They can cut off funding, but they cannot make the president “cease and desist”. Only the judiciary can do that.
Linky no worky.
BTW, does this bill have an actual name? I tried to find some news reports on it, the only Google search term I could think of was “torture bill,” which brought up a couple of articles but that’s all; and nothing covering the process by which it was passed.
It would be so nice to get some larger number than one legal expert to pick this apart. I’m finding the law to be pretty tough going myself, but I’m trying to understand fully, I really am.
The short name of the bill is the “Military Commissions Act of 2006.”
Y’know, the only real check on the congress is the fact that 2/3 majorities are required for all extreme actions and that almost impossible to get. But let’s look at what the Congress can do relative to disiplining the other branches.
-
They can impeach and remove from office any federal official and there is no appeal.
-
They can override the presidential veto to enact things that the president can’t stand and there is no recourse.
-
They can pass any law that the deem necessary and proper to carry into effect their lawful powers. I think that includes a law that says Knock off the damned signing statements.
-
They have absolute control of all expenditures.
-
They must concur on all important personnel appointments and treaties.
-
They make the rules for the government of the armed forces. The president commands but only within those rules.
And there are probably some others that I can’t think of off-hand.
In any case, this congress won’t even take the time to study the legislation that they pass, like this law and the USA Patriot Act, so all of their power is theoretical at this time.
True. And how many times has that actually happened?
Two words: signing statments.
There is no indication that signing statements are unconstitutional. I doubt that any president would agree to obey that without a court challenge.
I already said they did.
What does that have to do with cease and desist? Besides, the president can make recess appointments.
Two words: signing statements.
Because of the check of the requirement for a 2/3 vote as I said.
Aren’t there laws against a lot of things that aren’t unconstitutional? And yes, the president would object, probably on the ground that it is his prerogative to execute the laws. However, I’m not sure it’s his to interpret them.
And if they are willing to work without pay I guess that will do.
In any case, it appears to me that this congress, after a lot of seemingly useless hullabaloo about “maverick Republican” has passed without any study of it or its effects a law that gives the president enormous power. And I think that power is dangerous and unnecessary.
I agree. That other stuff is tangential to the main topic here anyway.
Frankly, I think we’d be safer as a country if we just let most of those guys in Gitmo go. There are only a few hundred, and the bad PR we get from holding them probably generates more potential terrorists than there are in that facility in the first place. I wouldn’t include Khalid Sheik Mohammed and a few others in that “release 'em” group, but from what I’ve seen most of the guys there are small fry.
OK, we’re agreed that this is a dangerous law. I think it is part of what people who are polled mean when they say the country is headed in the wrong direction.
With the Republicans in charge of the congress the direction will not change. So the first fix to put in place is to change control of congress. Changing presisdents would also be helpful in changing directions but we can’t do that.
Sometimes it would be real nice to have a parlimentary system.
Oh yes. Although not relevant to the OP the relationship of congressional authority to that of the president is likely to become very relevan if the Democrats take one house and a smasheroo if they take both.
In future instances of divided government we are likely to see some bitter struggles over power. That’s somethig for which we have Cheney to thank. By all accounts he goes into a rage whenever there appears to be a threat to what he sees as executive powers.
700 prisoners in gitmo. 10 charged. They should be treated as innocent til proven guilty.
I tried wading through all 90+ pages of the pdf bill. Now my head hurts and I wanna drink.
Lots of issues just leap off the page at me. Too many to quantify. I think it somewhat amusing that they screwed up the voting requirements. A commission has a minimum of 5 members, but verdicts require either 2/3 or 3/4 of the votes, except for death penalty cases. To get 2/3 of 5 votes, you really need 4 votes. Same deal for 3/4 of 5 votes.
Now I’m gonna have that drink, and maybe check out the Pit thread.
The Pit thread on this subject gets all tangled up in legal niceties. In my opinion it is a question of how we want to be viewed by the outside world whose opinion of the US is vital in combatting terrorism. The European countries will aid us out of self interest. But why should a Muslim country do so for a nation that imprisons their compatriots on spec, whose high officials justify torturing them and bars their use of a basic right of US citizens so they can be held without formal charges indefinitels?
Yeah, it pretty much kicked my ass as well. I’m sure I could handle it with some willpower, but I think I’d rather be paid or something, thanks.
Up or out is a perfect way to get rid of people who are considered nuisances. There are more candidates than slots and most are competent so it’s hard to claim that you are more qualified than those who were picked. Going to court would be worse than useless. The courts are quite deferential as to how the military runs itself. And even if you win you lose by being marked as a troublemaker from then on.
After all, who can say that those selected didn’t just have slightly better records in the areas that the Navy is interested in retaining right now than did Lt. Cdr. Swift?