Well, obviously Bush is learning. In his secret wiretapping program, he threw out the laws, procedures and guidelines in order to do whatever he wanted. And now he, along with his GOP cronies, are simply throwing out the procedures for MAKING laws that all of us learned back in eighth grade social studies. A budget cut of $2 billion that’s going to crucify the elderly and infirm simply bypassed the whole pesky House/Senate voting thing and was signed into law by Bush.
If Bush were truly upholding the constitution as he vowed to, he would have kicked it back and said, “The buck stops here. If you guys can’t do YOUR job properly, I should at least do mine. Vote on it and send it through the proper way, and then I will sign it or veto it, as the Constitution dictates I am empowered to do.”
He didn’t. He is demonstrably, indisputably in violation of his oath. What the hëll kind of country is this where a bløw jøb is an impeachable offense, but a screw job isn’t?
Categories: 1144 Comments
144 comments on “Okay, can we impeach him NOW?”
• 
aren’t demacrats the ones that have spent my whole life telling me that the Constitution is a living document. I guess thats only the case when your in charge
I have to agree with Bill Mulligan here. This isn’t an impeachable offense. Cowardly and stupid, yes. But not impeachable. The NSA wiretap program, on the other hand, ordered in clear violation of the law, is. So PAD is right, it’s time to impeach him.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 27, 2006 08:11 PM
No one hates Iceland, do they?
Well, I don’t see too many people streaming across the border into it, so nobody seems too FOND of the place. Then again. it may just be that the water is too cold.
Oh, I hate Iceland. With a passion. You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, dámņ you! God dámņ you all to hëll!
No, wait, that was the speech at the end of the first Planet of the Apes movie. I sometimes confuse things I see on T.V. with reality.
Anyway, that speech has nothing whatsoever to do with Iceland, does it?
Huh. So why do I hate Iceland, then?
Bill Myers, thanks again. Did I give the Heimlich maneuver to you in a previous life? Anyway, I got your back too, mi amigo.
I don’t think I’ve had any previous lives. If I did, I wasn’t paying attention to the lessons I was learning.
I just find it annoying when reasonable people are unfairly characterized as unreasonable.
The fact that they aren’t makes me think that I might be correct that this isn’t an impeachable offense.
Actually, the U.S. Constitution is quite vague as to what constitutes an impeachable offense. It lists “treason, bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It gives no guidance as to what constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” though.
I believe that was deliberate. Remember, the framers of the constitution deliberately made impeachment a political, and not a legal, process.
That said, I agree with you that signing a bill into law that wasn’t actually the one passed by the House should not be an impeachable offense. I believe, however, that if W. were to be investigated for as long and with as much thoroughness as was Bubba, we’d turn up something impeachable in connection with Iraq or the Valerie Plame mess.
Also, I think the impeachment proceedings against Bubba were a thinly veiled political attack. Yes, Bubba lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky during a deposition in the Paula Jones case. But presiding Judge Susan Webber Wright decided that the Monica mess was not material to the Paula Jones case. And then Judge Wright dismissed the case.
And, y’know, Paula Jones was being supported by some right-wingnuts (and yeah, there are wingnuts on both sides, but Paula’s wingnut pals happened to be Righties). She later said she felt used and abused by both sides. What did she expect? Like my grandpa used to say, you go to bed with bedbugs, you wake up loused.
That’s not to say Bubba wasn’t sleazy; he was. But not nearly as sleazy as his fanatical enemies painted him to be. In fact, I don’t think Bubba was any sleazier than JFK. But JFK was president during a time when, perish the thought, we had a better understanding of the difference between public and private matters.
Ironically, the only other president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson, was arguably a victim of a political vendetta as well. Johnson publicly criticized Congress over a disagreement regarding how to handle the post-Civil-War Reconstruction. They got PO’d and impeached him for violating a law later ruled to be unconstitutional.
And yet a president we most certainly had reason to impeach — Richard M. Nixon — resigned before it could happen because at some point he realized he’d go down in flames if he fought the impeachment.
As Mr. Spock would say, “Fascinating.”
> The SCOTUS even cites some precedent that looked at similar issues, including some language the pretty much says that it’s better to move forward even in the face of such errors than to open up the entire process and send it back to square 1.
Supreme Court of Canada said pretty much the same thing when Lyin’ Brian (ex- Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney) ran afoul of the Constitution in ramming his hated Federal sales tax through. Before it had even been signed into law, the Supreme Court was presented with a challenge. Of course, it took so long to consider the matter that the tax Bill was passed in the meantime and they opted to allow it to stand as a fait accomplis.
> And from Wikipedia:
Have you read the interesting riposte from Britannica concerning NATURE’s study claiming that Wikipidia and Britannica were about equivalent in terms of reliability of information?
In a nutshell: don’t go to the former for serious information.
Eitherway, the President’s can only act in a manner presumptuous that the bill has been properly passed.
If that is the case, and I’m still not convinced that it’s that simple, the right thing to do would have beent to veto it since it wasn’t passed properly.
aren’t demacrats the ones that have spent my whole life telling me that the Constitution is a living document. I guess thats only the case when your in charge
The Constitution is a living document because it can be amended. This is done according to Article 5 of the Constitution. This has nothing to do with bush’s actions, as he is ignoring the limits on government as put forth in the Constitution & it’s amendments.
=====================
On a related note, Article 3 section 3 defines treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
That said, I agree with you that signing a bill into law that wasn’t actually the one passed by the House should not be an impeachable offense.
The question remains, however, why the Bush Administration is now defending what is clearly a breach of our Constitution.
But it strikes me as completely typical that they’d try and use a 105 year old precedent to support their position.
Compared to the fact that the other 99.99999999999999999999999 times, we just follow the Constitution and move on.
It gives no guidance as to what constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” though.
I always found that an interesting phrase–isn’t a misdemeanor by difinition a monor crime? So what exactly is a “high misdemeanor?” (I mean, could the president get impeached for a regular misdemeanor? A driving violation?)
I believe, however, that if W. were to be investigated for as long and with as much thoroughness as was Bubba, we’d turn up something impeachable in connection with Iraq or the Valerie Plame mess.
The Plame kerfuffal seems to be petering out with no evidence that Cheney, Bush, etc did the actual outing. Richard Armitage at the State Department seems the most likely candidate at this point. Iraq, well, we could argue that all night but I’ve seen no smoking gun to show that Bush figured out early in his presidency that everyone was wrong about the WMD and went in anyway, which is what they’d have to prove. Just don’t see it happening. The NSA wiretapping is the best bet but there seems little disire among Democrats to use taht one as of yet.
Here’s the only scenario I could see. If the Democrats won both the house and Senate–not as impossible as some make it out to be (even if they got 50/50 they might induce Chafee to switch teams) and Cheney has to resign for health reasons, they could hold up anyone that Bush nominates and just go whole hog to impeach and convict him by any means necessary. Then a Democrat would get the job.
Liklihood—around 1%, I think. As a point of reference, Avian Flu pandemic is at 25%, China invades Taiwan is at 12%, reinstating the draft is at 3%, and zombie plague is at 0.4% (and half of that is probably just wishful thinking on my part).
JosephW: Um, Bill, doesn’t Dubya’s blatant failure to do his duty to “uphold and defend the Constitution” as he “solemnly” swore TWICE count as, at the very least, perjury? True, the man didn’t swear in a court of law, but he did take his oath in front of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Luigi Novi: Different oath. Perjury is lying while under the oath to tell the truth. Not failing to uphold the Constitution after taking the Oath of Office.
Michael Brunner: I’ve been saying this for some time. But some bush apologist always comes up with some half assed reason why it’s not the same thing.
Luigi Novi: It’s not. They’re two different oaths.
However, I wonder if Bush couldn’t be impeached for other crimes, like his wire-tapping.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 28, 2006 12:06 AM
Here’s the only scenario I could see. If the Democrats won both the house and Senate–not as impossible as some make it out to be (even if they got 50/50 they might induce Chafee to switch teams) and Cheney has to resign for health reasons, they could hold up anyone that Bush nominates and just go whole hog to impeach and convict him by any means necessary. Then a Democrat would get the job.
I wrote my last post quickly, and will cede the points about the probability that W. may have committed impeachable offenses in connection with Iraq or the Plame scandal. I loathe W. and his smug incompetence, and sometimes let my emotions get the better of me.
I am a Democrat and have voted for a Democrat for president in all but one of the election in which I was eligible to vote. The other time I voted for Nader (in 2000) and that was a protest vote. One could argue that voting for Nader was tantamount to voting for W. Trust me, it won’t happen again.
That said, I would still very strongly consider voting for John McCain should he be the Republican presidential nominee for the next election. I just wish McCain didn’t have to peddle himself to the Republican Party’s ultra-conservative base to get the nomination, but I think that’s a part of today’s political reality. A presidential hopeful these days must first pander to the irrational base of their party, and then once the nomination is won, scramble back to more centrist positions.
If not done skillfully, you can end up like John Kerry, who opposed and supported the war in Iraq. I’m not saying McCain’s going to be another Kerry, but he’s flirting with the same problems; for example, he’s now supporting capital gains tax cuts he earlier opposed.
I’ve decided that we should coin a new term for situations where one both supports and opposes the same thing. Let’s say that they “supposed” it.
Oh, and a note to my fellow liberals who are outraged to find out that McCain is a conservative: you’re kidding, right?
Then again, I expect to have my liberal credentials revoked at any time, as I’ve been embracing conservative ideas about smaller government while holding onto my liberal ideas about civil rights and acceptance of diversity. I don’t think either side will have me these days. Oh, well.
Let’s say that they “supposed” it.
Heh, as Glenn Reynolds would say.
Oh, and a note to my fellow liberals who are outraged to find out that McCain is a conservative: you’re kidding, right?
Yeah, I predicted this would happen. McCain is a conservative. A pretty conservative conservative. I’ve been amazed at hearing self professed liberals talk about how much they like him and would vote for him when they have just pilloried the positions he has. I knew that eventually they would be shocked, shocked, to discover his “hidden” flaws.
McCain’s main problem right now is age and health–too much of one, not enough of the other. He should be able to beat Hillary easily…but the health of a 70+ year old man is a slender thread upon which to hang one’s hopes.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 28, 2006 07:36 AM
Let’s say that they “supposed” it.
Heh, as Glenn Reynolds would say.
What? Dammit, I thought for once I’d thought up of something before someone else did. Ðámņ you, Glenn Reynolds!
By the way, who is he?
Yeah, I predicted this would happen. McCain is a conservative. A pretty conservative conservative. I’ve been amazed at hearing self professed liberals talk about how much they like him and would vote for him when they have just pilloried the positions he has. I knew that eventually they would be shocked, shocked, to discover his “hidden” flaws.
In fairness, McCain is bringing some of it on himself by flip-flopping in hopes of winning over the Republican base. Granted, it’s probably something he needs to do if he’s to have a real chance of being the Republican nominee. Ironically, if McCain in the past had been a less principled politician — i.e. less willing to break party ranks to take a principled stand — I don’t think we’d be hearing as much about his flip-flops.
Nevertheless, we both agree on one thing: McCain’s always been conservative. That some people are just finding this out stuns me.
McCain’s main problem right now is age and health–too much of one, not enough of the other. He should be able to beat Hillary easily…but the health of a 70+ year old man is a slender thread upon which to hang one’s hopes.
Reagan was up there in age when he was president, and there’s documentary evidence to support the idea that his mind was slipping even before he left office. If he picks a good veep, I’d be willing to take my chances. I mean, I’m still largely a liberal, but Hillary? I don’t rabidly hate her like some do (my girlfriend and her family hate her with a passion I cannot understand), but I’m not sure I’m comfortable with her, either.
I’m sure as hëll not voting for someone like Nader again! I learned my lesson!
Peter, ever consider putting your name on the Democratic ballot for 2008? 🙂
He’d have this independent’s vote, but it probably won’t help him take Oklahoma.
“But it strikes me as completely typical that they’d try and use a 105 year old precedent to support their position.”
The age of the precedent has nothing to do with it. The significant differences between then and now do. The Field case decision came 2 years after the law had been ennacted. Declaring it void at that time would have resulted in a significant waste of Federal funds in the process to undo all the acts taken under the law. I think, anyway, the law involved looks like it has something to do with sugar. I didn’t pay that much attention to that part.
More significantly, the error seemed inadverdant in Field.
In this case, we have at least 2 parties, and more likely 3, the President, and the Presidents of the Senate and the House, certifying that the Senate version of the bill was the version approved by Congress. It seems like a fact that this is not the case. Both the presidents of the House and the Senate have perjured themselves, or at the least committed fraud. The President was aware of this, and went along with it, making him an accomplice to the fraud. With three of them acting in concert, you have a conspiracy to commit fraud upon the public and the Federal government.
If that’s not a felony or a high crime, nothing is (having had my treason argument shot down, I can at least still use my cliche phrase).
Presented with a bill that’s been certified by both houses, the President does have to proceed on the presumption that it is a valid bill. However, when also presented with the fact that the House and the Senate did not approve the same version, the President has an obligation to veto the bill.
We are a society of rules and regulations. When the government entrusted to enforce and administer those rules and regulations starts violating them, we, the People, need to be very concerned. Error is one thing. Deliberate action is quite another. When I’m working on a project, and I discover an error that creates a substantial change in the outcome of my work, I go back and correct it. I don’t press forward and turn in a bad product because I’m too lazy to go back and make the correction, hoping that no one catches my error. Or, at least, if I do, I’m prepared for the consequences if I’m found out.
Bill, Glenn Reynolds is the guy behind instapundit, one of the best blogs out there. “heh” is his one word code for anything that amuses him. You still get full residuals for “supposed”.
Hilary does seem to bring out the dislike in a lot of people and not just conservatives. Unlike her husband, she has little charm, at least when giving speeches–real snoozefests, those.
But she’s a bareknuckles fighter and has not had too much trouble getting her way. Anyone who thinks she has little chance at the nomination is fooling themselves.
The question remains, however, why the Bush Administration is now defending what is clearly a breach of our Constitution.
Because the alternative is admitting that they made a mistake and you know that’s not going to happen. The only real question is what kind of medal will the clerk who made the typo receive.
I always found that an interesting phrase–isn’t a misdemeanor by difinition a monor crime? So what exactly is a “high misdemeanor?” (I mean, could the president get impeached for a regular misdemeanor? A driving violation?)
Actually, a driving violation is even lower on the list of offenses than a misdemeanor, unless it involves something like vehicular manslaughter.
I think the FFs kept the language intentionally vague so as to leave it open to impeach a president for an offense that they didn’t anticipate.
Too bad they didn’t think to include gross incompetence.
The Plame kerfuffal seems to be petering out with no evidence that Cheney, Bush, etc did the actual outing. Richard Armitage at the State Department seems the most likely candidate at this point.
Probably. If the top people in this administration are good at anything, it’s CYA.
Iraq, well, we could argue that all night but I’ve seen no smoking gun to show that Bush figured out early in his presidency that everyone was wrong about the WMD and went in anyway, which is what they’d have to prove.
The other thing that they could try to prove is that it was never about WMD at all and that WMD was just the marketing tool for the PNAC agenda. But I doubt they’ll ever find a smoking gun for that either.
Just don’t see it happening. The NSA wiretapping is the best bet but there seems little disire among Democrats to use taht one as of yet.
That’s because the Democrats in Congress cringe in fear at any suggestion that they’re “helping the terrorists.”
As for McCain, I would consider voting for him as well, depending on his health and who ultimately runs against him, though I still have doubts that he’ll actually get the nomination. I vote less on ideology than I do on who I think is the more capable manager. Few presidents actually end up governing according the ideology that they ran on. Ex: Bush’s pledge not to engage in nation building; Clinton running on a promise of universal health and ending his administration with a declaration that “era of big government was over,”; Bush reviving the era of big government with a brand new bloated and inefficient bureacracy; Nixon running on a platform of law and order (heh).
“Yeah, I predicted this would happen. McCain is a conservative. A pretty conservative conservative. I’ve been amazed at hearing self professed liberals talk about how much they like him and would vote for him when they have just pilloried the positions he has. I knew that eventually they would be shocked, shocked, to discover his “hidden” flaws.”
Don’t know what was hidden about it. The man has pointed out again and again that his voting record was deeply conservative for years. He’s had to to defend himself from all the “conservatives” who kept calling him a RINO and attacking him at every chance because he was true to his values as a conservative rather then whoring himself out to party crusades.
But she’s a bareknuckles fighter and has not had too much trouble getting her way. Anyone who thinks she has little chance at the nomination is fooling themselves.
Hillary has one additional thing: Despite the intense hatred she inspires on the right, she has proven to be capable of reaching across the aisle working with the likes of Santorum and Frist when necessary. McCain has a similar ability as well.
She may have a half-decent chance to win the nomination, unless the Democrats wake up to the fact that giving it to would be ritual suicide.
Don’t know what was hidden about it. The man has pointed out again and again that his voting record was deeply conservative for years. He’s had to to defend himself from all the “conservatives” who kept calling him a RINO and attacking him at every chance because he was true to his values as a conservative rather then whoring himself out to party crusades.
His RINO image among party faithful is going to be the biggest hurdle he’s going to have to overcome if he wants the nomination in 2008. The image is not the result of his voting record, but of his willingness to buck the party leaders on issues that he considers to be important, such as campaign finance reform. Plus, he publicly treats his Democratic colleagues as intelligent human beings instead of something he scraped off of his shoe, and that’s a clear violation of the GOP party handbook.
Jerry, I agree that McCain’s conservatism is no secret, but people are acting like it’s something new. Of course, the fact that paul Krugman is already feeling the need to try to knock him down a few notches is probably a good sign of his chances.
I vote less on ideology than I do on who I think is the more capable manager. Few presidents actually end up governing according the ideology that they ran on.
Well said.
She may have a half-decent chance to win the nomination, unless the Democrats wake up to the fact that giving it to would be ritual suicide.
What can they do? Has there ever been a candidate who has more money and the ability to raise it? Who has already locked up some of the best strategists this early? Who is so willing to do whatever it takes to win? Who has the media at her beck and call?
I’m not sure she can be stopped at this point. I don’t see anyone with the ability to stop her.
As to whether or not she can win, much will depend on who the Republicans nominate. This is shaping up to be a fascinating election.
Am I the only one who thinks there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye? Almost everyone here seems so busy taking sides and hunkering down in a partisan trench, they haven’t asked the simple question: Why is it that it took a lawsuit by Public Citizen, a liberal legislative watchdog group, to bring this story to light?
Where was the outcry from the Democrats in the Senate or the House? It’s not like there’s a shortage there of people there just champing at the bit to go after the White House. Why didn’t Russ Feingold take up THIS apparently slam dunk cause to make noise against Bush, instead of going after him over a much more legally ambiguous wiretapping issue?
Why indeed?
Could it be some members of Congress might be embarrassed they didn’t carefully read what they actually voted on? Or could it be that members of Congress thought, if they even noticed the discrepancy, “Oh, what the heck, it’s only a typo?”
In any case, a call for impeachment is way over the top, unless one plans to impeach all the folks in Washington who were asleep at the switch on this one. After all, this particular “ugly baby” was walking and talking by the time Congress left it on the White House’s doorstep to sort out.
Should the White House have taken the high road here? Well, I know if I was in charge, my first gut response would have been to send the bill back for a third vote. But then again, we have no idea what advice the “experts” in Congress (Republican or Democrat) gave the White House regarding this particular train wreck, now do we?
I’ll be curious to see what the back story on this whole mess is when it eventually comes out.
What can they do?
Well, the obvious thing is to not vote for her in the primary, but you’re right. It’s going to take a candidate with a lot of charisma and the ability to raise huge gobs of cash to block her. I still think they’re best bet for winning is looking outside the beltway for a governor or someone like Wesley Clark who has never held elected office.
>Has there ever been a candidate who has more money and the ability to raise it? Who has already locked up some of the best strategists this early? Who is so willing to do whatever it takes to win? Who has the media at her beck and call?
Funny you should write this.
Sounds an awful lot like Paul “I wanna be Prime Minister, I wanna be Prime Minister, I wanna be Prime Minster” Martin Jr. Many people thought he was one of the best Finance Ministers this country ever had (I had my doubts, but that’s another matter). He ran for politics with ONE goal in mind: to become Prime Minister. Everything he did was aimed at this. He had piles of cash (a wealthy businessman), connections, political savvy, practically considered The Second Coming by many. Then, he got tired of waiting for the existing party leader to step down, engineered a coup within the Liberal party, took over as Prime Minister and …
… promptly did a crash-and-burn of spectacular proportions as people discovered the hard way that, for all his skills, charisma, money, and other attributes, he was USELESS as the head of the nation. So much so, that he got to be called Mr. Dithers by the media, and eventually resigned from politics after his minority government went down to defeat.
People pinning their hopes on Billary should take note, and take care.
Unless Wesley Clark has vastly improved his game she’ll eat him alive.
I won’t be surprised to see most of her opponents actually run for the VP post. That will require them to not be too harsh on her, which will make it easier for her to win. Of course, anyone who goes after her hard risks losing her not inconsiderable base. Hillary is young enough to have the opportunity to run, lose the nomination and sit back and watch the guy who beat her go down in flames, a situation she can help ensure by spending her efforts and money on suppporting legislative candidates in 2008.
You’re correct that a charismatic governor would be the best bet. Judging from the hack job the NYT did on Warner, it won’t be easy (Did anyone see the picture of Warner they used? Possibly the worst photo ever taken of a politician and I’m including Mussolini upside down and full of bullet holes.)
Russ–I wonder if part of the reason for the lack of congressional attention is because this happens a lot more than we know. Given the size of some of the laws passed I would not be surprised if misplaced commas and decimal points are an everyday occurance, with results in the billions of dollars. Doesn’t excuse it but it might explain the situation.
Unless Wesley Clark has vastly improved his game she’ll eat him alive.
Clark was just an example. There might be another retired general or businessman willing to run under the Democratic banner who could do the job.
As for Clark himself, well, he was a novice in 2004 and if he finds better media advisers, he could improve his Q-rating. Hëll, it worked for Nixon in ’68 and if he could pull it off, there’s no reason Clark could, too.
You’re right, Hillary is still young enough that if she fails to get the nomination in ’08, she can try again in ’12 or even ’16. But, if she wins the nomination in ’08, she’d better take it all the way to the White House. Democrats have a long history of sending failed nominees to the cornfield if they lose.
The other thing that they could try to prove is that it was never about WMD at all and that WMD was just the marketing tool for the PNAC agenda. But I doubt they’ll ever find a smoking gun for that either.
Wolfowitz stated in a speech that “WMD’s were used because it was something everyone agreed on”
much more legally ambiguous wiretapping issue
Legally ambiguous? The 4th Amendment says a warrant is needed, bush said that doesn’t apply to him. Seems plenty clear to me.
Should the White House have taken the high road here?
Yeah, wouldn’t that be part of bringing “honor & dignity back to the White House”?
A good friend of mine whose intelligence and political savvy commented on this, and while his explanation sounds reasonable, something is still bugging me.
Point one, he said that the bill doesn’t actually “Screw” anyone, it supposedly cuts out the redundancies; Allegedly, there are supposed to be other programs to pick up the slack of what’s been cut. Of course, I prefer to see results, not promises, and we’ve all had experiences at how well the “Back up” plans have been working for health care.
Second, he said that this is essentially the same as a company CEO “trimming the dead wood” in the budget, and as such it doesn’t need to be a bill that has to be voted on, he can just sign away on it. Anyone else want to weigh in on this point? Because if that’s true… It bugs the hëll out of me a LOT more if McSmirkypants can simply cut things out of the budget without a vote, simply by declaring it “Redundant” or “Dead wood”.
Now a REAl president, a REAL leader, a REAL chief executive says, “I’m sorry, no, this bill was not passed properly. It shouldn’t be on my desk. I’m sworn to uphold the Constitution, this violates the constitution, therefore I cannot be a party to it. I’m vetoing it; either overturn the veto if you can, or else bring it back to me done right this time.”
I don’t understand all the “He had to sign it because the leadership of both houses certified it to him.” or the “I can’t be a party to it, I’m vetoing it.” positions. I don’t see how, if behaving correctly, he could do either. Why he should take any action on it at all.
In my view, since he knows it is not a valid law in that the versions passed by the two houses didn’t agree, he should do nothing with it. It’s just a piece of paper with writing on it, but certainly not a law that requires either signing or vetoing.
Picture someone giving him a stack of laws to sign or veto and in the midst of the stack he finds a random memo. “Oops, how did that one get in there? Well, just set it aside since it isn’t something I have to take any action on.”
Sean, once both house leaders certify the bill, he has to do something. Doing nothing makes it a law after 10 days if Congress is still in session. One of the reasons we have checks and balances is so crap like this doesn’t happen. In this case, there have to be three elected bodies taking action to make a law…the House, the Senate, and the President. Having the bill certified by both houses is one way of making sure that the bill that gets passed to the President is actually the bill that was approved by each house. And giving the President veto power is the only way to counter a conspiracy by the joint leaders of the house to get legislation passed that was not in fact agreed to by both houses. Except in this case, all three of them acted in concert, or at least the leader of the House and the President have. It’s a failure of our system, because a single political interest control all three branches of government. Our system is designed to prevent this kind of system, yet the GOP has managed to scare their way into dominating 2 branches, and gaining a significant foothold in the third branch.
Interestingly enough, until Andrew Jackson became president, the prevailing wisdom was that the president should only veto a bill if he believed it violated the Constitution. Jackson was the first to use the veto to kill a bill that he didn’t like.
Funny how today, people are arguing that shouldn’t veto a bill that clearly didn’t meet the requirements of the Constitution.
Clark was just an example. There might be another retired general or businessman willing to run under the Democratic banner who could do the job.
I agree, though finding that person may be tough. Usually I don’t like it when someone makes their first political try that of the presidency. I’d like to see how they actually handle politics in some lesser role first. Bill Frist is a smart man–there are few unintelligent doctors–but he has not set the world on fire as a Senator.
A businessman or woman running as a Democrat would be very interesting but I don’t think they could survive the primary. I doubt that even Ben or Jerry coul satisfy the far left fringe who look at capitalism as the root of all evil and it’s almost impossible to avoid charges of conflict of interest, etc.
I think the reason smart businessmen have avoided running for either party is that they are, as mentioned, smart. Too bad.
As for Clark himself, well, he was a novice in 2004 and if he finds better media advisers, he could improve his Q-rating. Hëll, it worked for Nixon in ’68 and if he could pull it off, there’s no reason Clark could, too.
I see Clark as a very viable choice for VP. He will help Hillary attack the perception that women are soft on defence (ridiculous I know; Hillary is a hawk almost to the right of Lieberman). But that will require that he not run too hard against her.
You’re right, Hillary is still young enough that if she fails to get the nomination in ’08, she can try again in ’12 or even ’16. But, if she wins the nomination in ’08, she’d better take it all the way to the White House. Democrats have a long history of sending failed nominees to the cornfield if they lose.
Oh yeah. True. Anyone even seen Mike Dukakis lately? He was Kerry’s boss once, did he make a single appearance in 2004?
The one possible exception–Gore. Hear me out; he lost but in the minds of many Democrats he really didn’t. He’s spent 8 long years now losing his mind…er, I mean, moving further and further to the left. He would be far more liberal than Hillary. He also, all kidding aside, has greatly improved his delivery, sounding far less like the robotic Al of old. The novelty of seeing Al Gore actually sounding passionate may lifet some hearts. He can also raise lots of money. And he has no, that’s zero, interest in the vice presidential position. It’s all or nothing.
The prospect of a no holds barred Gore vs Clinton slugfest would make this possibly the Greatest Election Ever.
And, of course, by not signing the bill at all, it still counts as a veto. It’s called a “pocket veto”.
In any case, a call for impeachment is way over the top, unless one plans to impeach all the folks in Washington who were asleep at the switch on this one.
Sounds good to me.
There was an article on Yahoo this morning about Nebraska, and the fact that they are the only state to have only one house for Legislature, instead of two.
And the fact that the recently inacted term limits is causing a huge turnover.
Of course, many, including the politicians themselves and their lobbyists, see this as a bad thing. But then, lobbyists don’t want to find new people to suck up to.
I’m wondering if term limits for the US House and Senate might not be a bad idea. Because if there’s one thing our federal government seems to be lacking in right now, it’s fresh blood.
I doubt that even Ben or Jerry coul satisfy the far left fringe who look at capitalism as the root of all evil and it’s almost impossible to avoid charges of conflict of interest, etc.
That would depend on how much influence the far left fringe would have once the goals of the party shift from slamming Bush to actually naming a candidate. If the Democratic Leadership Council decides step up the way they did for Clinton in 92, I can see them picking up a moderate businessman. If I were in charge, I’d go that route just to see the collective stroke that would ripple through the GOP. Especially if they decide to pick another failed businessman turned politician. Hëll, I’d vote for repealling the 22nd amendment just to see a debate between Bill Gates and the chimp-in-chief.
The prospect of a no holds barred Gore vs Clinton slugfest would make this possibly the Greatest Election Ever.
Now that would be entertaining. Especially if he won and she had to bite the bullet and become HIS VP.
Craig wrote: “I’m wondering if term limits for the US House and Senate might not be a bad idea. Because if there’s one thing our federal government seems to be lacking in right now, it’s fresh blood.”
Yeah, I agree. The rationale for limiting a president to two terms is no different than it would be for limiting Senators or members of the House to, say, four terms each.
Bill wrote: “The prospect of a no holds barred Gore vs Clinton slugfest would make this possibly the Greatest Election Ever.”
Hillary would mop up the floor with Gore, but I don’t think she could win a presidential election. Despite the fact that the U.S. is primed for a woman president, Hillary has never led any organization of any size.
What would be wild, however, is if by some chance she is elected, she chose her husband as a cabinet appointee — say, as chief of staff or secretary of state.
Hillary would mop up the floor with Gore, but I don’t think she could win a presidential election.
It’s hard to say.
For all the crap thrown at Gore, he still got more votes than Bush in 2000, and having Hillary as VP would probably be enough.
Plus, it would prime her even further for a run down the road.
But can Hillary win the presidency? I think she can, and, unlike Gore, I don’t see her trying to keep Bill out of the spotlight in the process.
Gore tried to shy away from Clinton, and it probably cost him the presidency, because regardless, Clinton remains popular with people.
What would be wild, however, is if by some chance she is elected, she chose her husband as a cabinet appointee — say, as chief of staff or secretary of state.
I’d say it’s downright appropriate if she would.
Unlike Bush, Sr or what will likely happen with Jr, Bill Clinton hasn’t gone to retire down on the ranch after leaving office.
Whether he would get a position under Hillary or not, he’d be doing something useful somewhere.
Once both house leaders certify the bill, he has to do something. Doing nothing makes it a law after 10 days if Congress is still in session.
See, Bobb, this is what I really just don’t get. The leaders are lying and the Pres knows it. The bill presented to him is not what was passed by the House. For him to sign or veto or treat it as a legitimate item for him to act on seems to me to grant it a legitimacy it doesn’t have.
Picture, if you will: The Speaker and Senate Majority Leader get together and agree on a law they would like passed. No vote is held at all. Just the two guys deciding they’d like it done. So they take this thing that has never gone before either chamber to the Pres, tell him it’s certified and submit it for his signature.
The Pres knows it didn’t go thru the right process and you’re telling me he has to act on it anyway? Sounds like his signing it into law would just make him a co-conspiritor to violate the constitutional process. So wouldn’t signing a veto to it be in a similar manner treating it like something it is not?
And if the leaders then say “He didn’t sign or veto it so in 10 days it’s law anyway.” wouldn’t the proper reaction be for everyone other than these two bozos to refuse to treat it as law?
I realize in the real world it would require the members of congress to actually oppose their leadership (Repubs) or grow a spine (Dems), but just because someone comes up and says “I certify the oval office is a square” doesn’t mean you have to go along with it when it clearly isn’t so.
I mean, c’mon. If Bush had said “That ain’t a law, fellas. Send it back for another vote and get it right.” do you really think anyone would have said “He didn’t veto it so in 10 days it’s law.”?
Sign it or veto it were not his only choices. Treat it like what it is would be the correct thing to do.
“I mean, c’mon. If Bush had said “That ain’t a law, fellas. Send it back for another vote and get it right.” do you really think anyone would have said “He didn’t veto it so in 10 days it’s law.”?”
My apologies for condensing your well-written reply to just those lines, Sean. But a lot of what you say is exactly correct. The Field case, and other SCOTUS opinions, spend a good deal of time talking about the respect each branch of government must have for the others. Remember that our three branches are created co-equal. The provide a system of checks and balances, each against the other, and have various interrelations that can get pretty twisted. But by providing three separate branches, the Founders created a redundant system that has multiple options to stop abuse and catch mistake.
In this case, it’s pretty darn close to the scenario you describe. The Speaker and the Majority Leader got together and certified a bill that at least one of them (according to the stories going around, probably both of them) knew did not represent the bill passed by both houses. It was the bill that only the Senate had passed. They then presented this certification to the President. Which (again, according to the story) he also knew there was a problem, in that the House did not approve this version of the bill. But it’s been certified. The respect due to the co-equal legislative branch of the government demands that the office of the President treat it as though it were a legitimate, certified bill. Knowing that it did not reflect the version passed by the House, he should have vetoed it. That’s his job, as part of the system of checks and balances. When the leaders of Congress conspire to void the strictures of the Constitution, the President has an obligation to counter that action through the use of a veto. Even if he ignored it, it’s been certified. After 10 days, a certified bill becomes law. The president needed to veto this in order to protect and uphold the Constitution. Any act short of a veto violates that duty.
Now, it’s up the the SCOTUS to act, in it’s capacity as a co-equal branch of government, to correct the situation. Which, if it fails to do so, will mean that all three branches of our government will have failed to act to protect and uphold the Constitution.
We can’t vote out SCOTUS justices. We could impeach them. We can, however, vote out the leaders of Congress that did this. And we can send a big message to the GOP, that put forward all the candidates that took these actions, by awarding their seats to other parties.
Or we can decide that it’s not such a big deal for our government to ignore 200+ years of Constitutional limits, and allow them to do whatever the hëll they want. Just like Palestine can elect a terrorist party to manage the government, we can choose to allow a bunch of corrupt, incompetent, self-serving bøøbš to keep running the show. That’s the beauty/horror of a democracy.
The prospect of a no holds barred Gore vs Clinton slugfest would make this possibly the Greatest Election Ever.
Now that would be entertaining. Especially if he won and she had to bite the bullet and become HIS VP.
Yeah, that would be great. Al would be sleeping with one eye open, that’s for sure.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 28, 2006 12:06 AM
I always found that an interesting phrase–isn’t a misdemeanor by difinition a monor crime? So what exactly is a “high misdemeanor?” (I mean, could the president get impeached for a regular misdemeanor? A driving violation?)
According to Elizabeth Holtzman “A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government.”
She might just know what she’s talking about since she has personal experience on the matter. “Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon.”
Here’s the URL to an interesting article regarding Bush and possible impeachment:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman
Chris
I wish…
I have the feeling that the reason Bush isn’t going to be impeached now is the same reason he wasn’t impeached when he broke the law before, and it begins and ends with a man who, instead of shooting a lame quail that was predestined to die at his riflepoint, shot an old man in the face instead. I think that’s the reason why, instead of a move to impeach him, there’s a move to censure him, which most people don’t even know what it is, or what it means. Censure is like a slap on the wrists; “Ya done bad, Georgie! Don’t do that again!” Well it looks like he done it already!
My apologies for condensing your well-written reply to just those lines, Sean. But a lot of what you say is exactly correct.
No problem. I was actually thinking I was begining to rant (ya starts off with a few calm sentences and by the end ya find yerself “Oh, c’mon“-ing.), so thank you for the compliment.
The respect due to the co-equal legislative branch of the government demands that the office of the President treat it as though it were a legitimate, certified bill.
And that’s the part where things start to go wildy amiss in my view. “as though it were”? Let’s save the legitimate treatment for things that actually are legitimate.
By presenting the Pres with an illegitimate piece of legislation the Speaker and Leader demonstrated their lack of respect for the executive branch. I realize the “you dissed me so I’m going to dis you” approach can lead to all sorts of problems (Hello, Middle East) and one should stay on a higher road. But Speaker/Leader are in no position to demand that the Pres confer legitimacy onto their bill “as though it were”. It isn’t. Don’t treat it like it is.
Thinking that the Pres has now been forced into a certain illegitimate path because someone else has made a false start, I don’t buy it. That’s saying the cheaters get to set the rules of the game. Sorry I jumped the starting gun, yeah I know it’s against the rules, but I am a certified participant in this event so let’s just continue the race with me starting up here, OK?
Knowing that it did not reflect the version passed by the House, he should have vetoed it.
Knowing that it did not reflect the version passed by the House, he should sent it back for another vote and refused to give it any legitimacy. That’s moving the runner back to start.
Using a veto could accomplish it faster and more cleanly, perhaps. And I could actually go for that if it didn’t lend some air of legitimacy to what they did. “See, he didn’t dismiss it out of hand and make us go do it right. He vetoed it so at least he recognizes it was a piece of legislation he had to deal with.” No. No more than if they’d certified a piece of swiss cheese.
My guess is that bush isn’t going to be impeached for the same reason Andrew Johnson ultimately wasn’t- too many people are against the alternative. Although I suppose in the latter’s case Benjamin Wade (i think) had a lot more support than Cheney, which is probably why it went as far as it did.
I thought Johnson WAS impeached. He just wasn’t convicted (same as Clinton).
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 28, 2006 09:59 PM
I thought Johnson WAS impeached. He just wasn’t convicted (same as Clinton).
You are 100% correct. Don’t take my word for it, though. Here’s the straight poop from the White House’s official Web site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj17.html
1
me am peter
me hate bush
blah blah blah
me hate bush so much
me tell you all the time
peter smash bush
the end?
“The end?”
Nope. Check the clock. 1,028 more days.
Man, and I thought waiting for Christmas to come was hard.
A significant point is possibly being glossed over:
If one and/or both Presidents of the House and/or Senate discovered and/or knew that the versions of the bill that were voted on separately were substaqntially different, yet passed that bill onto the President, then that is clearly a violation of their Constitutional and/or legal responsibilities.
Therefore it is incumbent on…..everyone?…..to determine who knew what and when they knew it. Once determined, this information should be used to discipline and/or remove the offenders in/from their office(s).
If the President knew of this situation and did nothing to correct it, then he is materially culpable, is in violation of his oath, and needs to suyffer the appropriate punishment.
That folks are arguing back and forth about this absolutely astonishes me!
This is not some “grey area” argument. It is plain, black and white, and deserves immediate action. Period!
Sorry about the typos. When I get extremely aggravated by something, I tend to type faster than I can reasonably control…..