Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Just now, Jason said: No, because you're insisting that DOJ deal with executive malfeasance. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 38 minutes ago, sblfilms said: It is the actual remedy though. And it didn’t use to be this way. Certainly the modern executive branch uses this shift to their advantage, but in the “what do I think should happen” context of this discussion...fixing that is what I think should happen What if the executive ignored the judicial branch? At the end of the day, the real check on the executive in these situations is or should be Congress. Edit: It should be understood by any president that they are subject to being removed if they stonewall Congressional inquiries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Just now, Massdriver said: What if the executive ignored the judicial branch? At the end of the day, the real check on the executive in these situations is Congress. Wouldn’t that be the question anytime the judicial branch makes a ruling about any constitutional issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 We don't need article III to validate that article I has oversight of article II, it's right there in the text. It's not hard to argue that one thing or another isn't subject to review but you can't argue that nothing is subject to review. By blocking all documents and testimony article II denies that article I has oversight. It plainly does, though, and we don't need anyone else to validate that. This isn't a matter that requires adjudication. Does Congress have oversight of the president? If the president thinks and acts as if they do not then that is a fairly impeachable offense. Article III has literally no say in the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 19 minutes ago, Anathema- said: We don't need article III to validate that article I has oversight of article II, it's right there in the text. It's not hard to argue that one thing or another isn't subject to review but you can't argue that nothing is subject to review. By blocking all documents and testimony article II denies that article I has oversight. It plainly does, though, and we don't need anyone else to validate that. This isn't a matter that requires adjudication. Does Congress have oversight of the president? If the president thinks and acts as if they do not then that is a fairly impeachable offense. Article III has literally no say in the matter. Whether it is in a criminal/civil court or another governmental body, you have every right to challenge the validity of a subpoena. And who settles the question of the validity of that demand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 3 hours ago, CayceG said: In the context, the full quote is: So "take her out" tracks with "get her out tomorrow," meaning remove her from the country/recall her. I'm all about this whole thing being grounds for Trump's removal, but the conspiracy to have an ambassador killed just isn't reasonable. On the one hand, I agree with all of this. However I'm nagged by the fact that the president, who has full authority to fire ambassadors whenever he wants for almost any reason, is asking this of someone with no power over her employment. How do we square that? Furthermore how do we square that with her literally fleeing the country out of fear for her safety? What prompted that? I'm still really skeptical of making this leap but there are loose ends that bug me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 minute ago, sblfilms said: Whether it is in a criminal/civil court or another governmental body, you have every right to challenge the validity of a subpoena. And who settles the question of the validity of that demand? Irrelevant. Trump is denying that Congress has powers of oversight, not that they can't specifically subpoena one thing for a particular reason. We don't need the courts to settle whether or not Congress has oversight and it would be offensive to the constitution to suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 10 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Whether it is in a criminal/civil court or another governmental body, you have every right to challenge the validity of a subpoena. And who settles the question of the validity of that demand? No one should ever voluntarily/willingly comply with a subpoena. Challenge the hell out of that thing as much as possible and make the other side actually do work to compel compliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: No one should ever willingly comply with a subpoena. Challenge the hell out of that thing as much as possible and make the other side actually do work to compel compliance. Don’t talk to cops, challenge all subpoenas. Make them earn it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 37 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Wouldn’t that be the question anytime the judicial branch makes a ruling about any constitutional issue? It would, and Congress would always be the check if an executive decides to start acting like a king and ignore SCOTUS. There is no provision that allows the Supreme Court to remove a sitting president that is otherwise qualified to be there. But the question is much more important in cases where Congress is doing its duty investigating the head of the executive branch , since by impeding the investigation, the executive is blocking Congress's ability to exercise their express powers. Our Constitution as bad as it is gave a lot of express powers that imply oversight powers to Congress. There is no reason Congress should have to consult with the judicial branch to exercise their responsibilities anymore than SCOTUS should have to consult with Congress to issue a new ruling. What if the judicial branch made a corrupt ruling in favor of the executive and started rubber stamping everything the executive wanted? Sure, there are certain cases where the judicial branch may be needed, but these should only relate to very specific technicalities, not a president illegally abusing their power and then refusing to cooperate with a Congressional investigation. In general, our system has historically relied upon a degree of mutual respect and cooperation between the branches without testing the limits of our fragile founding document. What Trump is doing is normalizing and stretching our document to its limit and exposing how fragile it is. He is making it seem normal that the executive doesn't have to cooperate at all, and he makes it seem like going to the judicial branch is perfectly reasonable when it historically has not been. This is all recent and toxic to our government and is turning the executive branch into a much more powerful branch than the other two. Congress should immediately remove Trump from office to deter future presidents from doing the same thing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 52 minutes ago, Jason said: I don't think it was vague to the people who wrote that language. Listen to Schiff explain it. It's things you'd have to have the office to be able to do. I think, again, Schiff’s speech yesterday gave good reasoning as to why this (though there are many other reasons but this is what they chose) is cause to remove Trump from office. Plainly, he has proven himself incapable of putting the country above his own personal interests which is in itself a danger to national security. Of course, this is all political and personal opinion, but I believe that is in line with the intent of having a clause for impeachment and removal from office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Does Congress need to go to the courts to validate their ability to pass legislation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 also thank you @sblfilms for providing many pages of content in this thread to follow to read while i’m pooping 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Just now, Anathema- said: Does Congress need to go to the courts to validate their ability to pass legislation? They do have to go to court to prove the validity of a law if somebody raises a constitutional objection to the law. In this case they have to prove the validity of a subpoena when the validity of it was challenged. Whether this is a good system or not is a separate matter, and @Massdriver makes the compelling case that this particular strategy of the Trump administration stretches the bounds of the constitution to its breaking point. But it is the system. 1 minute ago, stepee said: also thank you @sblfilms for providing many pages of content in this thread to follow to read while i’m pooping I try and give a little change of pace to the sometimes boring conversation here since there tends to be broad agreement on a lot of issues, and in fact I think all of us would like to see Trump gone. I also really enjoy issues of constitutional non-sense, more so than most things political. I mean...I read SCOTUS opinions for fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 9 minutes ago, Massdriver said: This is all recent and toxic to our government and is turning the executive branch into a much more powerful branch than the other two. The actual reality of an "Imperial Presidency" has existed for decades - it's just one whose name dare not be spoken. At least now the truth is undeniable. That horse long ago left the barn and it ain't coming back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 I appreciate @sblfilmsfor having the guts to state his opinion here knowing he would be jumped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Once the broad powers of enforcement of the law were granted to the Executive, that was game/set/match for any semblance parity between the three branches. The other two might as well be withered appendages without similar independent powers of their own. "Don't quote laws to men who carry swords" - Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 And again, this is over bloody military aid to Ukraine, something that should NEVER have been appropriated in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: And again, this is over bloody military aid to Ukraine, something that should NEVER have been appropriated in the first place. but it was for freeeeeedom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Military aid to Ukraine and Joe Biden's useless, degenerate fail son. Jesus Christ - everything about this is just so goddamned ham-fistedly stupid and not even remotely cool like Watergate or Iran-Contra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: Military aid to Ukraine and Joe Biden's useless, degenerate fail son. Jesus Christ - everything about this is just so goddamned ham-fistedly stupid and not even remotely cool like Watergate or Iran-Contra. And all based off of the insane ramblings of Rudy. It wasn’t even an attempt at corruption based off of something real, all imagined. We live not in the darkest timeline, but the dumbest timeline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 2 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said: Boy, I don’t know what a president should be impeached over if not this. Jeez. Absolutely nothing. As Wade said, for me this whole affair just exposes the sham of a system we have in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentbob Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Anyone else thinking this will turn into Dr. Strangelove and result in a pie fight on the senate floor as it has become the new war room Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Each branch should get a mini-nuke at the start of each year. Even the power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 It’s 11 minutes, in its entirety, unedited. It’s worth a listen. You can hear him spiraling in real time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 And after the interview: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 maybe he needed to know where on a map it was? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, Firewithin said: maybe he needed to know where on a map it was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Not only can I identify Ukraine on a map, but I can illustrate how it should be partitioned between Russia and Poland! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 And let's not let Congress off the hook for its own acquisesence to the rise of the "Imperial Presidency", especially in times when there was no grave crisis that might allow some leeway for enhanced Executive power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chakoo Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 hours ago, sblfilms said: We live not in the darkest timeline, but the dumbest timeline. I definitely agree with you on this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said: Absolutely nothing. As Wade said, for me this whole affair just exposes the sham of a system we have in this country. I mean, you’re right, but that wasn’t really my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.