[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]
[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.
[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.
[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]
[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?
[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.
[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?
[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.
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=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.
[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.
[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.
[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?
[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.
[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.
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=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”.
[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?
