|
Grex > Agora56 > #111: Unitary Executive or Co-President? Constitutional? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 23 new of 32 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 10 of 32:
| 
Feb 21 18:49 UTC 2006 |
re #9
nothing you cited violates the Constitution or makes Cheney the "co-
president"
(2) "Top Secret" original classification authority may be delegated only by
the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
or an agency head or official designated...
Its right there in plain sight. Are you blind?
Let me give a lil historical narrative on why this was so important at the
time it was re-written by GW. He wanted to give Cheney the run of the mill
to cherry pick Iraqi intelligence for Powell to make his case to the UN.
You haven't forgotten Powell's show&tell magic show, have you? Remember, the
one where they took ice cream truck photos and said they were for uranium
enrichment?
You may not think "need to know" is important in classification but when we're
talking about "speciali interests" (Halliburton, anybody?) then I think it
is severely treasonous for our Commander in Chief to just leave his file
cabinet unlocked with Cheney sitting in the room all by himself.
Let's go back to simple Civics, m'kay?
Executive authority is given to the President by election(electoral college.)
That makes him the sole head of state. The role of this executive is:
-enforce the law
-conduct foreign relations
-command the armed forces
-appoint state officials, judges, diplomats
-administer gov't departments
-issue executive orders
Now, you want to know why can't Cheney ALSO perform executive function?
Well, then we would have a semi-presidential system(like France). In essence,
that would mean Cheney would have to be Prime Minister. Are you seeing the
problem yet?
|
jep
|
|
response 11 of 32:
|
Feb 21 21:04 UTC 2006 |
Nope. The president does not execute all of his duties personally
himself. He delegates authority.
He may say to his secretary of state, "Ms. Rice, call Hamas a bunch of
thugs for me, now that they've won the election in Palestine, would
you?" But he also might have a general policy for such situations, and
let her apply the policy as she thinks best.
He might also say to his vice president, "Mr. Cheney, take charge of
declassifying this and such, would you, please?" Or he might have a
general policy...
See how that works? Either of those two people could use the
president's delegated authority to accomplish the policy of the Bush
Administration.
Neither of those two people -- exercising the same delegated authority
-- is a "co-president".
The president can fire the secretary of state, and cannot fire the vice
president. (In practice, the president will have pre-signed, undated
letters of resignation for cabinet members.) But he *can* issue
another executive order, removing the vice president's authority, if he
does things the president does not want. In either case, he has the
power to remove his designated authority when he wishes.
The president of France cannot remove the prime minister. The French
National Assembly can do so with a vote of no-confidence. The
president and prime minister of France each have separate
Constitutional powers.
The vice president of the United States is, Constitutionally speaking,
very little more than a decoration, except for the power to break ties
in the Senate and his place as successor if the president dies or is
removed from office or resigns. But the president can delegate power
to him.
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 32:
|
Feb 21 21:13 UTC 2006 |
Your last paragraph is closest to the truth. ANd the problem therein lies.
The President loses full responsibility for serious actions when
classification of TOP SECRET items is not reviewed nor authorized by Commander
in Chief. Example: War in Iraq and evidence leading up to
|
nharmon
|
|
response 13 of 32:
|
Feb 21 22:25 UTC 2006 |
You can delegate authority, but not responsibility. I have no problem
with Bush saying "ok, Cheney can do this thing that I am allowed to do",
as long as when Cheney does that, Bush is responsible for it.
|
tod
|
|
response 14 of 32:
|
Feb 21 22:29 UTC 2006 |
re #13
Would you lay ultimate blame on the Valerie Plame outing with GW Bush, then?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 15 of 32:
|
Feb 21 23:28 UTC 2006 |
<hi 5!>
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 32:
|
Feb 21 23:37 UTC 2006 |
IMPEACH!!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 17 of 32:
|
Feb 22 04:01 UTC 2006 |
CLEeN UP YORE REWM DUBBLHEW!
|
johnnie
|
|
response 18 of 32:
|
Feb 22 04:59 UTC 2006 |
If Cheney were to declassify some piece of information solely for the
sake of smearing a political opponent, would that be considered "in the
performance of executive duties" as outlined in the above exec order?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 19 of 32:
|
Feb 22 05:01 UTC 2006 |
If Cheney outed Valarie Plame, and he claims he was allowed to
declassify that information because of powers he was delegated by
Dubya,...Then yes, you should hold Bush responsible for his actions.
That may not be what the law says, but it is what I think is proper.
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 32:
|
Feb 22 09:04 UTC 2006 |
re #19
The bigger problem is that the current authority (namely the updated EO12958)
which gives the VP authority to DE-classify is also being countered by the
DoD and intelligence agencies in a major "rollback" Deniability-op.
It was insinuated by the proposed "Public Interest and Historical Review Act
of 1999: This Act would create a board of experts to set up a process for
the systematic review and collection of historically important documents from
CIA, DOD, DIA, NSA, State, and other national security agencies. It comes at
the problem from the opposite direction, from the historical point of view."
see
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/adcom/mtgnts/11696.htm
and
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/
|
gull
|
|
response 21 of 32:
|
Feb 24 07:45 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:9: I think Cheney is the guy who gets the dirty work done.
He's already unpopular, and always has been, so he quietly does the
stuff that would damage Bush's popularity if Bush did it himself. With
that in mind, I think what's happened here is Bush has delegated this
power to Cheney so he'll have plausible deniability if something
damaging gets leaked.
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 32:
|
Feb 24 16:22 UTC 2006 |
I think you give GW too much credit for being in control.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 23 of 32:
|
Feb 24 17:46 UTC 2006 |
"i'm more better now." *funny jaw twitch*
---gw boosh
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 32:
|
Feb 24 17:49 UTC 2006 |
Campaigned for U.S. Congress in 1978 in a large West Texas district that
included his hometown of Midland. He defeated two opponents in the Republican
primary, but lost in the general election to Democrat Kent Hance. After the
election he went back to the energy business and built his oil company.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 25 of 32:
|
Feb 24 17:55 UTC 2006 |
with lots of help from the bin laden family?
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 32:
|
Feb 24 18:05 UTC 2006 |
Yes, happyboy! How'd you know?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 27 of 32:
|
Feb 24 18:07 UTC 2006 |
i read BOOKS!
/big proud expression on unshaven face
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 32:
|
Feb 24 18:19 UTC 2006 |
White House press secretary Scott McClellan has stonewalled questions about
Bush's and Rove's connections to super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has pleaded
guilty to fraud and bribery and is cooperating with prosecutors. McClellan
refuses to name the officials who attended "staff-level meetings" with
Abramoff.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 29 of 32:
|
Feb 24 18:49 UTC 2006 |
i wonder what booshe's nickname for jack was?
you know...like he never really knew ken lay
but still had a buddyboy nickname for him
(kenny-boy)
|
tod
|
|
response 30 of 32:
|
Feb 24 18:50 UTC 2006 |
"Gimme five, Jack!"
|
happyboy
|
|
response 31 of 32:
|
Feb 24 19:14 UTC 2006 |
"five MILLION that is!"
---booshe
|
wilt
|
|
response 32 of 32:
|
May 16 23:52 UTC 2006 |
HACKED BY GNAA LOL JEWS DID WTC LOL
|