Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impeachment Related: GAO Determines Trump Violated Impoundment Control Act

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Ironically, Johnson's impeachment has come to be widely regarded as an abuse of power by Congress who attempted to hamstring the president with an unconstitutional law that was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court.
    Regardless of what you believe to have been an abuse of congressional power, the impeachment itself with respect to the presidents "abuse of power" wasn't based on the violation of criminal code.

    Comment


    • #92
      Wrong again. Johnson's impeachment was based on his breaking an actual law, even though the law in question was unconstitutional.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Sam View Post

        But if your contention is that only Trump can answer for his motivations (clearly a false assertion but let's roll with it), then you would rationally expect -- even demand -- that Trump be deposed under oath, as Clinton was?

        --Sam
        I'm deleting the rest, as I have neither the time nor the patience to explain 1) How DoD budgeting documents are sent to Congress and 2) That the President SETS policy and OMB FOLLOWS his lead. So, every last one of them can say it was against policy, but it is within the President's power to change that policy.

        But, yes. I fully expect Trump to testify on his own behalf.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          I'm deleting the rest, as I have neither the time nor the patience to explain 1) How DoD budgeting documents are sent to Congress and 2) That the President SETS policy and OMB FOLLOWS his lead. So, every last one of them can say it was against policy, but it is within the President's power to change that policy.

          But, yes. I fully expect Trump to testify on his own behalf.
          By definition, then, are you saying that whatever Trump orders constitutes "policy" and not "personal"? If not, how would you tell? The President will surely say now that his motives weren't personal. But that's directly at odds with what his attorney was saying in May.

          And given that Trump will not testify in his defense, just as he refused to sit under oath for the Mueller probe, what does that say about the trial and the senators who refuse to call him?

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            By definition, then, are you saying that whatever Trump orders constitutes "policy" and not "personal"?
            When it comes to foreign policy matters, like military aid, yes.

            If not, how would you tell? The President will surely say now that his motives weren't personal. But that's directly at odds with what his attorney was saying in May.
            No it isn't. His attorney never said anything in relation to the election in 2020.

            And given that Trump will not testify in his defense, just as he refused to sit under oath for the Mueller probe, what does that say about the trial and the senators who refuse to call him?

            --Sam
            Nothing. He is under no unction to testify for or against himself and they are under no unction to call him knowing that the 5th Amendment protects him from incriminating himself. Not every trial calls for direct testimony of the defendant. Ever watch Matlock?
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              When it comes to foreign policy matters, like military aid, yes.



              No it isn't. His attorney never said anything in relation to the election in 2020.



              Nothing. He is under no unction to testify for or against himself and they are under no unction to call him knowing that the 5th Amendment protects him from incriminating himself. Not every trial calls for direct testimony of the defendant. Ever watch Matlock?

              This is incoherent. Under this theory, a president's lawyer can shop around Hawaii to foreign governments for his client, a President can later withdraw all military personnel and equipment from Hawaii as a "policy" decision, despite the clear and unanimous dissent of his diplomatic and national security agencies, and refuse on "policy grounds" to defend an invasion of Hawaii by a country that just happens to be using state funds to build 100 hotels for the President's business in that country.

              Your framework dictates here that only the President could give testimony as to whether his decision was made for personal or national interests ... and that he doesn't have to.

              Complete nonsense that completely exposes a deliberate lack of thought.

              -Sam
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                This is incoherent.
                No it isn't. You are apparently TRYING to be obtuse.

                Under this theory, a president's lawyer can shop around Hawaii to foreign governments for his client,
                Utterly false. Try again. The Constitution forbids the government reducing the size of its territory.

                a President can later withdraw all military personnel and equipment from Hawaii as a "policy" decision,
                Nope. Only Congress can order base closures. I've been through 3 BRAC's. Have you served at all to know how the US military works?

                Under Article I, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to "lay and collect Taxes" and to "borrow Money," to make "Appropriations" and "provide for the common Defence," to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy," and to "call forth the Militia."

                despite the clear and unanimous dissent of his diplomatic and national security agencies,
                Obtuse.

                and refuse on "policy grounds" to defend an invasion of Hawaii by a country that just happens to be using state funds to build 100 hotels for the President's business in that country.
                Actually, yes he could refuse to defend Hawaii from invasion as a matter of policy. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States... Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. However, doing so would probably guarantee he not get elected. And he would have to convince Congress to pull the troops out. Without their consent to close the installations, those local commanders have the authority to override Presidential orders in matters of self-preservation.

                Your framework dictates here that only the President could give testimony as to whether his decision was made for personal or national interests ... and that he doesn't have to.
                His or Rudy's.


                Complete nonsense that completely exposes a deliberate lack of thought.
                Or perhaps you fail to grasp the powers directly provided to the Executive. You obviously don't have a clue how the military works.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  No it isn't. You are apparently TRYING to be obtuse.



                  Utterly false. Try again. The Constitution forbids the government reducing the size of its territory.



                  Nope. Only Congress can order base closures. I've been through 3 BRAC's. Have you served at all to know how the US military works?

                  Under Article I, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to "lay and collect Taxes" and to "borrow Money," to make "Appropriations" and "provide for the common Defence," to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy," and to "call forth the Militia."



                  Obtuse.



                  Actually, yes he could refuse to defend Hawaii from invasion as a matter of policy. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States... Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. However, doing so would probably guarantee he not get elected. And he would have to convince Congress to pull the troops out. Without their consent to close the installations, those local commanders have the authority to override Presidential orders in matters of self-preservation.



                  His or Rudy's.




                  Or perhaps you fail to grasp the powers directly provided to the Executive. You obviously don't have a clue how the military works.

                  Only Congress has the power of the purse, too. And the President cannot simply decide not to allocate money that was appropriated by Congress and signed into law. Congress has the sole power to impeach and try the President and the President cannot simply order his agencies to withhold documents and witnesses and obstruct that impeachment.

                  The point made is that the President violated the limits to his powers under the Constitution. For a hypothetical, your logic demands a different outcome from what you've applied to this scenario. You understand, when presented with a hypothetical, that your application is incoherent. Now you just have to apply it to this matter.

                  --Sam
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    Only Congress has the power of the purse, too. And the President cannot simply decide not to allocate money that was appropriated by Congress and signed into law.
                    Correct. And when he does, the remedy is the Comptroller suing. That didn't happen. And since the funds got released before the Comptroller got involved, there is nothing anyone can do. It's bad form, but not impeachable. You have to beg the question that it was because of the 2020 election to try to parlay it into something impeachable.

                    Congress has the sole power to impeach and try the President and the President cannot simply order his agencies to withhold documents and witnesses and obstruct that impeachment.
                    Actually, yes he can. He can classify ANY document or material he sees fit, and HE is the declassifying official.

                    The point made is that the President violated the limits to his powers under the Constitution.
                    As has happened several times. Disputes between the branches are typically handled in the Judicial Branch. But the Democrats have been plotting to impeach him since he won. There simply is no denying that.

                    For a hypothetical, your logic demands a different outcome from what you've applied to this scenario. You understand, when presented with a hypothetical, that your application is incoherent. Now you just have to apply it to this matter.

                    --Sam
                    Because your scenarios are incongruent with the actual situation and you have to beg the actual question to make them so. I'll not agree to your fictional scenario because doing so grants the actual matter at dispute.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    - Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • You won't agree to the "fictional scenario" because the hypothetical of a president withdrawing troops or cutting military funds to a state he has surreptitiously agreed to cede control of to a hostile power strikes at the exact same questions we're dealing with here.

                      The President could argue he was doing so for policy reasons. And he might have to violate some laws to enforce his scheme. But you're arguing that the President does not have to be accountable to Congress for the scheme, nor does he have to release any documentation that supports or contradicts his claim of it being a "policy" decision, rather than a corrupt personal one.

                      The President, you argue, could not even be sufficiently questioned about his motive by Congress.

                      You have, for partisan purposes, created a framework that is obviously absurd and unacceptable when applied to other scenarios. Hence, it is incoherent.

                      --Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        You won't agree to the "fictional scenario" because the hypothetical of a president withdrawing troops or cutting military funds to a state he has surreptitiously agreed to cede control of to a hostile power strikes at the exact same questions we're dealing with here.
                        No it doesn't. Asking a foreign nation to investigate corrupt corporations inside their own country is in NO WAY analogous to allowing a foreign power to conquer part of our territory. That's just absurd nonsense on its face.


                        The President could argue he was doing so for policy reasons.
                        No he couldn't. The Constitution is pretty clear that no President can cede the land of a state to a foreign power.

                        The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....
                        Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2


                        And he might have to violate some laws to enforce his scheme.
                        Nope. He'd have to DIRECTLY violate the Constitution.

                        But you're arguing that the President does not have to be accountable to Congress for the scheme,
                        No I am not arguing anything like that. He has to be accountable to Congress where Congress has the authority. The Act in question gives a remedy for the conflict between the Executive's discretion over foreign policy and the Legislative's Power of the Purse. Impeachment isn't it. There is no caveat that includes impoundment as part of "a larger conspiracy".

                        nor does he have to release any documentation that supports or contradicts his claim of it being a "policy" decision, rather than a corrupt personal one.
                        He doesn't unless the Judicial compels him to. I'm sorry you don't want to admit these things but they are spelled out in the Constitution and subsequent judicial decision.

                        The President, you argue, could not even be sufficiently questioned about his motive by Congress.
                        That's correct. Unless the Judicial compels him to. And even then, he has the 5th Amendment.

                        You have, for partisan purposes, created a framework that is obviously absurd and unacceptable when applied to other scenarios. Hence, it is incoherent.

                        --Sam
                        Not at all. You just don't understand how the Government works beyond your desire to belabor this point. I've explained where each of your attempts at absurdum breaks down on other Constitutional and historical precedent grounds.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                        16 responses
                        155 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post One Bad Pig  
                        Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                        53 responses
                        400 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Mountain Man  
                        Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                        25 responses
                        114 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                        33 responses
                        198 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Roy
                        by Roy
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                        84 responses
                        373 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post JimL
                        by JimL
                         
                        Working...
                        X