Censure of the President

by pyrrho

Frankly, what has interested me more than the issue of should the president receive censure, is how the Democrats reacted to the call. It's important to remember that Feinstein proposed censure of Clinton, and this was after the Impeachment failed... but now they are hesitant.  Well, they should be hesitant, although symbolic, to censure a President is serious and should be taken seriously. Saying he did wrong or even violated the law is not enough. It has to be, in my view, based on the idea that the President is going to continue to do that, or he has a false view of impunity, or his interpretation of the law sits so badly that the Senate must declare their opposition to it on the grounds that the President is not above the law.

Insofar as it calls for reviewing these issues, I think Democrats should be for that review, if not for the censure. That is, it will be their discretion and responsibility how they vote, but I believe they should support addressing the question.

I have a problem that this is such a surprise to the Senate Democrats. Rumor is that Feingold did not tell the other Senators his plans, so that much was a surprise, but the issues, and the last 5 years, these should not be news to Democratic Senators, or even Republican Senators. There are many views, I'll even add, many valid views, but to appear to not have a perspective on the situation behind this censure is a bit much, and I think that's the reaction we have seen so far from most Senate Democrats.

Still, that's a side issue, the real question should be... Should the Senate Censure the President?

Comments

[Averroes]

"Should the Senate Censure the President?"

Of course not. But if you think so, offer an argument.

What you are proposing is that the legislature should act as a second judicial branch and decide a matter of law, one which the executive branch has already gotten legal opinions about.

The Senate might want the Supreme court to settle the matter of law.

[pyrrho]

Censure is not a legal act as far as I know.

Do you believe only illegal acts can be censured?

I have no conclusions to defend, you do, you say he should NOT be censured, "of course not"... why?

Certainly not because censure is a legal judgement.

pyrrho: "Certainly not because censure is a legal judgement."

That is correct, of course. Censure of the president by the Congress is a political act. Check your history for ALL of the previous examples of congressional censure of the president.

However, i am taking my cue from Feingold, who gave a legal reason for his bill of censure.

So, rightfully, your arguments should be directed to Feingold and his bill.

Personally, I like Feingold. If he had offered his censure on the basis that the president did something with which he disagrees politically, i would have no problem with it. I bet that if he had done so, he might have gotten more support from his fellow Democrats.

We should also observe that Frist was very accomodating here, offering to bring it to immediate vote. He cold have just buried it.

Somehow, i think that Feingold offered this with no serius legislative purpose, but for political theatre.

Note that there is certainly nothing wrong with a politician using political theatre.

It is often used to "draw attention" to something, as it is here, and to score political points, as it is here.

I'm suggewsting that we skip the serious expressions and the hangman's coat, and see it for what it iws, and revel in it and its denoument.

[Averroes]

Dat twas I, from another computer. Forgot to enter my moniker here.

Here's a bit from Kevin Drum

(thought i'd let you have some time to reach for the nitro. I had to!)

...about the Feingold resolution:

"FEINGOLD'S CENSURE MOTION....Everyone wants to know how I feel about Russ Feingold's motion to censure President Bush over the NSA's domestic spying program. I'll give you two and a half answers:

First, substantively: Sure, censure away. God knows Bush deserves it.

Second, politically: I'm not so sure on this score. Anytime a congressman introduces a measure that's certain to fail, it's done for reasons of political theater: to make a point, to get some attention for an issue that's being ignored, or to reach out to some constituency or other. So the relevant question is: is this good political theater? (. . .)"

See, even Drum can say something intelligent when he steals it from me!

So, what is the answer to the relevant question?

I'll let you go to Drum for his answer (3/15/06).

[Winston Smith]

A recent ARG poll indicates Bush’s censure is supported by more than two-thirds of Democrats, and by 29% of Republicans. All told, more of the public supports than opposes it, with the margin slightly larger among those voting than among the public at large.

[Averroes]

Winston: "A recent ARG poll . . ."

>>And so . . .?

Is it really impoertant what pirates think?

[Chum]

"Personally, I like Feingold. If he had offered his censure on the basis that the president did something with which he disagrees politically, i would have no problem with it. I bet that if he had done so, he might have gotten more support from his fellow Democrats."

For someone who argued tirlessly in the past that Bush's motives shouldn't be questioned without proof I find the above quote quite odd. Especially since no proof of Feingold's motives was offered.

It is quite possible that Feingold's motives were:

1. Legal - since a law was clearly broken, at least that is what the ABA said when they sent a rebuke to the White House.

2. Political - because Feingold has expressed aspirations to run for Bush's job.

3. Constitutional - because Bush did take an oath to uphold the laws of the land which Feingold felt was breached.

4. Other - which could be the Democrats taking a tried and true GOP tactic of playing good cop/bad cop, or any other myriad of possible reasons of which we wouldn't know without inside knowledge.

Some prominent Democrats have since come out in support of Feingold, but like many other issues the other spineless Jackasses needed a poll or some other confirmation that a now wildly unpopular Bush can be taken on directly.

Just because the Bush legal team, who I might remind everyone, gave us torture, rendition and the suspension of Habeus Corpus says what he did is legal doesn't make it so. The Republican Congress, like so many other instances in the past, will not seriously look into who Bush was spying on and why. Two very imortant questions as to the legality of Bush's domestic spying.

So, to me censure is an apt avenue to pursue in trying to restore the rule of law in a time when the current administration can pretty much do whatever they want to whoever they want under the umbrella of this hazy war on terror without recourse from the people. A pretty scary thought for those who disagree with the idealogy and the means that are used to enforce it.

[darkhorse]

" My brother John got turned in by his kids for beating his wife "
" Oh really! What's with that!"
" They're career John bashers. I don't get it."

[Averroes]

Chum: "For someone who argued tirlessly in the past that Bush's motives shouldn't be questioned without proof I find the above quote quite odd. Especially since no proof of Feingold's motives was offered."

>>Chum, perhaps you should try actually reading what i write before going off on some tangent and responding tpo something i didn't say.

EVERYONE!!! Is that so difficult. Let me bring down the quote again:

""Personally, I like Feingold. If he had offered his censure on the basis that the president did something with which he disagrees politically, i would have no problem with it. I bet that if he had done so, he might have gotten more support from his fellow Democrats.""

You will notice that nothing, i repeat, NOTHING about motives is mentioned here. What i am doing is taking FIENGOLD's word, the basis HE is offering, in his own words, for the sanction. He has stated it differently at different times, added to it, but the core and 3enduring reason is some form of "the president broke the law." This is a legal reason.

I am not interested in delving into his mind for motives. Just the justification HE states.

Chum, if you were more interested in rational argument thn in making points, you would not look so foolish here, and you certainly would npot make this foolish statement:

"Just because the Bush legal team, who I might remind everyone, gave us torture, rendition and the suspension of Habeus Corpus says what he did is legal doesn't make it so."

>>Of course, there has been no finding of any torture being "given" by the Bush administration. As i remind you, the word 'torture' is a word of variable and changing meaning, and without one in the law. Its only use is to replace a rational argument (using terms defined in law) in order to make a point that cannot be made rationally. As for "rendition," I wold point out thzt the actual practice predates the Bush administration, and i would like your posted objections during the previous admihnistration, please. In fact, i find it laughable that those who oppose rendition also tend to demand that Gitmo detainees be sent home, the exact same place they would be sent if we were to "render" them.

As for suspension of Habeas Corpus, you'll have to fill me in. This term applies to citizens qnd certain others living in America, and, to my knowledge, it has worked fpor everyone in Gitmo to whom it applies. But you MIGHT accuse Bush of a weak imitator of the old Republican practice of suspending Habeas in time of war, a practice used most strongly by the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, and probably most massively by FDR.

I remind you that the Republican Congress offered to put the res9olution to a vote, but the Democrats refused. What's up with that?

Further, you mayt have noticed a curious fact: Those who have actually seedn the program have backed off criticizing it, for the most part. Instead, many have said that, if anything, legislation should be passed to ensure its lregality. in any case, even if it were used following strict FISA quidelinbes, it would not make a twit's worth of difference in reality, given that the FISA courts will grant the government's wit=sh to tap ANY foreign source or receiver thought by the government to be a terroist or have connections.

Chum, should you call outside the country, or receive calls from outside the country, i suggest that you expect to have all the rights of privacy that you expect when you fly into or out of the country.

"So, to me censure is an apt avenue to pursue in trying to restore the rule of law"

>>I have listened tolawyuers and constitutional scholars and historians, and the oly thng I can say for sure is that the powers of the president in general and the legality of this program in particular are something about which reasonable men can disagree. In fact, the powers pof the president seem to be somewhat fluid, depenmding on soituations (like wartime) and politics. One scholar pointed out that whil3e certain powers can be said to be inferent in the presidency, suych as the one argued here, the power to actually carry out a war, for example, without having to get congressional approval to use B-1 bombers here, and then again, there, while this is true, the Supreme Court has never overturned a law passed by congress limiting presidential powers.

The fact is that the rights of citizens and the need for security are bound to clash. The resolution of this class is political. What we have in america is a tendency to favor rights even when doing so may increase the danger. But where we draw the line at any time is, in fact, a matter of politics.

It's the way we do things.

So, here we go. The presixcent has been enjoined by Congress to carry out the war on terror. That means that he can use any method necessary without having to get congressional permission for every step. Congress and the constitution do make some general limits. here, some think that the FISA laws limit the government, but, in fact, the FISA laws do not apply to the technology.

Feingold could very well be saying that congress should pass a law making it clear what the government can and cannot do in this case (the rest of us are whistling in the dark, since we know nothing of the program). His censure resolution might be a good way to bring this to everyone's attention.

I have suggested that the resolution may be in the Supreme Court, and Feingold's resolution may be a way to get to that.

Just to examine one argument that could be made for warrantless taps, i found this quote:

“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA traitor Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

This argument for the "inherent authority" to make wireless searches, including, of course, wiretaps, was made by that good old Republican criminal, Jamie Gorelick, while she was a member of the previous administration. All those who think that Buish is breaking the law will ladly post here copies of the protestations that clinton was breaking the law in the Ames case, for instance, or was annouincing his administration's intent to break the law in Gorelick's statement.

The true civil libertarians aong you will easily come up with these things. The political posers will not.

"A pretty scary thought for those who disagree with the idealogy and the means that are used to enforce it."

OK, now that you have ignored the issue for political posturing, i would be more than happy to read what you actually THINK about the matter, not just talking points. So, please tell me what the 'ideology" is, what makes you think it is that, why you think that bush is breaking the law, why you think that (arguments and evidence, in other words), why those who argue to the contrary are wrong, with specifics. I am not interested in devining motives, character assassinations, etc., on either side. Just the facts and the arguments.

Thank you in advance.

[Averroes]

Now, i would like to offer, not seriously, but just to ponder, a conspiracy theory.

I stumbled onto this while pondering a curious fact: those who DO know what is going on seem to change their attitude when they find out what is going on. Diane Feinstein was one of the hardest critics of this program until she became one of seven member of the Senate Intelligence Committee selected to be briefed on the program. She then said that it was a great program, and that we ought to keep it!

Of all the congressen who were briefed on the program since its inception, only oine had any objection, and that one objection was not so serious that he tried to change the program in any way.

What is going on here?

It occurred to me that perhaps the program is being shut down, and another program is replacing it, another avenue. It might be the case that the program was purposely leaked, with full knowledge that it would receive lots of press and political attention, with the express intent to get the "enemy" to focus on avoiding it, and, perhaps, become more vulnerable for another program.

One might postulate that Rockefellar's abnnouncement of his previous objection long after he made it, now, would fit in with this nicely. And those, like Feinstein, when newly briefed, would be told 3exactly that it was being shut down, and the purpose of the leak and the deception, and, as patriotic Americans, would go along with the ruse by now saying it was a great program that needed to be kept, but which might need some ancillary legislation to ensure that it was perfectly legal.

Of course, it may simply be the case that the real program is not exactly what has been characterized to the rest of us.

But, to tell you where i really come down on the actual civil rights issue, i learned from my grandfather, who always "hrummphed" when he heard "loose lips sink ships," saying it was just another Democratic attempt to take away our inherent rights in favor of big government, using the war as an excuse.

[Averroes]

Darkhorse: "" My brother John got turned in by his kids for beating his wife "
" Oh really! What's with that!"
" They're career John bashers. I don't get it.""

To what on this thread does this refer, exactly?

I scanned the thread but couldn't find anything.

maybe you thihnk it applies to Kevin Drum's comments, somehow.

Please, my dear man, please enlighten me.

[pyrrho]

drum is mistaken.

a proposal "sure to fail" can be the first step on making that proposal succeed, one failed attempt leads to a movement to censure, possibly.

I'm just saying possibly, but the point is... doing things you know will fail... it has not failed that he proposed... it may be voted down, but part of their jobs is to think of things for each other to consider and vote upon, not all of them are supposed to pass.

Such a motion might "succeed" in making all Senators check their head, right now, later they may feel differently, but at this time they would have to review their position on the matter, explain to themselves why they believed the president should not censured.

I think the most compelling reason is the separation of branches, at least until as Av suggests there is a criminal conviction by yet another branch.

I can see arguments on boths sides, and I think in the situation should be aired because of that.

[pyrrho]

e.g. : it's possible that raising the question I myself am inclined to imagine the answer is, "no, we need more information first" and instead of censure first there are hearings of evidence, perhaps that will make them realize they need a congressional investigation to get information in order to judge.

OR: perhaps they'll rule there is simply nothing here and refuse to do anything but put down the motion, which is fair enough insofar as each Senator or Representative is ultimately responsible for their own vote.

[Averroes]

pyrrho: "a proposal "sure to fail" can be the first step on making that proposal succeed, one failed attempt leads to a movement to censure, possibly.

I'm just saying possibly, but the point is... doing things you know will fail... it has not failed that he proposed... it may be voted down, but part of their jobs is to think of things for each other to consider and vote upon, not all of them are supposed to pass. "

I think Drum would agree with this, and, in part, it was his point. the reality is that it is not going to pass now, so that if there is a good reason for proposing it, it must be something other than its passing now. Most of those reasons, and the ones you gave, can be subsumed under the rubric of "political theatre."

"I think the most compelling reason is the separation of branches, at least until as Av suggests there is a criminal conviction by yet another branch."

>>the problem with "separation of branches" arguments is that they tend to support the administration. in any case, one must define the extent of separation, since surely the founding fathers did not envision a government with three branches acting independently, like brain hemispheres with all the callosi severed.

To me, the "separation means that that other branch can't limit my branch" argument is not supported by the history of the constitution nor constitutional history.

For instance, it seems reasonable that Congress can make a law which limits the executive. And it also seems reasonable that the executive has latitude in carrying out the aims of Congress (such as when Nixon impounded funds that congress meant for a program he thought wrong). The resolution of these conflicts, inherent in the syswtem and bound to arise, is, I propose, political. The urge to run to the judicial branch should be avoided. If you don't like the way Congress or the president does things, vote the bums out.

The problem that some of us have with this system is that it is too slow, and we have to put up with those dummies who don't know exactly what is right like we do. Sometimes, horror of horrors, those crass "people" actually vote for politicians because they do something we know is wrong!

Now, if i were dictator. . .

"it's possible that raising the question I myself am inclined to imagine the answer is, "no, we need more information first""

>>But information is in short supply here. We are struck by another of those conflicts in our system, the need for secrecy pitted against the need for transparency.

In our system, the solution is political.

One thing i like about our system is that we actually encourage those who take things to the extremes, but we just keep them out of power. So, we set up Fabians on both sides, those who would make almost anything secret, even if there was nno real argument for it, and those who wold make nothing secret on the notion that the people should kow everything in a democracy. And then,m politically, we decide something in the middle.

As one might expect, such a system is likely to be swayed by outside forces, and to fall into oscillations.

[pyrrho]

>>>I think Drum would agree with this, and, in part, it was his point. the reality is that it is not going to pass now, so that if there is a good reason for proposing it, it must be something other than its passing now. Most of those reasons, and the ones you gave, can be subsumed under the rubric of "political theatre."<<<

no, to try propose it now so that it wins in the future is a campaign, and not political theatre, it is, directly, -trying- to pass the measure.

You can call it what you like, but as you do you chose a framework and then act according to your setting.

[Averroes]

pyrrho: "to try propose it now so that it wins in the future is a campaign, and not political theatre,"

Gee, pyrrho, you don't suppose that something could be both a campaign to reach a certain aim AND political theatre? You don't think that political theatre is most often used just in order to reach some aim?

"You can call it what you like, but as you do you chose a framework and then act according to your setting."

>>Whatevah. It's also true that i prefer chocolate to vanilla ice cream. i tell you this because it is more relevant to the discussion than your remark.

btw, since you seem to love psychobabble, can you write a short essay on how "set" enters into this?

[pyrrho]

>Gee, pyrrho, you don't suppose that something could be both a campaign to reach a certain aim AND political theatre? You don't think that political theatre is most often used just in order to reach some aim?

yeah, AND, you said "merely" a distinction to most.

>>you seem to love psychobabble

a conclusion drawn, evidently, from the view that I love you.

[Averroes]

pyrrho: "yeah, AND, you said "merely" a distinction to most."

REeally? Show me where.

The point is that it was not a serious attempt to pass a resolution. It couldn't be because he knew that it couldn't pass.

I don't find this unusual. it's a part of politics. Remember, we had Kerry explain that he voted against a bill he knew would pass anyway to protest some provisions of the bill. His vote cannot be said to be a serious attempt to scuttle the bill, although the Republicans painted it that way.

">>you seem to love psychobabble

a conclusion drawn, evidently, from the view that I love you."

>>Nope. Actually, it was a quick to reaction to a specific comment, which fits nicely into your usual practice. Here it is:

""You can call it what you like, but as you do you chose a framework and then act according to your setting.""

Now this was offered , i guess, to answer (rather, avoid answering) a specific two questions:

Gee, pyrrho, you don't suppose that something could be both a campaign to reach a certain aim AND political theatre? You don't think that political theatre is most often used just in order to reach some aim?

As we can see, these questions have simple 'yes' or 'no' answers. The questions ask what YOU think, and have nothing to do with what i think.

What you are doing here is not only psychobabble, (that is, quasi-psychological terminology misused to ink up an argument), but a common sophistic technique.

I did, out of kindness, offer some advice for using this particular psychological concept, in case you choose to use it in another setting where it might be appropriate. The key is that whenever one talks of 'setting,' one also talks of 'set.'

[Winston Smith]

Coupla links: Good clip of Feingold speaking directly
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Feingold.wmv> on TDS here .

And to get a sense of just how naked of actual arguments Feingold’s censure proposal has left the GOP, click on its http://www.gop.com> radio ad, “Democrats Want to Censure President Bush for Fighting the War on Terror” [sic].

[Averroes]

For the ad and anoher of Factcheck's spot on analyses, go thither

Winston: "And to get a sense of just how naked of actual arguments Feingold’s censure proposal has left the GOP"

>>Right on the money! While we can't really know if they are bereft of arguments, it certainly appears that way.

This is exactly the same argument i have made about the Democrats, who have spent five years no telling lies instead of making real arguments. In these cases, I, me, and myself have often known real arguments, whic the Democrats have been too stupid, lazy, hate-filled, or blind to see. For example, as Hubris told us, it make no sense to tell the lie that Bush and the administration told us that the threat was imminent, when the argument that he attackeed another country knowing that the threat wasn't imminet, and stating so, is much more damaging.

yet, the Democrats continue to tell the lies.

Here, the Republicans join them in the practice, and not for the frist time, you might say.

This sort of begs the question: which is worse, resorting to desparate arguments which may be a lie when you don't have any better arguments, or resorting to desperate arguments wheihn are lies even thought there are rational arguments you could use, which, unfortunately, do not have quite the venomous quality of the lies?

Your call.

I'd say that the ad is reprehensible. The usual Democratic arguments tend to be reprehensible +.

I mean, how else could Bush have been re-elected?

[Winston Smith]

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html >You’ll be better off avoiding that phrase, since it doesn't mean what you think it does.

[Averroes]

Gee, Winston, your lack of knowledge is staggering.

Of course, to anyojne but a nitwit, it would be obvious that i was using this not in a formal logical sense, but in the usual colloquial sense.

Sort of like: "Gee, detective, looks like he was shot five times and left for dead. That begs the question of who did it."

Or, "Everywhere we pointed the radio telescope, we encountered a similar signal. That begs the question of the origin of the signal."

Just a hint: The logical use is intransitive, while the colloquial use is transitive.

I will assume that you simply had a brain freeze here, blinded by your usual desire to substitute heat for light, in order to make a score of some sort. This is preferable to my thinking that you simply did this dishonestly.

btw, for another bunch of lies in politics analysed by Factcheck, go here

You seem to be presenting yourself as a crusader against lies and half-truths in politics. This, of course, begs--er--for your sake, invites the question of why you didn't cite this article also.

I could assume tht it was a bit of intellectual dishonesty driven by your political faith, but instead i will await your explanation. (I know a good one. Just want to see if i would be right.)

[Averroes]

btw, all, I rad Feingold's statement on the floor of the Senate when he offered his amendment. As one might expect of such a political statement, it is filled with half-truths, a lie por two, and many unsubstantiated accusations. To me, this is par for the course.

But it beg---er--invites the question of why Winston was not so quick to deliniate these little bits of dishonesty.

Could it be that he believes them, due to the fact that they comport with his political religion?

[Averroes]

Above, i said (emphasis added):

"yet, the Democrats continue to tell the lies.

Here, the Republicans join them in the practice, and not for the frist time, you might say."

Tap, tap, tap. Is this thing on? Tap, tap, tap.

What, am I playing to the deaf convention?