Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Cabbage]

I can try. But first can you be clear on what specific acts or omissions of the Senate you're talking about?

How about the President refusing to comply with the House's refusal to fund a border wall by issuing an Emergency order?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I support Graham (and his 'questions') even less. If one party is misusing the system, the solution is not to have the other party misuse it, too.

So the Democrats should just shut up?

Here's the reality, if the Democrats don't say a few outrageous things that get news coverage, all the news coverage will be Trump all the time. Do you suggest another way to get a little coverage?

 

[Cabbage]

Here's the original claim I was replying to:



There's no explicit exclusion of elections there. And I think it's a mistake to exclude elections from this debate anyway.

Fair enough, but I believe it was clarified to exclude elections immediately after. No point in continuing this side topic either way in that case, however.

 

[smartcooky]

So, anyone think we'll be dis-Barr-ed?

Could Barr's successful impeachment in the House (presumably, in part, for lying under oath) lead to him being disbarred?

 

[smartcooky]

No, it's the fault of the House for setting unprecedented conditions on a cabinet secretary's appearance. But that was probably the plan: put conditions on his appearance he wouldn't accept, so that they can bitch about it.

Its not unprecedented... Watergate!

 

[theprestige]

How about the President refusing to comply with the House's refusal to fund a border wall by issuing an Emergency order?

It's a constitutional power of the presidency to issue such orders. Trump is not the first to get traction on a pet policy by issuing an emergency order, nor will he be the last. And for what? To increase border security? Even as a wrongheaded policy, it's not the scariest thing a president has done with the legitimate power of their office.

 

[Hellbound]

Could Barr's successful impeachment in the House (presumably, in part, for lying under oath) lead to him being disbarred?

I think it would depend on where he was licensed. That said, I did find a source that states:

"Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice" are in the category of things that could lead to disbarment. I think that'd be stretching it some in this case, but IANAL.

From the Wiki on Disbarment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disbarment), I don't think this would do it.

I have no idea, I was just playing for the obvious pun: if he's removed as Attorney General, we'd be dis-Barr-ed.

 

[jimbob]

1/ Washington is a unique case with an obvious solution. When the U.S. was created, most political power resided in the states. A national capital was deliberately created from land donated by Maryland and Virginia that would not be part of any state, and therefore not subject to a state's authority. The Virginia land was returned to that state in the mid-1800s, before the Civil War. The rest of the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland, apart from a small federal enclave that would basically include the Capitol, the White House and the Mall. The current D.C. residents would become residents of Maryland and vote in Maryland's federal and state elections. "Retrocession" has been widely discussed for decades; it's not a particularly radical proposal, but several problems are associated with it, including the fact that the 23rd Amendment guarantees D.C. three electoral votes and questions about whether Maryland would assume the D.C. government's pension obligations.

2/ There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to deliver their electoral votes to one candidate on a "winner take all" basis, and two states choose to do it differently. Most of the problems of the Electoral College would be solved if the states simply allocated their electors in proportion to the popular vote, or as close to it as possible if fractions weren't permitted. In Florida in 2000, there would have been no Constitutional crisis; Gore and Bush would each have gotten half the electoral votes. But obviously the states that benefit from the current system won't support any changes.

I was talking specifically about the senate seats. As we're discussing how checks and balances are supposed to work.

 

[Segnosaur]

How about the President refusing to comply with the House's refusal to fund a border wall by issuing an Emergency order?

It's a constitutional power of the presidency to issue such orders.

Trump may have the right to issue emergency orders, but the control of the budget largely rests with Congress.

It will likely be up to the courts to decide whether Stubby McBonespurs does actually have the authority to use emergency powers to build his monument to stupidity (i.e. the wall), since the power of the president to declare emergencies is in conflict with congressional authority to find their response.

Trump is not the first to get traction on a pet policy by issuing an emergency order, nor will he be the last. And for what? To increase border security? Even as a wrongheaded policy, it's not the scariest thing a president has done with the legitimate power of their office.

The problem is not just that Trump wants to blow billions of dollars because of his racism. The problem is the way he is doing it... If he succeeds, he is setting a precedent that will greatly decrease the relevance of congress, since deciding what to do with the government's money is a big part of their authority.

 

[jimbob]

Trump may have the right to issue emergency orders, but the control of the budget largely rests with Congress.

It will likely be up to the courts to decide whether Stubby McBonespurs does actually have the authority to use emergency powers to build his monument to stupidity (i.e. the wall), since the power of the president to declare emergencies is in conflict with congressional authority to find their response.


The problem is not just that Trump wants to blow billions of dollars because of his racism. The problem is the way he is doing it... If he succeeds, he is setting a precedent that will greatly decrease the relevance of congress, since deciding what to do with the government's money is a big part of their authority.

And it is a dangerous precedent. The US system already has an elected monarch with powers akin to George III. Trump seems to want to take them back to Charles I.

 

[dasmiller]

Regardless of what anyone learned from Hirono giving her opinion and Graham spouting his faux outrage, the idea Barr was there to provide the information you cite is laughable.

I phrased that poorly. I did not mean to imply that it was Barr's intent to inform, I meant that it was the nominal reason that he'd been summoned.

But it's nice that I amused you.

 

[dasmiller]

So the Democrats should just shut up?

How on earth do you get that from what I typed?

Here's the reality, if the Democrats don't say a few outrageous things that get news coverage, all the news coverage will be Trump all the time. Do you suggest another way to get a little coverage?

"A little coverage?" Do you really feel that Democrats rarely have their views discussed in the mainstream media?

 

[Cabbage]

It's a constitutional power of the presidency to issue such orders. Trump is not the first to get traction on a pet policy by issuing an emergency order, nor will he be the last. And for what? To increase border security? Even as a wrongheaded policy, it's not the scariest thing a president has done with the legitimate power of their office.

I'd like to see a specific example--You know the criteria necessary to declare such an order are in dispute, and until I see a specific example I'm not convinced they are comparable. Additionally:

1) It looks to me like the Trump wall is more of a vanity project than actual border security. There are other proposals for border security, why not compromise on one of those?

and

2) I'm not as concerned with the specific act in question as I am with the undermining of separation of powers and Constitutional checks and balances that result.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem is not just that Trump wants to blow billions of dollars because of his racism. The problem is the way he is doing it... If he succeeds, he is setting a precedent that will greatly decrease the relevance of congress, since deciding what to do with the government's money is a big part of their authority.

Emergency declaration powers were granted to the president by Congress, not by the Constitution. If Congress does not want the president to have those powers, Congress can change the law to remove those powers. To the extent that this reduces the relevance of Congress, it does so by Congress' own hand.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a constitutional power of the presidency to issue such orders.

Actually, Trump is relying on statutory powers here, not constitutional powers. Which really just makes it more amusing, because it's Congress's own fault that he can do this.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, Trump is relying on statutory powers here, not constitutional powers. Which really just makes it more amusing, because it's Congress's own fault that he can do this.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How on earth do you get that from what I typed?



"A little coverage?" Do you really feel that Democrats rarely have their views discussed in the mainstream media?

Define rare in this context? How about egregiously disproportioned? Yes.

 

[jimbob]

Emergency declaration powers were granted to the president by Congress, not by the Constitution. If Congress does not want the president to have those powers, Congress can change the law to remove those powers. To the extent that this reduces the relevance of Congress, it does so by Congress' own hand.

In which case, those powers should not be used to get around something that Congress has specifically forbidden.

 

[Belz...]

And I think it's generally better for liberal democracies to have limited recourse in between scheduled elections. Nothing I've seen about the Trump presidency so far suggests to me that it's time to make an exception.

We have impeachment. You have a vote of no confidence. Neither is guaranteed to work in every case. If your prime minister survives a vote of no confidence, but you want him out anyway, what recourse do you have? What recourse should you have?

An excellent question, and I generally agree with your comments above. I guess I'm reacting to the realisation that much of the stability of democracies in the modern world is due to people respecting the rules and acting with forebearance. But what happens when they don't?

Trump's a buffoon, and although he can damage some of the institutions of the US, I don't think he's a Hitler wannabe. But what if the next POTUS is, and the Senate is just as unwilling to act against them?

 

[Belz...]

Nit-picking, but the court isn't going to rule to remove the president, only Congress does that through impeachment.

I know that. I wasn't talking about SCOTUS removing the president, but ordering him to do something. What happens if Nixon refuses to give up the tapes, and the Senate is willing to cover for him? Nothing, that's what.