PeterDavid.net

Well shuck my grits, first at bat! I don't know about a constitutional crisis as such, however a credibility crisis already exists.

Since the Decider in Chief has become accustomed to a rubberstamp, boot lick legislative branch, there will probably be a period of adjustment. Meanwhile, look to presidential hopefuls from both parties to sniff the popular wind to see which direction has the best odds of getting him/her into the Oval Office.

None of the Republican hopefuls will back an impeachment since Dubya appeals to the religious right, and the Repubs are afraid of them. The Dems will only push for impeachment if they think they can take Cheney out with Bush.

As I understand the succession, that will put Nancy Pelosi in the big chair until the 08 elections, which is a thought that makes little chicken hawks wet their beds at night, and will not please Hillary to much, as she has designs on the title of "First Woman to be President."

The only way there will be a crisis is if anyone really pushes hard. If Dubya pushes Congress to hard, they will push back. If congress pushes to hard, the GOP will try to use the Dems "lack of support for the troops" as a wedge issue in 08 to peel the Blue Dog Dems from the main party.

Or I could be way out in left field, and congress decides nuff zed, we'll try to take out Bush, and hope President Cheney gets the message.

As I understand, Congress has the power to declare war and make peace (by ratifying a treaty). However, there's no one really to make peace with over there. The Constitution gives the President the power to control the movement of the troops, and in recent history that power has been used in "police actions", wars that weren't ever declared wars. That issue has come under challenge several times, most prominently with the War Powers Act. It's never really been settled conclusively (though obviously each branch has its own opinions on what the Founders intended) so ultimately it comes down to whoever is on the Supreme Court at the time the issue is raised. Given the makeup of the SC today, I kinda doubt they'll side with Congress this time around.

Hmm... A little digging around just now brought me to the War Powers Act. Passed by Congress in 1973, it "places a 60-day limit on any presidential commitment of U.S. forces abroad without specific authorization by Congress" (Grolier Encyclopeia of Knowledge, vol. 19, page 256). Would that apply to an additional commitment of troops? Does it mean that Congress could recind its approval of the current commitment in Iraq, legally requiring the withdrawal of our forces within sixty days?

This is assuming that the War Powers Act hasn't been overturned - my encyclopedia could be outdated - or that it isn't superceeded by the Patriot Act. And then there's the issue of additional presidential powers during times of war. The "war on terrror" is rather convenient in that regard, with the assertion that we're in a perpetual state of war....

Is Bush capable of realizing that Congress is a counter-balance and equal partner in government, not just a body of flunkies meant to carry out his will? This could be the issue that really puts that question to the test.

"This is assuming that the War Powers Act hasn't been overturned - my encyclopedia could be outdated - or that it isn't superceeded by the Patriot Act."

As I understand it, the Patriot Act supercedes anything that is inconvenient (Habeus corpus, detention without charge, freedom of speech, FISA) to national security.

PAD, yer freedom clock may have to run a bit longer than expected.

Just a note - as I wrote my post, no comments were showing yet, so I hadn't read Matt Adler's mention of the War Powers Act. Just in case that seemed repetative.

PAD, yer freedom clock may have to run a bit longer than expected.

UGH. Please don't even joke about that.

The only power Congress has over Bush and the military is the power of the purse. They authorized Bush's going into Iraq, and have continued to authorize the funding for it. They are continuing to give him the option of how to pursue this.

These non-binding resolutions are just that - non-binding, and non-effective. What Congress is really doing is giving Bush enough rope to hang himself with. They are on record being against the surge/escalation/expansion or whatever you want to call it. It puts Bush on notice that this is his last chance. They are giving it to him by making non-binding resolutions. I wish they would just come out and say it this way, though.

The next major set of votes (in 9-12 months I'm guessing) will be to cut funding except for what is necessary to withdraw. If that happens Bush will have no choice.

On a related note, and I haven't seen it widely reported. al-Sadr has (once again) decided to play ball politically. Apparently, the increase in troops has made him nervous enough to come back to the table. It's the first thing I've seen in months that seems positive.

Would that apply to an additional commitment of troops? Does it mean that Congress could recind its approval of the current commitment in Iraq, legally requiring the withdrawal of our forces within sixty days?

That's where it gets into a grey area. The War Powers Act established that the president had to get permission for commitments beyond that 60 days... but it made no mention of what happens if Congress later changes its mind. Theoretically, Congress could pass a new law saying that the president has to get renewed permission or somesuch... but he would no doubt argue that they were intruding on his powers as commander-in-chief and that's when it would come back to the Supreme Court.

Myself, I believe the Framers intended that no military action could be launched against another nation without an express declaration of war from Congress... but that premise was violated so many times in the 20th century (and now into the 21st) that it unfortunately has become virtually irrelevant. The way we operate now is that Congress has transferred its power to declare war to the President, without any Constitutional amendment. And unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, that's how it's going to stay.

Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII, so it's not just the recent congresses who have abrogated their responsibility.

Peter David: What I want to know is whether Congress has the power to say, "We're done. We were told the United States was going to war for these reasons. These reasons no longer exist. The war is over. We're pulling out," and then inform the President that he no longer has Congressional authority to wage war, and that if he continues to do so, he will be impeached.
Luigi Novi: Well, if what Mark said about Congress having the power to cut off Bush's purse strings is true, then that may be an avenue through which they can end the way without a direct confrontation with Bush. Otherwise, impeachment is pretty much what it comes down to. With Bush's approval rating at 28%, perhaps they're going to have to choose between a legal action that has only been taken twice (almost three times) in our history, one which will require a grave commitment, and possibly cross a line in the sand, or allow more of our kids to be killed overseas. Then again, perhaps the mere threat of impeachment will be enough to scare Bush into reversing his policies.

With Bush's approval rating at 28%

Wow, is it that low now? I thought it'd stay somewhere between 30% and 40% for the remainder of his presidency if he kept doing what he was doing.

Then again, perhaps the mere threat of impeachment will be enough to scare Bush into reversing his policies.

Don't bet on it.

It's below 28%. Those polls are only for 1000 random people. I'm sure if there was a national vote about Iraqi pullout and getting a new President and VP next week, it would without a doubt happen. A good 3/4ths of America dont like him, and I'm sure if people were not scaredto death to have Dick Cheney as President, Bush would be gone.

Congress never declared war; therefore, they don't have the power to "undeclare" it. As several have pointed out, Congress principal check on the President's actions here is through the budget.

The President, as an institution, is more than an instrument of Congress. It is a co-equal branch of the Republic. This is demonstrable by the fact that Congress doesn't have the power to impeach a President it disagrees with. They don't get to decide if the President is doing a good job. That's not their role. Impeachment is an extreme act, reserved for an officer of the state, including the Presdient, who commits "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

So, even though many might disagree with the President, he's empowered to make these decisions. And the Constitution gives Congress the power to check that decision. In that case, through its power to control the treasury.

I think the purpose of the non-binding resolution is to hamstring Republican contenders for the 2008 presidential election. Several Democrats have said the purpose of the resolution is to get people on the record about the Iraq war. If Republicans refuse to support the resolution and Iraq hasn't gotten any better by 2008 (considering there's over 1,000 years of ethnic strife, I doubt the next year will see any significant progress), Democrats can say that those Republicans showed their support for a failed war. If Republicans support the resolution, Democrats can say they're more in line with Democratic thinking than their party. And if any Republicans abstain, Democrats can say the Republicans lacked the conviction to take a stand. For Republicans, it's a lose-lose situation.

Mr. David, it is my understanding that Congress actually has the power to do all of the things that you mentioned. The President's role of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is simply that of the highest ranked General. He's not supposed to be able to determine when we're fighting a war. Alexander Hamilton made that clear while writing the Federalist Papers with James Madison trying to convince the various states to ratify the Constitution. Congress could un-enact the two Authorizations to Use Military Force that got us into Afganistan and Iraq (it they had enough votes to override the certain veto that would result), and the President would be legally obliagated to comply. I'm sure the Whitehouse wouldn't agree with that, but they also think that the President doesn't have to worry about petty little nuisances called "laws" (like FISA) even though the Constitution explicitly says "[The President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." I'm sure that there would be resistance from the Whitehouse. Congress could also de-fund the military operations in Iraq, and they could always impeach him if he defied those measures.

All of that is in theory, of course. Congress has those powers but I don't think for a minute that any of those measures is going to actually come out of the Congress that we've got right now. President Bush is nowhere near as popular as he used to be. Right now I suspect he'd kill for Jimmy Carter's approval ratings, but he's still got an incredible amount of support from the Republicans in Congress. I've joked in other places that he could star in a snuff-porn movie filmed on the Whitehouse lawn in broad daylight and there still wouldn't be enough Rebublicans in the Senate willing to actually impeach him out of office. In order for that to happen the snuff-porn would have to also be one of three things.

A) Satanic ritual snuff.
B) Infanticide snuff.
C) Gay porn.

If you want to get all constitutional about it, the power to end war rests with the Senate, which is the branch of Congress that ratifies treaties (including peace treaties). I don't believe the Constitution makes any mention of who decides it's time to negotiate a peace treaty or who gets to negotiate, however, though I'm not aware of any time that peace negotiators have been nominated by someone other than the President.

The real problem, of course, is that you can't have a peace treaty without being at war, and as has been pointed out above, the United States hasn't been at war since 1945, since neither has Congress issued a declaration of war nor has the United States had a war declared upon it since then.

If someone wants to no if Congress has a legal recourse to end the occupation of Iraq other than cutting off funding or the (likely unsuccessful) extreme of impeachment, they'd have to go back and reread the congressional authorisation of action in Iraq to see if it has any limits written in.

Though since we're not "at war" with anyone at the moment, I'm not sure there'd be anything (constitutionally or legally speaking) to stop Congress just passing a law mandating the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.

Congress could revise the Authorization to Use Military Force (the AUMF) against Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Bush would feel bound by it, let alone the War Powers Act.

See, the Bush Administration believed at the time (and, as best I know, still believes) that the Congressional resolution passed in the wake of 9-11 to eliminate al-Qaeda authorized the President to take any military action he deemed necessary. I'm going to have to find the citation on this, because it's a very weird argument. It's that the preamble of the resolution, which is an introductory passage intended to indicate what the purpose of the bill is, allows for the President to take unilateral military action. I was listening to a story about this on NPR about nine months ago, and a constitutional scholar was saying that bills were never meant to be interpreted this way, that the preamble doesn't mention anything about military force, and yet Alberto Gonzales had made the argument that the preamble allowed for whatever the Administration wanted. (I recall that they've claimed the preamble authorized lots of other things too, like Jose Padilla's incarceration and torture, but I'll leave that for another time.)

Ultimately, yes, we will be heading for a Constitutional Crisis. I don't think I'm batshit crazy, but I can certainly see that there may not be an orderly transition of power to the 44th President.

In all this discussion of Congress voting for ww deuce, it should be remembered there were even some dissenting votes against going to war with Japan. Germany, it should be remembered, declared war on the US.

Hitler also used manufactured incidents to get Germany into war. In 1939, a Polish raid on a German frontier radio outpost was used as the final "justification" for the invasion of Poland.

I am not saying that Bush and Co. staged 9/11, but that tragedy has been used to justify every excess of the current administration since.

Can anyone tell me how many reasons were given for the invasion (20 lashes for anyone calling it "liberation") of Iraq? 9/11 link, then WMD, then democratization. Now "stay the course". What's next?

Alberto Gonzales also tried to invoke a concept from English common law whose Latin name I can't recall, but which boils down to "Whatever the King does is by definition legal," to justify certain actions of the Bush Misadministration. It wouldn't surprise me if he tried to claim that the preamble to the AUMF was more important than the body, if it served the interest of His Imperial Maj- er, I mean the President.

Didn't Ted Kennedy say this week Bush would have the 21k troops in Iraq by the time a cut in war-funding was enacted, and that they would be accused of cutting funding for all of them?

The whole purse-string issue doesn't seem to be any more complicated than a hostage situation.

"The whole purse-string issue doesn't seem to be any more complicated than a hostage situation."

The problem there is that the Neo Cons have managed to get support of the mission to be directly equated with support for the troops.

Someone has to change the equation to support of the troops equals not wasting their lives on pissing matches.

Truman not only got us involved in a full-blown war in Korea without declaring war (thus avoiding the step where Congress declares war), he's the only president who did so WITHOUT EVEN ASKING Congress.

Vietnam, an even bigger war, was also undeclared, and Johnson's massive escalation there basically cemented the trend where the president can apparently commit as many troops as he wants to a conflict, and leave them as long as he wants -- providing Congress doesn't cut off the money.

What I find ironic is that most of the people here who are upset that the president now apparently has more leeway than ever sending troops in harms way are Democrats.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was an attempt to rein in the president somewhat to prevent future extended conflicts like Korea or Vietnam, but I think it's pretty obvious it has failed.

PAD's question is a simple one. Congress can in fact declare an end to the war. The problem is that in order to pass such a resolution, they need to have enough vote to avoid a sentate fillibuster and override a presidential veto.

The non-binding resolutions is a part of a long-term political strategy by the democrats to slowly co-opt enough Republicans to do this.

"Truman not only got us involved in a full-blown war in Korea without declaring war (thus avoiding the step where Congress declares war), he's the only president who did so WITHOUT EVEN ASKING Congress."

The Korean War was actually a UN operation. It was undertaken in the post WWII panic about further communist expansion into Asia.

Ironically, Truman got the UN Dubya would have adored. Willing to be an extension of US policy.

PAD's question is a simple one. Congress can in fact declare an end to the war.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Under the War Powers Act the President has to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). (from wiki)

Having complied with that by getting P.L. 107-243, I doubt that they can now do much about it other than cutting off funding. How likely is that? Well, congress actually had a chance to DO something this week--they could have voted down approving General David Petraeus for Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Unlike the nonbinding resolution, that might have actually affected whether or not the surge occurred. He was approved without a single nay vote, 81-0.

It would seem the only action anyone is willing to take is the kind that doesn't do anything other than express feelings.

Ultimately, yes, we will be heading for a Constitutional Crisis. I don't think I'm batshit crazy, but I can certainly see that there may not be an orderly transition of power to the 44th President.

You're not batshit crazy but you are sounding an awful lot like those right wingers who swore that there was no way Bill Clinton was going to hand over power at the end of his term. I expect to hear a lot more about the upcoming Bush coup right up to the day he hands over power in about 723 days, by the old clock on the monitor. I'd put money on it but I can't imagine anyone would take such a lose/lose bet.

Manny wrote "The Korean War was actually a UN operation. It was undertaken in the post WWII panic about further communist expansion into Asia."

It doesn't matter that the U.N. was involved. Truman wasn't elected by the U.N., and Truman unilaterally decided to commit massive amounts of troops to the fight, without consulting Congress.

Even the hawkish Gen. MacArthur, who allegedly was prepared to use nukes during that confrontation, and who was later fired by Truman for not following Truman's specific orders, later wrote in his memoirs that he was disturbed by the way Truman went about entering that war.

Truman's approval rating during the Korean War, which we came to within a hairsbreadth of losing, was so low, it makes President Bush's current rating look positively glowing.

One final point. Because of the stalemate that was the cease fire that ended the Korean War, we have spent an additional 54 years in South Korea, with tens of thousands of U.S. troops on a constant hair-trigger alert (spending trillions of dollars in the process). What have we to show for it all? Well, we've deterred North Korea from attacking South Korea (a country with far less strategic interest to the U.S. than, say, Iraq), but the regime shows no sign of going away, it has developed nukes, and, because it holds the millions of innocent people of Seoul hostage (because the city is so close to the DMZ), there hasn't been a damn thing we could do about it.

Watch out for another attack on US soil....

I work late and on the way home I listen to those political talk shows like Michael Savage and such and THEY said that therell be another Sept 11 attack here which (of course) will unite us and then Bush will have the excuse he needs to go into Iran.

(although I don't see how if we don't have enough troops (or enough additional BILLION$ !!!)
for the FIRST darn area we're in)

"It doesn't matter that the U.N. was involved. Truman wasn't elected by the U.N., and Truman unilaterally decided to commit massive amounts of troops to the fight, without consulting Congress."

I'll agree to this statement, however Truman had already decided not to run in 1952, so he made a lame duck decision, and, like Shrub, at the time, the move was met with general popular approval.

I will also agree that the UN did not elect Truman. Nor did the world elect Bush. Yet the Decider in Chief has had a Canadian citizen sent to Syria to be tortured. In the interests of full disclosure, the information that led to this clusterfuck came from the RCMP.

Since that time, a Canadian investigation into the event has cleared Maher Arar, the Canadian government has paid him 10.5 Mill plus legal expenses. And still, the US will not take his name off their no fly list, for all practical intents and purposes making it impossible for the man to travel.

I'm Canadian. I don't recall electing Bush.

Ultimately, yes, we will be heading for a Constitutional Crisis. I don't think I'm batshit crazy, but I can certainly see that there may not be an orderly transition of power to the 44th President.

You're not batshit crazy but you are sounding an awful lot like those right wingers who swore that there was no way Bill Clinton was going to hand over power at the end of his term.

You're not batshit crazy and you don't sound batshit crazy.

What's batshit crazy is comparing Bill Clinton to the constitution-trampling George W Bush -- whose attorney general refused on the senate floor to deny he had the authority to sweep citizens off of American streets and, at his own descretion, send them to be foreign countries to be tortured.

What's batshit crazy is sheltering an obvious predatory agenda with transparent denial.

Hmmm. My gut feeling is that we are not headed for a Constitutional crisis. The Democrats in Congress are only going to press removing the troops so far. In a very public vote in the Senate, we will see one or two republicans stop the cutting of any funding for the surge et al.

Iraq is going to be the number one campaign issue for Democrats in 2008. Why would anyone think that they would want this issue gone?

Actually it would only hurt the poor troops over there if the funds got cut off NOW....

It will make us look really stupid(er) to the rest of the world but maybe in the long run its best we just leave and reboot and take a different tac

and 'No' I havent got a clue what KIND of tac or a solution.....

after all- thats what I pay those old farts in Washington for.

Bill~

Actually it is that simple. By approving a military action congress does not abrigate it's ability to declare or undeclare a war/military action/etc.

One of the successes of the neo-con movement is that it has successfully conflated political problems with legal ones. IE they will argue to the public that congress doesn't have the power to end the war and will use all te examples given of undeclared wars as proof.

However, the barriers to those examples were never legal. Rather they had to do with politics and process.

The problem currently is that congress passed a resolution that said, basically, "we approve of any action you take in Iraq and this resolution also counts as your regular consultation"

Having granted the president a free pass, they now have to vote to take it away. Once it's gone, they can simply refuse to continue authorizing military action, effectively ending the war.

Politically this is vey difficult to do, because the democrats do not have enough votes fo cloture or to over-ride a veto.

So legally, yes they have the power. But they have hamstrung their ability to exercise that power by creating a process in this case were they have to pass legislation to exercise it.

Which, is precisely why the GOP worded the authorization the way they did.

In the other cases, keep in mind that a lot of congress people may have claimed to object to various operations, but did not necessarily want to go on record one way or the other. Also, there is a dynamic tension between the branches that allows the president to try loopholes knowing that the conservative nature of the senate will delay any action regardless of the objective legality.

As to claims that the Dems are being wussies for passing a non-binding resolution, I disagree. They need Republicans on board and party loyalty runs deep in the GOP. Various senators need to be walked up to a place were they are ready to hoist Bush over. Sending up a non-bindng resolution is a win-win. If Bush accepts it, Dems win. If he rejects it, the republican supporters can begin the psychological process of "breaking up" with Bush.

That's why the neo-cons are pushing the funding meme. Which Democrats are actually pushing that as a solution? It's a GOP talking point being pushed because it helps keep the base energized (look who hates the troops) and pressure on potential republican defectors in congress in line (if you vote with the dems our base will destroy you).

Actually it is that simple. By approving a military action congress does not abrigate it's ability to declare or undeclare a war/military action/etc.

I just can't come up with any examples of congress "undeclaring a war" in progress. At teh risk of sounding like a neocon conflating political problems with legal ones, I think Bush could argue to the Supremes that giving authorization and then taking it away amounts to congress taking over the constitutional right of the executive branch to serve as commander in chief. I'd feel the sme way if they had jerked the rug out from under Clinton's feet once we went to the Balkans.

That's why the neo-cons are pushing the funding meme. Which Democrats are actually pushing that as a solution?

Feingold and Kucinich come to mind...but I agree it's a total non-starter. Now if they were smart they'd try to pass a law that would, say, limit how many tours soldiers and reservists could serve on foreign soil or some other indirect way of preventing the surge. That would be very popular and it would mess up any attempt to increase the number of troops in Iraq. But as I said above, since nobody--nobody!--voted against confirming General Petraeus it doesn't seem likely that any active interference with the surge is forthcoming.

Bill~
Part if the problem is that, with a 4 mos old attached firmly to my chest, my ability to go do some real sourcing for you is limited.

I would suggest you consider this. How many declared wars have we actually been in? And of those, how many were politically unpopular enough for Congress to take the relatively extreme position of "undeclaring". If I could remember the correct term that might help.

As unpopular as Vietnam was, Nixon was re-elected. And the Dems were in a tough spot because they started the whole damn thing.

I also (and I may be wrong) don't remember congress ever passing a resolution allowing the pres. a pass on consultation. So the reason you don't remember it is because they probably never had to pass a law to exercise it before. And that gives the President a lot of power whereas if he had to consent with them they have the leverage to pressure him in less extreme ways.

And this may sound like a minor quible, but the President *is not* the Commander in Chief. He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He is a public servant we elected and the executive branch is a peer of the Congress and the judicial, even if the responsibilities differ. I believe that the use of the term Commander in Chief is a calculated effort to project an image of authority outside his actual powers. Glenn Greenwald has written a good posting recently about this. I think it also blurs his relationship with congress.

Although I hate business as government metephors and analogies think of it this way.

Bush is the CEO and Congress is the Board of Directors. The CEO might handle day to day affairs and be the nominal "boss" of the employees (in this case the military) he is ultimately answerable to the board of directors. Again, it is an imperfect analogy but it's the best I could do on short notice.

And contrary to a previous posting, the Congress could in fact impeach the President if they didn't like his policies. They just have to get enough members of congress to agree that these policies consitute High Crimes and Misdemeeners to vote for impeachment. I think people underestimate how hard that actually is. First, the impeachment needs to be filibuster proof and then each one of these congressmen needs to explain to their consititients why they over-rode the results of the presidential election.

The system is rather ingenious actually.

As for Dem proponents, I don't believe that's what Fiengold was saying. I believe he was discussing options generically not "this is what we should do". I could be wrong, and that would be significant since Fiengold is pretty influential. I give you Cranky K though. I had forgotten about him cause he has no real power.

Bill~
Again, I apologize for the lack of citations and sourcing tha would probably clarify your questions. If you can wait about 2 years once the baby has grown more I sould have some extra time :)

But I would recommend glenn greenwald. He may have posted something. And while he definitely haes Bush and is a liberal, he is a lawyer and takes great pains to be intellectually honest and analyze the law based on what it says, not what he wants.

Allyn,

Congress could revise the AUMF, but the Democrats don't have the votes at this time.

I don't really think this is much disputed in the legal world. The rulings related to Presidential Power have gone against Bush. If it got to the Supreme Court I highly doubt Bush would win.

The constitutional crisis that may occur is not in the courts. It is what the NeoCons would do if the court ruled against them. They are already ignoring certain court orders. I suspect the Administration believes it would lose because Gonzales is on record as saying that the courts do not have authority in matters of related to War.

Bill~
As you can see I have a few minutes open.
I did some quick research and discovered that a ruling in 1999 (Campbell v. Clinton) found that while Congress could pass an act "un-declaring" a war, that it had no legal power as long as congress continues to approve funding. The court found that by approving funding congress was defacto granting it's consent for continued hostilities both declared and undeclared.

That's what Cranky K was referring to when he was dicssing cutting off funding.

Part if the problem is that, with a 4 mos old attached firmly to my chest, my ability to go do some real sourcing for you is limited.

Congratulations! Don't worry about me, it isn't like I need an excuse to go happily hunting things down on the internet (seriously, how did we ever live without it?).

I also (and I may be wrong) don't remember congress ever passing a resolution allowing the pres. a pass on consultation. So the reason you don't remember it is because they probably never had to pass a law to exercise it before.

I'm not sure you can say that Bush hasn't "consulted" with them. It may depend on the definition of consult. Certainly generals and politicians have gone before congress and testified. Views have been exchanged. Now if by consultation they meant that the president had to get approval for any major tactical decision, I guess they worded it wrong. Consultation does not equal agreement.

And this may sound like a minor quible, but the President *is not* the Commander in Chief. He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

I don't think too many people don't realize that by "commander in chief" we are referring to his position in the military. What else would it mean?

And contrary to a previous posting, the Congress could in fact impeach the President if they didn't like his policies. They just have to get enough members of congress to agree that these policies consitute High Crimes and Misdemeeners to vote for impeachment.

Sure but by that standard they can remove him or her for ANY reason. It's so unlikely that it falls out of the realm of possibility, in my opinion.

As for Dem proponents, I don't believe that's what Fiengold was saying. I believe he was discussing options generically not "this is what we should do".

i was using an editorial Feingold wrote for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=551680) where he said, among other things, "It's time for Congress to use the power of the purse to end this devastating war and finally bring American troops out of Iraq."

Personally, although I disagree, I have to respect him for backing up his opinion with a proposal for action. It takes more guts than confirming the general who is planning on implementing the surge (so that, in the event it works one can claim credit for sending the right man for the job) while publicly predicting failure (so, in the event it doesn't work one can claim they KNEW this would happen).

Again, I apologize for the lack of citations and sourcing tha would probably clarify your questions. If you can wait about 2 years once the baby has grown more I sould have some extra time :)

Please! When I had a 4 month old I was in little condition for writing the kinds of well presented arguments you've done. I don't think I could have found the computer "on" button, much less the keyboard.

PDog, thanks for the reference. Campbell v. Clinton seems to me to be an odd little case--the ruling I found (Which was not a supreme court decision so we can't consider it as settled, I guess) said that the ended up stating that the plaintiffs did not have the authority to sue the president. The merits of the case weren't the issue. I'm not sure it really settled the questions we're looking at.

But reading court rulings makes my head hurt so if any of the several legal minds on the board are more familiar with the case I'd love to hear their take on it.

When I had a 4 month old I was in little condition for writing the kinds of well presented arguments you've done.

If by "well presented arguments" you mean he didn't lie, libel anyone, propgate whisper campaigns, weigh democratic lapses the same as republican corruption, or rely on transparent denials -- well, it isn't like you ever really recovered.

A mild tangeant, I've been led to understand that Shrub's presidential library will run to 500 Mil. Can anyone confirm that number?

The only reason I ask is, I'm wondering exactly how many Scooby Doo colouring books 1/2 bil will buy. He definitely never read the constitution.

Bill~

I had a longer response written but nuked it by accident. Since time is precious I'll stick to the core of PAD's question: Can Congress "Un-declare" War.

I interprit Campbell vs. Clinton differently than you did. I believe the ruling explicitlily acknowledged Congress' right to declare/un-declare war under the consent/advice wording.

The specific lawsuit was accusing Clinton of not consulting Congress and the court found that the Congress had de facto been consulted when operational funds were requested. Further, the court found that if Congress approved funding for a military operation that was defacto approval.

The specific reason for the lawsuit (unauthorized military force) is not germane here. What is germane is that by ruling funding to be defacto authorization the courts have put a substantial political burden on congress.

So in short, as I read the law, yes they can. But, as I read Campbell v. Clinton, the political cost is very very high.

Ok, that sounds more definitive. What I had read seemed to be saying that they more or less just denied the case based on the idea that the plaintiffs did not have the right to bring the lawsuit anyway.

Anyway, get some sleep. You never know when someone will need reattachment to your chest :)

It'll all be moot as Bush will find some excuse to attack Iran by summer. That's his "exit strategy" for Iraq.

I don't think the Senate can force Bush to negotiate a treaty. They can only ratify a treaty that has already been presented to him.

What's truly frightening is that the Decidinator thinks that things like "the law" and the "will of the people" as quaint, pre-9/11 thinking.

Remember all those times your mother told you "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it?" Ok, me, neither, but I imagine it's been heard by some.

Anyway, that's essentially congress. Not that they created the President, but they define and limit what he can do. Or that's the way it's supposed to work, anyway.

Congress hasn't declared war in this case. What they have done is pass a law that grants the President whatever authority he needs to fight terror. And it's pretty much stated in words to that effect, and that broadly. It doesn't assign specific funds, so the president must continually go back to congress and ask for more money. Which puts congress in a bind, as they face the choice of funding a strategy they don't agree with, or cutting funding and risking the president committing troops anyway, and risking the troops because they don't have money for equipment. Like bullets, which I'm told you pretty much need to engage in modern combat.

So, unless congress repeals the law that gives the president this authority, there's no real connsitutional challenge coming up. In my view, it's essentially a shield for Bush against any claims that he's violated the Constitution, even with his warrantless wiretaps of US citizens, and erasure of habeas corpus. All he has to do is claim that every action was to further tha fight against terrorism, and he's insulated from any action against him.

The thing is, neither side really wants to take that power away from the president, because each wants to be able to use it. While preventing the other side from using it. So what's probably going to happen is, as we get closer to the next presidential election, we'll see whatever side feels it's going to lose start to make a push to repeal the law. And the side that thinks it's going to win will resist that. If it's the Dems that seem ahead, that's going to be very interesting, because I'd say there are more Dems willing to relenquish that power, in the face of gaining control of it, than there are Repubs that would do the same.

"I don't think the Senate can force Bush to negotiate a treaty. They can only ratify a treaty that has already been presented to him."

Treaty with who? There is no government to negotiate with in this case. To negotiate a treaty to end the war in Iraq, a treaty to end the "War on Terror" is needed, since the Decisionator (Devidinator? Polarizer?) called Iraq the central front in the war on terror, and there was no actual declaration of war with Iraq that I'm aware of.

This one is an unending war, since it's a war with a method, not a country or government. The only out for Congress to take, IMHO, is probably impeachment.

Counts could include lying to Congress about the evidence justifying the invasion of Iraq. Or the awarding of no bid contracts to politically connected companies. That at least has the possibility of tainting Cheney in the process, and taking that nauseating slab of suet out of the picture.

Unfortunately, given the glacial pace that Congress works at, by the time things actually get going, it'll be election time.

Unlike Nixon, and there are not enough Republicans on the hill willing to vote for impeachment to convince Bush to resign.

Hi all,

My two cents is this:

Cent Number One: Listening to the very well thought out analysis by others in this thread (thanks PDog, Bill Mulligan, and Den!) Congress has the right to shut off funding for the war, but I doubt has any political power to micromanage the war or directly stop the war short of impeachment.

Cent Number Two: Impeachment is not as unlikely or inappropriate response as one might think. Because the House draws up charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the Senate tries an impeached President, the only court that needs to be respected are the hearts and minds of the members of the United States Senate.

They alone will determine what is truly a "High Crime", whether we think it is or not. They do not necessarily have to be guided by legal precedent because their decision is not appealable.

Therefore if the President chose to ignore the orders of the Congress, impeachment proceedings could be drawn up on charges of simply ignoring the will of Congress. Period.

In most cases most presidents with these two options facing them would put in place changes and institutions that would avoid impeachment and satisfy Congress. For example Nixon's resignation or when there was widespread corruption in government contracts during WWII, the Truman Committee was able to balance Congress' war concerns without micromanaging the President. (Unlike what happened to Lincoln during the Civil War)

The issue however, is that any other President would have gotten the message by now. While impeachment would be unlikely in most cases we are dealing with a very stubborn President to whom threat of impeachment may not be enough and ACTUAL impeachment be regarded as the only way to make sure Congress' (and the people's wishes) are carried out.

--Captain Naraht
(An Official Cutsy Moniker)

P.S. As I was typing the words "Bill Mulligan and Den." I suddenly had a flashback to the drive-thru scene in "Dude, Where's my Car":

DRIVE THRU MIC: "aaaaannn dennn....."
ASHTON KUCHTER: "NO 'AN DEN'!!!"
DRIVE THRU MIC: "aaaaannn dennn!! aaaaannn dennn!! aaaaannn dennn!!"

I wish I had saved the link, but somewhere in the Time Mag archives is an article that deals with this...

Basically, as I understand it, there are three main reasons why the Congress will have difficulty stopping the invasion/military action/war/civil war/clusterf**k (pick one)

1> The lack of a supermajority in the Senate. Find ing 10 people to cross the aisle to stop a fillibuster will be extremely difficult if not impossible. (That whole fearing to look like not supporting the troops.). Without that, a few senators not planning to run again or safe for a few years can hold the whole shebang up.

2> Even if the congress votes to cut funding, there is nothing stopping the Pentagon from reallocating money from other lines to keep things going for a while. The only way to stop this would be to write a bill that strips the pentagon of the ability to adjust spending to meet military conditions, and that will not (and honestly should not happen). Which means passing a politically risky bill would have 0 effect in the short term. If I recall the article correctly (it was written pre-'surge' they could theoretically sustain an addition 60K troops for up to one year without additional funds allocated. The side effect of that would be the army would be fundamentally incapable of ANY military action for 3-5 years due to the scavenging that would occur to keep the troops active.

3> By using troops already in theatre, they are using troops for which funding has been already approved. Any changes would affect future funds for troops already on station.

Bleak as it sounds, here is a realistic assessment of the situation, which most people are downplaying (I think) because it just is so horrible.

We are now in an official no-win scenario:

We cannot pull out, as that will leave a gaping hole that WILL provide a terrorist haven as well as affect oil prices. (The question of what would have been the case had we not gone in is a purely intellectual and political exercise).

We cannot put the boots on the ground to secure the country and keep it secure, because, well, we don't have them. The number I have heard to do that that seems right to me is about 400,000.

We CAN try to 'expand our influence' in the area (any guesses what I mean here) but no one (well mebbe a few people) think thats a good idea, but even then, NO TROOPS.

The reason no one can come up with a 'better solution' is that there ISN'T one. The only question is as Americans do we prefer to hemorrage (sp?) money, blood or both.

That's about the strangest play on my name I've heard in a long time.

Manny raises a good point: who would we negotiate a treaty with? I supose that we could draft a treaty recognizing Maliki's government as the new legitimate authority in Iraq and turn over all internal matters to them. That would give everyone in Congress and the White House cover, though it wouldn't end the current civil war.

The basic problem with impeachment is that its determination is entirely political. Like any other Senate vote, it's too easy to do the political calculus beforehand and know that they're aren't enough votes that would remove a president if he did X, no matter how much of an egregious violation of the law/Constitution X was. That gives president the courage to push the envelope and convinces many in the House that even trying an impeachment vote is a waste of time.

Nixon resigned just as an impeachment resolution was being prepared and he realized that he had less than ten GOP Senators still on his side. I'm not sure what can happen to convince Bush that he's going to get the boot anyway.

I do think, however, that while I believe the man is truly delusional in his way of thinking, he'd have to be beyond batshit crazy if he tried to stay in office at the end of his term. Remember the definition of a Senator? Someone who sees the next President of the United States of America when he shaves in the morning. If Bush tried some kind of coup and declare himself president for life, McCain and the other 48 GOP "next presidents" would never stand for it. After all, they can't have a turn if he doesn't step down when his time is up.

I remember all the talk from the far right that Clinton wasn't going to step down at the end of his second term and it seemed nuts back then, too. They held up a statement by him to the effect that if the Constitution didn't prevent it, he'd have considered running for a third term as proof.

Bush has lost a lot of his swagger over the past two years and I think he's grown tired of the job, having realized that it actually involves hard work. I don't think he wants a third term. I'm sure the PNAC can find another stooge fairly easily from among the presidential wannabes.

"An Den..." stated:
"Nixon resigned just as an impeachment resolution was being prepared and he realized that he had less than ten GOP Senators still on his side. I'm not sure what can happen to convince Bush that he's going to get the boot anyway."

Right now a good number of GOP Senators are not happy. What if it turns out that when Scooter Libby uses as a defense in his perjury case that he was told to leak Valarie Plame's name by higher ups like the President and Vice President, AND IT WORKS? What does the GOP do then?

Then the GOP Senators will be thinking about how their party can run in 2008 with the taint of a huge war-causing scandal. Just as Republicans were afraid of losing the White House in 1976 if they did not completely separate themselves from the President in 1974. They lost House/Senate seats in November 74, but nearly gained the White House by 76 because they made Watergate a Nixon issue not a Republican one.

--Captain Naraht
An Official Cutsy Moniker

"I don't think the Senate can force Bush to negotiate a treaty. They can only ratify a treaty that has already been presented to him."

Thanx Capt. Naraht (A.O.C.M.). I forgot about that little turd in the political crap mixer. Only problem I see is that at best they would get a clean shot a Cheney. (Irony, anyone?).

To end the war by impeachment, you need a twofer. Get Bush and Cheney both. Cheney has got the Plame leak affair, the Vice President's energy commitee (basically a giant circle jerk for Halliburton et. al.), Halliburton's no bid contracts in Iraq, and don't even go into quail hunting. There is also his actions as President of the Senate.

For Bush, outside the war, there is the longshot of the whole Katrina debacle. It's shakey at best, but "Sometimes you gotta roll a hard six."

I remember all the talk from the far right that Clinton wasn't going to step down at the end of his second term and it seemed nuts back then, too. They held up a statement by him to the effect that if the Constitution didn't prevent it, he'd have considered running for a third term as proof.

Amen, bro. There's also the little matter that any coup would require the complicity of the armed forces and I doubt that anyone other than the absolute fringe black helicopter crowd on the right and left think that the military is just itching to take over the country.

GWB: "I'm the decision-maker [when it comes to Iraq]."

72% of Americans: "Dude, that's not anything to brag about."

Paul

Ixnay on the ilitarymay not unningray the ountryray. You don't want to let them in on the secret that they don't all ready.

While the Senate can't force the president to negotiate a treaty, they can remove a president that fails to abide by the overwhelming desires of Congress. Failing to pursue a peace that is advocated by a large portion of the populace, and has the backing of Congress, could be seen as treason.

"Failing to pursue a peace that is advocated by a large portion of the populace, and has the backing of Congress, could be seen as treason."

Lying about the reasons for going to war could be seen as treason. Handing foreign policy over to Halliburton, KRB and large commercial mercenary corporations,outing a covert CIA field officer to punish her husband, illegal wire taps, firing generals for giving their honest proffessional opinions on the current military situation...

Who needs the guy to refuse to negotiate a peace in Iraq? The Hole in the Head Gang on the hill just need the political balls to pull the trigger.

There's also the little matter that any coup would require the complicity of the armed forces and I doubt that anyone other than the absolute fringe black helicopter crowd on the right and left think that the military is just itching to take over the country.

Absolutely. And I'd also like to believe that the Secret Service would also respect the Constitution and not back a president that refused to vacate the White House when his time was up.

Bush's approval ratings are so low, even the republicans are now counting down the days for when he leaves, if only because he's becoming largely irrelevent to the domestic side of policy.

As for Clinton, it was ludicrous to say that he'd be willing to run for a third term if the law allowed it as proof that he wasn't planning on leaving at the end of his second term. That's like claiming that somene saying they might try smoking marijuana if it were legal is proof that they're a smack addict.

"They held up a statement by him to the effect that if the Constitution didn't prevent it, he'd have considered running for a third term as proof."

God, that was a fun time. We had a several from that crowd working for us at the time. They used that line to point out what a power hungry scumball Clinton was for wanting to subvert the American process like that.

I loved pointing them to the same quote made by their hero, Big Ronnie, and to the fact that, before being hit hard by his illness, he said that he had wanted to work to get the law changed to allow that kind of thing again. Oh, it was so much fun to watch them sputter on about how, when Reagan said it, it was totally different and maybe even a good idea. it was just evil when Clinton said it.

And that one line in there often confused most of them. Most of them had no idea that you could serve more then two terms in America for a longer time then you couldn't. It also shocked them a bit to learn that it was an R thing that came back to bite them in the butt when they most wanted a three termer themselves.

Gotta love politics sometimes.

;)

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at January 29, 2007 03:21 PM

Failing to pursue a peace that is advocated by a large portion of the populace, and has the backing of Congress, could be seen as treason.

That would dilute the term "treason" to the point of meaninglessness. According to the Microsoft Encarta dictionary, treason is a "violation of the allegiance owed by a person to his or her own country, for example, by aiding an enemy." Merely pursuing an unpopular course of action clearly falls short of any reasonable interpretation of the definition above.

And yes, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am aware that Bush's actions have made this country less secure. But incompetence in and of itself is not treasonous.

I recall nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the president to only pursue popular courses of action.

its a common trip going back 200 year where a president is faced with a congress not willing to pay for the millatry action he want to take, so he will sent them out anyways then congress will be have to pay for it reguardless of where they want to or not. Example that come to mind is Teddy Rosvent wanting to show the world the new upgraded 7 fleet with a round the world tour. congress send no but teddy had enough money in the budget to get them half way there knowing that congress would have to pay to bring them back.

In this case bush can send troops, but should congress choose to end the war that would be the end of it. But for some reason the dems woudl rather pass non binding resoltion rather doing something that does more that point fingers.

And yes, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am aware that Bush's actions have made this country less secure. But incompetence in and of itself is not treasonous.

Well, could gross negligence rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Posted by: Sasha at January 29, 2007 05:01 PM

Well, could gross negligence rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

The U.S. Constitution provides no guidance on what is meant by "other high crimes and misdemeanors." So, really, the term can mean whatever we want it to mean.

The problem with actions is that they have consequences. In spite of the rationalizations offered on the surface, Clinton was impeached because Republicans didn't like his policies and hated the man. The people I've heard advocating Bush's impeachment have been offering rationales that pretty much amount to the same thing. Do we want to see farcical impeachment proceedings every four to eight years? I sure don't.

Also, bear in mind that you can't summon the devil and then expect him to behave. Using impeachment as a weapon in a policy dispute now will hamper the ability of future presidents to lead... including ones whose policies you agree with.

"Well, could gross negligence rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?"

I don't know. How badly do you really want to devalue the meaning of those words?

From a photo of the protests over the weekend, somebody had a sign that read:

"Impeachment, it's not just for blowjobs any more".

The U.S. Constitution provides no guidance on what is meant by "other high crimes and misdemeanors." So, really, the term can mean whatever we want it to mean.

Possibly, but I think the Supreme Court would knock down any attempt that did not include an actual crime or misdemeanor.

Now, they could just make something up and convict him of an actual crime for which there is no evidence. I'm not sure that there are penalties for a jury knowingly delivering a verdict they know to be unjust.

Of course, the idea that you could get 60 senators to go along with such a radical plan is so unlikely it strains credibility.

Bill Mulligan, I don't believe the Supreme Court has any authority to stop such proceedings. The U.S. Consitution states that "The House of Representatives shall... have the sole Power of Impeachment," and that "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

If the President of the United States is tried, the U.S. Constitution does stipulate that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will preside. But nowhere do I see anything that would give him the power to set aside the Senate's verdict.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that we go crazy with impeachment just because we can. As I said in a prior thread about impeachment, it's like a hammer. You can do a lot of things with both, but that doesn't mean you should do all of those things.

Wow. It's a hoot reading so many constitutional scholars argue back and forth. If only some of the arguements held any water...

High crimes or misdemeanors are felonies or misdemeanors. Period. Lying to a grand jury is a crime. Doing something that people don't agree with isn't a crime. So, in order to cause a constitutional crisis, all the house and senate would have to do is attempt impeachment at this point.

Next, if Bush were to be impeached and forced out of office, there's Cheney waiting in the wings. If Bush scares you as President, then Cheney should scare you even more. Oh, but wait...someone said something along the lines of "let's get them both at once". Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. If somehow both were going thru the impeachment process, then I have no doubt that Cheney would resign and someone like McCain, or Giuliani or even Jeb Bush would be nominated as VP. At that point, impeachment would have to stop and confirmation of the VP would begin.

Jeff in NC, are you a Constitutional scholar? Because in the articles I've read, actual Constitutional scholars have generally stated that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is an "art term," and that impeachment was intended by the framers of the Constitutional to be a political rather than a judicial process.

Attitude is no substitute for knowledge.

Sigh... I'm tired, not feeling well, and not writing well either. I'm not sure I made this clear in my post above: by "art term," the scholars quoted in articles I've read (and interviewed on television shows I've watched, like the Jim Lehrer News Hour) meant that the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was deliberately left wide, wide, w-i-d-e open to interpretation by the framers of the Constitution.

Blessedly, throughout history impeachment has been a rarity and in general only applied in extreme cases. Unfortunately, there have been frivolous impeachments of government officials. I would argue that the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton fall into that category.

If that was already clear, sorry, no intent to condescend. I'm just tired and headachey right now. Off to bed soon.

The problem with actions is that they have consequences. In spite of the rationalizations offered on the surface, Clinton was impeached because Republicans didn't like his policies and hated the man. The people I've heard advocating Bush's impeachment have been offering rationales that pretty much amount to the same thing. Do we want to see farcical impeachment proceedings every four to eight years? I sure don't.

Your sheltering of a predator who arbitrarily sacrificed over 3,000 and counting of the best of their generation -- for the ivory-tower principle of preventing a presidential impeachment every 4-8 years -- is nauseating.

It isn't an issue of trading Bush's life for the many, or even of his mortgage hanging in the balance. To you sheltering the president's job is more important than the lives of 3,000 soldiers and their families. Vanity is the currency of your world.

Bush is subject to the uniform code of military justice. He ordered the invasion of an oil-rich Muslin nation on no evidence. Let him be fired for the crime of fraud, waste, and abuse.

Bill Myers, no offense taken. : )

My point was that there has to be some reason other than "we disagree" to go for impeachment. I don't remember the details about Andrew Jackson, but for Clinton, he lied to the grand jury. That is a crime. I do agree, however, that how it got to the grand jury was a waste of time and energy. Without something that falls into the legal definition of a crime, I think it would be very difficult to bring impeachment procedures against any politician.

And Mike, even though the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, he isn't bound by the UCMJ since he isn't an actual active member of any of the armed forces. The US was set up to have civilians in charge of the military.

Unfortunately, there have been frivolous impeachments of government officials. I would argue that the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton fall into that category.

But those are the only two impeachments of US presidents, so what were the reasonable ones?

If the President of the United States is tried, the U.S. Constitution does stipulate that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will preside. But nowhere do I see anything that would give him the power to set aside the Senate's verdict.

No but if the President were to appeal to the court on the grounds that the Senate was violating the constitution for bringing about impeachment for a non-crime, they would have the power to do something about it.

My guess--purely a guess since, as I've said, this is not going to happen--is that even the most liberal members of the court (who might be thrilled to see Bush gone) would be very reluctant to give so much power to the Senate and throw the balance of power out of whack.

At any rate, I see little evidence that there is any groundswell of desire in the Senate for such a confrontation. Hey, did anyone fromthe Senate even bother to speak at the big war protest the otehr day?

I have to agree with Bill Myers about SCOTUS and impeachment. There really is no provision for appealing an impeachment. If the Senate votes to remove a president from office, it's a done deal.

I do wish there was some way we could argue that gross incompetence is a high crime and misdemeanor. But, having bad policies as a reason for impeachment is probably a bad precedent to set.

As it is, I predict the GOP will introduce their first impeachment measure against the next democratic president about five seconds after he/she is sworn in anyway.

My guess--purely a guess since, as I've said, this is not going to happen--is that even the most liberal members of the court (who might be thrilled to see Bush gone) would be very reluctant to give so much power to the Senate and throw the balance of power out of whack.

I don't know about that. A 2/3's majority is required in the Senate to remove the president. SCOTUS may be reluctant to interfere if that many Senators have agreed that the president has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors". The court has in recent years (Kelo) given the elected officials wide latitude when the limits are not clearly spelled out in the law.

Scalia and his sock puppet (Thomas) would of course, vote in favor of a republican even if he was caught on video tape raping a girl scout. It's still uncertain about Alito and Roberts.

Posted by: Jeff In NC at January 29, 2007 11:25 PM

Bill Myers, no offense taken. : )

Sorry about the confrontational nature of that last post. I really wasn't feeling well last night and should've stayed away from the keyboard.

Posted by: Jeff In NC at January 29, 2007 11:25 PM

My point was that there has to be some reason other than "we disagree" to go for impeachment.

Oh, I absolutely agree. While the framers of the Constitution provided little guidance as to what constitutes (no pun intended) "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," they clearly intended the impeachment process to be a remedy for criminal behavior. In fact, I believe George Mason wanted to include "maladministration" as grounds for impeachment, but James Madison, who favored criminal behavior as the only grounds, won out.

Posted by: Jeff In NC at January 29, 2007 11:25 PM

Without something that falls into the legal definition of a crime, I think it would be very difficult to bring impeachment procedures against any politician.

Ultimately, I believe "We the People" are the "check and balance" in the process as the House and Senate are ultimately answerable to the voters. Of course, that only works if people a.) vote and b.) make an informed vote.

Posted by: Den at January 29, 2007 11:26 PM

But those are the only two impeachments of US presidents, so what were the reasonable ones?

Per the Constitution, "civil Officers of the United States" may be subject to impeachment. At the Federal level, one Senator and more than a dozen judges have been impeached throughout our nation's history, as well as one Presidential Cabinet member.

Of course, I'm not sure that all of those were "reasonable" because I don't know the exact details of all of those impeachments. :)

Personally, all I want is if Bush or Cheney is Impeached, is to show anyone running for Presidential office that there is some distinct accountability for your bad decisions. Especially when you start a failing War, and your direct inability for decisive action at the proper moment directly lead to the death of thousands of American Civilians. See, the way I see it, giving Bush or anyone like him a lifelong pension, Secret Service security, and a Library are simply rewards after failing being a proper leader. Screw that. Maybe thats how things work in a corporation, but for public office, hell no. More people need to realize that if enough of us push the issue to these people we voted in, things may change.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors are whatever the House says they are. Under our presidential impeachment process, the House draws up the articles of impeachment, which must be passed by a simple majority. The Senate then conducts the trial. It really is as simple as that. Is it a good thing, government wise, to go about impeaching a president that's unpopular, or politically unfavored? Perhaps not. But when the reason for those low opinions is because of his actions, and those actions make the country less safe, cost the lives of American soldiers, and waste billions of American taxpayer dollars, I'd say hell yes.

We can argue about what High Crimes and Misdemeanors should mean, or might mean. but in the end, if Congress is uniformly displeased by the president, for whatever reason, they have the means to remove him. It's part of the checks and balances built into our government. The main reason they don't use that power willy nilly is because they have something to lose...their seats. Moreso today than maybe ever before, the value of holding onto a seat is extremely high, and few are willing to take an action that could cost them votes in the next election cycle.

Bush is subject to the uniform code of military justice. He ordered the invasion of an oil-rich Muslin nation on no evidence. Let him be fired for the crime of fraud, waste, and abuse.

And Mike, even though the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, he isn't bound by the UCMJ since he isn't an actual active member of any of the armed forces. The US was set up to have civilians in charge of the military.

Persons subject to [the UCMJ]:

A. The following persons are subject to this chapter: 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

The CinC is a regular component of the armed forces. Unless you are referring to a specific disqualification for the president, the UCMJ applies to him.

*Extra long post warning*

Jeff from NC stated: "If somehow both were going thru the impeachment process, then I have no doubt that Cheney would resign and someone like McCain, or Giuliani or even Jeb Bush would be nominated as VP. At that point, impeachment would have to stop and confirmation of the VP would begin."

To this I say "so?". Like with House Majority Leader Gerald Ford, the President has to pick a likable candidate or the Speaker would be President. (Bella Abzug tried this during the Watergate in 74, but failed)

Expect a VP candidate like Sen Richard Lugar (R)IN or Sen Olympia Snowe (R)ME. A Republican the President is on good terms with that a Democratic Senate would still approve.

Bill Myers stated: "Unfortunately, there have been frivolous impeachments of government officials. I would argue that the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton fall into that category."

Let's not let a frivolous impeachment get in the way of the fact that President Andrew Johnson was a two-legged colostomy bag, and a racist, murdering, scumbag.

Mike stated in response to Bill Myers: "Your sheltering of a predator who arbitrarily sacrificed over 3,000 and counting of the best of their generation -- for the ivory-tower principle of preventing a presidential impeachment every 4-8 years -- is nauseating.
...To you sheltering the president's job is more important than the lives of 3,000 soldiers and their families. Vanity is the currency of your world."

Do you get the feeling that Mike isn't a kindergarten teacher or that he doesn't have his own TV kids show on PBS called "Happy Smiley Time with Jungle Mike".

SHEESH Mike I agree with you about 90% of the time, but do you mind dialing the abuse down a few dozen notches?

--Captain Naraht
(An Official Cutsy
Moniker by Ray in NH)

Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 30, 2007 09:36 AM

SHEESH Mike I agree with you about 90% of the time, but do you mind dialing the abuse down a few dozen notches?

Ray, I appreciate your taking a stand for civility, but don't waste your effort trying to get Mike on board. He is convinced that he has the moral high ground.

In case you missed it, a little while back Mike picked a fight with me because I had the temerity to tell him that an analogy he offered was inflammatory and without substance. He took it as a personal attack and then unleashed invective at me. He then expanded his "enemies list" to include Bill Mulligan, Micha, Jerry Chandler, and Sean Scullion.

Mike's M.O. is to use personal attacks and insults to provoke anger, and then to claim the mantle of the innocent victim. When confronted with this, he demands that one cite evidence. When evidence is cited, however, he dismisses what is "plainly observable" (to use one of his favorite phrases).

Bill Mulligan, Micha, Jerry, Sean, and most especially myself, got so angry with him that we began meeting his insults with our own. The result? Peter felt forced to shut down a thread. Mike declared that this proved it was we, and not he, that were the trolls.

Since then, we've begun ignoring Mike. Desperate for attention, he began looking for a new sparring partner. He picked the wrong guy -- Luigi Novi -- and got smacked down pretty hard. In about the space of a day, Luigi came to the conclusion that took me weeks to reach -- that it is best to ignore Mike.

Those of you who witnessed that meltdown, worry not. This is not going to escalate into another flame war. I've stopped reading Mike's posts.

But I've apologized profusely for contributing to the mess that led Peter to lock down the "A Smart Move" thread, while the one person who is most to blame for that mess -- Mike -- has claimed that he was blameless. For all of my lapses and mistakes, I think I've demonstrated here a willingness to admit to my failings and to correct them. Mike has not done the same. I therefore believe I am entitled to set the record straight on this issue.

I fully expect Mike to respond with accusations, taunts, and insults. Don't worry. I won't read them. If Mike wants to re-kindle our flame war, he'll find that it resembles the "sound of one hand clapping" because I will not participate.

"I have to agree with Bill Myers about SCOTUS and impeachment. There really is no provision for appealing an impeachment. If the Senate votes to remove a president from office, it's a done deal."

Ohhhh, I dunno. I can just see it: A lawsuit entitled Bush v. the United States asserting that the impeachment was unconstitutional, and it goes directly to SCOTUS.

NOW we've got a crisis.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at January 30, 2007 10:16 AM

Ohhhh, I dunno. I can just see it: A lawsuit entitled Bush v. the United States asserting that the impeachment was unconstitutional, and it goes directly to SCOTUS.

NOW we've got a crisis.

THAT is a scary-ass thought. Seriously.

Mike, did you even read the UCMJ info you cut and pasted? The Commander-in-Chief is not active duty military. He's a civilian. UCMJ does not apply.

Captain Naraht, why would Bush go out of his way to find someone the senate would agree with immediately? He would go for someone that would cause controversy and take a lot of time to either confirm or reject. By the time anything happens, Bush's term in office would be over anyway.

Mike, the president is not a member of any armed force. He's the commander of them all. Were he a memeber, upon his election he'd have to go through at least basic training.

The Founders explicitly rejected the idea that one had to be a member of the military to be president. Clearly they weren't against the idea that a military person be eligible, but they didn't make it a requirement.

Jeff in NC:
"Why would Bush go out of his way to find someone the senate would agree with immediately? He would go for someone that would cause controversy and take a lot of time to either confirm or reject."

You may be mistaken in assuming that a) You can't impeach the president and the vice-president at the same time. b) The foot dragging sceme wouldn't piss off the House and Senate and c) that even the most well laid plan meant to subvert a majority in the House, Senate and the Nation would not mean doom for the Republican Party.

a.) No law against impeachment at the same time. While unruly, it could happen.

b.) One thing stops him: Nanci Pelosi. If some Presidential footdragging plan caused gave anyone the idea that the President was stalling, that would just piss Congress off and the Speaker would become President. Google "Bella Abzug" NY(D) and "Watergate" and see how she wanted to impeach Nixon before Ford could replace Spiro Agnew-- thus making the Speaker President.

c.) I think you forget that there are a lot of Republicans that want to distance themselves from Bush without voting with the Dems. They would push the President for a Republican replacement (a Gerald Ford for the 21st Century) instead of letting it go to Pelosi

If it really got to the point of some minority in Congress and the President with some foot dragging plan or somehow getting SCOTUS involved (sorry Peter D., I don't think a Court majority would allow a Bush v. US scenario that you outline. Maybe Alito and Thomas tops, but I think even they would not touch it with a ten foot pole.) the VP/and Prez would be so unpopular as to be political poison to the Republicans in the Congress.

Republicans want this to be a Bush/Cheney thing not a Republican Party thing.

Otherwise this would mean overwhelming victory for the Democrats in 2008 and any Republican with the stink of GW/Cheney on them would be defeated in their own states and congressional districts.

Republicans are not THAT stupid.

--Captain Naraht
(President: Cutsy Monikers "r" Us)

Peter David Stated: "I can just see it: A lawsuit entitled Bush v. the United States asserting that the impeachment was unconstitutional, and it goes directly to SCOTUS."

To clarify my earlier post, SCOTUS reserves the right to not even hear a case. As conservative as some justices are, I think SCOTUS would bat that back like a hot potato. I think that is the most likly outcome for a potential Bush v. US.

--Capt Naraht

Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 30, 2007 11:25 AM

Republicans are not THAT stupid.

I never bet against the stupidity of politicians, whatever their party affiliation.

A quick note on impeachment, which is related to "undeclaring war". If Bush was impeached he would not have to sue congress. He would just ignore the impeachment. Congress would then have to sue Bush to have him forcibly removed (assuming the court ruled in their favor). SCOTUS may refuse to hear the case, but that does not mean the case would not be heard. The case would first be heard by a lower court which would make a ruling and then the appeals would begin.

That's why the process is so important here. The courts have consistently ruled for congresses legal. However, if congress does't dot all the eyes and cross all the t's the courts have also shown a willingness to dismiss cases.

Having served in the military, I would not dismiss the potential for any Commander in Chief (correctly used in this case) to ignore the courts order to step down and have the support of the military.

Loyalty to the chain of command runs *very* *very* deep in the military. Even if a soldier, marine, etc thought an order was wrong, they are, in my experience, likely to execute it anyway because they were ordered too.

My point about bringing the court into it was to saythat if congress, as some have suggested, just arbitarily impeached a president NOT for "high crimes and misdemeanors" but "becuae they don't like him" I could see the executive branch appealling to the supreme court on the grounds that the impeachment was unconstitutional.

In a case like that I think the Court might agree to hear the case quickly, without having to go through the usual channels.

I still say we are arguing about something so remote as to be on the level of fantasy.

Having served in the military, I would not dismiss the potential for any Commander in Chief (correctly used in this case) to ignore the courts order to step down and have the support of the military.

Loyalty to the chain of command runs *very* *very* deep in the military. Even if a soldier, marine, etc thought an order was wrong, they are, in my experience, likely to execute it anyway because they were ordered too.

I can't speak from experience but from the military folks I know there is no way they would support the overthrow of the government.

Again, I can only urge people to go back to 2000, read the far right websites claiming that Clinton was going to never ever ever relinquish power, especially to a Republican, marvel at the elaborate scenarios presented for how this coup would occur, and, hopefully, recognize how derange-o it all seems now. You can file this away along with other classics like "Bin Laden has been captured and will be released right beofre the 2002 election, I mean the 2004 elections, I mean the 2006 elections, I mean..." or "Karl Rove will use his control of diebold voting machines to ensure the Republicans keep control of both houses of congress".

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 30, 2007 12:41 PM

I still say we are arguing about something so remote as to be on the level of fantasy.

Well, a lot of us are comic-book readers... ;)

Well then make it a good fantasy! Let's do a version of A Christmas Carol where he gets visited by the ghost of Richard Nixon and then revisits his coke snorting youth, is shown the hardships of soldiers in Iraq and then ends up at his graffiti defaced tombstone. He emerges into the new day a Changed Man. Lame, sure, but at least as likely as some of these scenarios. Also, I firmly believe that EVERYTHING should have a version of A Christmas Carol attached to it. Everything. There should be a law that any show that lasts more than 4 seasons HAS to have a Very Special Christmas episode that is a takeoff of A Christmas Carol.

Pdog, just a point of contention...if Congress were to draw up lawful articles of impeachment, and the Senate were to conduct a trial on those articles...and the president just failed to respond...which seems to be beyond belief, but I won't put anything past Bush at this time...if all that were to happen, and the Senate decided to remove him from office, and the president just tried to ignore it...that wouldn't go before a lower court, if it went to a court at all. It'd go directly to the SCOTUS, as no lesser court could really be seen as having the proper authority to rule on it. What's more likely to happen is that the Congress would go about appointing a replacement for the remainder of the current presidential term, and have that person assume command over the Joint Chiefs, at which point the military would have to decide who to follow...the guy appointed by Congress after a lawful impeachment and removal of the previous president, or the buy sitting in the oval office trying to deny that anyone has any authority over him. And if the Joint Chiefs should split over that decision at all, we'd have a total cessation of our government while the military branches decided if they wanted to open fire on other US soldiers. In other words, a near total breakdown of our government. Not that whoever were left after the shooting stopped couldn't work to put everything back together again, but it sure would strain the credibility with the People.

Mike, did you even read the UCMJ info you cut and pasted? The Commander-in-Chief is not active duty military. He's a civilian. UCMJ does not apply.

Mike, the president is not a member of any armed force. He's the commander of them all. Were he a memeber, upon his election he'd have to go through at least basic training.

Both of you are wrong.

You do not have to be active duty to be subject to the UCMJ. "Uniform" does not mean the accused has to wear a uniform -- it's uniform as in the standards are uniform for all military.

As someone who received training in the UCMJ, it was pointed out to me -- for one thing -- that the section "volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces" says the UCMJ applies to someone once active duty begins, but no qualification is given for when that jurisdiction ends. In that sense alone, Bush is subject to it for his TANG service.

When you say the UCMJ only applies to active duty members, you are speaking from the ignorance of someone who has never gone through basic military training.

As worded, the reach of the UCMJ applies to the CinC.

The problem with actions is that they have consequences. In spite of the rationalizations offered on the surface, Clinton was impeached because Republicans didn't like his policies and hated the man. The people I've heard advocating Bush's impeachment have been offering rationales that pretty much amount to the same thing. Do we want to see farcical impeachment proceedings every four to eight years? I sure don't.

Your sheltering of a predator who arbitrarily sacrificed over 3,000 and counting of the best of their generation -- for the ivory-tower principle of preventing a presidential impeachment every 4-8 years -- is nauseating.

It isn't an issue of trading Bush's life for the many, or even of his mortgage hanging in the balance. To you sheltering the president's job is more important than the lives of 3,000 soldiers and their families. Vanity is the currency of your world.

In case you missed it, a little while back Mike picked a fight with me because I had the temerity to tell him that an analogy he offered was inflammatory and without substance. He took it as a personal attack and then unleashed invective at me.

Almost all of my comments cite the comments they are referring to. Unlike you, I have no purely antagonistic comments, which you have plenty of archived on this site.

Mike's M.O. is to use personal attacks and insults to provoke anger, and then to claim the mantle of the innocent victim. When confronted with this, he demands that one cite evidence. When evidence is cited, however, he dismisses what is "plainly observable" (to use one of his favorite phrases).

I'd like to see any plainly observable comment I've made that said I'm innocent or a victim.

I've said previously that you abandoned any moral ground, but I don't have to be a saint for that to be true. If you don't want to be called a moral cretin, don't shelter a president who sacrificed the lives of 3,000 soldiers over the ivory-tower principle of thwarting impeachment.

Since then, we've begun ignoring Mike. Desperate for attention, he began looking for a new sparring partner. He picked the wrong guy -- Luigi Novi -- and got smacked down pretty hard. In about the space of a day, Luigi came to the conclusion that took me weeks to reach -- that it is best to ignore Mike.

Luigi accused me of lying, I asked him to cite one lie from me, and he walked like someone who wrote a check with his mouth his butt couldn't cash.

You are all welcome to help Luigi find my lie. You Can Be First.™

But I've apologized profusely for contributing to the mess that led Peter to lock down the "A Smart Move" thread, while the one person who is most to blame for that mess -- Mike -- has claimed that he was blameless. For all of my lapses and mistakes, I think I've demonstrated here a willingness to admit to my failings and to correct them. Mike has not done the same. I therefore believe I am entitled to set the record straight on this issue.

I didn't say I was blameless.

I said for a thread discourse so outrageous, a writer who raises money for the CBLDF (and is also a boardmember) shut it down out of disgust, I had only responded to comments directed to me 3 times in the last 3 days -- and my last post to that thread was barely 24 hours old when he shut it down.

To characterize me as "most to blame" is transparently an attempt to mitigate your credentials as a troll. That isn't contrite at all.

I have to agree with Bill Mulligan -- we're tossing around a lot of scenarios that will happen only when pigs fly out of all of our butts. Our nation has experienced peaceful transitions of power for more than two centuries. For all of its flaws, our system of governance has a good track record and is quite stable.

I'm far more worried about what Bush will do in Iraq over the next two years; and about whether Congress will attempt to do something substantive to force Bush to correct course, or opt for something stupid like an unwarranted impeachment.

Mike, the UCMJ doesn't apply to the president because he's not a member of the military. He's the commander, yes, through the constitution, but he's not a member, period. Not active, not a volunteer, not anything that's subject to the UCMJ. He's a Federal Employee, pretty much the same as me, only I didn't have to get voted into my job. He's a civilian, and the UCMJ only applies to members of the military.

Just because you received training on the UCMJ as a member doesn't make you an expert on the issue of it's jurisdiction. Unless you'd care to post a link to a teaching manual on the UCMJ where it states explicitly that the office of the president is subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.

Not to question Pdog's experience with the military, but to bring this scenario back to Bush himself, if the reports that a lot of active duty generals are dissatisfied with Bush, then really, respect for the chain of command is the only thing that is keeping them from revolt now.

But, once Bush's term is up, then he is no longer the commander-in-chief and therefore, he would be out of the chain of command they would have no obligation to obey his orders any more.

I still don't believe that he'll refuse to step down for the reasons outlined above: 1) he's so unpopular now that he'd lose the last shred of support he has within his own party, 2) the "future presidents" in the Senate won't stand for him gumming up their destiny, 3) I think he is genuinely tired of the job and wants to go back to permanent vacation, and 4) The PNAC can always find a new stooge to replace him.

Pdog is right as far as the military goes. They support the war. Even the generals that are in disagreement support. What the military doesn't support is how the war is being fought.
Someone mentioned Korea. The similarities between this Iraq and Korea are closer than Vietnam and Iraq. In Korea, China's influence is what turned the war. That and the idiocy of MacArthur. Anyone know he tried a coup. In Iraq, Iran's influence is what is really killing us. We have more to fear from Iran because of Operation Iraqi Freedom than what we felt right after 9/11. We cannot invade Iran, but I bet you there are plans.
As far as impeachment, is it a criminal court that charges a president or the Senate? The Bush Administration's refusal to follow the law could be at issue. Why have a secret court if you do not use it?
Flash Fact: Could be open to debate, though. By putting terror suspects on U.S. soil gives them right to a fair trial. Case in point. Illegal kills someone. Are they held indefinitely? No they go to trial.

Mike, the UCMJ doesn't apply to the president because he's not a member of the military. He's the commander, yes, through the constitution, but he's not a member, period. Not active, not a volunteer, not anything that's subject to the UCMJ. He's a Federal Employee, pretty much the same as me, only I didn't have to get voted into my job. He's a civilian, and the UCMJ only applies to members of the military.

Your interpretation that the UCMJ refers exclusively to active duty military is plainly wrong:

A.10. In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

The above doesn't say "active duty serving with or accompanying..." it says "persons serving with or accompanying..." and nowhere does it say that "persons" refers exclusively to active duty military. Were you to accompany an armed force in the field during wartime, the UCMJ would apply to you.

The first qualification listed in the UCMJ is "Members of a regular component of the armed forces..." The CinC is a regular component of the US military. Without orders from the CinC, everyone in Iraq can come home.

I'm not asking you to take my word on anything. You insist we take your word over the plainly worded qualifications of the UCMJ. Pull your head out of your ass.

Oh, gods, not plainly worded dictionary definitions again.

Someone call the jukebox repairman, the record is stuck....

Mike~

As a former member of the armed services who's head is not in his ass I can state categorically the UCMJ des not apply to anyone. The UCMJ applies only to those who have agreed to wave their constitutional rights, as every member of the armed services has for the duration of their enlistment and cannot supercede the constitution.

The term "person" is used because various branches of the military refer to their, well, persons differently and it avoids technical issues. Just as, in theory, The President is only commander in chief of the Army and Navy, and not the Air Force since it isn't explicitly called out.

Although it does not address the issue of War Powers conclusively, Glenn Greenwald (can you tell i like him yet) has a post touching on the debate within congress itself and is probaly a preude to multiple posts.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

I meant *anyone accompanying ...." not anyone in general. That would be wrong since it does apply to Members of the Armed Forces.

Mike~

Re: Bush being subject to UCMJ due to his previous service.

I don't have the court case in question in front but there have been a couple recent cases that have affirmed that once your inactive term is up you no longer have any obligation to the military. The cases specifically dealt with attempts to recall former military personel to active duty well after they had completed the terms of thier enlistment (including completing thier inactive reserve duty).

If there are other cases that found differently please cite.

I am going to use the same lame excuse I used with Bill.. baby pressure is severely hampering my ability to really do the research I want here or write our articulate posts. That said here's another way of phrasing it:

The UCMJ can say whatever it likes, but are there any examples were the Supreme Court or any lower courts have affirmed the military's right to extend to civilians and/or to former military personel who have been fully discharged (excepting non-citizens who do not reside in the US, they are a different legal animal altogether)?

Den~

I think you are actually agreeing with my statement, so I am not sure how that questions my military experience.

I also want to be clear, I am not saying that the military would definitely do X or Y. I am just suggesting that we may not want to find out becuase the probability that the answer is not one we will like is significant. Maybe not 50 or 60%, but not 0 either.

I think once Bush's term expires, there wouldn't be an issue. The military's loyalty would be tested if Congress were to impeach Bush and he refused to step down. His line of defense would be that Congress doesn't have the power to do that. The military would then have to decide who had the greater legal authority. I am not positive that the the military wouldn't take the path of least moral anguish and do what their Commander in Chief told them to do. Following orders and all that. They may disagree privately, but not take action. I am not saying that is what would happen. I just am not so sure anymore after Abu Graib, Gitmo, et al. These are all situations that I was very specifically trained to deal with and very specifically instructed in how to stop. As an officer, I was told that it was my moral obligation to ignore such orders. My particular unit was the one that was charged with preventing these things. Yet, when push came to shove, everyone just said "I object" but deferred to the Chain of Command. If years of post-vietnam training didn't work there, I am not sure where the current officer corps point of taking the so-called "hard right" occurs.

Pdog, as someone with some experience in these kind of discussion, I can tell you that you can't really win, since it does not really say anywhere explicitly that the president is NOT subject to the UCMJ. So, as far as Mike is concerned, it all depends on his interpretation of the text he quotes from the UCMJ, i.e. the "plainly worded definition." If you could find somewhere a legal text stating explicitly that the president is subject to civilian laws, that should help, but it probably won't, even if you found such a text. I wonder if someone ever felt the need to put that in writing?
I assume you, and the others who think that the president is not subject to the UCMJ, base their assumpton on a combination of geveral knowledge and common sense, and not on a familiarity with any specific quote from a text. But you will find such knowledge useless in this case. That is not how such discussions work.

As a former member of the armed services who's head is not in his ass I can state categorically the UCMJ des not apply to anyone.

I didn't say the UCMJ applies to anyone. I said the assertion that one must be active duty for the UCMJ to apply is wrong. I cite the UCMJ:

A. 10. In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

...

The term "person" is used because various branches of the military refer to their, well, persons differently and it avoids technical issues.

Look at the first line:

A. The following persons are subject to [the UCMJ]: 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

"Persons" literally means "persons." Then they begin to qualify who is subject to the UCMJ. There is no ambiguity.

Re: Bush being subject to UCMJ due to his previous service.

I don't have the court case in question in front but there have been a couple recent cases that have affirmed that once your inactive term is up you no longer have any obligation to the military.

If there are other cases that found differently please cite.

I never said Bush was subject to a recall due exclusively to having served. I said, having served, he is open to presecution for violating the UCMJ. I cite the UCMJ:

A. 1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

No expiration for jurisdiction of the UCMJ is given.

If you bring me strawmen, I have no reservation against burning them.

If you could find somewhere a legal text stating explicitly that the president is subject to civilian laws, that should help, but it probably won't, even if you found such a text.

The UCMJ and civilian laws are not mutually exclusive, just as anyone who watches "Law & Order" (Donk-Donk!) knows that citizens must abide both federal and state laws.

If you could find somewhere a legal text stating explicitly that the president is subject to civilian laws, that should help, but it probably won't, even if you found such a text. I wonder if someone ever felt the need to put that in writing?

Jesus Christ, heaven-fucking-forbid the President of the United States be held to as high a standard of law as a shaven-headed high school graduate (is that even a qualification any more?) receiving instruction how to fold his goddamn underwear in basic training.

The idea of the government of the US or Britain (in V for Vendetta for example) -- two countries with a long democratic tradition -- being replaced in a coup with a tyranny seems to be a recurring theme in sci-fi and sometimes even political discussions. I find that interesting. Maybe people are looking at their democracies, and then looking at other countries that live or have lived under tyranny, and they ask themselves how come it didn't happen to us?

His line of defense would be that Congress doesn't have the power to do that.

Given that the Constitution very explicitly grants Congress the power to impeach the president, Alberto Gonzales would definitely earn his pay if he could sell that line of defense. If the House impeaches and 2/3 of the Senate votes for removal, that's it, game over, the president is removed from office. There is no appeal to such a vote in the Constitution. I would be shocked if the military brass would even want to insert themselves into such a mess by backing a clear violation of the language of the Constitution.

I am not positive that the the military wouldn't take the path of least moral anguish and do what their Commander in Chief told them to do. Following orders and all that.

But how would instituting a coup, betraying their country, and, in all liklihood, condemning themselves to infamy, jail and quite possibly execution possibly be the path of least moral anguish?

It would be interesting though, to actually have a real idea of what the troops actually on the ground feel. Not about coups--just on the war in general. For that matter, it surprises me that one does not often see major polls on military members--everyone else gets polled up teh wazoo but can anyone give me an actual scientific poll that measured how troops voted in teh last presidential election?

The idea of the government of the US or Britain (in V for Vendetta for example) -- two countries with a long democratic tradition -- being replaced in a coup with a tyranny seems to be a recurring theme in sci-fi and sometimes even political discussions. I find that interesting. Maybe people are looking at their democracies, and then looking at other countries that live or have lived under tyranny, and they ask themselves how come it didn't happen to us?

I hone