I’m a Bush-basher, and I do understand the concept. Getting a Democrat into the Oval Office isn’t a magical remedy. The mess will still be there. But it will send a clear message to our allies (such as we have left) that We The People are taking back our government and starting to set things right. As I said before the war started, we are supposed to be a nation of laws. Let’s abide by our laws and prosecute those in our government who violate them.
How could she possibly argue that? On what grounds could they be ineligible?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. The invasion of Iraq was overwhelmingly approved by both Houses of Congress. Bush did nothing illegal when he invaded Iraq.
Anyway, you obviously didn’t read the OP, because that is precisely not what he’s talking about doing.
He’s saying they need to be impeached before they do any more damage. That does not speak to the grounds that you would use to impeach them, merely the motivation for putting the impeachment into motion.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
He said over and over that the authorization was intended to prevent war! That it would strengthen his hand for negotiation towards a peaceful resolution of a desperate (non-existent) and immediate (non-existent) threat.
You know this as well as I.
So what? The SDMB rules and customs are not a suicide pact, nor are they a device intended to muzzle themes of debate you find distasteful.
Sorry, but it doesn’t matter. They authorized him to use force if he determined that negotiation had reached an end. He determined that it had, and so he went to war. The authorization made it clear that Bush was the decider. That’s all that matters.
I didn’t say he couldn’t talk about anything. But if says this thread is about “A”, when it’s actually about “B”, I’m also free to point out that it’s about “A”, especially when he’s refuting my claim that the OP said “A”, or claiming that “people” are talking about “B” when they are, in fact, talking about “A”.
Seperation of powers. There’s some debate over whether members of the legislative branch qualify as an officer under the Constitution. Of course if Rice vs Pelosi ever did come before SCOTUS I think it’d be a 9-0 vote in favour of Pelosi very quickly.
Nonsense. You have put too fine a point on it. Do you deny that it was implicit in the authorization that a “good faith” effort be made? Are you going to suggest that such an effort was made? If so, would you be so kind as to limn your reasoning, if such it be?
Certainly you are. Why would you bother?
I don’t accept “implicit” laws. But if you would like to bring it up with the SCOTUS, feel free to do so. And if you get a favorable ruling, then I will concede your point. Until then, it is nonsense to argue that an Authorization to Use Military force is not, in fact, an authorization to use military force.
Let me quote the relevant section for you (emphasis added):
Whatever we might say about (1), Saddam Hussein was in violation of UNSC resolutions. Remember, Saddam had to not only eliminate his WNDs, but he had to account for the elimination process, which he never fully did. Now, I don’t for a second think that’s a good reason to go to war, but Congress did authorize it. Saying otherwise is to ignore the very words in the resolution.
Well, gee, John, sure want to thank you for quoting the same goddam thing I’ve seen quoted here…what, a thousand times? Did you think to astound me? Am I expected to reel away in dismay and confusion?
Do you imagine that if the UN had rescinded its previous resolutions and declared Saddam in compliance it would have made a difference? Do you imagine, even for a moment, that the purpose of the excercise was to empower the UN? Or was it, as I suspect, merely an attempt to drape the tattered legitimacy of the UN over a dishonorable and base act? Does not the UN Charter forbid aggressive war? Wouldn’t that take precedence over a tortured reading of resolutions? Bush tried to get authorization from the UN for his attack, and failed. Doesn’t that make your appeal to UN authority rather tawdry?
The authorization was based on lies, John. Big ones, little ones, and lots of them.
If I ask to borrow your car to go to the store, with the full intent of using it to run down little old ladies in the crosswalk, and you consent…did you authorize me to run down little old ladies?
Then why, for the love of Jesus, do you bring it up, unless to parse precisely and tease out some legitimacy where none exists, save by way of an exquisitely careful reading?
Yes.
From The United States Constitution (emphasis mine):
By violating the UN Charter, Bush violated The Supreme Law of the Land.
I expected you to read it, and not to make us stuff that isn’t in there. If you actually do read it, you’ll see that there’s nothing “implicit” about the diplomatic efforts that were supposed to have been done first-- it’s actually written into the AUMF. But again, it’s Bush who gets to decide when those efforts have failed. That is a fact. It’s right in the text.
Do you imagine that has any bearing on the point? Are you claiming the action is illegal because Bush might have ignored a different action by the UN?
Actually, no, it wouldn’t. But again, if and when you get a SCOTUS decision saying otherwise I’ll concede the point. And it’s simply laughable that you’d call a plain reading of the text “tortured”. It says what it says, not what you wish it said.
Even if that were true, I’m afraid it doesn’t matter.
There are bad analogies, and then there’s that one. If you asked to borrow my car and said you’d run over little old ladies if you had to, then I would not be surprised if you did, in fact, run over little old ladies.
I like how you call “reading” parsing. But in case you forgot what you wrote a few minutes ago, I brought it up because you posted this:
If you claim I’ve made a false statement, I’m going to reply and tell you why it’s not false. Don’t hide behind your cries of “parsing” when I do.
I disagree. Impeaching a President and/or Vice President for what they give you damned good reason to believe they might do in the future, should the consequences of such actions be severe enough, I would regard as my bounden duty, if I were in Congress.
If you want an impeachable offense that’s already happened, or could easily be brought to a go/no go point, a refusal to acknowledge the authority of Congress to decide whether to make war or not would do.
That, my friend, is bullshit. Preventing an arbitrary initiation of war by the Executive is hardly “purely political reasons.”
???
I’m not sure what the Iraq AUMF has to do with Iran. I’d like to see Congress attach a clause to the next Iraq funding bill explicitly putting off limits U.S. military action within, or attacks on, Iran proper, without the consent of Congress, for the next two years.
But the problem is still that Bush and Cheney have made it clear they believe they are beyond the authority of Congress in such matters. And as Stalin once asked about the Pope, how many divisions does Congress have?
The Constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and pretty much lets Congress decide what they are.
Who’s going to say it’s not legal? The Supremes generally stay out of disputes concerning the fundamental powers of Congress v. the Executive.
And the consequences of these actions were??
I’m talking about making sure these loons don’t make the Middle East into a volcano that will have us looking back at our current quagmire as a quiet idyll. Your examples aren’t remotely comparable.
In this, I support you completely. Whatever people may use this thread for, it certainly wasn’t intended as a place to rehash the legality or morality of our invasion of Iraq, or our current prospects there.
With which reminder I defer to the esteemed Arty and refrain from further debate on said theme. With the mild demurral that Iraq is so central to the matters at hand, it is impossible to ignore, the elephant in the room is abundantly flatulent.
::sigh::
We’ve been over this so many times before, but maybe you weren’t watching. That article means that no state can violate either the US constitution (those parts applicable to the states), US laws, or any treaties authorized by the federal government. It sets up The Constitution, Federal laws, and Treaties as “the supreme law of the land”. It does not put treaties above either the Constitution or Federal Laws. Think how absurd that would be if it did. Your reading would put treaties above the constitution! This site explains the Supremacy Clause well, if you are interested. In particular, this quote from Gibbons vs. Ogden is pertinent:
It would, however, appear to make treaties (which must be consented to by the Senate) the equal of Federal laws, rendering a law that violated a treaty without explicit language rescinding the treaty at least the legitimate target of a legal challenge in court.
Johnny did not claim that the action was unconstitutional–only that it was a violation of the Law of the Land.
What a vision I’ve just seen! As through a glass, clearly…
Some time hence, I open the GD Forum, and see a thread titled “Was the Inaugaration of President Pelosi Strictly Legal?” and think to myself, what, this again? Hey, it’s over, already, time to move on, get over it…