# Three More and I'll Impeach **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 22, 2007, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744 "2007-07-22T13:19:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2007, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/101 "2007-07-24T23:31:04Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] This is a good point. Impeachment is so inherently political that it’s almost impossible to do it without generating instant partisan polarity. Unless the grounds for impeachment are clear and extraordinary enough to cause the President’s own party to side against him, impeachment is bound to become a purely partisan battle with predetermined, party-line votes and the charges becomes almost incidental. The media would only be interested in the circus **and it would all be a waste of time.** [/QUOTE] All true but the last bit. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2007, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/102 "2007-07-24T23:33:48Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Yeah, well, they already **tried** using their new majority to impose a troop-withdrawal deadline; either Bush vetoes it or Senate Pubs filibuster it. [/QUOTE] Not quite true on two counts. Firstly, there were no troop numbers explicitly mentioned in the most recent attempt in the Senate. If you read the actual bill that was proposed (I linked to it in your “try and try again” thread), it was up to Bush to determine the numbers, and it allowed an unspecified number to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Secondly, there are 60 votes in the Senate to get some sort of troop withdrawal “deadline” thru, but not that particular one. If the Dems actually want to govern, they will compromise with a few Senate Republicans to get such a bill thru. It may be, however, that they are more interested in getting Republicans on record for voting against a withdrawal than they are for actually enacting legislation to put some such withdrawal in place. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2007, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/103 "2007-07-24T23:55:49Z")
It now appears [Ashcroft granted Cheney’s office an open line to the DoJ WRT to all its ongoing investigations.](http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/) Presumably that still remains in place. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/104 "2007-07-25T00:18:03Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] Ahhh, so we of this message board have to conclusively prove that there are removable offenses before we even advocate impeachment. I wasn’t aware that postings here are held to a higher standard than the actual impeachment vote. [/QUOTE] Well, anything to misdirect attention from **Bricker** ’s boy. Sense or not. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/105 "2007-07-25T00:22:59Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Secondly, there are 60 votes in the Senate to get some sort of troop withdrawal “deadline” thru, but not that particular one. [/QUOTE] Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/106 "2007-07-25T01:33:40Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I’m well aware of what Scalia wrote in the \*Hamdi \*decision-- I’ve quoted it on this MB often. But until and unless Bush refused to accept a writ of _habeas corpus_ that the SCOTUS determines to be valid, then I’m not on board. [/quote] But this is sort of a curious standard, isn’t it? The President can violate the constitution however he chooses, as long as when the Supreme Court rebukes him he stops. If Bush locked up everyone who posted to the SDMB tomorrow, and next week the Supreme Court told him to stop, so he did, would that absolve him of the original crime? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/107 "2007-07-25T01:35:05Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] The Constitution does not clearly say so. [Lincoln suspended habeas corpus by his own fiat, and made it stick.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_during_the_Civil_War_and_Reconstruction) [/QUOTE] 😕 What do you mean by “made it stick”? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/108 "2007-07-25T01:36:26Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Yeah, well, they already **tried** using their new majority to impose a troop-withdrawal deadline; either Bush vetoes it or Senate Pubs filibuster it. But if the House impeaches Bush, he can’t veto that. Whether filibuster would be an permissible weapon to block a final vote at the end of a Senate trial is a more debatable question – but the opposition party never **has** tried that, AFAIK. In any case, there would be no need – it’s unlikely the 2/3 needed for conviction could be mustered. But the trial itself would be useful, regardless of outcome, in dragging everything out in the open. [/QUOTE] I don’t think Nancy Pelosi is reading this thread, so I’m not sure why you’re arguing with her. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/109 "2007-07-25T01:38:04Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] But this is sort of a curious standard, isn’t it? The President can violate the constitution however he chooses, as long as when the Supreme Court rebukes him he stops. [/QUOTE] The curious thing is that this kind of hyperbolic (and inaccurate) statement would (and probably will, excepting my comment here) go without comment and be given a pass. Curious for a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, ehe? [QUOTE=Richard Parker] If Bush locked up everyone who posted to the SDMB tomorrow, and next week the Supreme Court told him to stop, so he did, would that absolve him of the original crime? [/QUOTE] Would he be personally handcuffing us and hauling us off to the hooscow, or would he leave that up to Chaney? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/110 "2007-07-25T01:40:15Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] The curious thing is that this kind of hyperbolic (and inaccurate) statement would (and probably will, excepting my comment here) go without comment and be given a pass. Curious for a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, ehe? [/QUOTE] Uh, what? ETA: to be specific, my question is how a hypothetical can be either hyperbolic or inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/111 "2007-07-25T01:41:08Z")
Which part was confusing? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/112 "2007-07-25T01:49:36Z")
I think perhaps you just misinterpreted what I said. I’ll give it another try. I understood \*\*John \*\*to be saying that he wouldn’t find the President culpable if the President illegally arrested someone so long as he lets this person go when SCOTUS says so as a result of a habeas petition. I think that’s a curious standard, because it means the President could arrest whomever he likes so long as he releases them when SCOTUS gets around to telling him to do so. Hence my SDMB-based example (which is not, as you seemed to have taken it, meant to be a realistic scenario). ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/113 "2007-07-25T01:49:48Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] ETA: to be specific, my question is how a hypothetical can be either hyperbolic or inaccurate. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Richard Parker] But this is sort of a curious standard, isn’t it? The President can violate the constitution however he chooses, as long as when the Supreme Court rebukes him he stops. [/QUOTE] Interesting. So, this is simply a hypothetical…say some alternative universe where the President COULD or CAN violate the constitution however he chooses? I mis-underheard you then…I thought, responding as you were to John Mace, you were speaking of THIS universe. Apologies. Carry on. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/114 "2007-07-25T01:51:05Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] I’ll give it another try. I understood John to be saying that he wouldn’t find the President culpable if the President illegally arrested someone so long as he lets this person go when SCOTUS says so as a result of a habeas petition. I think that’s a curious standard, because it means the President could arrest whomever he likes so long as he releases them when SCOTUS gets around to telling him to do so. Hence my SDMB-based example (which is not, as you seemed to have taken it, meant to be a realistic scenario). [/QUOTE] Gotcha. As I said, apologies…I mis-underheard you. -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/115 "2007-07-25T02:02:23Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] I think perhaps you just misinterpreted what I said. I’ll give it another try. I understood \*\*John \*\*to be saying that he wouldn’t find the President culpable if the President illegally arrested someone so long as he lets this person go when SCOTUS says so as a result of a habeas petition. I think that’s a curious standard, because it means the President could arrest whomever he likes so long as he releases them when SCOTUS gets around to telling him to do so. Hence my SDMB-based example (which is not, as you seemed to have taken it, meant to be a realistic scenario). [/QUOTE] I should have been clearer in my original post, as I was speaking specifically of the \*Hamdi \*case. This was an individual captured on the battlefield, with probably cause, and being held outside the borders of the US. If the president were to act as you described wrt to the posters on this MB, there would not be probable cause and we would, many of us, be located within the physical borders of the US. I think the two situations are worlds apart in terms of the legal precedents surrounding them. So, yes, I would hope the president was impeached immediately if he rounded up all the posters on this MB without cause. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/116 "2007-07-25T02:06:42Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I should have been clearer in my original post, as I was speaking specifically of the \*Hamdi \*case. This was an individual captured on the battlefield, with probably cause, and being held outside the borders of the US. If the president were to act as you described wrt to the posters on this MB, there would not be probable cause and we would, many of us, be located within the physical borders of the US. I think the two situations are worlds apart in terms of the legal precedents surrounding them. So, yes, I would hope the president was impeached immediately if he rounded up all the posters on this MB without cause. [/QUOTE] So supposing in both cases the President’s action was illegal, it is a question of just how obviously illegal it was? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/117 "2007-07-25T02:21:57Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] So supposing in both cases the President’s action was illegal, it is a question of just how obviously illegal it was? [/QUOTE] That question doesn’t make sense. If both are illegal, then one is not more obviously illegal. I think the \*Hamdi \*case was one of uncertain illegality (we should be saying “constitutionality”, but close enough for government work) that needed clarification from the SCOTUS. I think Bush’s actions in the Padilla case are much more disturbing and potentially illegal, but note that although the SCOTUS refused to take the case on technical grounds, a l[ower court did affirm Bush’s authority to hold him the duration of the conflict with al Qaeda:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Padilla) > [@](#): > > Padilla’s attorney, Donna Newman, claiming to act as his next friend and on his behalf, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 4, 2002, the court denied the petition and held that the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief had the authority to designate as an “enemy combatant” an American citizen captured on American soil, and, through the Secretary of Defense, to detain him for the duration of armed conflict with al-Qaida. At any rate, I think you’re overestimating how “obviously illegal” this is. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/118 "2007-07-25T02:32:25Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] That question doesn’t make sense. If both are illegal, then one is not more obviously illegal. [/quote] Why? Killing a person because you don’t like them and without any justification or excuse is obviously illegal. Many many things are not so obviously illegal, even though they might eventually be judged to be so by a court. The obviousness is a subjective, the illegality is objective. > [@John Mace](#): > > At any rate, I think you’re overestimating how “obviously illegal” this is. I’m not overestimating anything. I’m trying to understand your personal standard for judging the President by asking you hypotheticals, which is why I said “suppose.”. As I understand it presently, your standard for the President’s culpability varies by the degree that something is obviously unconstitutional/illegal. Hence, in a case in which his lawyers can argue one way and the ACLU can argue another, he isn’t to blame. But in a case where no one would defend him (rounding up the SDMB, say), he is to blame. Do I have that right? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/119 "2007-07-25T04:11:14Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Why? Killing a person because you don’t like them and without any justification or excuse is obviously illegal. Many many things are not so obviously illegal, even though they might eventually be judged to be so by a court. The obviousness is a subjective, the illegality is objective. I’m not overestimating anything. I’m trying to understand your personal standard for judging the President by asking you hypotheticals, which is why I said “suppose.”. As I understand it presently, your standard for the President’s culpability varies by the degree that something is obviously unconstitutional/illegal. Hence, in a case in which his lawyers can argue one way and the ACLU can argue another, he isn’t to blame. But in a case where no one would defend him (rounding up the SDMB, say), he is to blame. Do I have that right? [/QUOTE] No, you don’t have that right. Frankly, you don’t appear to be trying to understand what I say, but rather you seem to be trying to distort it into something that it clearly isn’t. That makes me less than interested in continuing this “debate”. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/120 "2007-07-25T04:14:16Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] No, you don’t have that right. Frankly, you don’t appear to be trying to understand what I say, but rather you seem to be trying to distort it into something that it clearly isn’t. That makes me less than interested in continuing this “debate”. [/QUOTE] I’m sorry you have that impression. Will you at least let me know what I’ve said that has given you that idea? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744.md?page=7)