But you all seemed to be completely ignoring those paragraphs that specifically protected separation of powers, constitutional arrangements and existing law while claiming that this document ran roughshod over all three.
That I don’t get.
Hentor:“Critical of a dubious regard for the proposal”? Point missed again.
Here it is: I read BrainGlutton’s original post. I freaked. If what was said there had been the truth*, it would have been something to freak over. So I freaked. Then, it turned out that it wasn’t quite like that. The document didn’t say Bush would take over command of the legislative and judicial branches. I unfreaked, but you didn’t. What should have happened was an acknowledgement that reality was different. What happened instead was dodging, subject-changing and name-calling.
You are saying that essentially the wording of the directive doesn’t matter, because it’s going to be twisted around anyway. That means that absolutely everything the administration does is by definition evil, including the Cute Puppies And Motherhood Act with the Increased Rights For Everybody Especially Gays and Dolphins Bill added as a rider. It also means that it is useless to talk about the directive at all.
Don’t you think that you may have taken this just a smidgeon too far?
[sub]*Note: I’m not accusing BrainGlutton of lying; I’m sure he acted in good faith.[/sub]
Again, just for crystal clear example, it said in the AUMF that we would exhaust diplomatic options and work with the U.N. before invading Iraq.
Look, I understand why you wouldn’t have any qualms about this, Moto. Any reasonable person, however, should hold proposals from Bush about what he will or won’t do to a much higher standard of scrutiny. There’s an old saying in Tennessee, or Texas…
In fact, at this point, we don’t need to be thoughtful about this administration, we just need to be rid of it. So many people here seem like the abused wife who believes her abuser when he says he’ll never do it again, or the old lady who really believes that this time the nice young man will pay back her $12,500 savings.
Look, given the two possibilities that Bush will act within the letter and spirit of any written document, or he won’t, which would you bet on?
Once again, virtually no-one trusts this administration, and very, very, very few people here do. But to stop being thoughtful? Sorry, that’s anathema.
Depends on the letter and spirit of the written document. Relevance?
In what way does it depend on those things? In other words, point me to an example of Bush doing something other than exactly what he wanted to, regardless of what was written down.
If you don’t see the relevance, why are you even bothering with this thread?
So if what was written down was what he wanted to do, he would do what was written down. Not that it’s relevant. Please reply to my post 82, without asking something that has nothing to do with it.
Because, as has been explained multiple times, this thread is not about whether or not I trust Bush. Such a thread would be extremely short, consisting of a single word. Can I assume that you know or are at least capable of deducing which word that would be?
I did, twice. Please think real hard about my answers before concluding that they have nothing to do with it. Give me, a purported “fellow lefty” the same courtesy you apparently would extend to Bush. I responded, in my initial post to this thread to the assertion that “It also means that it is useless to talk about the directive at all.” Go back and read it. If we say nothing now, or conclude that it is useless to talk about it, Bush, his administration, the Republicans and the Sho-bot lickspittles of the world will assert that we were in agreement because we didn’t raise any objections at the time it was written down. Hell, they’ll even start lying and saying things like the support for it was nearly unanimous.
I also responded directly to it, and quoted it, and everything. If you are capable of deducing the meaning of the words I wrote, you may look back and see that. If you are not, what point is there in continuing?
Gee, that’s all well and good. Better then to call out “fellow lefties” who also do not trust Bush, in order that they not raise objections or well-earned concerns too loudly.
Just wanted to chime in here in defense of Czarcasm. Not that he needs me to defend him, but one thing he does NOT do is abuse his power as moderator. I don’t know whether he bites his tongue or sits on his hands or what, but he manages to be extraordinarily even-handed, especially considering his passionate prejudices and biases. If he comes down on you (as he has on me a time or two) it is because you deserve it, no matter whether you’re conservative or liberal or atheist or theist. When he posts as a member, he’s a dickwad sometimes. But when he posts as a moderator, there isn’t anyone anywhere on any board that’s more fair.
What fucking courtesy would I extend to Bush? I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire (but if he wasn’t, I would).
Fair enough. How about acknowledging that it doesn’t say what it was claimed to say? How about not dodging or changing the subject?
You quoted it, but you didn’t respond to it in any meaningful way. You asked an irrelevant question, and the fact that you quoted my post before asking that irrelevant question doesn’t mean you responded to my post, it just means you quoted it. If someone asks me how big the moon is and I say “do you trust Bush?”, have I answered the question?
Object all you want to Bush’s policy. However, when you object to a policy document on the grounds that he’s not going to follow the policies he puts in writing, I have a hard time understanding what exactly you’re objecting to, and why you’re choosing to object to a document that you don’t believe will be followed in the first place.
You said it was anathema to not be thoughtful of his proposals, but you don’t seem to be putting any thought into my responses.
I don’t know that it doesn’t. I know that it raises a lot of red flags for me. For example, it says:
That’s all well and good, right up to “and subject to”. What does that mean? It would seem to say that if “appropriations” aren’t available, this thing won’t necessarily be implemented consistent with applicable law. Which “appropriations”? Who will control their “availability”? I don’t know. Do you?
For instance, it says:
That’s also well and good, right up until “with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.” Now, what’s unclear about the Presidential Succession Act that needs to be modified by consultation with the Vice President? Which others should be involved? Why not just follow the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 as it is written? I don’t know. Do you?
Setion 2e and 5a sure do have a lot in there about coordination and funtion of the other two branches of government.
How did I not respond to it? Is the “unanswered question” whether or not I have taken this a smidgen too far? I answered by saying that if the options are trust Bush to do what is in the spirit or letter of the law or not, I would, implicitly, not. That means I have not taken this too far.
How far have I, myself, taken it? How far is proper to take it? What the fuck does your crucial question that must be answered mean?
To be thoughtful, full stop. Yes, I think we should think about everything. Yes, that includes Bush. Mindless opposition is counterproductive. Do you think we should stop thinking?
Good. Now we’re getting somewhere. If I could I’d open the thread, paste this part of your post into it, and continue from there.
But what the proposal doesn’t say, as far as I can tell (and I’ll willingly accept correction and duly freak out anew), is that in an emergency Bush becomes the commander of all three branches of the government. It just doesn’t.
My first reaction, given Bush’s history, is to say “Where does it say he doesn’t?” My second reaction, given Bush’s history, is to look where it says:
Now, think post-hoc Sho-bot. What would Sho-bot be saying about how that line should have been interpreted, before Bush took command of the three branches of government?
What about
. Does coordinated mean that Bush just simply calls everyone together, but allows the other branches to do what they think is right?
What about
Doesn’t that mean that he is setting the priorities not only for the Executive, but also the Judicial and Legislative?
These, and the other red flags I mentioned before, are the types of nooks and crannies I was talking about, and if you want to give a generous and benign interpretation to them, that’s your choice. You’ll just be standing there with your dick in your hand later on.
All of that is of course before you get to:
Should I just meekly accept that these don’t say anything about Bush’s role in regards to the legislative and judicial branches?
Right. The President shall lead the activities of the government for ensuring constitutional government.
Think this is a new idea, or that this applies to emergencies only? Guess again.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
This from Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. Now, remember, the sentence involved said the President will lead in ensuring constitutional government.
It is clear from actually reading the Constitution referenced that it was intended for the executive to lead in these matters, constrained where proper by the other branches. Nothing in the Constitution contradicts the order, nothing in the order looks unconstitutional on the face of it.
Article I, Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article III. Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Nothing in your quote here has anything to do with the legislative or judicial branches. What the fuck are you talking about?
Other than naming Supreme Court judges, nothing here countervenes Article III. Section 1. What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes, this is part of the Executive Branch. It has no bearing on the judicial or legislative. What the fuck are you talking about.
Here is a point where my experience with Bush’s interpretation of the written word makes me dubious about what he means or how he would interpret “ensuring constitutional government”, expecially since he hasn’t seemed to care about “ensuring constitutional government” as any reasonable person would see it right now.
Nothing you quoted makes any such thing clear. I’m not sure why you would even think it does.
It is, by the way, people of low integrity like yourself who give Bush cover on these things, that makes me particularly interested in opposing any possiblity for Bush to exploit vague or nuanced language.
Hentor, think for a moment about all of the day-to-day activities of the government, especially in your daily life. Consider the military, the FBI, the IRS, the post office, the Social Security Administration, and FEMA.
What branch of the government do they fall under, hmm?
Moreover, the founders contemplated that the executive branch would take action in emergencies, due to the nature of it.
The legislative branch is by necessity a deliberative body. It requires time to draft legislation. Its role is to build the legal framework within which the executive branch can act. Moreover, in emergencies involving the capital region, there may be problems assembling a proper quorum to be able to come to session. That means the legislative branch cannot exert direct control over the bureaucracy - only an executive in our system can do so.
The courts have similar issues - in emergencies they can similarly be disrupted. Moreover, the process wherein they exert review over laws and actions of the other branches is similarly deliberative, and while necessary even in emergencies does not by any means remove the executive’s proper and important role.
Under what imaginable conditions would it not be “proper”?
(emphasis mine)
Just so. You may take reassurance therein, if it pleases. I do not.
And what branches don’t they fall under? The point is not that the executive branch is usually somehow weak, it’s that it is usually distinct from the judicial and legislative branches. Telling me that they do lots of stuff is irrelevant.
I’ll need something more than your suspect assertions as to the intent of the founders. Your whole “Moreover” post reads like some spitballs you have tried to shoot about and see where they stick.
The odd thing is that you seem to have started arguing that this Order does call for the superceding of the judiciary and legislative branches by the executive. It’s a bit early for the party before country crowd to enter into the second stage of Republican defense (from “No it isn’t” to “Okay, it is, but it’s okay.”)