-page created by white-supremacists designed to denigrate MLK that was chock full of them. I linked to the main page of the white-supremacists page from there and it had even more--stuff like, 'this video shows why blacks are sub-human', then it would show a black mugger caught on video. That one video is not representative of the entire race, but it relied on bad inductive logic for its claim.
Here is a good overview
if you wish.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
RE: Not bad inductive logic
First, I do NOT use inductive logic the way that you want to claim and we can go straight back to the whole groups argument if you want...
Interesting, now there are size limits on these groups. Interesting how the rules keep changing. Very interesting.
How big does the group have to be before the inductive logic rule kicks in? I want to know the specifics of the rule so (a) it doesn't keep changing, and (b) I use it properly when the time comes. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4We can get back into
the discussion of how you went from a particular to a group in any of the instances I called you on if you wish. I still stand by my statements.
Missliberties said "Bush"
in her original statement (I misspoke and said 'administration' instead of her original, singular 'Bush' so my point stands --> no group in this instance). Unless you want to say Bush is a group?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Of course Bush is a group
Well... more of a cult really, but that would still count as a group.
Gee, thanks for the help ... I guess. :) n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wrong.
She was refering to "Bush's Government" as indicated by "His government he calls it." No unless you want to consider Bush to be a government of one, there is a group involved.
Regardless, the use of inductive logic, in this case, did not involve the people at all.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Differing interpretation
I read her comment as "Bush calls it 'his' government, and he thinks that 'his' government can ignore the law. But it isn't 'his' it is the people's government!" type of thing and still being specific to him.
The point (as I read it) was that Bush THINKS it is a government of one and is wrong.
Fine.
RE: I will drop
The ball is still in your court.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So as not to thread-jack
I posted my reply in the weekend OT
.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Sorry, was still editing ...
I was adding the following:
My point on inductive logic above was not actually complaining about generalizing from the charactersitics of an individual person and applying those to an entire group. My point above actually didn't have anything to do with the group which in this instance she refers to as "Bush's Government" (i.e. from "his government he calls it") which I take to mean his entire administration.
The point I made above is realted to her having a couple of SPECIFIC examples (which she falsely considers to be valid) of supposed constitutional violations. The inductive logic in this case is moving from those specific examples to a general Bush ignores (all of) the constitution (using your preferred parsing of that language even though it is technically incorrect).
Using your exact logic, by not using the qualifier "some" as in "Bush ignores SOME of the constitution" she has committed exactly the same offense that you want to claim that I do (which I do not). Since I am playing by YOUR (the liberals on this site) rules, similar to the whole definition of a lie meme, you either need to be consistent or drop the accusations with me.
Whenever you make a generalization you are using inductive logic. That generalization DOES NOT have to be specifically related to individual or groups of people. It applies no matter what dimension the generalization is being made in. Correct?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes,
If you read my above comment, I did say she overgeneralized (hasty generalization
), and she went on to modify her statement. What's your point? All of this has been covered above.
I still don't find general over-generalizations as bas as 'fallacies of composition
' if we are going to get technical on the types of inductive logic fallacies.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
My point was and still remains ...
that she used "bad inductive logic" of the exact same sort that you seem to want to accuse me of, yet you state above that she has not used "bad inductive logic".
That IS the phrase you keep chasing me with is it not?
I see no reason to try and be more specific now (i.e. by describing sub categories thereof). I'll just stick with your original phrasing so that we keep the rules of the game consistent.
So, is the following an example of "bad inductive logic"? *
"President Bush ignored points X, Y, and Z of the Constitution."
Therefore:
"President Bush ignores the Constitution." **
So, unless she can produce examples of how Bush has ignored every conceivable aspect of the Constitution she MUST fall into the case described above. Correct?
--------------------------------------
as a reminder.
* I refer you to the opening examples in the Wikipedia page on inductive reasoning
** Remember, we must use your favored parsing and interpretation of this statement. Since she has provided no qualifier this statement by your previous rules of interpretation is equivalent to "President Bush ignores [all of] the Constitution."
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I understand what Specter is saying completely.
This isn't really a game to me. I consider broaching the bounds of the constition
on a regular basis quite serious.
If you want to get sidetracked on a question of this definition of generalization or that definition of inductive logic, what happens? The larger point is lost.
The larger point:
The White House is pushing the envelope to garner more power into the executive branch at the expense of the people's house and the courts. This point which is the point is lost, when you chase these straw men.
You keep beating this dead horse, it is not going to get up and win any races any time soon.
Bruce Fein a conservative lawyer makes a consistent and compelling case as to how this White House has pushed the envelope of executive authority.
Bruce Fein on Dick Cheney
Statement of Bruce Fein Deputy Attorney General to Ronald Reagan
Using the White House as the Head of Operations for the RNC
Another Demerit for the White House
Note carefully that Bruce Fein is not some left leaning liberal. He was the Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan. Will you now suggest that this long standing and honorable conservative has a liberal agenda and slander his credibility or will you open your mind and read what he writes.
Bruce Fein is a constitutional attorney in good standing of a conservative bend who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
I don't think my statement generalizing this President and this White House,
is off the mark. Generaly speaking that is exactly what is happening and here are a few examples as cited by Bruce Fein.
Generalizing: Republican President, George W. Bush, is ignoring the constitution and displaying an arrogant disregard for the separation of powers.
Bad Inductive Logic: Republicans are ignoring the constitution.
I'm only half stupid
The point is to continually highlight liberal hypocrisy.
I have been very open about my methods. I let you all set the "rules of the game" as in which rhetorical techniques are considered fair game, and then I use those same exact techniques in my attacks on your positions.
This has the advantage for me that you have a hard time crying "foul" on my choice of rhetorical techniques with any sort of credibility.
Specter put his stake in the ground and now I intend to follow suit as long as he insists on harrassing me with what will become an obviously faux argument because I will have plenty of examples such as yours to highlight wherein he will be forced to either agree or argue against his own logic. Either way I win. :)
Thank you for this post as it provides the X, Y, and Z for my argument above. These examples clearly do NOT represent a flagrant disregard of ALL OF the Constitution. So, Specter, here are the examples needed to back up my assertion above.
Moving on ...
Now, as to your examples above I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the terminology. Setting Bush's and Cheney's actions aside for a moment, there is a distinction between lawlessness and ignoring a constitutional construct. When someone is speeding on the highway they are being lawless but they are not violating or ignoring the Constitution because the constitution says NOTHING about speeding. This is true for any legislatively created law as opposed to a Constitutional Amendment or original construct. So let's keep our terminology straight, shall we.
I read the quotes you provided and will respond below. Just because this individual is or was a conservative does not really have any bearing here except maybe motive. So fine, I will accept that he has no particular partisan motive in these quotes. That does NOT make them automatically correct and accurate. Each needs to be evaluated on its merits.
On the issue of the Vice president not being part of the Executive branch. As we have all seen that the Constitution does NOT explicitly state that the office of Vice President is part of the Executive branch. So, how is Cheney pointing out this fact and asserting that he is not, in fact, part of the Executive branch violating the Constitution? The Constitution is silent on the matter. How can you violate something that is never stated in a matter as important as Constitutional constructs? Show me where the Constitution puts the Vice President in the Executive banch and I will concede this point. Otherwise this issue is a straw man and Bruce Fein is wrong on the face of it.
On the issue of FISA, I could make an argument against this being a Constitutional issue because FISA is a legislative construct NOT a Constitutional one. But given that it is so directly tied to the Bill of Rights I will accept the characterization of this as being a "Constitutional Issue". That does not imply that I concede that Bush violated anything in this regards, however, and I do not intend to argue the merits of that charge at this time.
On the issue of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, this is a legislative act and NOT part of the Constitution. So, regardless of whether Bush is actually guilty of violating this particular act, or not, makes the charge one of being lawless rather than one of violating the Constitution. As such it cannot be an example of Bush violating or ignoring the Constitution regardless of his guilt or innocence in the matter.
When you site only a couple of examples of Bush violating the Constitution (at least in your opinion) and then generalize to Bush violates [all of] the Constitution, you are committing the exact same act of bad inductive logic that Specter charges against me.
This is all discussed above and is consistent with Specter's primary claims made against me. It has NOTHING to do with going from Bush to All Republicans on the use of Inductive Logic. Read the examples on the wiki page referenced above.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Now you have lost your mind completely :+)
Congress which has been given the authority to make laws, as provided by the constitution.
Claiming that the President can ignore 'legislative acts' or laws is exactly the problem.
As if the President is above the law. As if the Congress doesn't have the authority to make the law.
The constitution provides for three (3) separate but equal branches of government, as a means to guarantee that no one branch holds too much power.
The folks on Team Bush have been pushing deligently to grant the Executive Branch more power, than some feel is warrented by the constitution.
This whole delima is in essence falls back to the resignation of Nixon, without resolving the violations that took place in the executive branch as to how much power the executive holds.
Impeachment resolves the problem without resorting to the courts.
There is hypocrisy on both sides, sir. We both know that don't we.
(See David Ritter and family values)
I'm only half stupid
RE: Now you have lost your mind completely :+)
While grammtically incorrect, this is basically a true statement.
This is an outright lie. Neither I nor anyone in the adminstration has argued this.
Please try to follow along. YOU said "Bush ignores the Constitution", which by the prevailing liberal interpretation of such a statement means exactly "Bush ignores ALL of the Constitution."
That is the topic at hand, which you seem to be conflating with the concept of violating acts of Congress. As I clearly stated these are completely seperate issues. My pointing out that they are different issues is NOT IN ANY WAY an argument that it is acceptable to violate acts of Congress. But examples of Bush violating Acts of Congress ARE NOT IN ANY WAY examples of Bush violating or ignoring the Constitution.
So, if you are going to state that Bush is violating the Constitution, provide proof that he is Violating the Constitution, NOT some random acts of Congress.
Mean what you say, and say what you mean.
Neither I nor anyone in the administration has argued either of these points. So, again, an outright lie.
No one is claiming otherwise. This is essentially correct.
Well, to be blunt, I really don't care what "some feel" about the matter, what I care about is the facts. So far you have provided none to support your claim.
Blah blah blah. Has nothing to do with whether or not Bush has been ignoring ALL of the constitution.
Blah blah blah. Has nothing to do with whether or not Bush has been ignoring ALL of the constitution.
Blah blah blah. Has nothing to do with whether or not Bush has been ignoring ALL of the constitution.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ride that straw pony
I'm only half stupid
There is nothing straw about any of this ...
But it is ALL a distraction from the original point, which was that you claim that Bush is ignoring ALL of the Constitution and you have not been able to substantiate that claim.
As such you are using bad inductive logic according to Specter's original definitions and arguments.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That's BS
Generalization: Republican President George W Bush is ignoring 'legislative acts' thereby ignoring the law as written by Congress which is mandated in the constitution.
Bad Inductive Logic: Republicans are a lawless.
I'm only half stupid
RE: That's BS
You can try to call it "generalization" if you want, but generalization IS THE SAME THING AS inductive logic. Read the wiki page.
This changes nothing in that respect. Both statements above use inductive logic, and "bad" inductive logic by Specter's original definitions.
So, by switching your statement from "the Constitution" to "legislative acts" are you now admitting your earlier mistake?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4While that is....
... really gymnastic piece of obsfucation, I think you know better. I'm sure you do. You're whistling past the graveyard.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Nobody honestly thinks the VP is not in executive branch
This is just stupid what-ifs that nobody takes seriously. But if we must..
Article 1, section 6:
One cannot be a member of both Legislative and Executive branches. If the Speaker of the House or President Pro Tempore needs to serve, even for a minute, as President, they must resign from congress. If the President or elected VP recovers, the temprorary president steps down and does NOT get their old job back.
The VP on the other hand is able to temporarily serve as President and go back to being just VP afterwards becaue he is not simultaneously in both branches even when serving as both President and VP.
However, it would be interesting for the Senate to simply compel Cheney to attend each and every session under article 1, Section 5:
Just to see the reaction.
RE: Nobody honestly thinks the VP is not in executive branch
So are you claiming that the above is somehow evidence that the Constitution actually STATES that the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch?
Because I just don't see anything you have written above as actually SAYING that. If not then this is irrelevant to my point above.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes it does say that
It is both illegal and unconstitutional to be both in the Legislative Branch and be even ACTING President at the same time.
Yet, while serving as acting President, the Vice President is CERTAINLY part of the executive branch, while remaining Vice President.
Proof by contradiction.
Plus of course, the fact that his selection, term and disqualifications are described in Article II: The Executive Branch
RE: Yes it does say that
No, it doesn't SAY that. You are trying to INFER that which is completely different. Whether your inference is correct or not has yet to be settled in a court of law, correct?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Doesn't that fall under
a 'Judicial Act' and not part of the constitution.
I'm only half stupid
RE: Doesn't that fall under
What is your point, assuming you have one?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It actually has been decided by a court
CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
It was separation of powers, specifically as it is applies to the executive branch that were referenced in this case by both court and the petitioner
From the very beginning of the majority opinion:
Other quotes from the opinion
Lots of references to the Executive branch and Executive priveleges and since the petitioner was Dick Cheney and not George W Bush, the references are specific to the Vice President and not the President.
Just a quick question though: Is the Chief Justice of SCOTUS part of the Legislative Branch? After all, if you Impeach the President, the Chief Justice is the President of the Senate, the same job as the VP. Heck, that position is mentioned nowhere EXCEPT in Article 1. So he is just us much a member of the Senate as the VP is.
Can you please provide a link to the source?
Not that this matters. Unless this a DIRECT finding that EXPLICITLY addresses the question of whether the Vice President is, Constitutionally, part of the Executive Branch it is nothing more than inference on your part.
An indirect inference is NOT a direct ruling.
I am not sure why this matters to you so much. I, personally, am not making a claim as to whether Cheney is part of the Executive or not. I am merely claiming that the Constitution does not directly (oh yea, and in the strictest sense of that word to keep pico or Specter or somebody else happy) say that he is.
Since it, in fact, does NOT directly state that why are you arguing about it?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Goalposts... slowly... moving
Link
Ok, not this is getting silly. The Vice President's lawyers argued in the Supreme Court that he had separation of powers protection from laws passed by the legislative branch. SCOTUS refered to the Vice President as a member of the Executive Branch and used it as an important element in much of their ruling.
Absent a single court case where anybody even argues to the contrary, this is a ridiculous stance for you to take.
It is also interesting that whenever anyone reaches your threshholds, you proclaim that you don't really care and that it isn't good enough.
Again, is argying that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is part of the Legislative branch at ll reasonable? Without a single court case that says otherwise we apparently can't say no.
RE: Goalposts... slowly... moving
It is not the goalposts which are moving, but rather you understanding of where they had been set all along. I cannot help it that you did not understand my original meaning and thereby kept missing the point. :)
In actuality, I believe that you knew full well where I had set the goalposts and have just been playing games to try and get past them with word play and inferences. I have always been consistent in all of my dealings on topics along these lines. If you say someone SAID something, then be prepared to show WHERE they ACTUALLY SAID it. Not infered it. Not implied it. SAID IT. This is the same standard I had applied in the Bush lied meme if you recall. So my position here should not be a surprise to anyone.
I honestly don't even know why we are arguing about this or what you are asking me to agree to. As I said above I, personally, have not made any claim as to whether the Vice President is in or out of the Executive Branch. If I have done so anywhere upthread please point it out.
This ENTIRE THREAD is an outgrowth of my objection to ONE STATEMENT which claimed that "The Bush government ignores constitutional law." Everything else is discussed and interpretted within THAT CONTEXT.
No, what is ridiculous is for you to spend so much effort trying to "prove" that the Constitution SAYS that the Vice President is part of the Executive when it DOES NOT. If it did you would have pointed to the text long ago.
All of these side tangents into court cases to bolster your case are of your own making. I did not ask you to pursue this. The part that you need to recognize is that since the Constitution does not actually SAY that the Vice President is in the Executive that any attempts to prove that it somehow DOES say that will be futile by definition.
The fact that any reasonable person would say, "Obviously the Vice President is part of the Executive" (myself included) does NOT change the FACT that the text of the Constitution does NOT say that. And my original claim, if you care to go back and read it was simply THAT.
In fact, here it is again:
Nothing you have provided refutes that underlined statement, does it? It couldn't have, by definition, since the text of the Constitution contains no such EXPLICIT language. If you want to keep chasing red herrings there is nothing I can do about it, but I am more than happy to deflect your attempts as they come in.
Do you want me to agree that the Vice President is most logically considered to be part of the Executive Branch? Fine, I agree. That doesn't change the text of the Constitution, though.
Do you want me to agree that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is most logically considered to be part of the Judicial Branch? Fine, I agree. That doesn't change the text of the Constitution either.
What is your point?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ah.. My point. Something about evading/ignoring the Constitution
Where does the Constitution specifically say that the President can't go on a killing spree whenever he feels like it? It doesn't so maybe he can! Has there been a Supreme Court Ruling that says he can't? And if so, maybe that was just for a previous President. Laws have changed and conditions are new. When SCOTUS states that THIS president can't go on killing sprees, then I'm sure he'll obey!
...
Of Course a Murderous Rampage is different from a Killing Spree! Does the Constitution say they are different? Has the Supreme Court ruled they are the same?
...
Where does the Constitution say that SCOTUS has the power to rule on distinctions between Murderous Rampages and Killing Sprees. It doesn't!
Blah blah blah.
Arguing the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch isn't just the most logical view, it is the only honest one. Anyone who argues differently for anything other than a ludicrous lark is being blatantly dishonest (I'll be generous and put you under the ludicrous lark heading)
People in the VPs staff putting this argument forward are doing it for one reason, to run out the clock on obeying the legal constraints on their office; which is to say, get around the Constitutional constraints.. To ignore these constraints with enormous quantities of bullcrap.
RE: Ah.. My point. Something about evading/ignoring the Constitu
Umm, I think you have trouble reading sometimes. You are making an accusation here which I consider to be false, so I am obligated to follow up. By putting me in the "ludicrous lark haeding" you seem to be implying that I was arguing that the Vice President is NOT part of the executive.
I claim that I never did, at least in this current thread. I have asked you to point to where I did if you think I did but you have provided no such link. Furthermore, in my previous post I explicitly state that I considered the Vice President to be part of the Executive so I am unclear on why you would accuse me of arguing otherwise.
Are you aware that there is a difference between arguing that the text of the Constitution does NOT SAY that the Vice President is part of the Executive and arguing that the Vice President is not ACUTALLY part of the Executive? The two are completely separate points. Read that two statements and interpret them COMPLETELY LITERALLY to understand the distinction.
And this point is similar. You do understand that there is a distinction to be made between violating a law passed by congress and violating the Constution, right? Again, these are two completely different things.
So, to answer your question about murderous rampages, the thing that prevents the President from going on such a rampage is a LAW, not the Constitution. So I would never have made the argument that you suggest in the first place because it would be nonsense. I have similarly corrected missliberties on this point here
:
Just so you see that I am being consistent. She obviously fails to grasp this distinction. I have hope that you possess the ability to do so. To summarize:
They are NOT the same thing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Article 2 powers
But half of the recent discussions concerning statutory violations (FISA, Rendition, Interrogation Methods, Enemy Combatant status etc) have involved the President claiming inherent Article 2 gotta-have-it-to-fight-the-war powers that immunize him from statutory constraint.
Arguments about legislative power of congress to limit such things (such as Murderour Rampages and Killing Sprees) can be brought up in the same fashion. These arguments are then Constitutional. (And they have been. Examples include the UCMJ as an illegal intrusion into Presidential power)
It isn't a reading issue, it is remembering the discussion from a previous thread where you supported the argument (supporting not equivalent to stating it is correct, but worth tearing down anyways)
I hereby agree to disagree on this too.
This topic has now become moot. See:
I hereby agree to disagree on the specifics.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ender,
What would it take to make you interested?
What more would be required to warrant it?
Then self-delusion’s at play, whether it’s willful or unconscious.
I’m not suggesting that, as an entity, the U.S. would cease to be—that’s highly unlikely—only that it’d be unrecognizable and incongruous with its founding republican principles.
Then you’re not looking.
Certainly there’s incompetence, corruption, and patronage, but I think it’s exceedingly naïve to attribute the disastrous policies of this administration primarily to haplessness or lack of integrity. Particularly when their patterns of behavior consistently evince something far more sinister: deliberate usurpation of power.
What, I ask you again, would meet your criteria for considering impeachment?
Would it be warranted if Hillary Clinton were doing it?
I agree that adversarial impeachment—on partisan lines—would elicit this effect as surely as it would fail.
You’re misrepresenting my point.
Republicans don’t want to enable that any more than Democrats want to enable this:
And this:
The object of this exercise is to establish a precedent against impunity–one which has more value than either faction’s partisan gain. I personally don’t want a Democratic president wielding the powers Bush consolidated anymore than I’d want a Republican doing it.
Hence impeachment.
Bush’s threat to the republic extends past the end of his inglorious occupation of the Oval Office. Only a definitive example of severe consequences can counter it.
I’d argue the GOP has more to lose by not impeaching—provided, as I said, that a Republican retained the presidency for the duration of Bush’s term—than Democrats.
Suit yourselves.
I look forward to "evil machinations" of an emboldened 60-vote Democratic Senate: single-payer healthcare, progressive taxation, a global warming treaty with teeth, and all manner of other "socialist" mischief it might try to “foist” on the country.
Agreed, but most efforts are thwarted by Bush’s intransigence and Democrats’ unwillingness to play hardball. That’s another topic, however.
Check out the Moyers special, especially this segment:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_impeachment1-1.html
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
You think Dems are not working on Iraq? Are you sober?
"War in Iraq is the serious problem and that's what Dems should be concentrating on."
I suppose you can just decree (to yourself) that Dems aren't on Iraq, but that would mean ignoring what Reid is saying, what Bush is saying, and what the dragooned generals are saying, and well as our UN ambassador today on the NewsHour.
I wonder what they're talking about?
You're just playing word games.
Making it about politics would be more likely
I suspect that the Republicans would prefer to have it be about politics. Then they'd ditch the administration, hand the entire withdrawal over to the Democrats and scream the whole time about how the Democrats were just engaged in power grab.
Of course if the Democrats managed to convict without bipartisan support that, Pelosi could resign as speaker (for a day) and the President Pro Tempore could declare himself unable to take the position, thus dumping it back on Condoleeza Rice (who would promptly pardon everybody.)
Is there
a reason this keeps falling off the FP? (No jokes here GR or Ender :-) )
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Every time it is updated
it gets automatically demoted.
I guess the reason for that feature is that an editor has to "approve" the changes before re-promoting it. Kind of annoying though.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sorry about that.
Now that I know, I'll leave it alone.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell