To those who are suggesting we “cut off” the yearly aid that we already have them over a month ago, what is the plan, exactly? Politely ask the new government to give it back? Go to the Big Bank Of Foreign Aid and get them to reverse the transaction like an incorrect direct deposit? Build a time machine? What?
Or are we talking about preemptively cutting off aid to whatever government might be in charge in May of 2014, when the payment is due again? Because that would be kind of dumb.
Kinda sorta. The president has to interpret the law, and the normal check on that is the judicial system. Unfortunately here, there really isn’t a way to get the judicial system involved. And so we look to Congress. As noted, they are going to look into this matter, and make a determination. If they determine this is a “coup”, then the’ll cut off funds. If Obama still tires to funnel funds to Egypt, then Congress can act to impeach.
You dodged all the questions but two, handwaving them away based on your gut feelings or preliminary understanding of the facts. That’s fine, but it’s not legal analysis, which is what is called for in a thread titled “Such-and-such is the law.”
As to the two answers you did deign to offer…
*Reality determines it. *
That’s a nonsense answer. The question is who is the one to say what reality is. Saying that reality determines it is like saying colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
The law talks about deposing. It doesn’t condition stuff on who the next head of government is.
The law talks about a lot of things. Among others, it uses the phrase “military coup or decree.” In your view, we should ignore the meaning of coup when interpreting that phrase. Indeed, in your view, it is unreasonable to consider the meaning of coup at all when interpreting that phrase. That’s not how statutory interpretation works.
When you try to say that it wasn’t a “decree” because Morsi was “requested” to step down, there really isn’t much to talk about, is it?
You’re adding layers of interpretation and understanding on top of my simple question.
I did not say Morsi was requested to do anything. I asked you about the definition of a term.
Obviously, a decree is different from a request, and I’m asking you what makes something a decree. That you cannot even understand this simple question goes right to the heart of your issue here, which is that you cannot see the complexity or nuance in these topics.
The head of the military went on TV and declared that the head of state is hereby deposed and the constitution is suspended. If that is not military deposing the head of state by decree, I don’t know what is.
So the rule is: Terr knows it when he sees it.
Gotcha.
The rest of us will go on struggling to actually define statutory terms in order to follow the rule of law. Though I admit that your system is much simpler. Not sure why we haven’t tried it yet.
I also see the dog has four legs. And if the government “reinterprets” it so that the dog’s tail is a leg and says that the dog has five legs, the dog would still have four legs.
That’s right. A=A. That’s all you really need to know. No gray areas here.
The law says the aid should be stopped if the military deposes a duly elected leader. If the government has full discretion of reinterpreting away, no matter how absurd the reinterpretation is, what “military” means, what “deposes” means, what “duly” means, and what “means” means, then laws really do not exist, and the government can do whatever the hell it wants.
No one said anything about “full discretion” or “reinterpreting.” This is a straightforward instance of statutory interpretation.
Here we have an event that is unlike an ordinary “military coup or decree” in several important respects. Your position–your assumption, really–is that none of those differences matters. But we don’t get to that end point unless we figure out what the key terms mean, which is the very dialogue you refuse to engage in because it’s all so obvious to you.
There is a huge gap between lawlessness and acknowledging some ambiguity in a statute as applied to novel circumstances.
And the government can interpret the way it wants to determine what is “ambiguity” and what is “novel”. And what is “applied” and what is “circumstances”. And then do whatever it wants based on that. And you don’t think that is “lawlessness”. Gotcha.
Did you have a point here somewhere? That’s what government does. Our government has an intricate system of checks and balances and separation of powers, and despite all that it still does whatever the hell it wants. Unless you get more than John ‘Get Off My Lawn’ McCain and some cranks at the Daily Caller to disagree with what the government is doing then the government is not only doing whatever the hell it wants, by definition it’s also doing whatever the hell the people want. This is not a constitutional issue, it’s not an issue at all at the moment since we aren’t giving them any money at the moment.
… and who cares what the laws are.
Terr, you can’t argue with it - it’s blackwhite.
Regards,
Shodan
These aren’t laws passed down by God. They’re human constructions and what they mean is based upon agreement by humans. That’s what all laws are, that’s what all the words that define laws are. The law is being followed the way all laws are, through an agreement among the people. And in this case it’s a much better agreement than the one in the government you claim was subject to a coup. The general agreement in that government was based on the ‘I agree with you if you agree not to torture me’ priniciple. You have absolutely no point here. These are laws passed by congress and executed by the president, and interpreted by those parties. There is no disagreement about the interpretation currently by anyone who counts.
Sure. Of course, you “interpret” “anyone who counts” as “anyone who agrees with this particular interpretation”. It’s all in the “interpretation” after all.
Next you will tell me that the law is “living and breathing”.
No, no, no. Don’t you understand? It’s not enough that we don’t give them money. We have to not want to give them money.
Even if you are 100% right, what would you have us do? We already gave them this year’s money, and there’s a possibility that by payment time next year a new duly elected government might be in place. Do you want to penalize this potential new government that had nothing to do with this infraction by withholding money from them? What specifically do you propose be done?
I assume he wants you to denounce Obama as a lawless tyrant.
That is the point of this shambles of a thread, right Terr?