DWYP Round 1 SkylerOcon vs. HyugaRicdeau: Should President Bush have been impeached?

[SkylerOcon]

Good luck, Hyuga!

I think that President Bush should have been kicked out of office. Why? Well for starters, he's violated bills passed by congress when he sends troops into Columbia. In fact, he signed that bill. Four times. [1]

He accepts his interpretation of the Constitution is absolute, so he uses that to bypass already established laws. [2]

He continues to torture prisoners, despite that it's Cruel and Unusual Punishment, which is forbidden according to the Constitution. Despite Congress signing a ban against this, Bush has issued a signing statement saying that he is above this law and is allowed to use his powers as commander in chief to avoid this. [3]

Sources:

[1] http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

[2] http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

[3] http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

Good luck again, Hyuga.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I apologize for the delay in my response, I'll be prompt the rest of the alloted time period. Do your best Skyler, I'm looking forward to the debate.

OK, down to business, before I argue about the actions you've mentioned specifically, we have to talk about what an impeachable offense actually IS. And I should point out also that impeachment is bringing an official to trial, but what you have claimed is that Bush should be removed from office, and these are two separate things. Nevertheless, moving on:

The United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

So, if Bush is to be impeached, it must be shown that his actions constitute "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." I think treason and bribery are a bit far-fetched, so we're left with "other high crimes and misdemeanors." The debate over what a "high crime" was came to prominence during the impeachment of President Clinton (an impeachment that I was against, or rather, knowing what I know now would be against it, as I was 16 at the time and didn't have the mental faculty I do today), and is notoriously ambiguous.

Gerald Ford in 1970 perhaps gave an appropriate definition[1]: "What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body [the Senate] considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office. Again, historical context and political climate are important; there are few fixed principles among the handful of precedents."
I think his message is that the Constitution is ambiguous so that context is more important than a rigid definition; I don't think you would have impeached Roosevelt for Japanese Internment during WWII, but the same action taken today clearly would be grounds for impeachment. Today we have a different context in the "War on Terror" whether you agree with how it's being handled or not. That's not to say anything on the level of internment is valid, but it is to be expected that a President will exert his muscle to a greater degree.

That being said, my challenge to you is to show that Bush's actions have been "sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office," and keeping the context of the times in mind. Concerning your sources, to me they seem to simply boil down to a debate about the powers of a President. In these articles, I see Bush simply asserting that he has certain powers, there isn't anything about him rampantly abusing this supposed power. Am I to believe that simply asserting a set of powers (though highly debatable, and I certainly don't agree with Bush here) is grounds for removal from office?

I also didn't find anything about Columbia in any of your links, so I don't know what to say about that. As for torture, I think the Constitution only makes that provision for civilians, I don't think it applies to "enemy combatants" or whatever, which I think is certainly applicable to known terrorists. So then, again, it becomes a matter of whether, or rather to what extent, the President is allowed to bypass his own executive orders (by executive order, I mean a Presidential directive that doesn't go through Congress; Japanese Internment for example was an executive order).

[1]: http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/700415a.htm

 

[SkylerOcon]

We have a system of checks and balances in our governement. By congress passing a law that Bush then went around, he breaks that system. Just to get it out there, checks and balances works like this:

We have three branches of government. The Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branch. The Legislative branch can check on all three branches of government. It checks on itself because it is bicameral. The executive branch includes the President, so this can also check on all three (the only power it has to check on itself is that the Vice President and the Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties). The Judical Branch can only check the Legislative and Executive Branch. [1]

The point of this is so that no one part of the Government becomes over powered. The President has issued many of these signing statements, a lot of which have raised constitutional objections [2]. He breaks the system of checks and balances by issuing so many of these. He's ignoring what the other branches of government have said, and overrides what they have said.

Sources:

[1]http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html
[2]http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/SSann2001.htm

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Can you give me concrete examples of his transgressions? And tell me why they are "high crimes?" Surely if we are to bring him to trial we need to cite specifically where he has supposedly committed these acts and justify regarding them as impeachable. So far your links are really just Bush asserting that he has certain powers that are very debatable, not actually using them; you've just mentioned troops in Columbia (which I don't have any info about) and the torture (which we need evidence for).

But let's suppose I take for granted that the torture has been going on in spite of the bill (which bill is being referred to, btw?), which in all honesty probably more likely than not has happened (but it is still up to you to provide evidence). I don't mean to trivialize torture, I just don't see what pushes this from "highly debatable use of executive power" to "impeachable offense demanding removal from office." Sure I strongly disagree with the use of torture, but is it so disjoint with the context of the times that it really requires the removal of the President from office? I think we both agree that there is a bit too much paranoia and overreaction going on at large, but I mean, I think a "high crime" has to be something that is manifestly and negligently injurious to the nation. If we harp on every action of a president where there is debate over his legitimate use of power, then we'd be impeaching presidents left and right. The proper balance of power between the three branches of government is different for different times. In times where war has been conducted, generally Executive power has been stronger than in peacetime, so a shift in the balance is to be expected.

I looked at the list of signing statements, but there's a whole lot of them, surely not all of which are relevant to the discussion. Which ones are 'constitutionally objectionable'? How do they make the case for impeachment? To me it seems like a sneaky way to subtly modify the meanings of bills. There isn't anything in the Constitution about signing statements. Ultimately, I don't think the actual statements themselves have any effect besides some kind of 'official interpretation/endorsement' of the bill. His only obligation is (from Article II, Section 3) that he "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Underhanded maybe, but again I just don't see what is IMPEACHABLE about these actions.

 

[SkylerOcon]

They are impeachable offenses because he is trying to go around what Congress has ruled. His official interpretation of the law isn't what most laws were in the first place.

Daniel Levin, the Assistant Attourney general in 2002, issued a statement saying that since there was no actual definition of the word severe, or the phrases severe physical pain and suffering and severe mental pain and suffering, as long as they did not kill somebody. [1] This is in reference to 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A, a legal document stating the torture is illegal. [2]

This was used to say 'We can torture people' despite there being a law against it.

[1]: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm
[2]: http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/shared_files/titles/18_usc_2340.htm

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

What I really want to hear from you is what YOU think a "high crime" is (since that's the wording in the constitution), your reasoning for that definition, and what Bush has done that fits that definition. It should also be consistent with the non-impeachment of other Presidents (unless you argue that other presidents should also have been impeached for some action). That is what I think this debate is really all about (correct me if I'm wrong), is what a "high crime" is; I've given a tentative definition in my previous post and I don't think the actions you've presented fit it.

Now, onto the meat of your post, as far as I can tell, signing statements, regardless of what he writes in them, don't actually have any legal weight. They are just the President declaring his own spin or rhetoric on the bill that he just signed. Even if there is implicit "intent" to try to use presidential authority to supercede what he signs, that's not impeachable because he hasn't DONE anything yet, not to mention that even if he does, the issue of how much power a president has in terms of executive power is debatable. What I mean is that a President can issue an "executive order" (which has the same weight as a bill passed by Congrees) that "seems" at odds with a bill he signs as long as it is under the guise of "clarifying" the bill[1]. But this power isn't absolute because Congress can override an executive order with a 2/3 vote. So, it seems to me, that any supposedly "impeachable" executive order ought to have been at least put to vote by Congress. I do not deny that he is trying to find a way around Congress, but this has existed in the form of executive orders already, and the use of signing statements in this manner has existed and been used before Bush.[2]

Also, you mention that the statement was issued by then Asst. AG Daniel Levon. Why are you not going after him instead of President Bush? I mean sure the President has to have some responsibility over the actions of his officials, but impeachment for a controversial opinion authored by a subordinate that was superceded 2 years later[3]?

The bottom line point I am trying to make here is, I understand WHAT it is you find objectionable (at least what you've presented so far), and I find it distasteful too, but it's a major stretch to call these "high crimes," for the following reasons:
- A signing statement has no legal weight.
- They have been used to "challenge" bills before Bush ever did.
- An executive order has the same power as a bill passed by Congress.
- Executive orders have been used (though infrequently thankfully) for much more glaringly obvious contradictions to Congress, even the CONSTITUTION, before anything you claim Bush did.
- You haven't provided actual evidence of the torture yet (though again my guess is that it's probably happened).
- From what's been presented, it can be argued that the responsibility for the controversial opinion on torture lies mainly with the Deputy Attorney General.

[1]: This was a landmark case, which was "Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer" the text of which can be found: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=343&page=579
[2]: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...8/09/signing_statements_are_a_phantom_target/
[3]: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm (your source [1] in your last post)

 

[SkylerOcon]

What I really want to hear from you is what YOU think a "high crime" is (since that's the wording in the constitution), your reasoning for that definition, and what Bush has done that fits that definition. It should also be consistent with the non-impeachment of other Presidents (unless you argue that other presidents should also have been impeached for some action). That is what I think this debate is really all about (correct me if I'm wrong), is what a "high crime" is; I've given a tentative definition in my previous post and I don't think the actions you've presented fit it.

I think that a high crime would be something like violating a law that congress has passed. I already explained the system of checks and balances that was set down by the founders of our country so that no part of our government would become to powerful, and Bush has gone back on those laws many times with his huge amounts of signing statements.

If a president only uses them a few times during his presidency, sure. That shows that he thinks about these things before doing them. But, Bush abused these and used them very, very often.

Now, onto the meat of your post, as far as I can tell, signing statements, regardless of what he writes in them, don't actually have any legal weight. They are just the President declaring his own spin or rhetoric on the bill that he just signed. Even if there is implicit "intent" to try to use presidential authority to supercede what he signs, that's not impeachable because he hasn't DONE anything yet, not to mention that even if he does, the issue of how much power a president has in terms of executive power is debatable. What I mean is that a President can issue an "executive order" (which has the same weight as a bill passed by Congrees) that "seems" at odds with a bill he signs as long as it is under the guise of "clarifying" the bill[1]. But this power isn't absolute because Congress can override an executive order with a 2/3 vote. So, it seems to me, that any supposedly "impeachable" executive order ought to have been at least put to vote by Congress. I do not deny that he is trying to find a way around Congress, but this has existed in the form of executive orders already, and the use of signing statements in this manner has existed and been used before Bush.[2]

You just said that you don't deny that he's trying to find a way around Congress. That violates the system of checks and balances.

Also, you mention that the statement was issued by then Asst. AG Daniel Levon. Why are you not going after him instead of President Bush? I mean sure the President has to have some responsibility over the actions of his officials, but impeachment for a controversial opinion authored by a subordinate that was superceded 2 years later[3]?

I'm not going after him. I posted that to show that the President never made any objection to it. I checked, and I found nothing with the president objecting to Daniel Levon's statement.

The bottom line point I am trying to make here is, I understand WHAT it is you find objectionable (at least what you've presented so far), and I find it distasteful too, but it's a major stretch to call these "high crimes," for the following reasons:
- A signing statement has no legal weight.
- They have been used to "challenge" bills before Bush ever did.
- An executive order has the same power as a bill passed by Congress.
- Executive orders have been used (though infrequently thankfully) for much more glaringly obvious contradictions to Congress, even the CONSTITUTION, before anything you claim Bush did.
- You haven't provided actual evidence of the torture yet (though again my guess is that it's probably happened).
- From what's been presented, it can be argued that the responsibility for the controversial opinion on torture lies mainly with the Deputy Attorney General.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25218584/

Proof of torture.

Anyway, regarding everything else you've said. While a signing statement may not hold legal weight, they're still carried out. It doesn't matter if it can stand it's own legally, but if it's executed, it's been done.

They may have been used to challenge bills before, but Bush has used them more frequently. By the 108 signing statements he had signed as of January 30th, 2006 there were a total of 505 constitutional challenges[1].

[1]: http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/

Additional sources

http://www.sourcewatch.or/index.php...ning_statements#Signing_statements_in_history

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I think that a high crime would be something like violating a law that congress has passed.

It's not really that simple though, I mean the argument is that the President has some authority over interpretation of the bill, so it's not so easy to just say he's "violated" a law as opposed to act on it based on his interpretation. Again, controversial sure, depending on the gravity of the situation, but like I've been saying the debate of how MUCH power a president has in this regard is far from a settled matter.

Besides, the President already has the power to "try to go around Congress." It's called a veto. I think what you're arguing is really that Bush is trying to eat his cake and have it too.

I already explained the system of checks and balances that was set down by the founders of our country so that no part of our government would become to powerful, and Bush has gone back on those laws many times with his huge amounts of signing statements.

The signing statements don't actually have any effect though; he doesn't give himself any power than he already had with them, what he has done with them is basically use them as a pulpit to ASSERT that he has certain powers which he may or may not have used.

If a president only uses them a few times during his presidency, sure. That shows that he thinks about these things before doing them. But, Bush abused these and used them very, very often.

I also don't like the manner in which he has used them, but I seeing as they have no legal weight, I don't think they are really the issue. If anything it should be Congress's responsibility to debate any claims that the President makes in them.

You just said that you don't deny that he's trying to find a way around Congress. That violates the system of checks and balances.

Yes but a "legitimate," or at least not an ostensibly unconstitutional or illegal, way. Call it a "loophole" if you like though I think that term doesn't have quite the right connotation.

I'm not going after him. I posted that to show that the President never made any objection to it. I checked, and I found nothing with the president objecting to Daniel Levon's statement.

And that's grounds for impeachment?

Thank you for providing the evidence for torture, I was pretty sure it ws out there but I wanted to make you work for it =P. However, I already argued in a previous post having assumed that the evidence existed, and that argument still bears.

Anyway, regarding everything else you've said. While a signing statement may not hold legal weight, they're still carried out. It doesn't matter if it can stand it's own legally, but if it's executed, it's been done.

That's the thing, the actual signing statement is just asserting (implicitly or explicitly) that the President has a certain power, should he choose to act on it. You're ALLEGING that he in fact used these powers just based on the President's claim that he POSSESSES them. You have to show where he used the powers in contention.

They may have been used to challenge bills before, but Bush has used them more frequently. By the 108 signing statements he had signed as of January 30th, 2006 there were a total of 505 constitutional challenges[1]

Again, over the top? Cause for concern? Certainly. It seems to me that Congress should do something about it, based on the ABA's Task Force issued statement in the source at the bottom of your last post. But not grounds for impeachment.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Five hundred and five constitutional challenges really are a concern. Signing statements are like vetos, but they don't have that two-thirds majority rule. I know that vetos and signing statements are often used for the same thing. But, signing statements are easier, because they are under the guise of the president's interpretation of the law, so they can't be voted against. Signing statements, while they may hold no legal weight, can still bend laws to the President's favor against the will of Congress which is supposed to be making the laws.

Sure, if he vetoed them, sure. Signing statements are just a sneaky way to say 'I'm vetoing this without you guys having the chance to overturn my veto.'

American Bar Association Presiden Micheal S. Grecko has said in reference to Bush's use of signing statements: “If left unchecked, the president’s practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances, that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries. Immediate action is required to address this threat to the Constitution and to the rule of law in our country.”[1]

Bush has also used signing statements to bypass the Patriot Act. Part of his signing statement says that the executive branch doesn't have to report to anybody when it has information concerning terrorism. [2]

That same article also mentions him using a signing statement to bypass a ban on torture.

Sources:

[1] http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news072406.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/opinion/05fri1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

But again, the signing statements themselves don't actually DO anything, and they aren't really as bad as a veto: If I understand it correctly, the law is nominally applied the same as it is normally, except Bush is declaring the ability or potential to issue an executive order (which is a formal order) may be issued pertaining to the law in a way that is "consistent with his own constitutional authority," (no denying that's a euphemism, of course) to quote someone from your 3rd source in your first post. These executive orders CAN be challenged by Congress, and requires the same 2/3 majority vote that a veto does. It is of course a lot more convoluted, it is definitely taking advantage of legal ambiguity and loopholes, and I agree with you that Congress should do something about it if they want to keep Presidential power balanced, but like I've said before some would argue that the president is in fact acting within his rights as they stand (though even if he is I don't necessarily think he SHOULD have those rights).

But that is not a "high crime." And what is? So far you've given me an example (not a definition) of what a high crime is, but not WHY it's a high crime. I need to ask this because one could just come up with a definition already knowing ahead of time that the acts in contention fit the definition.

Also, I should point out that even if the case can be made that a president can be brought up on charges for impeachment, that doesn't necessarily mean that he SHOULD. Impeachment and replacement of the president would be a long and weary process at the expense of the effort of the government. The projects and policies would get off track, etc. My point is that it's not as simple as just old guy out new guy in, and it could be more trouble than it's worth. I think we both agree that there is little point in impeachment now regardless of what the verdict would be, hence the topic "should have been impeached." But that still asks the question, when should have been impeached? And can you argue that it wouldn't have been more trouble than it was worth?

 

[AltF4]

SkylerOcon:

It seemed like you had a set number of issues and subtopics that you wanted to discuss, and did so moderately well, but didn't adequately respond to Hyuga's counterpoints. He asked you repeatedly for a definition of a "High Crime" and you failed to really provide one, much less describe how what you're accusing the president of constitutes as a high crime. Overall, good, but I think you fell short of the necessary criteria for impeachment.

B+


HyugaRicdeau:

Great debate from you, you used sources well, and even used your opponents against him. You did a wonderful job of picking your opponents argument apart, and then going on the offensive even though you were the second poster. Good job.

A+

 

[Deleted member]

Overview:

Finally, footnotes! Strong sourcing on both sides. Nice debate, boys.

Skyler:

Like Alt said, you were strong out the gate but pretty soon after Hyuga went straight for your throat, turning the tables and going on the offensive. Don't get me wrong, you did a very solid job, however, perhaps your arguments are better suited as to why Bush should resign, or something that isn't so drastic. Impeachment requires some really heavy stuff, and somehow I don't think using sensational arguments like a few you made are up to it. I just don't think you proved your point sufficiently. Nevertheless, you still put up a very good fight and I'd like to see you continue on if there's room.


My verdict: A-

Hyuga:

What can I say? Your style was almost essay-like at times. But not those boring essays. The ones that like, Noam Chomsky writes. Don't get me wrong. I loved it. Your Gerald Ford quote melted me. It was almost poetic.

Or maybe it's just 5 15 in the morning and I'm having a hard time thinking of different ways to congratulate excellent debaters. I don't know, you decide. You defended well, you went on the offensive nicely, and your points were air-tight. You did a great job and you will be hard to defeat later on, I would think. Your style, organization, and footnotes are very appreciated Congratulations.

My verdict: A+

 

[DoH]

Skyler: I think there's an inherent problem in your entire strategy; you try to tell us why 'you' think that Bush should be impeached, rather than using the constitution to provide warrants as to why he should actually be impeached. Hyuga calls you out on this and you have a real problem finding a definition and situation to fit the bill for 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' I'd recommend you check out Congressman Dennis Kucinich's actual campaign to get Bush impeached and draw from his warrants and sources, rather than news articles. I also think you need to draw out a better impact scenario for Bush's violation of SoP

B-

Hyuga: I think you've done a great job mitigating his claims and asking for warrants. I would however like to have seen you impact out the Ford quote; what would it mean for American politics if we impeached Bush? I'm sure there's evidence out there for implications worldwide, especially in the WoT.

A

DoH says Hyuga wins.