Will Bush be impeached??

[Ned]

Che, and the President "can" ignore Congress, they largely have chosen not to.

If you recall, Clinton didn't even ask Congress about his war on Serbia. When it got near the 60-day mark called for the the WPA, IIRC, Clinton did get a resolution passed supporting the war.

Which brings us to a major complaint about Bush, the electronic surveilance of al Qa'ida. We are at war with AQ. I would argue that even if Congress expressly said that we could not monitor AQ communications with Americans, that law would be an unconstitutional interference with the presidents authority as CIC to protect the US in times of war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
I said, "directly interfering in foreign policy." I have also said that Congress has "indirect" influence over foreign policy for all the reasons cited about. Only Che has gone so far as to support a theory that Congress has the right to directly interfere by reducing the president to a minister of Congress. I would suggest that Che's position is way beyond the constitutional pale.

Actually Che's position would be more in jive with what the founders wanted. They wanted the Congress to be the pre-eminent branch of the government.

Which brings us to a major complaint about Bush, the electronic surveilance of al Qa'ida. We are at war with AQ. I would argue that even if Congress expressly said that we could not monitor AQ communications with Americans, that law would be an unconstitutional interference with the presidents authority as CIC to protect the US in times of war.

Or... rather, to prevent the President from violating the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment protection from not being searched without a warrant.

The President cannot violate the Constitution willy-nilly, and separation of powers allows Congress to do whatever it can to prevent that.

For the record, having studied Constitutional Law, I have to agree with Che on this issue.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's not the issue at hand; the issue at hand is whether Congress can investigate and impeach Bush for lying our way into armed conflict, among other things.

Clinton Lied!!!

I guess his impeachment was justified after all...

[Ned]

Imran, we haven't had such a slavish president since the days before Jackson. I am sure the Supremes would not agree that any law that limited the President's authority as CIC (in matters traditionally considered military) would be deemed unconstitutional. Limiting the president's authority to monitor enemy communications on excuse that that authority might possibly be abused would be precisely the kind of law that would be struck down.

[Ned]

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 — President Bush, facing sharp and widespread opposition to his plan to send more troops to Iraq, insists that he has the authority to do so even without the approval of Congress.

``I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it,” he said in a taped interview for the CBS News program “60 Minutes” that is to be broadcast this evening. “But I’ve made my decision. And were going forward.”

...

"But one of the strongest voices today in support of the president’s plan came not from a Republican but from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent and staunch supporter of the war who caucuses with the Democrats.

“If you cut off funding for these additional troops,” he said on NBC, “then you’ve got to accept the consequences of what I fear will be failure, collapse, full-blown civil war, ethnic cleansing on an enormous level, Iran dominating half of Iraq, Al Qaeda setting up a base in the Sunni area, and our allies throughout the region, Fatah, among the Palestinians, the government in Lebanon, the moderates, taking a beating because of the loss of Iraq to the radicals.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/washington/14cnd-prexy.html?ex=1326430800&en=3ceb778a7a5f9f78&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Lord Avalon]

All that could still happen, even with more troops being funded. Time will tell.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, we haven't had such a slavish president since the days before Jackson. I am sure the Supremes would not agree that any law that limited the President's authority as CIC (in matters traditionally considered military) would be deemed unconstitutional. Limiting the president's authority to monitor enemy communications on excuse that that authority might possibly be abused would be precisely the kind of law that would be struck down.

Which means the founders saw the role of President as subservient to Congress... which is what I said. Che's point of view on this issue is closer to what was originally intended is what I'm pointing out. You need not act like it is completely out of left field.

And I seriously doubt the Supreme Court would strike down a law passed by Congress that limited the President's authority to monitor 'enemy' communications on the basis that such power is overbroad and potentially unconstitutional in some respects. Congress has that right. I assume you've heard of FISA, and that has not been struck down yet.

[Admiral]

Has there ever been any movement to challenge the War Powers Act in court? I think that that act was predicated on the notion that Congress does have the authority to override the President on running a war.

[DinoDoc]

Well duh. They can cut off funding for it. Which is what the Dems should do if they feel they were elected on a withdrawal platform.

[Ned]

Who gave Congress the power to surrender?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

That's not the issue at hand; the issue at hand is whether Congress can investigate and impeach Bush for lying our way into armed conflict, among other things.

Clinton Lied!!!

I guess his impeachment was justified after all...

Drake just linked to Mother Jones.

I'm pretty sure that's one of the Seven Signs...

[Drake Tungsten]

It's surely a sign of the Apocalypse when Mother Jones becomes a voice of reason...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, and the President "can" ignore Congress, they largely have chosen not to.

That would be unconstitutional, Ned.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Who gave Congress the power to surrender?

The Founding Fathers and the people of America.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Clinton Lied!!!

I guess his impeachment was justified after all...

He wasn't impeached for lying to Congress. If he had been, I would have been in favor of it. I even wrote a blog about it way back in '98.