Because the only way to win is to fight smart, you see — and fighting smart means kicking the can down the road until you’re all dead, then letting the poor slobs whom you’ve left behind and never truly represented swim in the calamity you helped usher in, while your family lives well off of your remaining connections. Like aristocracy, almost. Because shut up, traitors!
Look: We have no party that represents us. And no amount of freezing me out from the alternative media or dismissing those of us with our eyes wide open is going to change that. No amount of pretend pragmatism, or talk of 3-D chess and endgames, is going to disguise the fact that the political class and its industry of attendants is content to nurture the status quo — then live off the OUTRAGE the status quo engenders in the base.
I sincerely hope that the House TEA Party caucus refuses to blink and tells Speaker Orangetears to get stuffed; let Boehner, the Quislings, and the Dems caucus together. It’ll be clarifying.
Again.
#mywhiteboardisbiggerthanyours!
From a previous post:
Conservatives need to push the debt ceiling fight off the front burner to after Christmas.
Republican Leaders are begging us to merge the continuing resolution fight and debt ceiling fight. They covet this with all their mind and heart.
They do not want a stand alone fight on Obamacare. They want to conflate it with the debt ceiling so they can do a grand bargain and leave Obamacare alone.
Consider Rep. Paul Ryan’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He wants a grand bargain and not once mentions Obamacare. Not once.
So, which is it? Because, frankly, it cannot be both.
I’ve always gone with Speaker Weepy Smurf, but Speaker Orangetears might be even better.
And as far as your freezing-out goes, I find it instructive that more and more of our “pragmatic” associates are coming to the realization that the “good man” is doing a hell of a lot more damage than they’d imagined possible. And as the truth becomes ever clearer, we’ll find public sentiment shifting our way, which will certainly drive the pragmatists closer to our camp.
They’ll never admit that you’ve been right all along, of course, because too many of them are invested in the idea that they’re the smartest and the wisest. So it’ll still suck to be an OUTLAW!, but at least we might find a few others willing to stand beside us in the end. One hopes.
The thought that Jack Lew ought now to be impeached cannot occur to the GOP in Congress, since that would be a proper expression of their contempt for his contempt of our government — because the GOP in Congress has no contempt for his contempt of our government: they’re happy to accept his choice.
Executive Secretaries serve at the President’s pleasure, meaning that – once the Senate confirms them (since they would be in the Line of Succession) – the House can only control their budget as a method of reining one in. They cannot impeach them.
Impeachment is only for judges/justices and POTUS/VPOTUS, and even the VPOTUS will likely just be asked to resign, should such occasion arise again (a la Agnew). They can subpoena him to appear and ask a shitload of awkward questions, they can make all kind of Resolutions holding him in contempt (a la Holder), they can even make firey speeches on the Floor, but they cannot fire him.
Now It’s Time for Full Throttle Defund of Obamacare
To what source do you look for definition of “all civil Officers” which yields that opinion, excluding those nominated and confirmed heads of Executive ministries, Drumwaster?
Indeed. A 6 week debt ceiling increase doesn’t bother me, provided they hold the line on the CR. Ted Cruz says this is coming from the conservative wing of the House.
Thanks for the RedState links, newrouter.
But seriously, what is so bad about defusing the Almighty Debt Ceiling Market Crash, which would be hung on the GOP, and have the GOP keep hammering at how craptastic and unfairly applied Obamunistcare is?
Meanwhile, continuing to pass measures to fund only the parks and the military and the other government programs people like, and let Dirty Harry Reid and Chairman Maobama show their petulance with blocking actions and vetoes that threaten to shut down everything unless they get to impose Obamunistcare on the rest of us (while exempting themselves, of course).
Could it be Mr. Orangeman actually did the right move?
What are we to make of William Worth Belknap, impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate (evidently, after he resigned) in 1876 while serving as Secretary of War under President U. S. Grant?
Jack Lew is fear-mongering in the worst way, I would submit it is in a manner that is criminal.
Certainly cabinet members may be impeached.
Boehner’s Six-Week Extension Puts Focus Back on Obamacare Fight
Ted Cruz is a genius.
That is all.
I agree with those who say that Cabinet secretaries can be impeached. It makes no sense to immunize them from impeachment when they can do just as much damage, in their own way, as a president can.
bh and I had a tussle over the question whether impeachment should reach down so far as such a one as Lois Lerner; whether she should be a possible subject of impeachment; bh, as I recall, arguing yea (as on account of her being a civil officer) and I arguing nay, on account of her mere civilian-employee status, in contradistinction to those who take government employment by means of political appointment — it being political officers (i.e., those elected or subtended by election), in my view, at whom the impeachment power aims. To this extent — bh having a good argument on the question — I’m gonna remain unsettled on the issue.
Belknap was the ONLY Cabinet officer ever impeached (every rule has its exception, I guess), but the vote from the Committee came after his resignation was made known, and the vote in the House took place still later that same day. Most Senators voting to acquit did so precisely because they believed that the Senate didn’t have the power to impeach civilians.
I am all for indicting them if criminal activity is discovered or can be reasonably alleged, but nothing in the Constitution mentions how far down that impeachment power can reach. There has to be a limit, and since there is no way to recall a President once elected, that is the means the Constitution provides. The House can determine the standards for membership, as can the Senate.
Given that the Cabinet is almost extra-Constitutional (with only a single reference to how “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices” – Art. 2, Sec 2 – which, I note, is still merely an advisory opinion, with POTUS still having to bear the burden of deciding), I still doubt that it would be attempted again, even if one of them were caught “with a live boy or a dead girl”, as the saying goes. There have been several other cases where a Cabinet member has been caught in a crime of one sort or another, and resignation was the only real resort.
This current crop hasn’t enough shame between the lot of them to cause the merest hint of a blush at the way they have mistreated their power, which is why I shall have no shame at watching them squirm in their gibbets…
So, ya got nothin’?
I’m still trying to find a legitimate source for the definition of “all civil officers”. And one exception does not change my basic claim, especially when you consider the fact that when they voted to impeach, he was actually a civilian. And they knew it at the time.
Indictment, yes; Impeachment, no.
Impeachment, so far as I understand it, is indictment by the House — and is, to characterize the act further, both political and judicial in nature. Conviction or acquittal in the Senate is the sequel.
Indictment would be a necessary prerequisite to impeachment I would think.
I don’t think so leigh. The act of impeachment is a presentation of a bill of charges of particular wrongs before the House, upon which bill of particulars the House takes a vote to say “this guy did thus and such wrongs and should be tried in the Senate for these wrongs, to have his guilt of them or innocence decided there”. Now the House may reject the bill of particulars and so not present anything to the Senate. But if impeachment is voted “aye”, then the indictment is made.
Impeachment, so far as I understand it, is indictment by the House — and is, to characterize the act further, both political and judicial in nature. Conviction or acquittal in the Senate is the sequel.
And to take the eye away from the Obamunistcare ball would help how?
Regarding the Treasury Secretary of the United States Jack Lew saying in testimony before the Congress that he cannot distinguish paying the debt service, as an item, from any other item of expenditure of government funds, and therefore cannot vouch to prevent a default condition on the public debt? (Or at least, such was my understanding of the substance of his testimony as it came to me in a radio snippet, which may not represent the entirety of his presentation.) Has little directly to do with the enforcement of an unwanted law on a stoutly refusing populace, I reckon: but was that the question to be addressed by raising the possibility that the Congress would properly express its contempt for such a servant?
This, however, is a quite separate question from the question as to the meaning and intention of the powers of impeachment, which is the direction in which the conversation had (possibly regrettably) drifted.
sdferr says October 10, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Thanks. Damned linguistic dyslexia, anyway. I knew what I meant, I just mangled it.
Indictment is what would be done by a grand jury for criminal charges involving jail time (hopefully).
When Clinton was impeached, they appointed several members of the House to act as Prosecutors, Clinton had defense council, and the entire Senate was sworn in as the jury, with the Chief Justice presiding.
The vote to acquit were pretty much along party lines, with many Dems saying that they thought Clinton was guilty, just “not guilty enough”, with one actually admitting that the President could obstruct justice and commit perjury when under oath without it “harming the Republic”.
I intend to use that line if I am ever indicted for a crime. (“Your honor, that multi-family slaughter didn’t harm the Republic, and so you should set me free on the same grounds that Bill Clinton was.” )
Of course, Clinton still had to face the criminal charges, and those were plea-bargained away for his law license and SCOTUS arguing rights…
No, I don’t believe this to be a good move. If done correctly — and it’s the showdown Obama wanted — conflating the two IS the way to win the one. Provided you don’t buy the phony default argument.
See my top post.
Bullshit. Not one fuckin’ penny, Orange boy.
Asswipe doesn’t want to negotiate? Fine, then he gets squat.