Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Impeachment Related: GAO Determines Trump Violated Impoundment Control Act
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sam View Post
But if your contention is that only Trump can answer for his motivations (clearly a false assertion but let's roll with it), then you would rationally expect -- even demand -- that Trump be deposed under oath, as Clinton was?
--Sam
But, yes. I fully expect Trump to testify on his own behalf.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostI'm deleting the rest, as I have neither the time nor the patience to explain 1) How DoD budgeting documents are sent to Congress and 2) That the President SETS policy and OMB FOLLOWS his lead. So, every last one of them can say it was against policy, but it is within the President's power to change that policy.
But, yes. I fully expect Trump to testify on his own behalf.
And given that Trump will not testify in his defense, just as he refused to sit under oath for the Mueller probe, what does that say about the trial and the senators who refuse to call him?
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostBy definition, then, are you saying that whatever Trump orders constitutes "policy" and not "personal"?
If not, how would you tell? The President will surely say now that his motives weren't personal. But that's directly at odds with what his attorney was saying in May.
And given that Trump will not testify in his defense, just as he refused to sit under oath for the Mueller probe, what does that say about the trial and the senators who refuse to call him?
--SamThat's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostWhen it comes to foreign policy matters, like military aid, yes.
No it isn't. His attorney never said anything in relation to the election in 2020.
Nothing. He is under no unction to testify for or against himself and they are under no unction to call him knowing that the 5th Amendment protects him from incriminating himself. Not every trial calls for direct testimony of the defendant. Ever watch Matlock?
This is incoherent. Under this theory, a president's lawyer can shop around Hawaii to foreign governments for his client, a President can later withdraw all military personnel and equipment from Hawaii as a "policy" decision, despite the clear and unanimous dissent of his diplomatic and national security agencies, and refuse on "policy grounds" to defend an invasion of Hawaii by a country that just happens to be using state funds to build 100 hotels for the President's business in that country.
Your framework dictates here that only the President could give testimony as to whether his decision was made for personal or national interests ... and that he doesn't have to.
Complete nonsense that completely exposes a deliberate lack of thought.
-Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThis is incoherent.
Under this theory, a president's lawyer can shop around Hawaii to foreign governments for his client,
a President can later withdraw all military personnel and equipment from Hawaii as a "policy" decision,
Under Article I, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to "lay and collect Taxes" and to "borrow Money," to make "Appropriations" and "provide for the common Defence," to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy," and to "call forth the Militia."
despite the clear and unanimous dissent of his diplomatic and national security agencies,
and refuse on "policy grounds" to defend an invasion of Hawaii by a country that just happens to be using state funds to build 100 hotels for the President's business in that country.
Your framework dictates here that only the President could give testimony as to whether his decision was made for personal or national interests ... and that he doesn't have to.
Complete nonsense that completely exposes a deliberate lack of thought.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNo it isn't. You are apparently TRYING to be obtuse.
Utterly false. Try again. The Constitution forbids the government reducing the size of its territory.
Nope. Only Congress can order base closures. I've been through 3 BRAC's. Have you served at all to know how the US military works?
Under Article I, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to "lay and collect Taxes" and to "borrow Money," to make "Appropriations" and "provide for the common Defence," to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy," and to "call forth the Militia."
Obtuse.
Actually, yes he could refuse to defend Hawaii from invasion as a matter of policy. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States... Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. However, doing so would probably guarantee he not get elected. And he would have to convince Congress to pull the troops out. Without their consent to close the installations, those local commanders have the authority to override Presidential orders in matters of self-preservation.
His or Rudy's.
Or perhaps you fail to grasp the powers directly provided to the Executive. You obviously don't have a clue how the military works.
Only Congress has the power of the purse, too. And the President cannot simply decide not to allocate money that was appropriated by Congress and signed into law. Congress has the sole power to impeach and try the President and the President cannot simply order his agencies to withhold documents and witnesses and obstruct that impeachment.
The point made is that the President violated the limits to his powers under the Constitution. For a hypothetical, your logic demands a different outcome from what you've applied to this scenario. You understand, when presented with a hypothetical, that your application is incoherent. Now you just have to apply it to this matter.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostOnly Congress has the power of the purse, too. And the President cannot simply decide not to allocate money that was appropriated by Congress and signed into law.
Congress has the sole power to impeach and try the President and the President cannot simply order his agencies to withhold documents and witnesses and obstruct that impeachment.
The point made is that the President violated the limits to his powers under the Constitution.
For a hypothetical, your logic demands a different outcome from what you've applied to this scenario. You understand, when presented with a hypothetical, that your application is incoherent. Now you just have to apply it to this matter.
--SamThat's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
You won't agree to the "fictional scenario" because the hypothetical of a president withdrawing troops or cutting military funds to a state he has surreptitiously agreed to cede control of to a hostile power strikes at the exact same questions we're dealing with here.
The President could argue he was doing so for policy reasons. And he might have to violate some laws to enforce his scheme. But you're arguing that the President does not have to be accountable to Congress for the scheme, nor does he have to release any documentation that supports or contradicts his claim of it being a "policy" decision, rather than a corrupt personal one.
The President, you argue, could not even be sufficiently questioned about his motive by Congress.
You have, for partisan purposes, created a framework that is obviously absurd and unacceptable when applied to other scenarios. Hence, it is incoherent.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYou won't agree to the "fictional scenario" because the hypothetical of a president withdrawing troops or cutting military funds to a state he has surreptitiously agreed to cede control of to a hostile power strikes at the exact same questions we're dealing with here.
The President could argue he was doing so for policy reasons.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
And he might have to violate some laws to enforce his scheme.
But you're arguing that the President does not have to be accountable to Congress for the scheme,
nor does he have to release any documentation that supports or contradicts his claim of it being a "policy" decision, rather than a corrupt personal one.
The President, you argue, could not even be sufficiently questioned about his motive by Congress.
You have, for partisan purposes, created a framework that is obviously absurd and unacceptable when applied to other scenarios. Hence, it is incoherent.
--SamThat's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:19 PM
|
9 responses
62 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 12:23 PM
|
19 responses
68 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 07:01 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:46 AM
|
16 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
109 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 02:49 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 05-02-2024, 04:10 AM
|
27 responses
156 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:37 PM
|
Comment