The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
They don't want him to debate because they don't view him as a serious candidate.

There. Answered. It was irrelevant in the first place, but you seem to place a whole hell of a lot of store in the question anyway. What did you think? That everyone else was afraid to give you an answer to such a ridiculously simple question?

Well, they (and you) don't seem to want to answer the others...

Of course, all your "answer" does is shift the question back an iteration, to: WHY don't they view him as a serious candidate?

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
...
Why does the President have the power to execute every law EXCEPT the Supreme Law?Because if he enforces the constitution directly, as he sees fit, it throws the government out of balance by usurping the authority of the other branches.
I have presented several sources, most notably Story's commentaries, showing that this just isn't so. Or are you HONESTLY saying that Story thought the President should weild supreme dictatorial power?I don't know what Story was thinking. Either he wants the president to have dictatorial powers, like you and Badnarik, or he doesn't understand the implications of his stance.

And another thing: I always speak HONESTLY, you prick. "Liar, liar, pants on fire" is a silly argumentative tactic.
Are you going to answer the question? Did I miss any?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
It's not. THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION. The question, WHICH NO ONE WANTS TO ANSWER, is WHY don't they want him to debate?

Asked and answered. Try reading, Mark.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Of course, all your "answer" does is shift the question back an iteration, to: WHY don't they view him as a serious candidate?

For the same reason they don't consider Lyndon Larouche a serious candidate.

Sorry to hurt your feelings.

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, they (and you) don't seem to want to answer the others...

Of course, all your "answer" does is shift the question back an iteration, to: WHY don't they view him as a serious candidate? Reductio ad absurdum. But OK, I'll play a little longer.

From the point of view of the Democratic and Republican candidates, the probable reason for including other candidates in their debate would be that there is a substantial constituency linked to that candidate. They would want a) to attempt to win over that constituency or b) not to anger/offend that constituency by excluding their man (or woman).

Badnarik has no such constituency, in the opinion of Kerry and Bush.

And since the debates are a private, not government, affair, that is their choice.

Now you can be fully satisfied that there is no reason that Badnarik should have expected to be admitted to the debate in Tempe.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
For the same reason they don't consider Lyndon Larouche a serious candidate.
LaRouche isn't a serious candidate? Does that mean the stuff about Nazis running the economy isn't true?

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
Because if he enforces the constitution directly, as he sees fit, it throws the government out of balance by usurping the authority of the other branches.

Ridiculous, illogical, and laughable. Why should the other two branches have the power to make Constitutional decisions but not the President? THAT is throwing things out of balance.

I don't know what Story was thinking. Either he wants the president to have dictatorial powers, like you and Badnarik, or he doesn't understand the implications of his stance.

Or YOU don't.

BTW, Jefferson said the same thing:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

My construction of the Constitution is...that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
LaRouche isn't a serious candidate? Does that mean the stuff about Nazis running the economy isn't true?

To my knowledge, LaRouche isn't even on the ballot in a single state.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Kerberos
LaRouche isn't a serious candidate? Does that mean the stuff about Nazis running the economy isn't true?

No, that part is true. But the rest of it isn't!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
He wouldn't be repealing them, just declaring them unconstitutional and refusing to enforce them.
Sorry, I was a bit imprecise, I don't think the practical difference is all that big though.

Originally posted by shanek
Where did he say he thought he could do so without being impeached?
If he can't fo it without getting impeached it's not much of a power is it?

Originally posted by shanek
Is the idea that the President can refuse to execute unconstitutional laws one of these "wacky standpoints"?
I'm not sure the Constitution gives him the authority, but I wouldn't say that this view point was wacky in itself.

Originally posted by shanek
And how would he be doing that? Are you saying the President has a Constitutional obligaiton to excecute laws the Constitution doesn't even permit in the first place??
I'm saying that people can have different opinions of what's constitutional, and since Congress has the power to impeach which they could and most likely would use if the President refused to execute a law they had passed, the President is de facto powerless to stop such a law.

Originally posted by shanek
Only if doing so amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor. So it depends on the law and the consequences of him refusing to execute it.
So in you mind Congress could not legally impeach a president who refused to execute fx. a law regulating commerce with foreign nations? The president can block any law he feels like, no matter how clearly it falls within Congress' authority, as long as doing so doesn't constitute a high crime or misdemeanour? Could you explain when a blocking a law, in your opinion, would be impeachable, and perhaps give an example of such a law? It doesn’t have to be an actual law, a hypothetical law is fine.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
To my knowledge, LaRouche isn't even on the ballot in a single state.
he still has essentially the same chance of being elected President as Badnarik has.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
Ridiculous, illogical, and laughable. Why should the other two branches have the power to make Constitutional decisions but not the President? THAT is throwing things out of balance.

Because if the executive branch can let its own interpretation of the constitution overrule the legislation from the legislative branch and the interpretations and judgments of the legislation (include the those concerning the constitution) made by the judicial branch, those two branches are effectively made irrellevant.

To put it pointedly - what if the executive branch decides that an impeachment conviction against the president is unconstitutional?

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
Only if doing so amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor. So it depends on the law and the consequences of him refusing to execute it.

Originally posted by Leif Roar
To put it pointedly - what if the executive branch decides that an impeachment conviction against the president is unconstitutional?
Uh oh. Looks like Shane just gave the King of Libertaria new dictatorial powers. He gets to decide if his own impeachment is valid. Well that pretty much makes his power complete.

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. The only determiners of its validity are the votes of the House of Representatives to impeach and the Senate to convict.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by hgc
Uh oh. Looks like Shane just gave the King of Libertaria new dictatorial powers. He gets to decide if his own impeachment is valid. Well that pretty much makes his power complete.

Dang, I hate being right all the time... ;) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46751)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by hgc
Uh oh. Looks like Shane just gave the King of Libertaria new dictatorial powers. He gets to decide if his own impeachment is valid. Well that pretty much makes his power complete.
Come on, be fair - Shanek only said that refusing to execute a law wouldn't be an impeachable offence, not that it would be up to the President to decide if the impeachment was legitimate. I'm fairly sure that Shanek doesn't think so.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Come on, be fair - Shanek only said that refusing to execute a law wouldn't be an impeachable offence, not that it would be up to the President to decide if the impeachment was legitimate. I'm fairly sure that Shanek doesn't think so. You take a reasonable person's perspective. Not so for everyone.

My point about impeachment and conviction for removal being a political process is that there is no body to determine what is an impeachable offense. If the House impeaches, then by definition, whatever charges they brought are impeachable offenses. "High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have a precise definition in the constitution, and it is generally recognized that a criminal conviction in a court of law is not a prerequisite for impeachment (considering that the only 2 presidential impeachments were not preceded by such).

[hgc]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Dang, I hate being right all the time... ;) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46751) Oh, and I see there that you did use the "dictatorial powers" phase.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by hgc
You take a reasonable person's perspective. Not so for everyone.

My point about impeachment and conviction for removal being a political process is that there is no body to determine what is an impeachable offense. If the House impeaches, then by definition, whatever charges they brought are impeachable offenses. "High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have a precise definition in the constitution, and it is generally recognized that a criminal conviction in a court of law is not a prerequisite for impeachment (considering that the only 2 presidential impeachments were not preceded by such).
I totally agree, but based on my discussions with Shanek, I think he sees things differently. As I understand him, to Shanek, it's two quite different things whether people can do something, as in are they allowed to do it, and whether they actually CAN do it, as in having the power to do it.

So to Shanek Congress are only allowed to impeach the President, if he commits a high crime or misdemeanour, as Shanek understands the terms of course, regardless of the fact that there is nothing short of revolution (and the risk of not getting re-elected) to stop them, from impeaching the President for any reason they choose. So when Shanek says that Congress can’t impeach Badnarik for refusing to implement laws I’m fairly certain that he only means they aren’t allowed to, not that Badnarik could refuse. Of course I’m sure that Shanek will correct me, if he thinks I’m misrepresenting him.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Sorry, I was a bit imprecise, I don't think the practical difference is all that big though.

It actually is. If Congress repeals a law, no President can execute it. But if a President decides not to execute a law, the next President can decide to execute it again.

I'm not sure the Constitution gives him the authority, but I wouldn't say that this view point was wacky in itself.

Fine. Then I'll just ask you: why does the power to execute the law not extend to the Supreme Law of the Land?

I'm saying that people can have different opinions of what's constitutional, and since Congress has the power to impeach which they could and most likely would use if the President refused to execute a law they had passed,

I don't see where you get that from. There have only been two impeachments in American history, and neither of them were about that.

So in you mind Congress could not legally impeach a president who refused to execute fx. a law regulating commerce with foreign nations?

Unless something in his refusal to execute the law rises to the level of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Could you explain when a blocking a law, in your opinion, would be impeachable, and perhaps give an example of such a law?

Well, kind of a wild example, but if a country attacked America, Congress declared war on and ended its aid to that country, and the President not failed to execute the declaration of war and continued the aid instead, that would certainly fall under the Constitutional definition of treason.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
he still has essentially the same chance of being elected President as Badnarik has.

Badnarik is in a position to receive infinitely more votes than LaRouche.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Because if the executive branch can let its own interpretation of the constitution overrule the legislation from the legislative branch and the interpretations and judgments of the legislation (include the those concerning the constitution) made by the judicial branch, those two branches are effectively made irrellevant.

HOW??? Just restating the claim doesn't do anything.

To put it pointedly - what if the executive branch decides that an impeachment conviction against the president is unconstitutional?

Um, he can't, because he isn't the President anymore.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
My point about impeachment and conviction for removal being a political process is that there is no body to determine what is an impeachable offense.

Wrong, sir. Article I Section 2 Paragraph 5 gives the House of Representatives the SOLE power of impeachment, and Article I Section 3 Paragraph 6 gives the Senate the SOLE power to try impeachments.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have a precise definition in the constitution,

They do in the common law, as I have pointed out.

[irrelevancy about criminal convictions deleted]

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Come on, be fair - Shanek only said that refusing to execute a law wouldn't be an impeachable offence, not that it would be up to the President to decide if the impeachment was legitimate. I'm fairly sure that Shanek doesn't think so.

No, but it is a logical extreme of Shanek's position that the president has the power to cherry-pick which laws to uphold or which interpretations of the laws to use. The process of impeachment itself is founded in law, so if the president has the right to ignore the judicial branch's interpretations of the law (including the constitution), he can also merrily interpret his way out of an impeachment.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
So to Shanek Congress are only allowed to impeach the President, if he commits a high crime or misdemeanour, as Shanek understands the terms of course, regardless of the fact that there is nothing short of revolution (and the risk of not getting re-elected) to stop them, from impeaching the President for any reason they choose. So when Shanek says that Congress can’t impeach Badnarik for refusing to implement laws I’m fairly certain that he only means they aren’t allowed to, not that Badnarik could refuse. Of course I’m sure that Shanek will correct me, if he thinks I’m misrepresenting him.

No, that's pretty much it.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
Um, he can't, because he isn't the President anymore.

Oh, but he is by his interpretation of the law, and according to you he can decide to go by his own interpretation rather than that of the judicial branch. Which is precisely why the president (and the executive branch in general) is not given the power (right) to do so.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
They do in the common law, as I have pointed out.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that common law is irrelevant to constitutional cases. Am I wrong?

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
Wrong, sir. Article I Section 2 Paragraph 5 gives the House of Representatives the SOLE power of impeachment, and Article I Section 3 Paragraph 6 gives the Senate the SOLE power to try impeachments. Not that it matters, but you took the first part of my post, called it wrong, and 'proved' your point by backing up the rest of my post with constitutional text. Did you read the entire thing? When I said "no body," I meant no body other than the House and Senate, obviously.

What it comes down to is that any statement that includes "only if doing so amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor" is pretty much meaningless, since the bodies that will impeach and remove a president from office don't answer to any other authority for the validity of their actions.

Let's try a practical hypothetical:

If Badnarik is elected president, and instructs the instruments of the federal government not to enforce gun laws, and the House impeaches on articles citing these actions, and the Senate convicts, is he removed from office?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Oh, but he is by his interpretation of the law, and according to you he can decide to go by his own interpretation rather than that of the judicial branch. Which is precisely why the president (and the executive branch in general) is not given the power (right) to do so.

You're just talking around yourself now, because you know you've lost. The SOLE power of impeachment is in the House, and the SOLE power to try impeachments is in the Senate. We also have the 23rd Amendment for another way Presidents can be kicked out of office. NONE of this says ANYTHING about whether or not the President can refuse to execute an order he determines is in violation of the Constitution. AND YOU KNOW IT.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that common law is irrelevant to constitutional cases. Am I wrong?

You are wrong. The Constitution is based on common law and uses common law terms throughout.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
Not that it matters, but you took the first part of my post, called it wrong, and 'proved' your point by backing up the rest of my post with constitutional text. Did you read the entire thing? When I said "no body," I meant no body other than the House and Senate, obviously.

Well, that's not what you said. Be more clear in the future.

If Badnarik is elected president, and instructs the instruments of the federal government not to enforce gun laws, and the House impeaches on articles citing these actions, and the Senate convicts, is he removed from office?

Yes. Whether or not they were justified in doing so under the Constitution is another matter. But there's something you skipped over: the President gets to defend himself in the Senate's trial, and he only needs to convince one third of them that he was right. So it's not likely to happen to begin with. THAT is the point of Constitutional protections. There's no way you can prevent them 100%, but the Constitution endeavors to make them as rare as possible. That's why they had a different body try the impeachment than actually make the impeachment. That meant a lot more before the 17th Amendment, but there you are.

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes. Whether or not they were justified in doing so under the Constitution is another matter. But there's something you skipped over: the President gets to defend himself in the Senate's trial, and he only needs to convince one third of them that he was right. So it's not likely to happen to begin with. THAT is the point of Constitutional protections. There's no way you can prevent them 100%, but the Constitution endeavors to make them as rare as possible. That's why they had a different body try the impeachment than actually make the impeachment. That meant a lot more before the 17th Amendment, but there you are. Whew! I feel a lot better now knowing that Barnarik can't overturn his own impeachment conviction.

Maybe he'd get away with the non-enforcement of gun laws, maybe. But I'd wager that the attempt to get members of Congress to attend his constitution class will get him thrown out on his ass faster than cow piss off a flat rock.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
You're just talking around yourself now, because you know you've lost. The SOLE power of impeachment is in the House, and the SOLE power to try impeachments is in the Senate.

Yes, that is the case. But if the president actually had the right to impose his own interpretation of the legislation - as you claim he does -then it would no longer be the case. And this is why the president does not have that power.


We also have the 23rd Amendment for another way Presidents can be kicked out of office.

That is irrellevant, as if the president had the power to interpret the constitution, he would also have the power to use his own interpretation of the 23rd amendment.

[SNIP]

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Yes, that is the case. But if the president actually had the right to impose his own interpretation of the legislation - as you claim he does -then it would no longer be the case. And this is why the president does not have that power.

Again, PATENTLY RIDICULOUS. And anyone here can see that. We are NOT talking about the President executing laws passed by Congress.

That is irrellevant, as if the president had the power to interpret the constitution, he would also have the power to use his own interpretation of the 23rd amendment.

Again, ludicrous, for the same reasons.

[SNIP]

Yeah, sure, snip out the part you have no response to...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
Again, PATENTLY RIDICULOUS. And anyone here can see that. We are NOT talking about the President executing laws passed by Congress.

No, we are talking about wether the president has the right to refuse to enforce a law enacted by the legislative branch, or the right to impose his own interpretation of the constitution over that made by the judicial branch.

[SNIP]


Yeah, sure, snip out the part you have no response to...

The part I snipped out was [B] NONE of this says ANYTHING about whether or not the President can refuse to execute an order he determines is in violation of the Constitution. AND YOU KNOW IT.[B]

The reason why I snipped it out rather than reply to it was because I quite frankly didn't understand what you meant with "this." Furthermore, I didn't see where "orders" entered the picture - weren't we talking about laws?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
No, we are talking about wether the president has the right to refuse to enforce a law enacted by the legislative branch, or the right to impose his own interpretation of the constitution over that made by the judicial branch.

And that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with impeachment.

The reason why I snipped it out rather than reply to it was because I quite frankly didn't understand what you meant with "this." Furthermore, I didn't see where "orders" entered the picture - weren't we talking about laws?

Same thing. Laws are legislative orders to the executive.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
And that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with impeachment.

*sighs* Except that the process of impeachment is defined and founded in the legislation, and if the president has the power to interpret the legislation he can also use that power when it concerns impeachment.

The matter of impeachment thus serves as a very pointedly example of why the president does not have interpretive power.

Does that explain why I brought up impeachment?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
*sighs* Except that the process of impeachment is defined and founded in the legislation,

Impeachment is not legislation, and the President does not execute it. Your argument is INVALID.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
Impeachment is not legislation, and the President does not execute it. Your argument is INVALID.

I said it was "founded in legislation," not that an impeachment was itself legislation. If the president was free to apply his own interpretations of US constitution, which is where the process of impeachment is defined, he would be free to reinterpret the process and powers of impeachment as he saw fit.

Again, this is precisely why the president does not have this power.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Badnarik is in a position to receive infinitely more votes than LaRouche.

False.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Oh, but he is by his interpretation of the law, and according to you he can decide to go by his own interpretation rather than that of the judicial branch. Which is precisely why the president (and the executive branch in general) is not given the power (right) to do so.

Exactly correct. See, shanek doesn't realize the effects of his loony theory (posted on another thread) that everyone can interpret the constitution, and that everyone's interpretation is correct. So in the shanek/loony world, the president can interpret the constitution to give himself the office for a lifetime.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I said it was "founded in legislation," not that an impeachment was itself legislation. If the president was free to apply his own interpretations of US constitution, which is where the process of impeachment is defined, he would be free to reinterpret the process and powers of impeachment as he saw fit.

No, he isn't, because HE DOESN'T EXECUTE THE IMPEACHMENT!!! I don't know why you're so stubbornly ignoring that point...

Your argument is WEAK, SPECIOUS, and LUDICROUS. Give it up.

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
No, he isn't, because HE DOESN'T EXECUTE THE IMPEACHMENT!!! ...Who does?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
No, he isn't, because HE DOESN'T EXECUTE THE IMPEACHMENT!!! I don't know why you're so stubbornly ignoring that point...

Your argument is WEAK, SPECIOUS, and LUDICROUS. Give it up.

Boy, I don't know. This one is close. Is there enough capitalization to constitute a hissy fit? I'm leaning toward yes. I have a feeling there was some stomping feet too.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Boy, I don't know. This one is close. Is there enough capitalization to constitute a hissy fit? I'm leaning toward yes. I have a feeling there was some stomping feet too.

Have you ever, you know, tried contributing to a thread?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Sushi
Have you ever, you know, tried contributing to a thread? Ah, Sushi the forum cop is back.

Did you ever bother to check the Badnarik fact summary that I pointed you to several times? (You know, the facts that you said that I invented.)

[Sushi]

Originally posted by varwoche
Ah, Sushi the forum cop is back.

Did you ever bother to check the Badnarik fact summary that I pointed you to several times? (You know, the facts that you said that I invented.)

Yes, I checked them, saw that post of yours a long time ago, before signing up here, and I'm not impressed by your reasoning and your inability to understand simple concepts.

And I didn't say you invented all of them, I said you were exaggerating on the antrax.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Sushi
And I didn't say you invented all of them, I said you were exaggerating on the antrax. Do tell. Was I exaggerating?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Sushi
Have you ever, you know, tried contributing to a thread?

I do all the time. I just contributed to this one. You quoted me. Didn't you notice?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek

Fine. Then I'll just ask you: why does the power to execute the law not extend to the Supreme Law of the Land?
If Badnarik decides not to execute tax and gun laws he'll get impeached, even if you and he don't think Congress actually have that authority. If he decides not to enforce a law that has such a character that not enforcing it would be treason or similar (as in the example you gave in this post) the exact same thing will happen the only appreciable difference will be that you will think that it’s OK - the results will be the same. That means that his actual power (which is the concept of power I operate with, since it is the kind of power that matters) to do these things are the same. In either case he does not have the power to stop the execution of these laws, though he might be able to stall them a bit.

Originally posted by shanek
I don't see where you get that from.
Do you honestly think that Congress wouldn't get a little ... grouchy, if the President interfered in what they see as their jurisdiction? Actually I'd like to qualify the statement somewhat, in some cases the President could probably get away with refusing to enforce the law. If the law was for example very unpopular, then Congress might choose not to impeach, since this would seriously hurt their chances of re-election. It's also possible that Congress wouldn't regard the law as important enough. Also we could imagine cases were the law would be of such a character that trying to impeach the President over his refusal, would lead to a popular uprising.
Originally posted by shanek
There have only been two impeachments in American history, and neither of them were about that.
I'm not an expert in American history, but I'm fairly confident that no President has ever declared more than 20.000 laws unconstitutional and refused to execute them in one go. Even more significant is his intention of tossing out half the tax laws from one day to another. I'm fairly certain that this would result in the world economy collapsing like a house of cards, if Congress let him. I'm also quite certain that Congress would not in fact let him. I obviously can't cite precedent, because no president ever has done anything like this, and most likely no president ever will.

Originally posted by shanek
Badnarik is in a position to receive infinitely more votes than LaRouche.
Perhaps, but he still has a snowballs chance in Hell of ever getting elected.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Kerberos
If Badnarik decides not to execute tax and gun laws he'll get impeached, even if you and he don't think Congress actually have that authority. If he decides not to enforce a law that has such a character that not enforcing it would be treason or similar (as in the example you gave in this post) the exact same thing will happen the only appreciable difference will be that you will think that it’s OK - the results will be the same ... In either case he does not have the power to stop the execution of these laws This is what I was getting at back on page one: A criminal act is not a criminal act until a judicial process occurs. And the same is true if the president wrongly violates the law/constitution -- it's not wrong/criminal until a judicial process occurs. Hence, saying that the president is "allowed" to ignore the supreme court has a semantical element to it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
Who does?

Congress! That's what SOLE power means.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
[snip Kerberos's non-answer]

Kerberos, why does the power to execute the law not extend to the Supreme Law of the Land?

Do you honestly think that Congress wouldn't get a little ... grouchy, if the President interfered in what they see as their jurisdiction?

It's this very assumption I'm wanting you to support. I think you have a very childish view of the whole process. You're painting a picture of Congress sitting all by itself yelling, "Is too! Is too!" while the President sits all by himself yelling, "Is not! Is not!" Come on—even politicians are more mature than that.

I'm fairly certain that this would result in the world economy collapsing like a house of cards,

You're free to support this. You have a LOT of economic theory and data saying the opposite to overcome, though.

[shanek]

Originally posted by varwoche
This is what I was getting at back on page one:

The Supreme Court has no power to try the President as long as he is in office.

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
Congress! That's what SOLE power means. How does Congress go about removing the president, after the 2/3 vote to convict in the Senate, if the president claims that the impeachment/conviction was invalid?

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
The Supreme Court has no power to try the President as long as he is in office. Since everyone knows that the Supreme Court does not conduct trials, I'll assume by this that you mean the federal district courts, which are a legislatively created extension of the Supreme Court (as provided for in the constitution). Are you saying that the president is immune from criminal prosecution in federal court, while in office? We know from recent experience that the president is not immune to being a defendent in a civil matter in a federal court.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
How does Congress go about removing the president, after the 2/3 vote to convict in the Senate, if the president claims that the impeachment/conviction was invalid?

It doesn't matter WHAT he claims—he's not the President anymore! The Vice President is now the President (unless he's impeached, too, then Congress selects an interim President until a new one can be elected). The new President then has the power. That's the way it works.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
Are you saying that the president is immune from criminal prosecution in federal court, while in office?

Yes, and this was confirmed in Mississippi v. Johnson. The President cannot be subpoenaed away from his duties; such would be extremely dangerous since a handful of people could levy one charge after another against him and prevent him from performing his duties. He has to be impeached first, then he can be prosecuted criminally. He isn't immune from prosecution from acts he committed while in office, you just have to get him out first and get someone else in as President.

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, and this was confirmed in Mississippi v. Johnson. The President cannot be subpoenaed away from his duties; such would be extremely dangerous since a handful of people could levy one charge after another against him and prevent him from performing his duties. He has to be impeached first, then he can be prosecuted criminally. He isn't immune from prosecution from acts he committed while in office, you just have to get him out first and get someone else in as President. I don't know anything about Mississippi v. Johnson, but I am surprised, based on Clinton's unsucessful attempt to have Paula Jones' lawsuit in federal court delayed until he was out of office, that the 'president is too busy' defense is valid. Bothersome subpoenas present the same problem in civil cases as in criminal cases. As for crimes allegedly committed while in office, it makes perfect sense that this be disallowed while the president is in office, but for reasons of protecting the president from politically motivated prosecutions.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
Kerberos, why does the power to execute the law not extend to the Supreme Law of the Land?
If Badnarik decides not to execute tax and gun laws he'll get impeached, even if you and he don't think Congress actually have that authority. If he decides not to enforce a law that has such a character that not enforcing it would be treason or similar (as in the example you gave in this post) the exact same thing will happen the only appreciable difference will be that you will think that it’s OK - the results will be the same. That means that his actual power (which is the concept of power I operate with, since it is the kind of power that matters) to do these things are the same. In either case he does not have the power to stop the execution of these laws, though he might be able to stall them a bit.

Originally posted by shanek
It's this very assumption I'm wanting you to support. I think you have a very childish view of the whole process. You're painting a picture of Congress sitting all by itself yelling, "Is too! Is too!" while the President sits all by himself yelling, "Is not! Is not!" Come on—even politicians are more mature than that.
This is rich, you, the resident constitutional fundamentalist, thinks that is childish to impeach a president for violating the Constitution? Yes, I know that you don't think that Badnarik would be violating the constitution, but I think you've noticed that Congress doesn't always agree with your interpretation.

Originally posted by shanek
You're free to support this. You have a LOT of economic theory and data saying the opposite to overcome, though. Do you think it's going to reassure investors if a President is elected and he tries to create a Constitutional crisis, and turns the tax code on it's head on his first day in office? I rather doubt that, they're going conclude he's a nutcase and flee from the country very, very fast. This is going to cause huge disruptions in the American economy and by extension the world economy. What’s really going to be “fun� though, is what happens when he declares the federal reserve act unconstitutional (which is a blatant interference in the powers given to Congress BTW). This is going to cause total panic among anybody anywhere in the world who holds dollars. What do you think happens, when almost everybody who owns dollars try to sell them at the same time?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
If Badnarik decides not to execute tax and gun laws he'll get impeached, even if you and he don't think Congress actually have that authority.

I'm going to start ignoring your posts if you start making deliberate lies. In how many posts now have I said that Congress has the SOLE authority to impeach?

In either case he does not have the power to stop the execution of these laws, though he might be able to stall them a bit.

He has the power to stop the execution of them for as long as he is in office. And impeachment isn't exactly an easy thing to do.

This is rich, you, the resident constitutional fundamentalist, thinks that is childish to impeach a president for violating the Constitution?

Yes, because of what THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. It's ONLY if it rises to the level of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. What Bush has done (arresting citizens without charge or trial) would qualify; not respecting the time of adjournment of Congress wouldn't.

Do you think it's going to reassure investors if a President is elected and he tries to create a Constitutional crisis, and turns the tax code on it's head on his first day in office?

Actually, yes. That will free up a LOT of resources in the free market.

[biased FUD deleted—you speak for no one but yourself, Kerberos.]

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm going to start ignoring your posts if you start making deliberate lies. In how many posts now have I said that Congress has the SOLE authority to impeach?
Sight! :rolleyes: When are you going to learn that that disagreement, misunderstandings and, I think in this case, minor semantic points aren't lies. You keep saying that the Constitution says they can only impeach over high crimes and misdemeanours. I called this Constitutional permission authority, but if you think another word is more accurate feel free to give it.

Originally posted by shanek
He has the power to stop the execution of them for as long as he is in office.
Which I said, except of course that the people under him could in theory choose to disregard his orders as unconstitutional, though I doubt they'd do that except in really extreme cases.

Originally posted by shanek
And impeachment isn't exactly an easy thing to do.
The procedure described in the Constitution doesn't seem complicated, I'm sure that such things normally take a long time, but if Congress felt like it, they could probably do it very fast.

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, because of what THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. It's ONLY if it rises to the level of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Which isn't clearly defined in the Constitution, and the definition/examples you've given "gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office." Are, even if taken as Gospel, so broad that almost anything can be made to fit in, certainly what Badnarik intends can easily be classified as usurpation.

Originally posted by shanek
What Bush has done (arresting citizens without charge or trial) would qualify; not respecting the time of adjournment of Congress wouldn't.
Does the president have any duties regarding the time of adjournment of Congress?

Originally posted by shanek
biased FUD deleted—you speak for no one but yourself, Kerberos.
I don't claim to speak for anybody beside myself - predicting other peoples behaviour isn’t the same as speaking for them. In case you haven't noticed people from all political stripes on this forum agrees that Badnariks economic policy is insane. If this forum is in any way representative for the population at large, this strongly supports my conclusions, since the belief that Badnariks economic policies are horrible alone, even if erroneous, would be enough to create the upheavals I predicted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Sight! :rolleyes: When are you going to learn that that disagreement, misunderstandings and, I think in this case, minor semantic points aren't lies.

MINOR SEMANTIC POINTS???? I say, "Congress has the SOLE power of impeachment," you claim that I don't think Congress has the authority to impeach, and that's a MINOR SEMANTIC POINT????

You keep saying that the Constitution says they can only impeach over high crimes and misdemeanours.

Yes. That's the criteria they're given.

The procedure described in the Constitution doesn't seem complicated,

It's not complicated; but it's not every day you're going to get two thirds of either House to agree on something. You need a majority of the House to impeach, and two thirds of the Senate to convict. That's not easy to obtain.

Which isn't clearly defined in the Constitution,

It is in the common law, and that's what the Constitution was referring to.

Does the president have any duties regarding the time of adjournment of Congress?

Only when calling a special session of either or both Houses in cases of disagreement between them.

I don't claim to speak for anybody beside myself

Well, that's what you DID. You spoke for investors, who try to shelter as much of their funds from income taxes as they can get away with. It's certainly not going to cause them to flee the country, the economy to collapse, the Earth to spiral into the sun, or any other kind of gloom-and-doom scenario you can cook up.

In case you haven't noticed people from all political stripes

They aren't from "all political stripes;" they're the same ones who rail on me and any other libertarians on this forum. Badnarik's policies are actually more in line with economic theory than either Bush's or Kerry's.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, and this was confirmed in Mississippi v. Johnson. The President cannot be subpoenaed away from his duties; such would be extremely dangerous since a handful of people could levy one charge after another against him and prevent him from performing his duties. He has to be impeached first, then he can be prosecuted criminally. He isn't immune from prosecution from acts he committed while in office, you just have to get him out first and get someone else in as President.

Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. 475 (1866) did not discuss subpoenas. Rather it discussed an attempt by the state of Mississippi to use an injusction to enjoin President Johnson from carrying out certain reconstruction acts passed by Congress.

The chief justice makes it clear what his opinion is about (emphesis mine):

We shall limit our inquiry to the question presented by the objection, without expressing any opinion on the broader issues discussed in argument, whether, in any case, the President of the United States may be required, by the process of this court, to perform a purely ministerial act under a positive law, or may be held amenable, in any case, otherwise than by impeachment for crime.
The single point which requires consideration is this: Can the President be restrained by injunction from carrying into effect an act of Congress alleged to be unconstitutional?
It is assumed by the counsel for the State of Mississippi, that the President, in the execution of the Reconstruction Acts, is required to perform a mere ministerial duty. In this assumption there is, we think, a confounding of the terms ministerial and executive, which are by no means equivalent in import.


So, the entire point of this case is that one cannot get an injuction or mandamus to prevent/require the president to perform an "executive" duty even though this sort of relief is available to prevent/require the President to permorm a ministerial duty. The enforcement of an act of Congress is held to be an "executive" duty.

The decision has nothing to do with prosecution, or subpoenas bringing the President away from offical duties. That much is made clear from the above snippet of the opinion. I suspect that shanek, or the author of the secondary source from which shanek gets his legal information, was confused by the fact that both side's briefs were published along with the court's opinion. The AG's brief contains language in line with the claim shanek made, but not the actual opinion.


It is interesting that the Court makes the following statement about seperation of powers and impeachment in explaining why it lacks the power to force a president to not enforce an act of Congress based on an allegation same is unconstitutional:

Suppose the bill filed and the injunction prayed for allowed. If the President refuse obedience, it is needless to *501 observe that the court is without power to enforce its process. If, on the other hand, the President complies with the order of the court and refuses to execute the acts of Congress, is it not clear that a collision may occur between the executive and legislative departments of the government? May not the House of Representatives impeach the President for such refusal? And in that case could this court interfere, in behalf of the President, thus endangered by compliance with its mandate, and restrain by injunction the Senate of the United States from sitting as a court of impeachment? Would the strange spectacle be offered to the public world of an attempt by this court to arrest proceedings in that court?
These questions answer themselves.


(emphesis added)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. 475 (1866) did not discuss subpoenas. Rather it discussed an attempt by the state of Mississippi to use an injusction to enjoin President Johnson from carrying out certain reconstruction acts passed by Congress.

I see. Thank you for explaining the difference. (I'll ignore the subtle ad hominem attack you inserted.)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
I see. Thank you for explaining the difference. (I'll ignore the subtle ad hominem attack you inserted.)

What ad hominem?

By your criteria I should be claiming you LIED about the case...

You mean this?

I suspect that shanek, or the author of the secondary source from which shanek gets his legal information, was confused by the fact that both side's briefs were published along with the court's opinion. The AG's brief contains language in line with the claim shanek made, but not the actual opinion.

Hardly an ad hominem in that it charitably tries to explain why you posted a clearly erroneous claim. Watch as I even support my suspicion as to the reasons by looking to your original post...

Yes, and this was confirmed in Mississippi v. Johnson. The President cannot be subpoenaed away from his duties; such would be extremely dangerous since a handful of people could levy one charge after another against him and prevent him from performing his duties. He has to be impeached first, then he can be prosecuted criminally. He isn't immune from prosecution from acts he committed while in office, you just have to get him out first and get someone else in as President.

... and compare it to a few snippets from the AG's brief from this case:

Is not the proposition subversive of all ideas of what government is and of the purposes for which a President is put in the executive chair, that whenever there are controversies between individuals anywhere in the United States, and the President even in his natural capacity happens to know anything about them, wherever the process of the court can extend to him territorially, he is bound to quit *484 his office, to leave his place at the head of the government, and to attend to the business of the individual citizen; to remit his duties over the whole and attend to his duties to the individual?

This is similar to your claim that the President shouldn't be called away by any fool with a subpoena.

There is only one court or quasi court that he can be called upon to answer to for any dereliction of duty, for doing anything that is contrary to law or failing to do anything which is according to law, and that is not this tribunal but one that sits in another chamber of this Capitol. There *485 he can be called and tried and punished, but not here while he is President; and after he has been dealt with in that chamber and stripped of the robes of office, and he no longer stands as the representative of the government, then for any wrong he has done to any individual, for any murder or any crime of any sort which he has committed as President, then and not till then can he be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts. Then it is the individual they deal with, not the representative of the people.

This is the second part where the President needs to be impeached before being drug into court.



So, your post reflected quite clearly part of the AG's argument in this case. Just not the court's opinion.

There are two possibilities we can draw from this. First is that you (or the author of the secondary source you drew your information from) was confused as to the format of the published opinion.

The second is that you or the author are intentionally trying to mislead.

I chose the first, as I do not presume malice without clear evidence of same. I give the benefit of the doubt.


For my trouble and charity I am accused of an ad hominem attack by someone who will not hesitate to label those that post what he sees as contrafactual information as LIARS.

Oh the irony....

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
What ad hominem?

The one where you implied I was just parroting some secondary source. You've done that before and I've asked you to cut it out.

By your criteria I should be claiming you LIED about the case...

This is similar to your claim that the President shouldn't be called away by any fool with a subpoena.

And that is indeed where I got that from. You explained the distinction. I don't know why everything has to be such a battle between us...It's impossible for me in this forum to gracefully admit when I'm wrong. I have people STILL getting on my butt about the caffeine issue even though I retracted the claim IN THAT THREAD once someone actually posted valid evidence (I'm funny that way). TO THIS DAY it is being portrayed as if I'm some woo-woo who won't let go of that claim. This effect got old a LONG time ago.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
MINOR SEMANTIC POINTS????
Yes, as I explained, perhaps you should have read it?
Originally posted by shanek
I say, "Congress has the SOLE power of impeachment," you claim that I don't think Congress has the authority to impeach, and that's a MINOR SEMANTIC POINT????
Yes, as I explained, perhaps you should have read it?

Originally posted by shanek
Yes. That's the criteria they're given.
And I called this Constitutional permission authority, but if you think another word is more accurate feel free to give it.

Originally posted by shanek
It's not complicated; but it's not every day you're going to get two thirds of either House to agree on something. You need a majority of the House to impeach, and two thirds of the Senate to convict. That's not easy to obtain.
Considering how much you talk about the Demopublican conspiracy against third parties, I'm surprised you doubt that they'd impeach Badnarik if he in their (and my) view, blatantly violated the Constitution.

Originally posted by shanek
It is in the common law, and that's what the Constitution was referring to.
A) The Constitution doesn’t say it refer to common law.
B) Common law changes doesn’t it?
C) The definition/examples you've given "gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office." Are, even if taken as Gospel, so broad that almost anything can be made to fit in, certainly what Badnarik intends can easily be classified as usurpation.


Originally posted by shanek
Well, that's what you DID. You spoke for investors...
Predicting other people’s behaviour isn’t the same as speaking for them.

Originally posted by shanek
...who try to shelter as much of their funds from income taxes as they can get away with.
I could say "you speak for no one but yourself, Shanek." but you’d probably miss the point.

Investors generally dislike instability and Badnarik seems intend on turning the entire US upside down on his first day in. Some of it might be somewhat feasible, if he was willing to do it over some years, but he isn't. I could say that time will tell, but fortunately it won't.

Originally posted by shanek
It's certainly not going to cause them to flee the country, the economy to collapse, the Earth to spiral into the sun
I doubt electing Badnarik would cause the Earth to spiral into the sun, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by shanek
They aren't from "all political stripes;" they're the same ones who rail on me and any other libertarians on this forum.
Sure the people who criticize you are the same that criticise Badnarik (Considering that you're the resident Badnarik apologist that's hardly shocking, also you lecturing people on railing? :nope: ), but that doesn't change the fact that we represent all political stripes.

Originally posted by shanek
Badnarik's policies are actually more in line with economic theory than either Bush's or Kerry's.
Sorry, but "there's supply and there's demand, and if we just don't interfere everything is magically going to work out, oh and BTW fiat currency is evil" is hardly the totality of current economic theory. That being said I'm hardly a great fan of Bushes economic policy, and while I don't know much about Kerry's policies, I'm sure I could find areas where I'd disagree with him as well.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Yes, as I explained, perhaps you should have read it?

You gave NO SUCH EXPLANATION and NO SUCH EVIDENCE showing that I think that Congress doesn't have authority to impeach. YOU DID NOT EXPLAIN IT. You LIED about what I said. Plain and simple.

And I called this Constitutional permission authority, but if you think another word is more accurate feel free to give it.

I don't care what you call it; I want to know where I said that Congress doesn't have the authority to impeach. SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT WITH DIRECT QUOTES FROM ME OR RETRACT IT.

Considering how much you talk about the Demopublican conspiracy against third parties, I'm surprised you doubt that they'd impeach Badnarik if he in their (and my) view, blatantly violated the Constitution.

:rolleyes:

If Badnarik is elected, it's because of a massive shift in public opinion and support. Are you saying Congress doesn't act at least in part due to public opinion and support?

A) The Constitution doesn’t say it refer to common law.

The Constitution is a common law document. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SAY IT.

B) Common law changes doesn’t it?

Unless a statute or other written law is enacted, which is the case here.

C) The definition/examples you've given "gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office." Are, even if taken as Gospel, so broad that almost anything can be made to fit in, certainly what Badnarik intends can easily be classified as usurpation.

Uh, no it can't, because he wouldn't be doing anything beyond his executive authority. And EVERY source you can check on the matter confirms it. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Joseph Story, take your pick.

Predicting other people’s behaviour isn’t the same as speaking for them.

It is when your prediction attributes opinions to them.

I could say "you speak for no one but yourself, Shanek." but you’d probably miss the point.

That's not an opinion. That's a statement of fact. With as many funds as there are that exist solely to minimize the number of taxes due, how you can say investors consider taxes as anything other than a burden is beyond me.

Investors generally dislike instability and Badnarik seems intend on turning the entire US upside down on his first day in.

No, he doesn't. Nothing would be "turned upside down." Most of the things he does wouldn't have the FIRST DIRECT EFFECT on you or me or investors. Only indirectly, as we no longer have to pay taxes, put up with inflation and deficits, etc.

Some of it might be somewhat feasible, if he was willing to do it over some years, but he isn't.

This is a lie, too. In his very first debate he talked about a timetable for phasing out Federal Reserve dollars, for example.

Sure the people who criticize you are the same that criticise Badnarik (Considering that you're the resident Badnarik apologist that's hardly shocking, also you lecturing people on railing? :nope: ), but that doesn't change the fact that we represent all political stripes.

That criticism started LONG before Badnarik was nominated. Your "political stripes" do NOTHING to change the fact that you're all biased against Libertarians.

Sorry, but "there's supply and there's demand, and if we just don't interfere everything is magically going to work out, oh and BTW fiat currency is evil" is hardly the totality of current economic theory.

For one example, check out The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard. It's a very easy read. LEARN what you're talking about before you go presenting it as a nutball theory.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
That criticism started LONG before Badnarik was nominated. Your "political stripes" do NOTHING to change the fact that you're all biased against Libertarians.

Errr... Of course people who hold other political views are biased against Libertarians: They think libertarians are wrong. That's the reason why they're not libertarians themselves. Of course, this is true for any political group - people who disagree with them are biased against them. That's ... rather self-evident and understandable, really.

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
...
Uh, no it can't, because he wouldn't be doing anything beyond his executive authority. And EVERY source you can check on the matter confirms it. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Joseph Story, take your pick.
... Shane, I submit that this portion of the debate is moot. We've all agreed that Congress has the sole authority. So when the House votes to impeach, whichever articles of impeachment pass will clue us in as to what fits the definition -- regardless of what Badnarik thinks is copesetic.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
And that is indeed where I got that from. You explained the distinction. I don't know why everything has to be such a battle between us...It's impossible for me in this forum to gracefully admit when I'm wrong. I have people STILL getting on my butt about the caffeine issue even though I retracted the claim IN THAT THREAD once someone actually posted valid evidence (I'm funny that way). TO THIS DAY it is being portrayed as if I'm some woo-woo who won't let go of that claim. This effect got old a LONG time ago.

What about your claim that ALL banks were forced to belong to the Federal Reserve? I smacked you down on that one, but you refused to admit you were wrong. Just had another hissy fit, IIRC.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Errr... Of course people who hold other political views are biased against Libertarians: They think libertarians are wrong. That's the reason why they're not libertarians themselves. Of course, this is true for any political group - people who disagree with them are biased against them. That's ... rather self-evident and understandable, really.

That's fine. Just don't pretend it's anything objective.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
Shane, I submit that this portion of the debate is moot. We've all agreed that Congress has the sole authority.

Then stop saying I'm claiming otherwise.

So when the House votes to impeach, whichever articles of impeachment pass will clue us in as to what fits the definition -- regardless of what Badnarik thinks is copesetic.

Except that their articles must pass muster with the Senate, and the President gets to defend himself and make his side heard during the impeachment trial. They didn't have one body do it. They didn't WANT one body doing it. Congress is TWO bodies. Checks and balances.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
The one where you implied I was just parroting some secondary source. You've done that before and I've asked you to cut it out.

That is an ad hominem? Good grief you are thick.

Here is a clue: People use secondary sources all the time. I have copies of Cleckley's West Virginia Handbooks on Evidence and Criminal Procedure, and use them on an almost daily basis. It is far from being any kind of attack to suggest that you are using secondary rather than primary source material, and it seems highly, highly unlikely that your reading of that case was not at least influenced by some type of secondary source.


And that is indeed where I got that from. You explained the distinction. I don't know why everything has to be such a battle between us...

Because you are incapable of a sincere retraction. Even in this case you had to manufacture an ad hominem accusation out of thin air, you are telling me that you think it is a personal attack to speculate that you are not conducting legal research solely from primary materials.

You are usually dead wrong when you speak on legal matters. If you are doing research into these matters by looking a primary source materials you most likely should stop doing so and start looking to quality secondary sources. This is not an attack, rather sincere advice to assist you in preventing further embarassment.


It's impossible for me in this forum to gracefully admit when I'm wrong.
Pretty much. This is the problem, and it is your own damn fault for being such a jerk most of the time. Lets look an at example...

I have people STILL getting on my butt about the caffeine issue even though I retracted the claim IN THAT THREAD once someone actually posted valid evidence (I'm funny that way).
I still contest that any retraction in that thread was exactly graceful or clear. Every time you came close you added a disclaimer about how you haven't looked at the evidence yet.


Furthermore, until that point you were rather abusive towards those people who were pointing out the weakness of your evidence as well as providing contrary evidence and argument. Specifically you make an implication that the disagreement with your claim was based in political bigotry:

I've brought this up before in other threads...and not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU had a problem with this until I used it in a thread about Libertarianism.

F*cking pathetic.


So now claiming people are being uncivil seems quite weak and at best naive.

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
Then stop saying I'm claiming otherwise.I haven't said it since you made your position clear a few pages ago.
Except that their articles must pass muster with the Senate, and the President gets to defend himself and make his side heard during the impeachment trial. They didn't have one body do it. They didn't WANT one body doing it. Congress is TWO bodies. Checks and balances. Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Stop re-stating the obvious. I'm trying to be conciliatory by pointing out something we can all agree on, and you have to blow it up into some kind of disagreement. Do you really think that anyone on this thread doesn't know the basics about this process? We just went through it 5 years ago.

Clue for the Obtuse among us: When I say "when the House votes to impeach," that's shorthand for the entire process, including the Senate trial.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Here is a clue: People use secondary sources all the time.

There is much more connoted in the phrase "the secondary source from which shanek gets his legal information." If you had said, "whichever source shanek used to reference this information," there would have been no ad hominem. But implying I have a single source where I get my legal information from is a personal attack. If that was not intended, then you only need clarify. As it is, I said I was going to ignore it; you're the one keeping it alive. I'd be happy just moving on with the discussion.

Because you are incapable of a sincere retraction.

That just isn't true. One recent example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46991&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Here I acquiesced to someone with a different reading than mine of the 22nd Amendment. I fully acknowledged that it was his position that was supported by the reading.

Even in this case you had to manufacture an ad hominem accusation out of thin air,

I didn't "manufacture" it; the clear implication was that I have a single source that I get all my legal information from.

you are telling me that you think it is a personal attack to speculate that you are not conducting legal research solely from primary materials.

No, I am telling you it is a personal attack to accuse me of getting my legal research solely from a SINGLE SOURCE.

I still contest that any retraction in that thread was exactly graceful or clear. Every time you came close you added a disclaimer about how you haven't looked at the evidence yet.

Because I HADN'T!!! Geez, WHAT THE F*** DO YOU WANT FROM ME???

Furthermore, until that point you were rather abusive towards those people who were pointing out the weakness of your evidence as well as providing contrary evidence and argument.

1) The evidence I had was an analysis in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Their "evidence" was marketing materials from Hershey. Why SHOULD I have considered that as evidence? I was only abusive to them after THEY were abusive to ME for NOT TAKING THE WORD OF MARKETING MATERIALS OVER A PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL!!!

THIS is what the bigots do. You ALWAYS leave out important little bits like that which expose the bigotry for what it is.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
I haven't said it since you made your position clear a few pages ago.

Then why are you still going on with the claim as if it's something I disagree with?

Clue for the Obtuse among us: When I say "when the House votes to impeach," that's shorthand for the entire process, including the Senate trial.

See, it's not being obtuse to say that the latter is not implied by the former. The House VOTES to impeach, and the Senate CONDUCTS THE TRIAL. So saying "when the House votes to impeach" does NOT logically include the Senate conducting the trial. That's a separate thing.

It's also one thing to say that the House could impeach a President for whatever they want; but in order to actually kick out a President, they have to get TWO THIRDS of the Senate to agree with the charge and that it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. And the President gets to defend himself. So just saying the House can do what they want doesn't satisfactorily defend the notion that a President can be impeached for something Congress doesn't like. It's just not that simple.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
There is much more connoted in the phrase "the secondary source from which shanek gets his legal information." If you had said, "whichever source shanek used to reference this information," there would have been no ad hominem. But implying I have a single source where I get my legal information from is a personal attack. If that was not intended, then you only need clarify. As it is, I said I was going to ignore it; you're the one keeping it alive. I'd be happy just moving on with the discussion.

A hint for not keeping it alive: Don't respond with evidence of your own paranoia that everything is a personal attack.



That just isn't true. One recent example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46991&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Here I acquiesced to someone with a different reading than mine of the 22nd Amendment. I fully acknowledged that it was his position that was supported by the reading.



Wow. A blatant lie.

Here is your post: "Interesting. The Amendment could certainly be read that way. That could indeed remove the limits on the number of years, although such a situation is so unlikely that, as you said, it would certainly arouse great suspicion."

This is apparently all you are capable of, and it says a great deal that you admitting that someone else "could" be right is a retraction of your claim.

Just mind-boggling.




I didn't "manufacture" it; the clear implication was that I have a single source that I get all my legal information from.

And we all know that your initial impression is the objective truth of any text, and if I attempt to explain why the above is a massive leap you will just accuse me of changing my position, so why bother? OK, I'll do it just for the heck of it...

The only reason that sentence was in there was to acknowlege that you may have repeated someone else's error rather than made one yourself.

No, I am telling you it is a personal attack to accuse me of getting my legal research solely from a SINGLE SOURCE.

So your definition of ad hominem is that it is any personal attack?

Because I HADN'T!!! Geez, WHAT THE F*** DO YOU WANT FROM ME???
Not to now claim a retraction in that thread when you made none. I am not arguing the original point, rather that you cannot now point to language in that thread that singnifies anything more than you actually acknowledging that you might be wrong but refusing to say for sure unless you see the evidence.


1) The evidence I had was an analysis in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Why SHOULD I have considered that as evidence? I was only abusive to them after THEY were abusive to ME for NOT TAKING THE WORD OF MARKETING MATERIALS OVER A PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL!!!

Nice distortion. There was much more evidence against you than that, and your evidence was based on a second hand account of that study, and your argument rested on a claim by this secondary source (not from the Journal) that there were no other studies.

However, if this is true why exactly are you claiming you retracted it? You do realise that this is the issue? That you are claiming this retraction but yet people keep on you about it You have posted no evidence of a clear retraction because there is none.

Yet you now claim a lack of evidence for the other side. Not the best way to argue that a retraction is genuine.

THIS is what the bigots do. You ALWAYS leave out important little bits like that which expose the bigotry for what it is.

Right. So I point out you lack civility and you call me a bigot. Are you putting us on?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The only reason that sentence was in there was to acknowlege that you may have repeated someone else's error rather than made one yourself.

Then that's fine. Why not just say so from the beginning?

Nice distortion. There was much more evidence against you than that,

There were only TWO pieces of scientific evidence: one that I had to spend $300 to get a copy of (not gonna happen), and one showing that caffeine was being introduced later in the process. I acqiesced after both of those pieces of evidence was presented, with the disclaimer I still haven't been able to check out the one source.

Besides, even with that evidence, and taking the word of the posters that the evidence says what it did, it still was the case that chocolate had a LOT less caffeine in it than the others were claiming, and that the figures they showed were for THEORBOMINE, not caffeine. I NEVER saw them retract their statements about the amount of caffeine that was in chololate to begin with.

And everyone also seems to have conveniently forgotten that the whole caffeine-in-chocolate thing was just a convenient distraction to cover up EvilYeti's claim that no one dies from a caffeine overdose. An irrelevant diversion that people were all too willing to let him get away with. That was the WHOLE reason for the distraction.

Bigots, bigots, bigots.

However, if this is true why exactly are you claiming you retracted it? You do realise that this is the issue? That you are claiming this retraction but yet people keep on you about it You have posted no evidence of a clear retraction because there is none.

Oh, geez...Every time this comes up I do this, and it still doesn't work...but ONE MORE TIME: I HEREBY RETRACT THE CLAIM THAT CAFFEINE IS ABSENT IN ALL FORMS OF CHOCOLATE, AND RESTRICT THE INITIAL CLAIM TO THE ABSENCE OF DETECTABLE LEVELS OF CAFFEINE IN THE PARTS OF THE COCOA BEAN USED FOR MAKING CHOCOLATE.

Now, LEAVE ME ALONE ABOUT IT!!!! :mad:

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
Then that's fine. Why not just say so from the beginning?


He tried to, but you decided to read a personal attack into it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
He tried to, but you decided to read a personal attack into it.

As I said, he directly implied that I go to a single source to get my legal opinions. If he had clarified it when I pointed it out instead of waiting so long this wouldn't have happened.

At any rate, I wasn't the one making a big deal about it. I was perfectly happy to ignore it and move on.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Then that's fine. Why not just say so from the beginning?

Bingo. Just as I predicted:

"if I attempt to explain why the above is a massive leap you will just accuse me of changing my position"

I did say so from the beginning. That was what I was saying until you managed to attribute some weird kind of malice to it...



There were only TWO pieces of scientific evidence: one that I had to spend $300 to get a copy of (not gonna happen), and one showing that caffeine was being introduced later in the process. I acqiesced after both of those pieces of evidence was presented, with the disclaimer I still haven't been able to check out the one source.

Besides the point. Where is the retraction you claim? Are you now arguing why you didn't retract? What is your point? Are you trying to muddy the waters over your characterization of the evidence so that your claim that you retracted the original claim is swept away?

Besides, even with that evidence, and taking the word of the posters that the evidence says what it did, it still was the case that chocolate had a LOT less caffeine in it than the others were claiming, and that the figures they showed were for THEORBOMINE, not caffeine. I NEVER saw them retract their statements about the amount of caffeine that was in chololate to begin with. And this claim has exactly what to do with your claimed retraction? You are now attempting to prove that you are capable of admitting you are wrong by this kind of behaviour?

And everyone also seems to have conveniently forgotten that the whole caffeine-in-chocolate thing was just a convenient distraction to cover up EvilYeti's claim that no one dies from a caffeine overdose. An irrelevant diversion that people were all too willing to let him get away with. That was the WHOLE reason for the distraction.
Yep, you sure are making it clear that you made a genuine retraction in that thread.


Bigots, bigots, bigots.



Not to mention the claims that you are uncivil...






Oh, geez...Every time this comes up I do this, and it still doesn't work...but ONE MORE TIME: I HEREBY RETRACT THE CLAIM THAT CAFFEINE IS ABSENT IN ALL FORMS OF CHOCOLATE, AND RESTRICT THE INITIAL CLAIM TO THE ABSENCE OF DETECTABLE LEVELS OF CAFFEINE IN THE PARTS OF THE COCOA BEAN USED FOR MAKING CHOCOLATE.

Now, LEAVE ME ALONE ABOUT IT!!!! :mad:

You brought it up in this thread as an example of how you were attacked even after in that thread you made such a retraction. If you want left alone about it perhaps you should start waiving it around like a bloody shirt, at least when I am involved as it should be clear by now that I will cut you zero slack about these sorts of things.

That you bring it up only to later whine about others not dropping the subject isn't exactly the best thing for your credibility. That you are apparently mad about it is not exactly a sign of great stability.

Your beliefs re: caffeine are not the issue. What is the issue is your civility in that thread, and your claimed "retraction" in that thread, a retraction I cannot seem to find.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You brought it up in this thread as an example of how you were attacked even after in that thread you made such a retraction. If you want left alone about it perhaps you should start waiving it around like a bloody shirt, at least when I am involved as it should be clear by now that I will cut you zero slack about these sorts of things.

It's clear that you're just one of the people who will still claim I never retracted a statement that I retracted numerous times.

Whatever. I'm done here.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
It's clear that you're just one of the people who will still claim I never retracted a statement that I retracted numerous times.

Another distortion. You have made several other lukewarm retractions, the merits of which I am not going to comment on, as they serve only as a distraction from the point that you are again whining about people not giving you credit for a retraction in that thread that it appears you never made.

Your claim in this thread:

I have people STILL getting on my butt about the caffeine issue even though I retracted the claim IN THAT THREAD once someone actually posted valid evidence (I'm funny that way).

Where is this retraction? All I see in that thread is that you acknowledge that you might be wrong. This is a big step for you, but most people who are civil usually accept that as a possibility from the beginning...

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
You gave NO SUCH EXPLANATION and NO SUCH EVIDENCE showing that I think that Congress doesn't have authority to impeach. YOU DID NOT EXPLAIN IT. You LIED about what I said. Plain and simple.
Actually I did explain, but apparently you didn't understand.

Originally posted by shanek
I don't care what you call it;
Apparently you do, I called it authority and you threw a hissy fit.

Originally posted by shanek
I want to know where I said that Congress doesn't have the authority to impeach. SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT WITH DIRECT QUOTES FROM ME OR RETRACT IT.
Direct quotes? I don't know if it counts as a direct quote from you, but you said

"No, that's pretty much it." In reply to this:

"So to Shanek Congress are only allowed to impeach the President, if he commits a high crime or misdemeanour, as Shanek understands the terms of course, regardless of the fact that there is nothing short of revolution (and the risk of not getting re-elected) to stop them, from impeaching the President for any reason they choose. So when Shanek says that Congress can’t impeach Badnarik for refusing to implement laws I’m fairly certain that he only means they aren’t allowed to, not that Badnarik could refuse. Of course I’m sure that Shanek will correct me, if he thinks I’m misrepresenting him." [emphasis added]

So are you going to behave like a grown person and explain what the huge and terrible difference between only being allowed impeach to the president in case of high crimes and misdemeanours, and not authority to do it otherwise or would you prefer just to continue your hissy fit?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Kerberos
...

So are you going to behave like a grown person and explain what the huge and terrible difference between only being allowed impeach to the president in case of high crimes and misdemeanours, and not authority to do it otherwise or would you prefer just to continue your hissy fit? Sometimes I forget just how addled Shane is. For the last few pages, he's been raging for no reason about things that nobody substantially disagrees about (the power of Congress to impeach for whatever reason they want). Instead of just understanding what people basically mean by what they say, he picks out syntactical bugaboos to get all upset about.

Shane, I heard that a sandbox did wonders for Brian Wilson. You may want to look into it.