Stan - Kudos - Good post - even with some arguable points!
Stan,
Its a pleasure to read a post that shows a good understanding of how government works, written in clear, emotion-free language. What you write sets up the opportunity of a rational back and forth, rather than the emotional rants and definitively stated untruths that too often show up on posts like AP. I enjoy reasoned debate and detest the mindless name calling that we see too much of (although sometimes I can't help myself and I sink to the level of the attack squad and then seek redemption!
First, you will get no argument from me that our law books are bloated with silly, unenforceable, outdated, unfair and even dangerous laws. Like most AP members I refer to the former homeland as "sex prison." As we know, in most states it is best not to ask: "Anyone for a little recreational sodomy?"
I take mild exception to your blanket statement that "Presidents break laws all the time. All of them." You do buttress your opinion with some pretty good analysis and fair, if not necessarily flawless, logic. Kudos.
Maybe members of the Obama team have already broken certain laws and maybe some more will at some time in the future. Time will tell.
However, the posts on this issue were started when Sidney made some specific charges that Obama was a serial violator of the US Constitution. Then I refuted those charges and Jackson came to Sidney's defense and I responded to him.
I agree with you that these debates would be easier "if laws were like mathematical equations, but they're not" and that "If the legislature knew what it meant, it would have said so." Your point was a daily concern when I worked in Washington for Senator Inouye in the 1970s.
Language is fungible, which is why strict constructionists arguments over the intent of the Founding Fathers can get bizarre. As you state, "Each executive branch has been hauled into court hundreds of times by thousands of litigants during the tenure of each President for the past 200 years."
Obama's turn may be right around the corner, but we haven't turned that corner yet. Until we do and some court issues a decision with a ruling to that end the claims made by Sidney hold no water.
Another complication (thank you Founding Fathers) is that the constitution gives the President the "implied power" to ignore the full and / or precise letter of the laws as passed by Congress. There is a long history of Presidential "signing statements" going back to James Monroe, where the President signs legislation sent by Congress into law and addends a written statement detailing certain provisions that will not be executed, along with an explanation.
In essence the President declares which provisions will not be enforced. One could argue the President's actions will be breaking the law by omission. But that is not the case, as the courts have sanctioned these statements and the resulting executive inaction, as an inherent power of the President. (I will not address whether W abused this power during his eight years, only to note he signed far more statements than any predecessor)
I would identify another serious distinction in law that is pertinent to your discussion. It is whether and when the executive branch breaks the law by commission. As you know in criminal law an essential element is intent and that is another condition that would apply as well should a President or an appointee willfully and knowingly break the law.
You ask - "When does something become a President's direct policy for which which he is responsible." I am sure you remember Truman had a sign on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here." As for Bush II's, the lack of such as sign didn't absolve him of responsibility for the actions of his government. My guess is there was an invisible sign that said "The Buck Stops There" with a sign pointing toward Cheney's office.
I noted that the controversial memos were written by "politically appointed lawyers" which prompted your question, "which ones aren't?" There are thousands of professional career DOJ lawyers who do not serve "at the pleasure of the President." They are hired through a rigorous non-partisan selection process that precludes politics as a consideration. They can only be fired for cause after a semi-judicial hearing.
The DOJ since its early days was designed to be a politics-free zone where the law was supreme. There are pages upon pages of internal work rules in the DOJ to assure that is how the place functions. No one assumes perfection in the matter, but fortunately throughout history most administrations did a pretty good job.
(Two documented exceptions were Nixon and W. To wit, as a raft of White House and AG office emails document, the Bush DOJ did illegally introduce politics into the career lawyers selection process, as well as into US attorney firing and replacements. But thats a whole other discussion.
When the controversial Bush war and torture debates were under way, the career DOJ lawyers refused to write the opinions the White House wanted. In fact, they wrote counter opinions for the record that detailed why what was being proposed was illegal, but they were ignored. In at least one case the Bush appointees destroyed the paper trail, so it couldn't be subpoenaed in a future legal challenge. Of course, the authors kept copies!
That sequence of events certainly raises your question "are we talking about intentionally disregarding the law -- knowing that your actions violate the law but doing something anyway -- rather than a legitimate disagreement about how to enforce "the law"?
On a less consequential item. We both know Obama will sneak out on to the Truman balcony when he feels the urge to pull a puff or two. That would be a twofer - first, he would not be breaking any law and second he wouldn't get his balls busted by Michelle - or even worse by Malia and Sasha. Bo would be the only witness and he ain't talkin'
(I kinda doubt the White House smoking bans have the status of law anyway)
Nice blogging with you!
Sydney: O is a serious violator of USA laws. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
[QUOTE=Sidney]Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions, freezing out illegally the bondholders, firing the GM Chairman, and giving 35% to 50% of C to Fiat for nothing. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process. The ''gutless'' courts sanctioned it. -------Why would any investor ever buy a corporate bond in the future? -------------- Who will he target next?[/QUOTE]Not a single one of those bondholders is prepared to take him to court? Didn't realise they were such a bunch of wimps. Then you disagree with the courts' decision, therefore the President acted illegally?
Is that's all you have?
Bailouts of private firms - D's = $10billion R's $1,737 billion
BAILOUTS.
Come on guys. Do your homework! Here is the history of federal bailouts of private corporations and municipalities prior to Obama's Presidency. This didn't take long with a Google search!
Please note that since the government got into the business in the Nixon years, US taxpayer money pledged or spent on bailouts totaled $10 billion under the Democrats and $1,737.3 billion under the Republicans! Little wonder business loves the Party of business!
For kicks, I am delighted to note that President Reagan was the first President to "fire" top executives as a condition of the bank getting government assistance at the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company.
THE RECORD.
UNDER NIXON.
1970 - Penn Central - $3.2 Billion.
Penn Central Railroad, on the verge of bankruptcy, appealed to the Federal Reserve for aid. Nixon and the Fed supported them, but the Democratic Congress refused to go along. After Penn Central declared bankruptcy fearing a devastating ripple effect in money markets, the Fed provided reserves to cover the railroad's credit.
1971 – Lockheed - $1.4 Billion.
Congress passed and Nixon signed the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, which could provide funds to any major business enterprise in crisis. Lockheed was the first recipient.
1974 - Franklin National Bank - $7.8 Billion.
After the bank lost $63.6 million over a few months, the Fed stepped in with loans.
UNDER FORD.
1975 - New York City - $9.4 Billion.
President Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act, which released $2.3 billion in loans to the beleaguered city.
UNDER CARTER.
1980 – Chrysler - $10 Billion.
The Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act provided $1.5 billion in loans to be matched by U. S. And foreign banks in order to rescue the troubled company from insolvency.
UNDER REAGAN.
1984 - Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company - $8.4 Billion.
Having bought $1 billion in bad loans from the failed Penn Square Bank of Oklahoma, Continental faced extinction. The FDIC and Fed, with Reagan's approval devised a plan to rescue the bank that included replacing the bank's top executives.
UNDER BUSH I.
1989 – Savings & Loan - $293.3 Billion.
After the widespread failure of savings and loan institutions, President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989.
UNDER BUSH II.
Fall 2001 – US Airlines - $18.6 Billion.
After 9/11, Bush signed the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, that provided $5 billion in compensation and $10 billion in loan guarantees and credit to cover losses related to the terror attacks.
Fall 2008 – Bear, Stearns - $30 Billion.
JP Morgan Chase and the Bush Treasury Department bailed out Bear Stearns which was about to collapse. The Fed provided a $30 billion credit line, so JP Morgan could buy the remnants.
Fall 2008 – Fannie and Freddie - $400 Billion.
Bush and Congress authorized the emergency Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, so Fannie and Freddie could essentially be nationalized and the Treasury could invest billions to cover their losses.
Fall 2008 – AIG - $180 Billion.
In four steps, the Bush Administration pumped a total of $180 billion into AIG to keep it from collapsing.
Fall 2008 - Auto Industry - $25 Billion.
In September 2008, Bush and Congress approved $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. Negotiations between the companies and Treasury could not be concluded before the end of the Bush term, so Obama inherited the issue.
Fall 2008 - Troubled Asset Relief Program - $700 Billion Available /$480 Billion Committed.
After Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson raised the threat of a global depression, Congress authorized $700 billion under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, for an alphabet soup of different new programs.
Fall 2008 - Citigroup – $280 Billion.
In October and November, Bush gave Citigroup $45 billion in capital investment and government guarantees against losses from toxic assets, saying it was not a bailout, but funds to "bolster healthy banks" in tough times. The FDIC committed $10 billion more and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion.
SOURCE: ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.
Sidney - where should we go to celebrate
When President Obama signs into law landmark reform legislation on health insurance? It will probably be sometime in December so a place with an outdoor patio and lots of eye candy would be nice!
