Putin on the Writs

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23752
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by JasonL » 31 May 2019, 23:43

Literally every president.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27634
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 31 May 2019, 23:44

What's really funny is that when I occasionally predict that Presidents will soon start spending money on domestic projects without Congressional authorization, people say I'm crazy. When I say that an executive branch agency will disregard a court order to not act contrary to Congress, people say I'm crazy.

And then, when I say that Presidents should get in trouble for acting without Congressional authorization, people say I'm crazy.

I guess that sanity means insisting that no encroachments are happening and if they are nobody should get in trouble.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27634
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 31 May 2019, 23:45

JasonL wrote:
31 May 2019, 23:43
Literally every president.
Let me know when you have some argument that involves Trump's actions and not just "T thinks Iran-Contra was bad!"
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 25990
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Warren » 31 May 2019, 23:50

thoreau wrote:
31 May 2019, 23:41
In order to impeach and remove over Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, or whatever else, we'd have have to be the sort of country that elects the sort of Congress that sees those things as fundamental abrogations of the basic agreements underlying government. The sort of country that elects that sort of Congress would be the sort of country that would consider that sort of impeachment acceptable.

This country sees that sort of foreign policy acceptable, and sees it as acceptable for a President to carry out such foreign policy without Congressional involvement. When I say that I wish they had impeached, I'm saying that I wish we had the sort of country that agreed. I'm saying that I wish the American people had been more careful about this and had not supported that sort of executive action.

Some libertarians would point to the text of the Constitution, note that Presidents aren't authorized to do such things, and say that that's why Congress should have impeached and removed over Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, etc. I say that the American people have implicitly accepted an unwritten amendment that allows that sort of executive action. They did it by spending many decades (arguably well over a century) electing Congresses that accept such executive action overseas. They could undo it by electing a Congress that decided to act against a President over such executive action. That would be another unwritten amendment.

I'm open to critiques of democracy, and would be willing to discuss that. But within the confines of the system as it currently operates, I wish the American people would elect a Congress that takes a different view of its relationship with the executive, and also elect a President that takes a different view of what a proper foreign policy is. Alas, I'm not holding my breath for these things.

Instead, I think we're moving toward a future of Congress as a vestigial organ. There will never be a day where it happens formally, but we'll see more and more shifting of power from Congress to the executive. Most steps will be small, and people will say that anyone who objects to any particular step is just a crazy person who doesn't understand that There Is A System And We Had An Election And Now You Want To Change It?!?!?!?! But we will keep going in that direction. There will always be a Congress, just as Rome always had a Senate, but it will matter less and less.
I'm with you on that thoreau. They should be high crimes, but unfortunately they aren't.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23752
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by JasonL » 31 May 2019, 23:57

As to a standard, I could give you things like murder or physical crimes like assault or rape, deployment of security apparatus to target political opposition, embezzlement of state funds, bribery ... I dunno other stuff.

I think the “people clearly recognize the crime as a crime” standard is actually better than a list like that. I think your trivializing of its importance in the context of what an election is is not great. You are seeking to unwind the result of an election. You seem willing to do that at the drop of a hat, and you think if you get your way people won’t do things at the margins. I think all you are doing is making the winner of the election a meaningless concept.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27634
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 01 Jun 2019, 00:00

JasonL wrote:
31 May 2019, 23:57
embezzlement of state funds
Emoluments Clause comes close...
JasonL wrote:
31 May 2019, 23:57
You are seeking to unwind the result of an election.
Elevating Mike Pence to the Presidency hardly undoes the 2016 election. And, honestly, I would sigh with relief to have a President who won't accidentally rage-tweet us into war.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27634
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 01 Jun 2019, 00:01

Warren wrote:
31 May 2019, 23:50
thoreau wrote:
31 May 2019, 23:41
In order to impeach and remove over Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, or whatever else, we'd have have to be the sort of country that elects the sort of Congress that sees those things as fundamental abrogations of the basic agreements underlying government. The sort of country that elects that sort of Congress would be the sort of country that would consider that sort of impeachment acceptable.

This country sees that sort of foreign policy acceptable, and sees it as acceptable for a President to carry out such foreign policy without Congressional involvement. When I say that I wish they had impeached, I'm saying that I wish we had the sort of country that agreed. I'm saying that I wish the American people had been more careful about this and had not supported that sort of executive action.

Some libertarians would point to the text of the Constitution, note that Presidents aren't authorized to do such things, and say that that's why Congress should have impeached and removed over Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, etc. I say that the American people have implicitly accepted an unwritten amendment that allows that sort of executive action. They did it by spending many decades (arguably well over a century) electing Congresses that accept such executive action overseas. They could undo it by electing a Congress that decided to act against a President over such executive action. That would be another unwritten amendment.

I'm open to critiques of democracy, and would be willing to discuss that. But within the confines of the system as it currently operates, I wish the American people would elect a Congress that takes a different view of its relationship with the executive, and also elect a President that takes a different view of what a proper foreign policy is. Alas, I'm not holding my breath for these things.

Instead, I think we're moving toward a future of Congress as a vestigial organ. There will never be a day where it happens formally, but we'll see more and more shifting of power from Congress to the executive. Most steps will be small, and people will say that anyone who objects to any particular step is just a crazy person who doesn't understand that There Is A System And We Had An Election And Now You Want To Change It?!?!?!?! But we will keep going in that direction. There will always be a Congress, just as Rome always had a Senate, but it will matter less and less.
I'm with you on that thoreau. They should be high crimes, but unfortunately they aren't.
But this is one of those rare cases where they will be if enough people want them that way.

Alas, "enough" seems far out of reach.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 25990
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Warren » 01 Jun 2019, 01:08

thoreau wrote:
01 Jun 2019, 00:01
Warren wrote:
31 May 2019, 23:50
thoreau wrote:
31 May 2019, 23:41
In order to impeach and remove over Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, or whatever else, we'd have have to be the sort of country that elects the sort of Congress that sees those things as fundamental abrogations of the basic agreements underlying government. The sort of country that elects that sort of Congress would be the sort of country that would consider that sort of impeachment acceptable.

This country sees that sort of foreign policy acceptable, and sees it as acceptable for a President to carry out such foreign policy without Congressional involvement. When I say that I wish they had impeached, I'm saying that I wish we had the sort of country that agreed. I'm saying that I wish the American people had been more careful about this and had not supported that sort of executive action.

Some libertarians would point to the text of the Constitution, note that Presidents aren't authorized to do such things, and say that that's why Congress should have impeached and removed over Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, etc. I say that the American people have implicitly accepted an unwritten amendment that allows that sort of executive action. They did it by spending many decades (arguably well over a century) electing Congresses that accept such executive action overseas. They could undo it by electing a Congress that decided to act against a President over such executive action. That would be another unwritten amendment.

I'm open to critiques of democracy, and would be willing to discuss that. But within the confines of the system as it currently operates, I wish the American people would elect a Congress that takes a different view of its relationship with the executive, and also elect a President that takes a different view of what a proper foreign policy is. Alas, I'm not holding my breath for these things.

Instead, I think we're moving toward a future of Congress as a vestigial organ. There will never be a day where it happens formally, but we'll see more and more shifting of power from Congress to the executive. Most steps will be small, and people will say that anyone who objects to any particular step is just a crazy person who doesn't understand that There Is A System And We Had An Election And Now You Want To Change It?!?!?!?! But we will keep going in that direction. There will always be a Congress, just as Rome always had a Senate, but it will matter less and less.
I'm with you on that thoreau. They should be high crimes, but unfortunately they aren't.
But this is one of those rare cases where they will be if enough people want them that way.

Alas, "enough" seems far out of reach.
It's no good getting "enough" just to get this guy though. You have to get enough people to vote in congresspersons that will take back their constitutional responsibilities.
I welcome a prosecution of Trump for his alleged crimes, just wait till he's out of office. But since nobody actually gives a shit about the criminal acts, that's not going to happen.
All this talk of impeachment has nothing to do with upholding the law, it's just a pretext to get a guy they don't like.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27634
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 01 Jun 2019, 01:34

Warren wrote: I welcome a prosecution of Trump for his alleged crimes, just wait till he's out of office. But since nobody actually gives a shit about the criminal acts, that's not going to happen.
This system will never do that. "Look forward, not backward." So there will be no punishment after his term.

And for all the reasons discussed here there will be no punishment during his term.

Presidents are thus effectively above the law.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6491
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Dangerman » 01 Jun 2019, 11:54

I'm just happy he doesn't have a Cheney or Rumsfeld.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 25990
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Warren » 01 Jun 2019, 11:57

Dangerman wrote:
01 Jun 2019, 11:54
I'm just happy he doesn't have a Cheney or Rumsfeld.
Right? Which he would never have, because he can't afford to have competent people around him least they make him look bad.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13857
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Kolohe » 01 Jun 2019, 13:50

JasonL wrote:
31 May 2019, 13:38
Essentially yes that’s my argument. Close elections have highly agitated bases who feel they should have won. They will each pick on this or that micro thing as the reason. A high bar for impeachment mitigates the idea that losing an election just means you go to the impeachment round all the time - that no close election is ever in a sense legitimate.

You should have a plurality or ideally a dominating public consensus that specified actions are definitively crimes if proven before you try to get it done that way. Otherwise - win the next election.

Edit - if Thoreau thinks the worst outcome is he remains in office and Aresen thinks the worst outcome is a failed impeachment, I think the worst outcome is a razor thin removal.
I certainly see the value in being against 'lawfare' for close elections (it's in fact why the Constitution grants immunity for legislators while they're seated.)

I disagree insomuch as the threshold for impeachment and removal is much higher than the threshold for election, so the mechanism is already designed to mitigate against people using a lawfare strategy (which I think was a design intent, but not sure).
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15539
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Aresen » 01 Jun 2019, 16:57

Dangerman wrote:
01 Jun 2019, 11:54
I'm just happy he doesn't have a Cheney or Rumsfeld.
He's got Bolton.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7879
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Taktix® » 05 Jun 2019, 00:27

"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27634
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 05 Jun 2019, 01:02

Dude, I'm not backing you on this one. Militaries toying with each other in international waters is hardly new.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo