Well, it depends on what you mean. If you mean Canada has the same or better results for everybody, no, it does not. Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class, and that's the point: no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off, even if it benefits others. There's better solutions out there that don't harm a lot of people for the sake of improving the care of a lot of other people. Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse. Nothing I said implied that's how it should be. I said the proper solution would be one that improves the care of those with poor care, without significantly adversely affecting the care of anyone else.
Everyone has the same service Yep, and it's a damned shame.
This is called "social justice", something sorely lacking in the US. Riiiiiiight. It is "justice" to take away someone's liberty and force them to have a reduced standard of health care. That makes perfect sense!
The "freedom" those measures take away would only benefit the top 0.01% of the population anyways. Not remotely. It's actually closer to about 30 percent, if not more.
There are lots of problems with the US medical system. Lack of government involvment, however, really isn't one of them. There are a couple of no-brainers that would greatly improve things, however like: 1) let individuals buy insurance from out of state companies and 2) let individuals deduct insurance and other medical expenses from their end of year taxes (rather than, at best, the not-very-good Medical Savings Plan). And while we're at it, let's reform the patent system for drugs. Maybe if the taxpayers pay for it, don't give a patent, or give it for shorter terms, and certainly don't EXTEND the patent beyond the original terms (even if the taxpayers didn't pay for it, because then the taxpayers pay for it).
Here's a comparison of Canadian vs. U.S. health care from a peer-reviewed medical journal, by Gordon Guyatt, who is one of the world's top experts on comparing health care systems. The article points out that the U.S. health care system costs about twice as much per capita for the same or worse results. Well, it depends on what you mean. If you mean Canada has the same or better results for everybody, no, it does not. Indeed, for many people, it has significantly worse results, especially those in the upper and upper middle class, and that's the point: no one is willing to have their freedom taken away, and their taxes increased, in order to be significantly worse off, even if it benefits others. There's better solutions out there that don't harm a lot of people for the sake of improving the care of a lot of other people.
Which is, incidentally, why only one Democrat is for single-payer care, because the rest of them know it's a non-starter, and they want to win (whereas Kucinich knows he can't win).
because he is a total fsckwad loser attention hound.
I wondered who'd be the first to launch an ad hominem attack - and look, right in the first comment.
Thanks for reaffirming my faith in Apple Fanboi nature. Oh, grow up. Maynor is, by definition, someone no one should care about. If he reported his vulnerabilities, he would be worth listening to. Since he does not, he is not.
A warrant provides oversight, which maintains the balance of power with a judicial review and creates a paper trail for congress. Without oversight, there would be (more) abuse. I believe that's the spirit of what the Constitution says Fine, you believe that the Executive SHOULD be required to have a warrant in such situations. But it doesn't answer the question of whether he actually is.
Again, if I had to choose, I'd say the Executive is required to have a warrant, and that the program is unconstitutional. But I don't think the Congress has the authority to dictate that to the President, because, given various precedents, a reasonable case can be made, even if I don't buy it myself. I believe only the Supreme Court can settle the matter, so when this all first came up, I said (as I've said many times since), I wanted it to get to the Supreme Court swiftly so it could be decided once and for all.
Unfortunately, things don't work that way in real life. The parties involved (Congress and the Executive) like to avoid Court confrontations, and the Court doesn't enforce its will on the other two branches if there are other resolutions available. So unless the people involved really want the Court to hear it, it won't be heard. So this is going to come up again, with the next President, or the next. That's the real shame here. I don't mind if the President exercises what he thinks is a valid Constitutional power, when it is not, so long as we can find a good way to resolve the conflict. We cannot ever come to a resolution without the Supreme Court weighing in, and the Supreme Court can't weigh in until the law is questioned in an actionable case, and someone actually takes that case. So, heavy sigh, this isn't over.
The 9th and 10th Amendments clarify the Feds position with respect to the Unenumerated Rights quite clearly.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
Are pretty damn clear. Yes, except that one of those enumerated powers is an explict grant of implied powers, via the "necessary and proper" clause.
I am all for limited government, but I cannot ignore the plain language of the Constitution, as you are wont to do.
I don't really need the DOJ to tell me what the Constitution says, thanks. I'm perfectly able to read it myself. Obviously not.
The Constitution says EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, No More, No Less. Yes, that's true. Yet you still think The People have granted U.S. Attorneys authority that the Constitution says they have granted to the President. So no, you are not perfectly able to read the Constitution yourself.
I already said that is not explicitly stated. I said it was directly, necessarily, implied. I'm sorry, I'm just never going to believe the Constitution implies anything. Huh. So you do not believe that the "necessary and proper" clause, which explicitly states that there are implied powers, exists? Huh. OK. So, I'm just never going to believe you have actually read and understood the Constitution, then.
Sure, unless that law is a violation of the Constitution, of course. IIRC, it's not the Executive which decides the Constitutionality of Laws. Yes, but in the absence of a Court decision, the Executive is required by the oath you quoted to make a determination of the Constitutionality of every law he executes. He cannot "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" if he blindly accepts Congress' word for what is, and is not, Constitutional. And it is illegal for the Court to decide whether a law is Constitutional prior to an actionable case that calls it into question, so the President would have to execute a law he believes to be unconstitutional in order for it to be decided on by the Court.
That is, of course, not how it works. The President has discretion, and interprets the law and the Constitution as he sees fit. And Congress is free to take him to Court upon his action (or inaction) if they believe such (in)action violates the Constitution, or statute. That is how it works.
In fairness, that is a separate argument from what I am making, though I did make reference to it earlier, when I commented that this would be an unreasonable breach of separation of powers, putting the judiciary over the executive in this manner. My argument is based on the same essential notion (the President has all of the executive authority), but rather than talking about how this would undermine the efficacy of the executive branch, I focused on the fact that no one in the executive branch has the authority to prosecute the President, since that authority is granted by The People to the President. So I agree with what you said, but it wasn't my primary point.
But it's funny that his main argument is "it's not in the Constiution!" when he ignores what IS in the Constitution. He talks about the supremacy of The People while ignoring the fact that The People delegated that authority not to the Attorneys, but to the President.
ALL their authority is derived from the President. ALL their authority is DELEGATED by The People via The Constitution. Yes, to the President. Not to the U.S. Attorneys.
For a U.S. Attorney to prosecute the President is for the President to prosecute himself. The indictment reads "UNITED STATES v. BUSH", not "BUSH v. BUSH". Yes, and? What if Patrick Fitzgerald were prosecuting himself? That would read "U.S. v. Fitzgerald," so would that make it OK? I already addressed this in the last post; it's odd you would present an argument I've already demolished.
It is via the power of the President, and the President alone -- as delegated by the people via the Constitution -- that the U.S. would be prosecuting. There's two choices: remove the President from office, or amend the Constitution.
The Executive Power is vested in The President". HOW does anyone get from that to "The President Cannot Be Prosecuted While In Office?" Because it means that no one but the President has the power to prosecute the President -- if you believe the Constitution, it clearly says the President has all that power, and no one else has any such power -- and for him to prosecute himself is an inherent conflict of interest.
Yes, there is. I've explicitly stated it many times, and you've refused to address it. I don't think you know what the word "explicit" means. No, I certainly do. I stated "Article II, Section 1" explicitly four times. Now five. Just because you didn't understand it doesn't mean I didn't explicitly state it.
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT *EXPLICITLY* SAY THE PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION WHILE IN OFFICE? Why do you keep asking a question I've already answered? Are you incapable of reading? I already said that is not explicitly stated. I said it was directly, necessarily, implied.
I'm saying that you're hypothesis of "The President Prosecuting Himself" is just plain wrong You did not say it before, you ignored it. And now you are saying it without backing it up. You're only ridiculing the idea instead of addressing it. The closest you came was making an irrelevant argument about the power of the President coming from the People (irrelevant, obviously, because the People delegated that power to the President), and then making a silly claim about the name of the case.
as the case is The United States v., The US Attorneys act in the Name of The People. Via the exclusive power of the President (until the Constitution is amended to say differently). The People did not give U.S. Attorneys any authority whatsoever. They gave the authority to the President, who delegates that authority at will. But it remains the President's authority, according to the Constitution.
There is no "Unitary Executive".
Congress passes the Laws.
The Executive executes those laws. You do not know what "Unitary Executive" means. "Unitary Executive" means that all executive power belongs to the President. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Congress (except that Congress cannot pass a law that divests the President of any executive power, as that explicitly violates Article II, Section 1). The left keeps trying to make the "Unitary Executive Theory" into something it is not. The people who actually hold to the UET, originalists mostly, do not hold to warped version of the UET that the left launches straw man attacks against.
There is no wiggle room.
Obey the Law, AS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS. Sure, unless that law is a violation of the Constitution, of course.
You have no basis for making this claim. LOL, because the United States Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper" after all, and the executive branch can do whatever the hell they want? I am not saying he has this Constitutional authority, I am saying there is a lot of precedent backing up that claim. And there is. I don't necessarily buy it, but only the Supreme Court can decide this one for certain. I've only seen actual judges respond to this claim twice, and both times, current and former FISA Court judges said the President does have authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps in some cases, authority the Congress cannot take away.
And I always chuckle when Democrats attack the President for violating the Constitution, as the majority of the Democratic agenda clearly violates the Tenth Amendment. What part of it do you not get? The Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare, are all, clearly, unconstitutional. It's the Democrats who have turned the Constitution into "just a goddamn piece of paper." (Oh, and there is no actual evidence Bush ever said that quote; ah, but who cares about the facts?).
And again: WHO do you suppose could prosecute him? Ever hear of a United States Attorney. What oath do they take, is it obedience to the Executive, or obedience to the Law? It doesn't matter what oath they take: ALL their authority is derived from the President. They have only the authority of the President. For a U.S. Attorney to prosecute the President is for the President to prosecute himself. That is, quite obviously, a conflict of interest that you cannot just ignore.
What is the U.S. Attorney himself were on trial? Would it be acceptable to you that he prosecute himself, since his oath is to obey the Law? Of course not. But that is precisely what you are asking for here, because the U.S. Attorney's authority is the President's authority. You are asking for the President to prosecute himself.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America Exactly. The U.S. Attorney's power (like all executive power) is granted by the Constitution not to the U.S. Attorney, but to the President.
I guess that's why you could never provide a citation from the Constitution to support your hypothesis. Stop lying. I have now given the citation to you, explicitly, no less than four times. Article II, Section 1. Quoted above. The executive power is vested in the PRESIDENT.
There is NO REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE LAWFULLY ARRESTED AND TRIED FOR CRIMINAL ACTS. Yes, there is. I've explicitly stated it many times, and you've refused to address it. Again: why? Why have you abjectly refused to address my point, that the executive power is vested in the PRESIDENT, and that therefore anyone who attempts to prosecute the President is doing so via the power of the President, which is a conflict of interest that makes legitimate prosecution impossible? Why are you continuing to ignore this point? I can only assume it is because you are either incapable of understanding it, or incapable of refuting it.
Are you one of those who believes that "Any person" in the 14th Amendment doesn't mean "Any person"? No. Again, I am an originalist. Your ad hominem straw man attacks are sophomoric. I have spent a significant amount of time defending the original intent of the 14th Amendment, including a recent missive attacking the bullshit that is "selective incorporation": it is quite clear that the entire Bill of Rights was intended to be "incorporated" by the language and history of the 14th Amendment. And originalism is also why I am a firm believer in the Unitary Executive, because when the Constitution says "The executive power shall be vested in a President," it means it.
You're the one who is ignoring the plain language of the Constiution. You're trying to say that either the U.S. Attorney has some executive power that is separate from the President, or that there is no significant conflict of interest in the President prosecuting himself. Which is it?
Please cite the Constitutional Text which specifies, "quite clearly, that no one has the authority to prosecute the President, except the President himself" I did. Twice. Let's make it three: Article II, Section 1. Why do you continue to dishonestly pretend that my argument doesn't exist? Why do you dishonestly refuse to answer the questions I've asked you?
and further, as you contend, that the delegation of authority to the Executive, makes the Executive immune to that authority. I never contended any such thing about immunity. Not only did I not say he was immune, but I explicitly rejected the notion, and said merely that if you want to prosecute him, you have to remove him from office first (or wait until his term is expired).
And again: WHO do you suppose could prosecute him? Like me, you apparently believe the Constitution should be strictly followed. So tell me, who, according to the Constitution, has any authority to prosecute the President, other than the President himself? I've asked this question several times and you have refused to answer. Why?
And that is why Hamiltonians are easily dismissed. That, of course, has nothing to do with me, as I am not a Hamiltonian. Please stop lying.
The leap from the delegation of authority ( which is explicit ) to the ASSUMPTION that that delegation "somehow" translates into immunity from prosecution for criminal acts... Again, I never said he gets immunity. I said he cannot be prosecuted while he is President. That's not immunity, it's a simple fact, as no one exists who has the authority to prosecute him (as you appear to concede, since I've asked you many times to tell me who would have that authority, and you've abjectly failed to answer that simple question).
How are you supposed to impeach someone for High Crimes, if they're not CONVICTED OF HIGH CRIMES first? Wow, that's the dumbest thing you've yet said. NO ONE who wrote or ratified the Constitution believe the House and Senate had to wait for criminal prosecution before impeachment on those grounds. First off, "high crimes" does not mean a violation of criminal law, but any significant and dangerous offense. It covers more than mere criminal law. Madison and Mason, who put that language in the Constitution, made that perfectly clear. Second, even if it was to be restricted to violations of criminal law, it was absolutely clear that the power to impeach was entirely separate from any potential proceedings. There was no way on earth that Madison or Hamilton would ever have agreed to requiring the Congress to wait on a court conviction before proceeding with impeachment. That doesn't even begin to make sense.
Then why can't you show an example? How about "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." - Bush during the 2004 campaign. You're actually comparing a perfectly justified coverup of a top secret program for the sake of national security to what Michael Moore does? Wow.
By citing Hamilton, we know all about you which needs to be known.
Why do Hamiltonians seem to believe the Constitution doesn't say EXACTLY what it means? Oh, so only "Hamiltonians" cite Hamilton? On what planet? Originalists cite the Federalist.
Indeed, I am originalist (as my explanation of enumerated powers should have made clear), and far more a Madisonian than a Hamiltonian. And Hamilton's understanding expressed in Federalist 69 has been generally accepted as the original intent of the Constitution. There have been a few detractors... very few. And none of the Framers of the Constitution were among them.
And indeed, in my opinion, the Constitution does say exactly what it means: it says, quite clearly, that no one has the authority to prosecute the President, except the President himself. That is what the Constitution actually, necessarily, says. Prosecution is an executive power, and all executive power belongs to the President. You have been ignoring this: why? Who, in your view, would prosecute the President? Who would have that authority? Who would be capable of doing so? You refuse to answer those questions. Again: why?
(And yes, according to the originalist view I expressed above, "special prosecutors" from the Executive Branch called to investigate the President, shielded from his influence, are also unconstitutional.)
To a Hamiltonian, the Constitution needs to be Interpreted for The People, because The People are too dumb to understand it themselves. Right then and their they label themselves Enemies of Liberty. Shrug. None of that has anything to do with me. I've many times stated that the Constitution is open to interpretation for everyone -- and have been attacked for standing by that principle -- and my argument here to you was based on a clear reading of Article II, Section 1. Indeed, it would make no sense for me to argue as I have and believe that the Constitution must be interpreted for The People, as I am merely one of The People, myself.
So, dispense with the fallacious ad hominems and straw men, OK?
Boy, is that a leap. Nope. In fact, it is generally accepted by everyone for centuries that this is how it works. Indeed, before the Constitution was even ratified, this was understood. It's a "leap" to claim otherwise.
So, you're saying that The President is EXEMPT from The Law. No, in fact, I am not saying any such thing. I am saying -- in fact, I did say -- that while he is President, he is not held accountable to the law via the criminal justice system. Instead, he is held accountable to the law via impeachment. It is irrational to twist what I said into him being "exempt" from the law, because I explicitly stated the method to be used to hold him accountable to the law.
If he commits a crime that he should be held criminally liable for, the process is clear: first the House impeaches him, then the Senate removes him from office, and then he is indicted and prosecuted in the criminal justice system.
Don't take my word for it, ask Alexander Hamilton, who wrote about it in Federalist 69:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
And where is the EXPLICIT grant of immunity, delegated by The People, to the Executive Branch, in the Constitution. It's not explicitly, it's directly implied, because no one exists who is capable of criminally prosecuting a sitting President. Every prosecutor functions via the President's own authority. No, he must be removed from office first.
You *do* know that the Constitution delegates *all* authority to the Federal Government, and if it's not EXPLICITLY DELEGATED, it's not a Lawful Power. You worded this oddly. Do you mean that every federal power is a delegated, or enumerated, power? Well, yes, depending on how you mean it. The "necessary and proper" clause of Article I, Section 8 makes clear that many powers of the federal government are implied (which is itself an enumerated power). But that's entirely beside the point here, because this is not a matter of federal authority, but of separation of powers. The United States government has the authority to prosecute the President, but all of the authority to do so belongs to the President himself. Again, no one but the President is capable of prosecuting the President. Thus it's a non-starter.
Besides, this would cut both ways: where is the "explicit" grant of authority to prosecute the President, and who has such authority?
So, what clause of the Constitution grants Immunity from Prosecution to the Executive? I already told you: Article II, Section 1. And it is not a grant of immunity per se, rather than a clear statement that no one but the President has authority to prosecute crimes, and therefore he cannot be prosecuted while he remains in office.
Well, like I say you can believe what you want to believe. Well that's the problem: I am citing fact. You are inventing facts to fit your opinions. That's the difference here.
[Michael Moore mode] Precisely my point. Just like Michael Moore, you are inventing things that simply have no basis in any evidence.
OR that the United States Attorney bringing the case to the Grand Jury cared more about his OATH and DUTY than his Political Reliability. Um... again, the U.S. Attorney in doing so exercises the President's authority to do so. So you are saying, according to the law, that the President should prosecute himself. It's not about loyalty, it's about the law: the law says you can't do that. So instead, we have impeachment.
So... This is what the Soviet Union used to be like, with The Party more important than The Law, eh? Not at all. You're the one ignoring the Law.
It's also why one executive department cannot sue another one: because then the President would be suing himself. PROSECUTE. And the case is the United States v. Bush, not Bush v. Bush. I was giving lawsuits as a similar example. Just like you can't have the President suing himself, you cannot have the President prosecuting himself.
Let's try this one more time: who would represent the United States in your mythical U.S. v. Bush? A U.S. Attorney, someone in the DOJ... all of whom derive all of their authority from President Bush, according to the law, the Constitution. So Bush would, actually, be prosecuting himself. THAT is the Kangaroo Court you are asking for.
We have impeachment INSTEAD of doing such inane gestures as you desire.
You don't have to like it. I am just explaining how the U.S. system actually works, and has always worked. If you want to cry against the stars that it is unjust, go right ahead. I'll just giggle at your silliness as you do so.
Cheney still presented that piece of evidence to imply a connection between Iraq and 9/11. No, he did not. You incorrectly took it that way. You admit he never claimed there was a link, and that the evidence he provided didn't imply there was a link, but yet you state as a fact that he presented it in order to imply a link, when there's not a jot of evidence supporting your claim. From where I sit, it looks merely as though you WANT him to have implied it, so you are irrationally stretching what actually happened to make it fit your desires.
Your whole claim rests on the absurd notion that he would not have bothered saying it unless he meant to imply a link, but I already said -- and you didn't bother even addressing the point -- that he was implying there MAY be a link (which, of course, was perfectly valid given the evidence at hand). You've not given a single reason why he wouldn't be doing that. There's a huge difference between implying there MAY be a link and implying there IS a link, as you've agreed, and you haven't the slightest bit of evidence that he was doing the latter and not the former.
Not at all, unless you mean to wait 1.5 years to try it, since you can't bring criminal charges against the President or Vice President. Where's it say that in the Constitution? Who would prosecute him? Only federal prosecutors have the authority to do that, and that authority is derived from the executive authority of the United States. And according to the very beginning of Article II, Section 1, all of that executive authority of the United States is vested in the President. To file criminal charges against the President would mean the President was prosecuting himself, which makes no sense. It's also why one executive department cannot sue another one: because then the President would be suing himself.
There's never been criminal charges against a sitting President or Vice President, and there almost surely never will be. We have impeachment instead of that.
You can file criminal charges after he leaves office. This is what almost happened with Clinton: since they could not charge him with perjury while he was in office, they waited until he was out of office. And then they struck a deal to avoid prosecution.
Well, that's all for a Grand Jury to decide, isn't it? Not at all, unless you mean to wait 1.5 years to try it, since you can't bring criminal charges against the President or Vice President.
Not quite. He said intelligence exists that says such links exist, not that they do actually exist. You're trying to split hairs again. No, I am not. On the contrary, you are ignoring relevant distinctions.
He still attempting to link 9/11 and Iraq together False.
Otherwise, why bring it up at all? Asked and answered.
Incorrect. At most, even if we accept that Atta did meet with Iraqi officials, it suggests that this MIGHT be evidence of a link to 9/11. Hence I said that Cheney IMPLIED that they were involved. And you were incorrect to do so. Again, at most, he implied they MIGHT have been involved, which is very different from implying they WERE involved.
When I hear talk about doing something about Iran, that is one of the things that often comes up. Note how (just as you just did) that they just say "Iran", not "Groups within Iran", or "Terrorists hiding in Iran", or similar. Of course, the implication is that it is the Iranian government somehow behind it, hence a justification to act against them. Um... that is the precise point I am making: that we do not know it was the Iranian government. I even said that, explicitly: "the fact that we have intelligence tying those IEDs to Iranian origin does not mean anyone is implying the Iranian government is involved."
You are making my point for me (even though I already made it). You have a double standard: you are agreeing with me that saying they came from Iran does not mean that the Iranian government is involved in the IED attacks, so how does saying Atta met with Iraq mean that Iraq's government was involved with 9/11?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is, incidentally, why only one Democrat is for single-payer care, because the rest of them know it's a non-starter, and they want to win (whereas Kucinich knows he can't win).
I wondered who'd be the first to launch an ad hominem attack - and look, right in the first comment.
Thanks for reaffirming my faith in Apple Fanboi nature. Oh, grow up. Maynor is, by definition, someone no one should care about. If he reported his vulnerabilities, he would be worth listening to. Since he does not, he is not.
Again, if I had to choose, I'd say the Executive is required to have a warrant, and that the program is unconstitutional. But I don't think the Congress has the authority to dictate that to the President, because, given various precedents, a reasonable case can be made, even if I don't buy it myself. I believe only the Supreme Court can settle the matter, so when this all first came up, I said (as I've said many times since), I wanted it to get to the Supreme Court swiftly so it could be decided once and for all.
Unfortunately, things don't work that way in real life. The parties involved (Congress and the Executive) like to avoid Court confrontations, and the Court doesn't enforce its will on the other two branches if there are other resolutions available. So unless the people involved really want the Court to hear it, it won't be heard. So this is going to come up again, with the next President, or the next. That's the real shame here. I don't mind if the President exercises what he thinks is a valid Constitutional power, when it is not, so long as we can find a good way to resolve the conflict. We cannot ever come to a resolution without the Supreme Court weighing in, and the Supreme Court can't weigh in until the law is questioned in an actionable case, and someone actually takes that case. So, heavy sigh, this isn't over.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
Are pretty damn clear. Yes, except that one of those enumerated powers is an explict grant of implied powers, via the "necessary and proper" clause.
I am all for limited government, but I cannot ignore the plain language of the Constitution, as you are wont to do.
That is, of course, not how it works. The President has discretion, and interprets the law and the Constitution as he sees fit. And Congress is free to take him to Court upon his action (or inaction) if they believe such (in)action violates the Constitution, or statute. That is how it works.
In fairness, that is a separate argument from what I am making, though I did make reference to it earlier, when I commented that this would be an unreasonable breach of separation of powers, putting the judiciary over the executive in this manner. My argument is based on the same essential notion (the President has all of the executive authority), but rather than talking about how this would undermine the efficacy of the executive branch, I focused on the fact that no one in the executive branch has the authority to prosecute the President, since that authority is granted by The People to the President. So I agree with what you said, but it wasn't my primary point.
But it's funny that his main argument is "it's not in the Constiution!" when he ignores what IS in the Constitution. He talks about the supremacy of The People while ignoring the fact that The People delegated that authority not to the Attorneys, but to the President.
It is via the power of the President, and the President alone -- as delegated by the people via the Constitution -- that the U.S. would be prosecuting. There's two choices: remove the President from office, or amend the Constitution. The Executive Power is vested in The President". HOW does anyone get from that to "The President Cannot Be Prosecuted While In Office?" Because it means that no one but the President has the power to prosecute the President -- if you believe the Constitution, it clearly says the President has all that power, and no one else has any such power -- and for him to prosecute himself is an inherent conflict of interest. Yes, there is. I've explicitly stated it many times, and you've refused to address it. I don't think you know what the word "explicit" means. No, I certainly do. I stated "Article II, Section 1" explicitly four times. Now five. Just because you didn't understand it doesn't mean I didn't explicitly state it. WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT *EXPLICITLY* SAY THE PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION WHILE IN OFFICE? Why do you keep asking a question I've already answered? Are you incapable of reading? I already said that is not explicitly stated. I said it was directly, necessarily, implied. I'm saying that you're hypothesis of "The President Prosecuting Himself" is just plain wrong You did not say it before, you ignored it. And now you are saying it without backing it up. You're only ridiculing the idea instead of addressing it. The closest you came was making an irrelevant argument about the power of the President coming from the People (irrelevant, obviously, because the People delegated that power to the President), and then making a silly claim about the name of the case. as the case is The United States v., The US Attorneys act in the Name of The People. Via the exclusive power of the President (until the Constitution is amended to say differently). The People did not give U.S. Attorneys any authority whatsoever. They gave the authority to the President, who delegates that authority at will. But it remains the President's authority, according to the Constitution. There is no "Unitary Executive".
Congress passes the Laws.
The Executive executes those laws. You do not know what "Unitary Executive" means. "Unitary Executive" means that all executive power belongs to the President. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Congress (except that Congress cannot pass a law that divests the President of any executive power, as that explicitly violates Article II, Section 1). The left keeps trying to make the "Unitary Executive Theory" into something it is not. The people who actually hold to the UET, originalists mostly, do not hold to warped version of the UET that the left launches straw man attacks against. There is no wiggle room.
Obey the Law, AS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS. Sure, unless that law is a violation of the Constitution, of course.
And I always chuckle when Democrats attack the President for violating the Constitution, as the majority of the Democratic agenda clearly violates the Tenth Amendment. What part of it do you not get? The Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare, are all, clearly, unconstitutional. It's the Democrats who have turned the Constitution into "just a goddamn piece of paper." (Oh, and there is no actual evidence Bush ever said that quote; ah, but who cares about the facts?).
What is the U.S. Attorney himself were on trial? Would it be acceptable to you that he prosecute himself, since his oath is to obey the Law? Of course not. But that is precisely what you are asking for here, because the U.S. Attorney's authority is the President's authority. You are asking for the President to prosecute himself. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America Exactly. The U.S. Attorney's power (like all executive power) is granted by the Constitution not to the U.S. Attorney, but to the President. I guess that's why you could never provide a citation from the Constitution to support your hypothesis. Stop lying. I have now given the citation to you, explicitly, no less than four times. Article II, Section 1. Quoted above. The executive power is vested in the PRESIDENT. There is NO REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE LAWFULLY ARRESTED AND TRIED FOR CRIMINAL ACTS. Yes, there is. I've explicitly stated it many times, and you've refused to address it. Again: why? Why have you abjectly refused to address my point, that the executive power is vested in the PRESIDENT, and that therefore anyone who attempts to prosecute the President is doing so via the power of the President, which is a conflict of interest that makes legitimate prosecution impossible? Why are you continuing to ignore this point? I can only assume it is because you are either incapable of understanding it, or incapable of refuting it. Are you one of those who believes that "Any person" in the 14th Amendment doesn't mean "Any person"? No. Again, I am an originalist. Your ad hominem straw man attacks are sophomoric. I have spent a significant amount of time defending the original intent of the 14th Amendment, including a recent missive attacking the bullshit that is "selective incorporation": it is quite clear that the entire Bill of Rights was intended to be "incorporated" by the language and history of the 14th Amendment. And originalism is also why I am a firm believer in the Unitary Executive, because when the Constitution says "The executive power shall be vested in a President," it means it.
You're the one who is ignoring the plain language of the Constiution. You're trying to say that either the U.S. Attorney has some executive power that is separate from the President, or that there is no significant conflict of interest in the President prosecuting himself. Which is it?
And again: WHO do you suppose could prosecute him? Like me, you apparently believe the Constitution should be strictly followed. So tell me, who, according to the Constitution, has any authority to prosecute the President, other than the President himself? I've asked this question several times and you have refused to answer. Why? And that is why Hamiltonians are easily dismissed. That, of course, has nothing to do with me, as I am not a Hamiltonian. Please stop lying. The leap from the delegation of authority ( which is explicit ) to the ASSUMPTION that that delegation "somehow" translates into immunity from prosecution for criminal acts... Again, I never said he gets immunity. I said he cannot be prosecuted while he is President. That's not immunity, it's a simple fact, as no one exists who has the authority to prosecute him (as you appear to concede, since I've asked you many times to tell me who would have that authority, and you've abjectly failed to answer that simple question). How are you supposed to impeach someone for High Crimes, if they're not CONVICTED OF HIGH CRIMES first? Wow, that's the dumbest thing you've yet said. NO ONE who wrote or ratified the Constitution believe the House and Senate had to wait for criminal prosecution before impeachment on those grounds. First off, "high crimes" does not mean a violation of criminal law, but any significant and dangerous offense. It covers more than mere criminal law. Madison and Mason, who put that language in the Constitution, made that perfectly clear. Second, even if it was to be restricted to violations of criminal law, it was absolutely clear that the power to impeach was entirely separate from any potential proceedings. There was no way on earth that Madison or Hamilton would ever have agreed to requiring the Congress to wait on a court conviction before proceeding with impeachment. That doesn't even begin to make sense.
Why do Hamiltonians seem to believe the Constitution doesn't say EXACTLY what it means? Oh, so only "Hamiltonians" cite Hamilton? On what planet? Originalists cite the Federalist.
Indeed, I am originalist (as my explanation of enumerated powers should have made clear), and far more a Madisonian than a Hamiltonian. And Hamilton's understanding expressed in Federalist 69 has been generally accepted as the original intent of the Constitution. There have been a few detractors
And indeed, in my opinion, the Constitution does say exactly what it means: it says, quite clearly, that no one has the authority to prosecute the President, except the President himself. That is what the Constitution actually, necessarily, says. Prosecution is an executive power, and all executive power belongs to the President. You have been ignoring this: why? Who, in your view, would prosecute the President? Who would have that authority? Who would be capable of doing so? You refuse to answer those questions. Again: why?
(And yes, according to the originalist view I expressed above, "special prosecutors" from the Executive Branch called to investigate the President, shielded from his influence, are also unconstitutional.) To a Hamiltonian, the Constitution needs to be Interpreted for The People, because The People are too dumb to understand it themselves. Right then and their they label themselves Enemies of Liberty. Shrug. None of that has anything to do with me. I've many times stated that the Constitution is open to interpretation for everyone -- and have been attacked for standing by that principle -- and my argument here to you was based on a clear reading of Article II, Section 1. Indeed, it would make no sense for me to argue as I have and believe that the Constitution must be interpreted for The People, as I am merely one of The People, myself.
So, dispense with the fallacious ad hominems and straw men, OK?
If he commits a crime that he should be held criminally liable for, the process is clear: first the House impeaches him, then the Senate removes him from office, and then he is indicted and prosecuted in the criminal justice system.
Don't take my word for it, ask Alexander Hamilton, who wrote about it in Federalist 69: And where is the EXPLICIT grant of immunity, delegated by The People, to the Executive Branch, in the Constitution. It's not explicitly, it's directly implied, because no one exists who is capable of criminally prosecuting a sitting President. Every prosecutor functions via the President's own authority. No, he must be removed from office first. You *do* know that the Constitution delegates *all* authority to the Federal Government, and if it's not EXPLICITLY DELEGATED, it's not a Lawful Power. You worded this oddly. Do you mean that every federal power is a delegated, or enumerated, power? Well, yes, depending on how you mean it. The "necessary and proper" clause of Article I, Section 8 makes clear that many powers of the federal government are implied (which is itself an enumerated power). But that's entirely beside the point here, because this is not a matter of federal authority, but of separation of powers. The United States government has the authority to prosecute the President, but all of the authority to do so belongs to the President himself. Again, no one but the President is capable of prosecuting the President. Thus it's a non-starter.
Besides, this would cut both ways: where is the "explicit" grant of authority to prosecute the President, and who has such authority? So, what clause of the Constitution grants Immunity from Prosecution to the Executive? I already told you: Article II, Section 1. And it is not a grant of immunity per se, rather than a clear statement that no one but the President has authority to prosecute crimes, and therefore he cannot be prosecuted while he remains in office.
Let's try this one more time: who would represent the United States in your mythical U.S. v. Bush? A U.S. Attorney, someone in the DOJ
We have impeachment INSTEAD of doing such inane gestures as you desire.
You don't have to like it. I am just explaining how the U.S. system actually works, and has always worked. If you want to cry against the stars that it is unjust, go right ahead. I'll just giggle at your silliness as you do so.
Your whole claim rests on the absurd notion that he would not have bothered saying it unless he meant to imply a link, but I already said -- and you didn't bother even addressing the point -- that he was implying there MAY be a link (which, of course, was perfectly valid given the evidence at hand). You've not given a single reason why he wouldn't be doing that. There's a huge difference between implying there MAY be a link and implying there IS a link, as you've agreed, and you haven't the slightest bit of evidence that he was doing the latter and not the former.
There's never been criminal charges against a sitting President or Vice President, and there almost surely never will be. We have impeachment instead of that.
You can file criminal charges after he leaves office. This is what almost happened with Clinton: since they could not charge him with perjury while he was in office, they waited until he was out of office. And then they struck a deal to avoid prosecution.
You appear to be quoting that as though it disagrees with anything I said, and I am puzzled as to why you appear to think it does.
You are making my point for me (even though I already made it). You have a double standard: you are agreeing with me that saying they came from Iran does not mean that the Iranian government is involved in the IED attacks, so how does saying Atta met with Iraq mean that Iraq's government was involved with 9/11?