Ezra Klein: Celebrating Censure

« Big Love | Main | Picture of the Day »

March 13, 2006

Celebrating Censure

Props to Feingold for his introduction of a measure to censure the President. Having the executive unilaterally declare himself unbound by the laws Congress passes to constrain him is, I think, worthy of official rebuke. Having him then decide to not mention his unlimited authority to anyone, but instead to simply ignore and contravene statutes he dislikes probably merits substantially harsher penalties, but in the current climate, I'd be perfectly pleased with a censure. Feingold's action will also refocus the news cycle on the NSA scandal, and do so in a context that forces newscasters to explain exactly what's illegal about Bush's actions, so the politics seem sound as well. Relatedly, I have some thoughts of Feingold's 2008 chances -- or lack thereof -- here.

March 13, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83425637453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Celebrating Censure:

» In The Blog's Eye: Feingold's Folly ... Or Fortitude from Beltway Blogroll
In the eyes of conservative bloggers this week, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin is the laughingstock of the Senate for trying to get his colleagues to censure President Bush. But in the eyes of liberal bloggers, he is the only... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 15, 2006 9:50:39 AM

Tracked on Mar 15, 2006 9:52:13 AM

Comments

I generally don't tend to think about long-term institutional things that much, but that's one set of considerations that pushes pretty strongly in favor of the censure move. Setting a precedent that the president will be called out if he tries to arbitrarily make up laws is good for the health of democracy.

Though as I argue a few posts down, what we're doing here is likely to be misread, and I don't want people thinking that candidates for office can put a lot of weight on something like this.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Mar 13, 2006 1:33:43 PM

Having him then decide to not mention his unlimited authority to anyone, but instead to simply ignore and contravene statutes he dislikes...

Heh. Isn't this really your disagreement with his stated authority and that of the Attorney General?

And if the current investigation into this issue determines that he has not broken any laws, what will you do then? Will you rail that the game was 'fixed' since it made you look like an ass? Or will you just quietly be wrong?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 13, 2006 2:08:59 PM

Um, there is no real investigation now, Fred. Do try and keep up. As for whether or not he broke laws: that's not under contention. One might think FISA is unconstitutional, but until the Court declares it so, contravening it is illegal.

Posted by: Ezra | Mar 13, 2006 2:15:44 PM

And until a court has determined that any laws were broken, you are left with opinion and speculation. Of course, others also have opinions, too. Others like the Attorney General or the White house legal staff.

Oh, fuck, 'em. What do they know!

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 13, 2006 2:35:31 PM

Man, I just love seeing conservatives appeal to wisdom of credentialed experts in this stuff. If only you actually felt that way, you'd go with the overwhelming maqjority of law profs who've called this illega. For that matter, we'd do something about global warming. But nah -- you prefer buffet empiricism.

Posted by: Ezra | Mar 13, 2006 3:49:27 PM

"And until a court has determined that any laws were broken, you are left with opinion and speculation."

Does that mean if no one is ever convicted of murdering Chandra Levy, that no crime was committed?

Who's going to charge the President with breaking a Federal law? The AG? Who appointed the AG?

Posted by: SteveH | Mar 13, 2006 4:15:34 PM

Man, I just love seeing conservatives appeal to wisdom of credentialed experts in this stuff.

Good deal! The alternative is to listen to the lack of wisdom of those with no credentials. Perhaps if you were a judge, your opinion would carry more weight than my cat's.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 13, 2006 4:29:06 PM

Of course, others also have opinions, too. Others like the Attorney General or the White house legal staff.

Do you need to be versed in the intricacies of the concept "conflict of interest?"

Posted by: Adrock | Mar 13, 2006 4:56:01 PM

Do you need to be versed in the intricacies of the concept "conflict of interest?"

...or my dog's.....your choice.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 13, 2006 8:11:57 PM

Fred, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Posted by: Pooh | Mar 13, 2006 10:00:11 PM

Well, HAR-DEE-HAR-HAR!!!

It seems that it's the DEMOCRATS who are holding up the censure of the president!

"Even as he spoke, Democratic leaders held off the immediate vote that Majority Leader Bill Frist requested. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he didn't know if there ever would be one."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/13/D8GB0M1O0.html

Ain't *THAT* a hoot!!! Man, are you guys on the extreme fringe of the party or WHAT?!

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 14, 2006 10:31:25 AM

Fred:

The Congress stated that the President was bound by FISA. The President ignored FISA rules. That was against the law.

Maybe we need to explain "lied" and "cheated" as well. Or your cat and dog sound like they know a lot more than then Rethuglicans (consider that an ad hominem? then it probably is one).

Posted by: jhlipton | Mar 14, 2006 6:56:11 PM

Well, well, well, another ignorant conservative that has never read the constitution.

Priceless.

Posted by: Tony | Mar 15, 2006 2:03:31 AM

The Congress stated that the President was bound by FISA.
Then why are the Democrats unwilling to take any action against Bush for it if they truly believe that? It seems they don't want to follow Senator Feingold's lead, do they?

Maybe we need to explain "lied" and "cheated" as well.
I thought Clinton did that already. Now tell me again what the definition of "is" is....

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 15, 2006 8:58:15 AM

For the dumb-ass in the crowd:
"Is" is a verb indicating action in the present. Since it is never "now", the question is how wide is "is" defined? (For example, "Are you ___ing"? could be true ove a set period, while not true at aspecific moment.) That's the question Clinton, like a good lawyer, was asking.

Are you stupid?

Posted by: jhlipton | Mar 15, 2006 3:06:38 PM

This is why I hate Democrats....they are almost *all* lawyers. And you are right in that Clinton was a lawyer until they pulled his law license.

Maybe you are a lawyer as well. Perhaps you will shoot yourself. Maybe someone will (should) do it for you...

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 15, 2006 4:29:02 PM

仓储笼
 仓储笼
 折叠式仓储笼
 仓库笼
 南京仓储笼
 上海仓储笼
 北京仓储笼
 广州仓储笼
 杭州仓储笼