Presidential abuse of power

I dont know all the details on the Pelosi deal yet.

Of course, Darrell Issa, a member of the House Committee on Intelligence and a republican, met with Syria's President al-Assad yesterday. He also met Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem. More than a dozen U.S. lawmakers have visited Damascus in the last four months and met Assad. Further, she wasnt alone. U.S. Rep. Dave Hobson was with her. He made the following statement earlier:

Hobson, of Springfield, said the trip accomplished two things.

"We reinforced the administration's positions and at the same time we were trying to understand and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration," Hobson said.
Click to expand...

So - just the fact that she went there - no real problem that I can see considering so many other members of Congress have gone as well. Now, what she did / said while she was there, I dont know. That could change my opinon. But iff Hobson's account is accurate then whats the real problem? If there is a problem with her visit, then you need to go after ALL the congressmen who have gone there equally.
 
Joeychgo said:
I dont know all the details on the Pelosi deal yet.

Of course, Darrell Issa, a member of the House Committee on Intelligence and a republican, met with Syria's President al-Assad yesterday. He also met Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem. More than a dozen U.S. lawmakers have visited Damascus in the last four months and met Assad. Further, she wasnt alone. U.S. Rep. Dave Hobson was with her. He made the following statement earlier:



So - just the fact that she went there - no real problem that I can see considering so many other members of Congress have gone as well. Now, what she did / said while she was there, I dont know. That could change my opinon. But iff Hobson's account is accurate then whats the real problem? If there is a problem with her visit, then you need to go after ALL the congressmen who have gone there equally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we wouldn't want to criticize a Democrat all by herself, would we? No, that wouldn't be cool. Gotta make sure we get in a fair and balanced shot at the Repubs whenever a Dem does something wrong, right? [edit]
Blah blah blah more p*ssyfooting around and backtracking. Why don't you take a stand and be intellectually honest for the FIRST TIME IN YOUR LIFE, Joey? [edit] Well, so much for that. [edit]
 
Joeychgo said:
I dont know all the details on the Pelosi deal yet...
Click to expand...

Hobson quote:
"...and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration," Hobson said.

And therein lies the HUGE problem.
They have no business saying ANYTHING ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES unless they have permission from the President. They did not get that permission so like little kids, they went and did it anyway.

I've never seen a clearer violation of the Logan Act. And Pelosi and Hobson admitted it so I wouldn't even bother with a trial. Just toss them in prison or pull their citizenship and have them deported to Syria.
 
Fossten - If she is wrong - she is wrong. I dont care democrat or republican. However - YOU sure seem to, because in your eyes people like GW can do no wrong and Dems can do no right. THATS the hippocritical part of you that makes you have no credibility. You whine about the liberal media, your worse.

Monstermark - If its a clear violation, then they should be dealt with accordingly - dem and/or republican. I havent seen any evidence of things that would be a legal violation yet - just alot of assumptions. Nothing to indicate any negotiotions took place, which is what the Logan act is about. The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed. I imagine because there are serious first amendment issues with such a prosecution.
 
Joeychgo said:
I havent seen any evidence of things that would be a legal violation yet - just alot of assumptions.
Click to expand...

No need for assumptions....

"...and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration," Hobson said.


If you can read between those lines, try your best.
They said things they weren't given permission to by the President. What other proof does there need to be except the transcript of how much damage they actually did?
 
This is a power granted to the president so by definition it is not an abuse of power. You can critisize it on other grounds, but to say it is an abuse of power is itellectually dishonest. As to the patronage claim, Bush himself had no ties to the swift boaters, he made that clear during the election. This guy donated to the swift boaters, who had no direct ties to Bush. So patronage is out, because u can't say this guy is in any way a friend or direct supporter of Bush. U can say it's political it u want, that would be a valid claim. But still, so what! Most any appointment like this by any administration will be political. As to who has abused there power on these type of issues, the Democrats, I have two words for you, Miguel Estrada. The Dem's used questionable tactics to block his nomination for purely political reasons. After that incedent, and many like it, the Bush administration has to assume that any nomination sent to the Senate for conformation will be met with hostility and the recess appointment is a vaild option to get around that. The constitution only calls for a nomination to go to the Senate for conformation. It says nothing about the conformation being required for appointment. In other words, the Senate has to be given a chance to rubber stamp the appointment, but their rubber stamp isn't neccessary for the appointment, constitutionally. As to the reccess appointment, Mac1's post of the wikipedia article, shows that the way Bush used the reccess appointment is pretty much how it has been used for at least the past hundred years, if not more. In fact, many other presidents have used it in this manner much more then Bush. So this is in no way an "abuse of power" but is in fact an established manner of using the reccess appointment. The only reason it is an issue is because the media and the Dem's want to make it one. Joey, I think u r barkin' up the wrong tree here.
 
MonsterMark said:
No need for assumptions....

"...and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration," Hobson said.


If you can read between those lines, try your best.
They said things they weren't given permission to by the President. What other proof does there need to be except the transcript of how much damage they actually did?
Click to expand...


That statement says nothing. Your making assumptions. "If you can read between those lines," --- Thats not evidence Bryan. The generally accepted heart of the Logan act, is "negotiation on behalf of the US government without authorization". I have heard nothing about any negotiation taking place. That statement is vague and contains nothing specific whatsoever. Pelosi could have been talking about beach property values for all we know.

Many congressmen and senators, of both parties, have travelled abroad and discussed matters of foreign policy without presidential approval. If your ready to go back and prosecute them all - great. But I think that any prosecution would have to rise to a much higher level then anything Pelosi has done so far THAT IM AWARE OF.

Shagdrum - what im taking issue with, is that he used the recess appointment so flagrantly to just avoid the senate denying the confirmation. Its also a dumb political move. Like I said before, lets see him get anything passed through congress now.
 
Flagrant, maybe, but not unprecedented (as has been documented). I would disagree with "dumb" political move (I would say shrewd), but ultimately only time will tell. I would also say that he has no less of a chance getting things through congress now then he did before, but again, have to wait and see.
 
Joeychgo said:
Like I said before, lets see him get anything passed through congress now.
Click to expand...

Haha. I believe it is the Congress that makes the laws and the President that approves them. Not the other way around. So let's see the do-nothing Dems do something.
 
Joeychgo said:
blah blah blah...I'm an idiot...blah blah blah...[edit]...I'm a hypocrite...[edit]
Click to expand...

Joey, [edit]you're[edit] nothing[edit] but[edit] a [edit]bully. You[edit] called [edit]me [edit]out [edit]from [edit]the [edit]cheap [edit]seats [edit]for [edit]no [edit]reason, and [edit]you're [edit]too [edit]much [edit]of [edit]a coward [edit]to allow [edit]me to [edit]respond. You [edit]try to [edit]provoke [edit]me and [edit]then chicken[edit] out [edit]and edit my [edit]comments? :bsflag: :ban
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten said:
Joey, [edit]you're[edit] nothing[edit] but[edit] a [edit]bully. You[edit] called [edit]me [edit]out [edit]from [edit]the [edit]cheap [edit]seats [edit]for [edit]no [edit]reason, and [edit]you're [edit]too [edit]much [edit]of [edit]a coward [edit]to allow [edit]me to [edit]respond. You [edit]try to [edit]provoke [edit]me and [edit]then chicken[edit] out [edit]and edit my [edit]comments?
Trust me. You're not pissing Joey off, you are pissing me off and we are on the same team.
Click to expand...
 
Joey, does this help convince you?

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, deflecting White House criticism of her trip to Syria, said Friday she thinks the mission helped President Bush because it showed the United States is unified against terrorism despite being divided over the Iraq war.

Pelosi, D-Calif., met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus earlier this week, against the president's wishes.

"Our message was President Bush's message," Pelosi (NO IT WASN"T) said in a phone interview with The Associated Press from Portugal, where she stopped briefly en route back to the United States.

"The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip," the California Democrat said. "It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress (UM, YES THERE IS MRS. P) and the Democrats (YES THERE REALLY IS) on the message we wanted him to receive."

Bush earlier in the week assailed Pelosi for making the trip to Damascus, saying it sent mixed messages to the Syrian government, which his administration considers to be a state supporter of terrorism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Been a long time since I used this. *owned* :slap:
 
Finally, Mr. Fox Gets the Job

On June 5, 1999, the New York Times published an editorial praising the president for using a recess appointment to install James Hormel, a gay-rights activist, as ambassador to Luxembourg:

President Clinton took an appropriate stand against bigotry yesterday by giving James Hormel a recess appointment as the nation's Ambassador to Luxembourg. Mr. Hormel's nomination had been blocked for 20 months by a handful of Senate Republicans disturbed by his sexual orientation.

The credentials of Mr. Hormel, heir to a meat-packing fortune and a former dean at the University of Chicago Law School who has been active in civic, educational and political causes, were not the sticking point. There were sufficient Senate votes to confirm him had Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, allowed a vote. . . .

Under the constitutional provision that allows Presidents to bypass the confirmation process when Congress is in recess, Mr. Hormel can remain as Ambassador until late next year. His shameful treatment by Mr. Lott and his G.O.P. colleagues will be remembered long beyond that.

The New York Times editorial board, however, seems to have conveniently forgotten the Hormel incident. Today the paper weighs in on another president's recess appointment of an ambassador to a Low Country:

President Bush resorted to an old political trick this week, using recess appointments to evade Senate confirmation votes that he was sure to lose. . . .

The most bitterly resented but least important appointment sent Sam Fox, a major Republican donor, to Belgium as ambassador. Mr. Fox contributed $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group whose vicious ads during the 2004 campaign lied about Senator John Kerry's war record and helped win President Bush a second term. It is common for administrations to reward big donors with ambassadorships. But this appointment is a deliberate thumb in the eye of Senator Kerry and fellow Democrats who were poised to reject the nominee. . . .

With nominees of such dubious merit, it is no wonder that Mr. Bush resorted to an end run around the Senate. The American public will almost certainly pay the price.

The assertion that Fox "was sure to lose" a confirmation vote in the Senate is either mistaken or dishonest. As we noted yesterday, Sens. Claire McCaskill and Joe Lieberman had both announced they would support Fox, which would give him 51 votes assuming no Republican defections. The Democrats planned to block Fox's confirmation by bottling the nomination up in committee, just as the Republicans did to Hormel.

Also as in the case of Hormel, Fox's credentials are not in question--or at least the Times does not question them. The only objection it offers to his nomination is that it hurts John Kerry's feelings.

Given the Times's worldview, which is that any opposition to gay rights is invidious, we can understand why the paper found the Republicans' blocking of Hormel worse than the Democrats' blocking of Fox. But no one can dispute that the latter is exceedingly petty. And the Times looks even more risibly partisan than usual in calling recess appointments "an end run around the Senate" when a Republican uses them and a "constitutional provision" when a Democrat does.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009909
 
MonsterMark said:
Trust me. You're not pissing Joey off, you are pissing me off and we are on the same team.
Click to expand...


Ive been laughin at his feeble attempts to debate this issue actually. You can alwasy tell when fossten loses an argument. He resorts to BS like that.

Frogman said:
When are you guys gonna realize that politicians are nothing but lying, cheating, swindling crooks? All of them. :lol:
Click to expand...

I often would agree with this. Everything is spun and its hard to decipher what REALLY happens because of that spin, be it liberal or conservative spin.
 
Depends on the issue and the times.. I didnt see the "liberal" media ignoring the Monica Lewinski incident. It also depends on who is in office / majority. Lets face it, the president gets alot of media play. o does something like the Pelosi trip - Because she's speaker. If she was just a congresswoman - you wouldnt hear much about what she does and says outside of California.
 
Contrary to the administration's claim, the Constitution (which makes a good read for detail-oriented citizens) in no way prohibits congressional restrictions on the use of the military. On the contrary. Having had unpleasant experiences with monarchical government, the framers were determined to prevent precisely the sort of situation we now have, in which an unaccountable executive endangers the nation through a foolish and self-destructive war.

Thus, while the president's war-related powers are dealt with in a single clause ("the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy"), the Constitution outlines expansive congressional wartime powers, a view that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Congress is expressly empowered to declare war (and, implicitly, to declare an end to a particular war).

Congress also has the power to "raise and support Armies" (with the proviso that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years," which was intended to ensure precisely the accountability the administration seeks to evade).

Congress also is given the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." With its Iraq bills, Congress isn't micromanaging; it's just fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.

It's about time, too. --- Brooks is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

Source

Its important to point out - officially - this isnt a war in Iraq - as the Congress hasnt "Declared" war.
 
Joey, thanks for that article, my constitutional law professor and I had a good laugh at it. Look at her qualifications, she is an international law professor, and probably only dealt with constitutional law when she was in Law school herself. I don't have time to go into too much detail here (I will try and return to this later to expand upon it) but trust me, u could learn more about constitutional law at a special olympics spelling bee then in the article she just wrote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 165 (members: 1, guests: 164)
Back
Top