3 ms·

This is somewhat a change of the arguments from your side I think. But let’s discuss this topic as well. US system is not an absolute monarchy and we have chec

by lsh123 5y ago

This is somewhat a change of the arguments from your side I think. But let’s discuss this topic as well. US system is not an absolute monarchy and we have checks and balances in place “to tie the hands of the President or his advisors” not only on the question on how to preserve state secrets, but also on many if not all other questions as well. You can check out links at the bottom of this Wikipedia page for good explanations of why it is important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the... Going back to the question of state secrets, the President had the following options: 1) Expand EO to allow Secretary of State to handle confidential information any way she wants; 2) Authorize Secretary of State to handle confidential information any way she wants using President’s authorization (something like you described above); 3) Pardon Secretary of State for misuse of classified information. What President and his Administration can not do is to say “nothing to see here, move along”. The President and Administration are not above the laws even if they have powers to enact laws themselves (through EO, regulations, etc). I hope you remember the Watergate. Edit: forgot to say that I am fine with any of the 3 options above applied to the NSA employee from the parent post. I am not asking for “higher” standards —- I am asking for “the same” standards.

shadowgovt 5y ago
In terms of principles, I agree with you. In terms of power, your description is aspirational and not the functional process. When I say the question of abuse of power of the President and his Cabinet if "political, not legal," I mean that the mechanism by which the things you are describing are Constitutionally enforced are the impeachment powers of Congress, not the judicial powers of the courts. There's no benefit to trying an acting Secretary of State when the president has the authority to just pardon them immediately and the authority to fire them if they have acted to his displeasure. And functionally, in the realpolitik sense, a failure on Congress's part to impeach any of the Presidents that allowed their secretaries of state to be as lax as they were is a tacit agreement that the current interpretation of these laws is acceptable. Congress has the authority to write these laws. And if Congress is unhappy with how they are enforced, they have the authority to impeach the executive. If the President or the Secretaries are in violation of the law, that's how we stop them. That's what rule of law looks like in the United States... The Constitution is very clear on who has the authority to remove the President from office (and, perhaps, slightly less clear on whether the president's broad pardon power extends to himself; it obviously extends to his cabinet). You mentioned bribes and banana republics in a peer thread; I recommend reflection on the Iran-Contra scandal on that topic. ... and this is what I mean when I say "People get so bent out of shape about their perception the rules are violated when they don't even put the time in to know what the rules are." I mean that people get angry with the president, or the courts, or demand a Secretary of State be thrown in jail... And incredibly few people ask why Congress allows this to continue. Because ultimately, they have the power to stop it.
- lsh123 5y ago
  So sounds like you agree with me that Hillary did indeed break the law but you argument is that we need to understand "realpolitik" on why she can not be prosecuted. I guess I strongly disagree. BTW, you other argument is that Mr President should have been impeached over this scandal and refusal to fire Secretary of State who broke the law. This is not a bad idea in general and I would agree that this should have happened.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Yes, completely agree with your assessment of what did not happen and should have happened. Rule of Law ultimately breaks down if those empowered to enforce and adjudicate it do not do their jobs. If people want a better US government, they need to take a hard look at why the last several impeachments occurred and the circumstances in which they didn't, and make some harder decisions about their elected Congressional officials than they have in my lifetime. Congress has a 20% approval rating, but 81% of the House of Representatives is on their second or later term. (The only quibble I have with your comment: did Hillary break the law? Well, Congress is judge and jury on that question, and since they never even tried to adjudicate it, the question "did she break the law" depends on one's philosophical position on the question of innocence-until-guilt-proven. I think you and I have laid out the argument and counter-argument that would have been made in a Congressional impeachment trial that should have happened and did not).

by lsh123 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

In terms of principles, I agree with you. In terms of power, your description is aspirational and not the functional process. When I say the question of abuse of power of the President and his Cabinet if "political, not legal," I mean that the mechanism by which the things you are describing are Constitutionally enforced are the impeachment powers of Congress, not the judicial powers of the courts. There's no benefit to trying an acting Secretary of State when the president has the authority to just pardon them immediately and the authority to fire them if they have acted to his displeasure. And functionally, in the realpolitik sense, a failure on Congress's part to impeach any of the Presidents that allowed their secretaries of state to be as lax as they were is a tacit agreement that the current interpretation of these laws is acceptable. Congress has the authority to write these laws. And if Congress is unhappy with how they are enforced, they have the authority to impeach the executive. If the President or the Secretaries are in violation of the law, that's how we stop them. That's what rule of law looks like in the United States... The Constitution is very clear on who has the authority to remove the President from office (and, perhaps, slightly less clear on whether the president's broad pardon power extends to himself; it obviously extends to his cabinet). You mentioned bribes and banana republics in a peer thread; I recommend reflection on the Iran-Contra scandal on that topic. ... and this is what I mean when I say "People get so bent out of shape about their perception the rules are violated when they don't even put the time in to know what the rules are." I mean that people get angry with the president, or the courts, or demand a Secretary of State be thrown in jail... And incredibly few people ask why Congress allows this to continue. Because ultimately, they have the power to stop it.

lsh123 5y ago
So sounds like you agree with me that Hillary did indeed break the law but you argument is that we need to understand "realpolitik" on why she can not be prosecuted. I guess I strongly disagree. BTW, you other argument is that Mr President should have been impeached over this scandal and refusal to fire Secretary of State who broke the law. This is not a bad idea in general and I would agree that this should have happened.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Yes, completely agree with your assessment of what did not happen and should have happened. Rule of Law ultimately breaks down if those empowered to enforce and adjudicate it do not do their jobs. If people want a better US government, they need to take a hard look at why the last several impeachments occurred and the circumstances in which they didn't, and make some harder decisions about their elected Congressional officials than they have in my lifetime. Congress has a 20% approval rating, but 81% of the House of Representatives is on their second or later term. (The only quibble I have with your comment: did Hillary break the law? Well, Congress is judge and jury on that question, and since they never even tried to adjudicate it, the question "did she break the law" depends on one's philosophical position on the question of innocence-until-guilt-proven. I think you and I have laid out the argument and counter-argument that would have been made in a Congressional impeachment trial that should have happened and did not).