Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not the constitutional crisis you're thinking of.

More's the pity then.

There's a law against shutting it down.
If Obama shuts it down he has violated the law.
Guess whats an impeachable offense...

Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.

And too bad they're more interested in finding ways of screwing over the executive branch than doing their fething job.

Isn't a major part of their job to be the check and balance to the Executive branch? If they feel it is stepping out of line they SHOULD be trying to screw it over.

Exactly. As envisioned, the Executive was the MINOR branch and was so until FDR.

I'm pretty sure that "as envisioned", the Legislative branch didn't throw hissy fits like toddlers who need a good spanking whenever things that would affect their business ties got passed.

You mean the same legislature that beat each other with sticks and occasionally carried pistols in case there was a ruckus?

I always wanted to be part of a ruckus. Now I will just settle for Rodney not trying to lick my face in an apparent random fashion when he lays napping on my chest.


The more I think about it, the less likely the crisis will occur due to the Paris. thing. If the administration pushed that this week, they'd get their collective heads handed to them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not the constitutional crisis you're thinking of.

More's the pity then.

Supreme Court already ruled... so crisis was averted.

There's a law against shutting it down.
If Obama shuts it down he has violated the law.
Guess whats an impeachable offense...

Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.

Sure you can... it's called voting for the other guy.

And too bad they're more interested in finding ways of screwing over the executive branch than doing their fething job.

Squabbles among co-equal branches... this is what divided governance gets ya. The art of compromises has lost it's appeal...

So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.

 d-usa wrote:
So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.

Not what I was saying...

But, sure... go for it.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.

Not what I was saying...

But, sure... go for it.

Except that IS what you were saying.

Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.

Not what I was saying...

But, sure... go for it.

Except that IS what you were saying.

Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?

Um... you said:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.

Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.

The only other recourse is to vote them out.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.

Not what I was saying...

But, sure... go for it.

Except that IS what you were saying.

Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?

Um... you said:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.

Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.

It obviously isn't that high enough if the Republicans keep threatening it whenever Obama does something they don't like.

The only other recourse is to vote them out.

Or to let the Judicial branch utilize its status as the "checks and balance" of the Legislature and dissolve/dismiss problem members.

But heavens friggin' forbid the Judicial branch get involved in politics, then they're overstepping their reach per the Republicans!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.

Not what I was saying...

But, sure... go for it.

Except that IS what you were saying.

Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?

IIRC but Congress members can be "impeached" as well for crimes and misdemeanors. I think the term is different. I could be completely wrong. We should consult a book on the history of Louisiana and Chicago politicians to confirm.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.

Not what I was saying...

But, sure... go for it.

Except that IS what you were saying.

Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?

Um... you said:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.

Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.

It obviously isn't that high enough if the Republicans keep threatening it whenever Obama does something they don't like.

You obviously haven't paid attention during the Bush, Clinton, Reagan years then. It's an empty threat.

The only other recourse is to vote them out.

Or to let the Judicial branch utilize its status as the "checks and balance" of the Legislature and dissolve/dismiss problem members.

Yeah no. That'd be a friggin nightmare. The Judicial Branch's "check and balance" is pretty damn powerful... the only catch is that the case must "reach" their jurisdiction.

But heavens friggin' forbid the Judicial branch get involved in politics, then they're overstepping their reach per the Republicans!

That isn't a "Republican" ideal... o.O

 whembly wrote:

Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.

Well, that's not strictly true. There's a decent argument that members of Congress are not civil officers of the United States, and so cannot be impeached. Not that it really matters, as each chamber can expel one of its members with a successful 2/3s vote, which is arguably easier than impeaching a given individual as the Congressional rules governing legitimate grounds for removal are way more fluid than the list of impeachable offenses in the Constitution.

Indeed, the only member of Congress to be impeached was Senator William Blount, way back in the late 1700's. The House impeached him, and the Senate threw it out on the grounds that the House had no jurisdictional standing.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we can amend the constitution to get rid of impeachment of the president? We can already vote for the other guy, so by that logic impeachment is not needed.

Not what I was saying...

But, sure... go for it.

Except that IS what you were saying.

Your argument for the ability to censure/remove Congressmen/Senators cannot just be "vote for the other guy", because hey it's the same thing as impeachment right?

Um... you said:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Too bad we can't impeach Congress and the Senate.

Implying that it's impossible to do this... I don't disagree with you there... technically, the house\senate could impeach anyone... just that the bar is so high that it's impossible.

It obviously isn't that high enough if the Republicans keep threatening it whenever Obama does something they don't like.

You obviously haven't paid attention during the Bush, Clinton, Reagan years then. It's an empty threat.

NO REALLY?! IT'S AN EMPTY THREAT?!

Duh. That doesn't stop them from CONTINUOUSLY MAKING THE THREAT. They make the threat for one reason and one reason only:
To pander to their voters.

The only other recourse is to vote them out.

Or to let the Judicial branch utilize its status as the "checks and balance" of the Legislature and dissolve/dismiss problem members.

Yeah no. That'd be a friggin nightmare. The Judicial Branch's "check and balance" is pretty damn powerful... the only catch is that the case must "reach" their jurisdiction.

Right. But what "case" is there when the Legislative Branch overreaches?

Until there's an actual case to be prosecuted, there will not be any involvement.

But heavens friggin' forbid the Judicial branch get involved in politics, then they're overstepping their reach per the Republicans!

That isn't a "Republican" ideal... o.O

You're right. It isn't.

But look at what the Republicans have said when the Supreme Court got involved with gay marriage or the Affordable Care Act.
It was claimed to be an "overreach" and that the SC had no authority and all kinds of nonsense.

They are already promising to impeach Hillary 14 months before the term of the next president, which might not even be her to begin with.

Not that it really matters, as each chamber can expel one of its members with a successful 2/3s vote,

Thats what I was thinking of, thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
They are already promising to impeach Hillary 14 months before the term of the next president, which might not even be her to begin with.

Excellent. To not impeach her when they impeached her husband would be sexist.

 d-usa wrote:
They are already promising to impeach Hillary 14 months before the term of the next president, which might not even be her to begin with.

Nah... she'll Pardon* herself of all real/perceived malfeasance that was done before her time as POTUS.

*yes, that's technically legal. The only limiting factor seems to be that Presidents cannot Pardon themselves of anything during his/her Presidential tenure.

 whembly wrote:

Nah... she'll Pardon* herself of all real/perceived malfeasance that was done before her time as POTUS.

*yes, that's technically legal. The only limiting factor seems to be that Presidents cannot Pardon themselves of anything during his/her Presidential tenure.

Nope, they can do that too, in fact a President could hypothetically pardon himself of crimes he might commit in the future. But pardons only affect criminal prosecution, a President who pardons himself could still be subject to impeachment.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Nah... she'll Pardon* herself of all real/perceived malfeasance that was done before her time as POTUS.

*yes, that's technically legal. The only limiting factor seems to be that Presidents cannot Pardon themselves of anything during his/her Presidential tenure.

Nope, they can do that too, in fact a President could hypothetically pardon himself of crimes he might commit in the future. But pardons only affect criminal prosecution, a President who pardons himself could still be subject to impeachment.

Now we're getting into the weeds of things... I doubt impeachment is in play if a Pardon is in effect.

dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Nah... she'll Pardon* herself of all real/perceived malfeasance that was done before her time as POTUS.

*yes, that's technically legal. The only limiting factor seems to be that Presidents cannot Pardon themselves of anything during his/her Presidential tenure.

Nope, they can do that too, in fact a President could hypothetically pardon himself of crimes he might commit in the future. But pardons only affect criminal prosecution, a President who pardons himself could still be subject to impeachment.

Why doesn't every president begin their time in office by declaring "I pardon myself of all crimes past, present, and future.", or do they already do that?

d-usa wrote:They are already promising to impeach Hillary 14 months before the term of the next president, which might not even be her to begin with.

Maybe they have already accepted that she will win.

Exactly. As envisioned, the Executive was the MINOR branch and was so until FDR.

Nah, I disagree, Frazz. You can make a strong case for Lincoln's war powers being the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of executive reach. Granted, that was a crisis situation, but it all started with Lincoln IMO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Exactly. As envisioned, the Executive was the MINOR branch and was so until FDR.

Nah, I disagree, Frazz. You can make a strong case for Lincoln's war powers being the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of executive reach. Granted, that was a crisis situation, but it all started with Lincoln IMO.

This is a fair point. The ACW broke the back of separation of powers and state's rights. It was the New Deal that put two into its head.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Exactly. As envisioned, the Executive was the MINOR branch and was so until FDR.

Nah, I disagree, Frazz. You can make a strong case for Lincoln's war powers being the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of executive reach. Granted, that was a crisis situation, but it all started with Lincoln IMO.

I agree on the Lincoln bit.

In regards to today, I think Obama has overstepped what is reasonable in terms of executive power, but I feel Congress has abused their power by being obstructionist. And really, if we get down to it people know who's being more unreasonable; compare Congress' approval ratings to Obama. Not that this ecuses anything, its just...

Gosh I wish "compromise" was not a bad word in politics.

 whembly wrote:

Now we're getting into the weeds of things... I doubt impeachment is in play if a Pardon is in effect.

I actually think that the opposite would be true. For example, if Hillary Clinton were to take office and pardon herself, I can't imagine a scenario in which the GOP wouldn't fall all over themselves building a case for impeachment as they could easily use that single action to generate the popular support they failed to build when they impeached Bill.

Remember, impeachment isn't dependent on the criminal justice system. Congress can impeach an official regardless of whether or not a particular offense is found to warrant criminal punishment.

 the Signless wrote:
Why doesn't every president begin their time in office by declaring "I pardon myself of all crimes past, present, and future.", or do they already do that?

It would be horrific for public relations, and likely set in motion many, many Congressional investigations by the opposing Party.

And a local note:
http://www.chron.com/politics/texas-take/article/Abbott-No-Syrian-refugees-in-Texas-6635442.php

Er...my church is already sponsoring a family from Syria. They are in Austin. My wife met the family. WTF is he talking about?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Now we're getting into the weeds of things... I doubt impeachment is in play if a Pardon is in effect.

I actually think that the opposite would be true. For example, if Hillary Clinton were to take office and pardon herself, I can't imagine a scenario in which the GOP wouldn't fall all over themselves building a case for impeachment as they could easily use that single action to generate the popular support they failed to build when they impeached Bill.

Remember, impeachment isn't dependent on the criminal justice system. Congress can impeach an official regardless of whether or not a particular offense is found to warrant criminal punishment.

 the Signless wrote:
Why doesn't every president begin their time in office by declaring "I pardon myself of all crimes past, present, and future.", or do they already do that?

It would be horrific for public relations, and likely set in motion many, many Congressional investigations by the opposing Party.

Couple of things...

a) Presidential pardons are damn near plenary... via constitution: "...grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

b) Having said that, if a theoretical Pardon is issued on first day of Presidency... then, Congress has nothing to invoke articles of impeachment.

c) Now... here's the kicker, from that point forward during the President's tenure, Congress *could* bring articles of impeachment against the President post-Pardon. So, yes your last point is valid that it'd be a PR disaster in such that, removal from office is definitely more plausible.

d) Point of clarification, Bill Clinton *was* impeached (in the House). The Senate couldn't *remove* him from office. It proves an incredibly high bar to remove any elected officials.

 Frazzled wrote:
And a local note:
http://www.chron.com/politics/texas-take/article/Abbott-No-Syrian-refugees-in-Texas-6635442.php

Er...my church is already sponsoring a family from Syria. They are in Austin. My wife met the family. WTF is he talking about?

Your governor is an idiot, what else is new.

Frazz, did that Syrian family come over as refugees (actually claiming that status) as part of this new program, or did they immigrate with sponsorship via a different mechanism?

There very well could be a difference...

Aren't there biker gangs, Mexican cartels, and Oklahoma refugees that he should be worrying about?

I'm pretty sure there's some Mexican bars full of Mayan vampires just south of the border too.

Texas can put the Syrian refugees in camps though, that's what they did with the Californian refugees: Camp Austin.

 CptJake wrote:
Frazz, did that Syrian family come over as refugees (actually claiming that status) as part of this new program, or did they immigrate with sponsorship via a different mechanism?

There very well could be a difference...

political refugees. As we speak we are indoctrinating them into our TexMex ways. Soon all will fall before our SyrianTexMex uber cuisine!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Aren't there biker gangs, Mexican cartels, and Oklahoma refugees that he should be worrying about?

Quit talking 'bout grandma!