Panel calls for new war powers legislation

Damocles said:
It depends.

One can think of scenarios where inaction caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands when action could have changed the scenario to only a few thousand deaths. Such inaction would be nearly criminal.
Click to expand...

I dont believe it would fit the high crimes or misdeameanors standard, it would be more of a judgement call issue.
 
Jarod said:
Like now?
Click to expand...
M'eh. I think that it could have been worse. He did get the vote of Congress per their inane WPA, and everything. And the excuse that he tricked them won't fly here, they have access to their own Intel, if they had the desire to even try.
 
Damocles said:
M'eh. I think that it could have been worse. He did get the vote of Congress per their inane WPA, and everything. And the excuse that he tricked them won't fly here, they have access to their own Intel, if they had the desire to even try.
Click to expand...

I think weak leadership on both sides, presidental and congressional.
 
DonQuixote said:
gl

what about revoking funding or refusing to fund the enterprise altogether?
Click to expand...
Revoking funding is not the way to go. Troops are in the field, and they need and deserve support that funding provides no matter how congress feels about the justification of their being in the field. Forcing withdrawal through lack of funding would cause too many problems, and would ultimately get a lot of people killed. Forced withdrawals, like happen in 'Nam, are never a good thing.

Refusing to fund the enterprise from the get-go would not work either. The peacetime military is, by necessity, funded at a level allowing rapid response, and can thus be deployed using peacetime level funding. Once in the field in active combat conditions, the level of funding requirements goes way up - and then it becomes a question of forcing withdrawal by revoking funding.

But getting them in the field does not require that level of funding. If it did we'd be essentially without a rapid response ability - and that ain't good.
 
imho the congresses duties are to decide what to do with the military and once congress decides what to do with them the president is in comand to decide how to use the military to get the job done that congress decides should be done.
 
Damocles said:
They can do that, and they certainly could impeach and remove a President who took the nation to war without their approval.
Click to expand...
No, they cannot impeach a president for taking the nation to war without congressional approval. The president has that authority. Korea and Viet Nam are shining examples of that authority. There was no WPA back then, yet the president deployed troops anyway.

Again, the WPA was not some kind of way for congress to bypass the process of declaring war. Its intent was to curb the authority of the president over military deployments. So far presidents have, at least minimally, gone along with the requirements of WPA. But, constitutionally, they are not required to, and it would not be a crime or any other type of impeachable offense if some future president, who sees a need for military action that congress won't approve of, tells congress to take WPA and shove it.
 
Good Luck said:
No, they cannot impeach a president for taking the nation to war without congressional approval. The president has that authority. Korea and Viet Nam are shining examples of that authority. There was no WPA back then, yet the president deployed troops anyway.

Again, the WPA was not some kind of way for congress to bypass the process of declaring war. Its intent was to curb the authority of the president over military deployments. So far presidents have, at least minimally, gone along with the requirements of WPA. But, constitutionally, they are not required to, and it would not be a crime or any other type of impeachable offense if some future president, who sees a need for military action that congress won't approve of, tells congress to take WPA and shove it.
Click to expand...
Yes they can. They can impeach for whatever reason they wish, if they believe it comes to "Misdemeanor". The object would be to convict. If most people did not believe it was worthy then no matter how often they took it before the Senate there would never be a conviction. The vast majority of the time impeachment is never brought as people understand that conviction is impossible. As Rs should have realized with Clinton.
 
They won't impeach, it will be this and the last Congress greatest sin.
 
I know, just like his daddy did! and his hero, fellow woodcutter Ronnie Raygun!
 
uscitizen said:
What is it with all this wood chopping anyway ?
They could at least split some rails.
Click to expand...


It helps their image, they can at least do something well!

They tried bike riding with Bush, but we know how that turned out!
 
Damocles said:
Yes they can. They can impeach for whatever reason they wish, if they believe it comes to "Misdemeanor". The object would be to convict. If most people did not believe it was worthy then no matter how often they took it before the Senate there would never be a conviction. The vast majority of the time impeachment is never brought as people understand that conviction is impossible. As Rs should have realized with Clinton.
Click to expand...
No matter what they choose, the reason they choose must be a crime of some type. They cannot impeach "for whatever reason they wish." That is plain nonsense.

Yes, a president can be impeached and then fail to convict. But the accusation must be some kind of crime. Even a misdemeanor is a crime.

But deploying the military as the president sees fit (ie: taking us to war) is not a crime of any type because it is an enumerated power of the president. Therefore congress cannot (legitimately) impeach a president for taking the US to war without congressional approval. Thay can try if they want. They could even potentially convict. But any such conviction would be quickly overturned, because any law making it a crime to deploy military without congressional approval is unconstitutional.
 
Good Luck said:
No matter what they choose, the reason they choose must be a crime of some type. They cannot impeach "for whatever reason they wish." That is plain nonsense.

Yes, a president can be impeached and then fail to convict. But the accusation must be some kind of crime. Even a misdemeanor is a crime.

But deploying the military as the president sees fit (ie: taking us to war) is not a crime of any type because it is an enumerated power of the president. Therefore congress cannot (legitimately) impeach a president for taking the US to war without congressional approval. Thay can try if they want. They could even potentially convict. But any such conviction would be quickly overturned, because any law making it a crime to deploy military without congressional approval is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The congress may decide for itself what is a crime that is impeachable. The supreme court would recuse itself from the case because it's a political question.
 
Good Luck said:
No matter what they choose, the reason they choose must be a crime of some type. They cannot impeach "for whatever reason they wish." That is plain nonsense.

Yes, a president can be impeached and then fail to convict. But the accusation must be some kind of crime. Even a misdemeanor is a crime.

But deploying the military as the president sees fit (ie: taking us to war) is not a crime of any type because it is an enumerated power of the president. Therefore congress cannot (legitimately) impeach a president for taking the US to war without congressional approval. Thay can try if they want. They could even potentially convict. But any such conviction would be quickly overturned, because any law making it a crime to deploy military without congressional approval is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

If the president intenionally misled us into war. that is a crime of fraud and treason.
 
Good Luck said:
No matter what they choose, the reason they choose must be a crime of some type. They cannot impeach "for whatever reason they wish." That is plain nonsense.

Yes, a president can be impeached and then fail to convict. But the accusation must be some kind of crime. Even a misdemeanor is a crime.

But deploying the military as the president sees fit (ie: taking us to war) is not a crime of any type because it is an enumerated power of the president. Therefore congress cannot (legitimately) impeach a president for taking the US to war without congressional approval. Thay can try if they want. They could even potentially convict. But any such conviction would be quickly overturned, because any law making it a crime to deploy military without congressional approval is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Misdemeanor can mean more than just "crime".

You must face that checks and balances are clear. Only the Congress can declare war. The CIC may be able to order the military, but if the Congress does not wish it, it is most certainly at least a "Misdemeanor" and without doubt an impeachable offense.

Again, reality consistently rules. If Congress does not believe that the conviction will follow, the vast majority of the time they would not Impeach. But if they think they can gain the Conviction the President can be removed from office for abusing his powers in such a way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top