HRC Would Cede Some Presidential Powers Grabbed by Bush/Cheney
Says Reuters.
It's hard to get much credit for merely doing what one is obviously obligated to do. Still, under the prevailing circumstances, I'll give her some props for this.
Says Reuters.
It's hard to get much credit for merely doing what one is obviously obligated to do. Still, under the prevailing circumstances, I'll give her some props for this.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:01 PM
24 Comments:
Nice innuendo, which will please her partisans, at least. Fortunately, she doesn't mean it.
1. Um, what innuendo? As far as I can tell, it's a straight-forward and clear assertion that (a) Bush/Cheney grabbed power and (b) she'll give some back.
2. You have no evidence for the claim that she won't do it. Surely this can't just be partisan irritation on your part?
I have no evidence that she will until she gives specifics. Then the country will decide whether we want a president who feels foreign policy should be conducted by three branches of government, or as the constitution indicates in Article 2, the executive branch.
Yes, it certainly was a straightforward innuendo, at hit-and-runs go.
Like this part from Clause II?:
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.
Huh? What was that all about?
You made an assertion that Article 2 limited foreign policy to the Executive Branch.
I quoted from a subsection that clearly outlines the Senates' role in the passage of treaties, which is a part of foreign policy.
The conclusion is left to the student as an exercise.
Tom,
Since you now actually admit that the Constitution is the source of authority for our government, here is some friendly advice: if you're going to reference it, read it and understand what's in there before you do. Here's a helpful link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html
You'll note that Professor DA was exactly correct in his posting. You'll also note that there shall be no ex post facto law (as in retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecoms), no suspension of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion (and even then, only by Congress), no searches without prior warrants, and various other restrictions and limitations on the various powers of government which the Bush administration has chosen to ignore.
It says a lot about the present political state of our country that the promise to actually abide by our laws is seen as some sort of high qualification, rather than an absolute bare minimum to work in government.
Yes, I was familiar with all that. In 1996, the Clinton administration claimed that the president had the constitutional power to interpret treaties.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/abmjq.htm
I'm just not following you here. My fault, I'm sure. Surely you have a point. Perhaps if you typed slower...
The point is that, whether the Clinton administration was right or wrong in 1996, it was not acting in explicit contravention of the Constitution, as in the actual cases at hand which I referenced.
So short of a passage in the Constitution of which I'm not aware that FORBIDS the president from *interpreting* treaties, there is no similar problem with your attempted red herring.
What's more, the Clinton administration's argument consisted of the contention that 'interpretation' was not what was going on, but actually the continued faithful 'execution' of a treaty which was equal in standing to the law of the land, an express duty of the executive per Article I. And that the continued applicability of the treaty to successor states which signed it is in keeping with international laws to which we are a signatory.
Correction: that should be 'an express duty of the executive per ARTICLE II'.
Ah, the 10-comment threshold, and here come the "red herrings," right on schedule. I'm out. Useful discussion is over, altho in this case, it never started, as no specifics were addressed. [Altho there me be a point in there somewhere about habeus, in a case or three.]
Take it up with Jack Goldsmith, who was there, and who is not uncritical of the administration.
Yes, indeed, here come the red herrings, right on schedule.
no specifics were addressed
You made a specific claim that the 2nd Article of the Constitution reserves foreign policy to the Executive branch of government.
I quoted from the document in question language that, on the surface, with my limited understanding of the law, seems to me to contradict your assertion in specific detail.
You respond with a HUH?.
Then you wrote:
Yes, I was familiar with all that.
Which is a logical impossibility with your claim about Article II.
You can't be this dense in real life, Legate Van Dyke, as the old American saying goes, don't pee on my shoes and tell me it's raining, or, as Mother Avenger used to tell me, don't bullshit a bullshitter.
Since DA won't say what he means, I had to guess, thinking he might mean the administration had violated some treaties. I didn't realize he was being so petty about a locution I used, and apparently you don't have a point except to pile on. The president conducts foreign policy, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Read your own quotes.
Article 2 also includes something about being commander-in-chief of the army and navy, which has traditionally extended to the greater umbrella of national security.
As for the substance of the matter, Goldsmith is no red herring. As an exercise, play the board instead of taking potshots at me. It's a very good interview, and the thoughtful reader will give it a look.
Unbelievably, I'm going to back Tom on this one (but only his original point re: Clinton, and probably not ever again until the sun explodes.)
Key graf: "She said if elected in November 2008 she would undertake a review with an eye toward giving up these powers."
Undertaking a review with an eye towards giving up powers is hardly a solid commitment to actually give them up. And if any issue deserves more than the usual political wiggle-speak, this one is it. Zero points for Ms. Clinton.
Yes, Article 2 does indeed grant that power to the executive, and certain parties have attempted to bootstrap all kinds of shit onto that. And I will agree that it has traditionally extended to the greater umbrella of national security.
Interestingly enough, however, Article I grants these powers to the Legislature:
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water"
"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
So while I'm willing to admit that there are some gray areas in terms of the division of labor for national security, that's a world away from directly contravening the Constitution, as in those cases I mentioned above. Your case re: the Clinton administration was not only an example of your reflexive impulse to reach for the 'Clinton did it too' response, but also different in kind from my examples, because it permits some degree of ambiguity.
And while I have no particular problem with Goldsmith, appealing to authority won't help you when the putative arguments are tantamount to black is white and up is down. I can read English. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to figure out what represents clear violation of the Constitution.
Your arguments per Article 1 are good and could indeed be relevant. My demurral (and Goldsmith's) is that it's almost all gray because very very little has ever been litigated to conclusion in principle.
Therefore, either view could be the correct one, leaving you and me the rare opportunity to agree to disagree without it making either of us bad persons. Cheers.
Like I said, I certainly degree that there are cases that constitute a gray area. However, as I also said, there are some cases, like the ones I mentioned, that don't. Some things are black and white.
I didn't realize he was being so petty about a locution I used
Tom, I'll be honest here and tell you that your minimization that I was being 'petty about a locution' when there is a substantial difference between a perhaps careless assertion you made and the contents of Article II is very irritating.
If you had, in discussing Article II, merely stated, "Article II gives the power to conduct foreign policy mostly to the executive branch", then you could build from there on the difference between that and what you believe Hillary believes, etc.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
I said "conduct" foreign policy, which he does, proven by your own quote. (Why did you leave out the commander-in-chief part of Article 2? Oh well, no matter.)
But even if I were imprecise, which surely I will be in a comments section, focusing on not what I meant but how I said it is petty, and violates the spirit of good faith joint inquiry.
People write imprecisely here all the time, and it would be churlish of me to hammer them about it, or worse, try to seize an aha! moment off it. It's a cheap way to win an argument, and doesn't serve the pursuit of truth and/or understanding. That is sophistry at its root, and surely none of us intentionally wish to pursue it.
TVD, my quote included "Advice and Consent", which in the case of treaties, is specified as a supermajority of the Senate as well as the general sense of the clause in other parts of Article II.
That's not equivalent to the President conducts foreign policy, no matter how you attempt to twist and turn words in order to frame the argument.
But even if I were imprecise, which surely I will be in a comments section
There is no reason for that to be the case, if you take a little time to be sure of your assertions before posting them.
Why you seem to recognize that fact, but seem to not want to have any responsibility for that state of affairs is most puzzling.
People write imprecisely here all the time, and it would be churlish of me to hammer them about it, or worse, try to seize an aha! moment off it.
But it isn't churlish to ask if you should type slower, pronounce an anathema against a commentor who doesn't post under their name, or give a title in a moment of confusion or attempted humor.
It's a cheap way to win an argument
I think it too dear to do otherwise, but then perhaps I should take a more casual attitude to the truth, what is real, etc, and ask for your indulgence, ask if you need me to type in English, etc.
That is sophistry at its root, and surely none of us intentionally wish to pursue it.
"Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone."
I think you should also worry about unintentionally deceiving others by deceiving oneself.
That's a Socratic thought, and a good one to end this thread on.
The Wiki?????? Oh, well...
"...it might appeal to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic, like raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g. accusing another of sophistry using persuasion techniques."
Bingo. You accuse me of arguing dishonestly. Of deceiving myself if not others. You try to impeach my credibility by hassling over the smallest details that aren't essential to the point. For some reason, you think it's not obvious.
I left "mostly" out? Geez, man. You didn't need this whole song-and-dance just to note that. You just want to fight.
If you guys actually want to get somewhere in that discussion, why don't you make a summary of what happened, DA? I looked through the above postings and couldn't find with any ease the start of it all.
You know what's gone on, so I'll leave you to do it if you want - it's just a suggestion, but it seems to me that it helps to clear things up.
If, in fact, Tom is right that the wording being criticized wasn't essential to his point, I'd probably leave him alone. However, if you're wrong Tom, sometimes you just have to man up and say you're sorry.
But that likely won't be settled until SOMEONE posts a good summary and you can better direct the criticisms at certain points than just kinda flailing at each other.
This needs to be kickboxing, not a sorority girl fight.
Mystic, TVD made an assertion that Article II reserved foreign policy conduct to the Executive Branch, and I posted a part of subsection III which, to my POV, contradicts TVDs assertion.
He responds as if I had written in Swahili or Illocano, so I attempted to explain myself with some precision and lack of snark.
I even have backup for what I wrote, FWIW:
You'll note that Professor DA was exactly correct in his posting.
TVD decided that snark was good enough for him:
Perhaps if you typed slower...
and things went downhill from there.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home