I'm tired of this cut the funding to end the war crap...You end wars by stopping the war, you put soldiers lives in even more risk by cutting the budget...
For example, I may be against the war in Iraq, but if it is going to happen I don't want it to be done half-assed. Funding a currently running miltary situation is not the same as supporting the war, if I remember correctly the congress tried to get a timeline set for withdrawal to the budget but Bush threatened to veto or do so, and the democrats do not have a veto proof majority.
People want the war to end but they don't want it done by slashing the budget of the conflict and thus putting those lives already in danger in further danger... They want timelines or withdrawal. Cutting the Budget would just makes Democrats look like bastards.
Finally, someone said it. Try looking at the bigger picture for once. The war was started and gained lots of momentum while the Republicans controlled congress. This congress was driving the car to begin with...and they beat the crap out of it. Now they've had to hand over the driver's seat to the Democrats, and the Democrats can't just magically fix all the things wrong with the car. They have to carefully figure out how best to fix each problem and attempt to do it in the most efficient-yet-possible way in our system. They also have to deal with a bunch of people arguing about what's wrong and how to fix it. Then imagine that a majority of those people have to AGREE on what to do before you can actually DO anything. That's obstacle #1. And then...
Presidential approval of the Budget is like a stoplight...they don't have the ability to make the light turn. Only the President can do that. Refusing to compromise will just make them sit at the red light indefinitely. So yeah, they went ahead and gave the troops that were over there funding.
Withdrawing funding for the war without a change in the action plan is stupid and suicidal. The amount of funding needed must drop so that we can cut funding. We do that by removing troops and scaling back operations. Otherwise we sentence people who are over there supporting us to living in worse conditions than they already are. Now, I'm all for lowering the population of the planet so we have less poverty issues, but I'm pretty sure this would be an extreme and very poor way to go about it.
The war was started and gained lots of momentum while the Republicans controlled congress.
Both parties supported commencement of the war. You can argue that their information was bad, but both parties share the blame for the initial approval.
the Democrats can't just magically fix all the things wrong with the car.
They ran on a platform of bringing an end to the war. They caved to Bush.
Refusing to compromise will just make them sit at the red light indefinitely.
Somebody had to give. The Dems caved like a house of cards. They should have played tougher. And to make matters worse, they keep handing over blank checks. There are those who believe that the Democrats have been pwnd by the Republicans.
Withdrawing funding for the war without a change in the action plan is stupid and suicidal.
The deleted the time line for withdrawl. I understand that you have to fund the troops - but any funding should have been conditioned on a time line.
Anyone who is serious about seeing this war end should not vote for McCain. He has promised to keep the U.S. involved for many, many years.
No question about that. Biden was disturbingly supportive of the war, but at least he's backed off. The Democrats at least offer hope for an end. Their record, though, should make anyone nervous that an end is near.
Both parties supported commencement of the war. You can argue that their information was bad, but both parties share the blame for the initial approval.
Oh, you're right about that. Both parties have the blame...almost everyone in office at the time does. They rushed into something based on very flimsy reasons, and we got burned for it. However, given that we only have two realistic choices for candidates, we have to asses the pros and cons of each party. The democrats have a less shitty record in this field. I'm not really hoping that whoever gets elected will quickly revolutionize the country...I'm not that much of a fool. However, I think we are better off going with an administration that reads people and sees problems coming ahead of time, rather than an administration that is slowly collapsing from the inside like a flan in a cupboard because they fail to see what's going on.
As I said before, you really want economic policy decided by a guy who thinks Spain is in South America. A guy like that would be soooooooooo much better for the economy than Obama.
Give me a break. All candidates have hadgaffes. It's bound to happen when you campaign this much. I like how people here expect the candidates to be robots. They're human. I suppose if they were in wheelchairs, you guys would ask them to stand up.
It is important to note that McCain never said that Spain was in Latin America. He didn't know the name of the president of Spain, and made a bad assumption. (If you're going to criticize the guy, at least be truthful about what he said.) Kind of like when Obama had no clue who the future president of Russia was. Last time I checked, Russia is a little more of a threat than Spain.
No, this wasn't a case of McCain merely not knowing who someone was. The interviewer gave him a lot of opportunity to avoid sounding like an idiot. He was determined, however, to plow on with his answer as though Spain was a South American country. That's not a mere gaffe. That is an indication that something is wrong.
Further, this was an interview with the Spanish Press. Do you think you might want to know something about Spain when you give an interview to the Spanish Press?
"Would you be willing to meet with the head of our government, Mr. Zapatero?" the questioner asked, in an exchange now being reported by several Spanish outlets.
McCain proceeded to launch into what appeared to be a boilerplate declaration about Mexico and Latin America -- but not Spain -- pressing the need to stand up to world leaders who want to harm America.
"I will meet with those leaders who are our friends and who want to work with us cooperatively," according to one translation. The reporter repeated the question two more times, apparently trying to clarify, but McCain referred again to Latin America.
Finally, the questioner said, "Okay, but I'm talking about Europe - the president of Spain, would you meet with him?" The Senator offered only a slight variance to his initial comment. "I will reunite with any leader that has the same principles and philosophy that we do: human rights, democracy, and liberty. And I will confront those that don't [have them]."
The implication seemed fairly clear: McCain was refusing to commit to meet with Zapatero, the "socialist" party leader, whose country is a member of NATO and intricately involved in many of America's global financial and national security objectives.
Already, several explanations are being offered to explain McCain's statements. As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo opined: "The great majority [of those who have weighed in] appear to think the McCain was simply confused and didn't know who Zapatero was -- something you might bone up on if you were about to do an interview with the Spanish press. The assumption seems to be that since he'd already been asked about Castro and Chavez that McCain assumed Zapatero must be some other Latin American bad guy. A small minority though think that McCain is simply committed to an anti-Spanish foreign policy since he's still angry about Spain pulling it's troops out of Iraq." Emphasis mine.
No, this wasn't a case of McCain merely not knowing who someone was. The interviewer gave him a lot of opportunity to avoid sounding like an idiot. He was determined, however, to plow on with his answer as though Spain was a South American country. That's not a mere gaffe. That is an indication that something is wrong.
Dude. Listen to the interview again. She never referred to Zapatero in the context of Spain until well into the interview. I agree, his handlers should have made it clear that the interview was with the Spanish press.
As I said before, you really want economic policy decided by a guy who thinks Spain is in South America.
Please tell me where he said this. Otherwise, please admit that you're being less than truthful. McCain was referring to Mexico during this interview. So you possibly could infer that he thought that Zapatero was the president of Mexico. And if you listen to the context, it is clear that he knew who the president of Mexico is, and misheard the name that the interviewer gave. Anything else is just dishonest, and I know that you're better than that, Joe. I respect your politics, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to throw intelligence aside.
You've also left out the fact that the interviewer asked specifically about Latin America. She used that term. She asked about Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba. (McCain knew the leaders of those countries as well as the president of Columbia.) It was on the heels of this that she slopped in the name of Zapatero - with no context whatsoever.
She did refer to Zapatero as the president of Spain in the very beginning (of the clip that was posted, I am yet to listen to the whole interview). For what I heard it is very clear that MC Cain thought that Zapatero was president of a country in Central America until the questioner said "what about Europe?".
Funny trivia, Zapatero is a very unusual last name for a person who speak spanish. A most common last name would be Zapata. Zapatero literally means shoe maker or shoe seller.
The chairman serves at the pleasure of the President. Senate confirmation is only required when someone new is being made a commissioner.
The President can "fire" the chairman at any time and replace him with another commissioner. He cannot remove a commissioner from the committee.
OK. I'll turn the massive brain off again.
Hey, "Rape-Kit", read the article:
But while the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president.
From time to time, presidents have attempted to remove commissioners who have proven "uncooperative." However, the courts have generally upheld the independence of commissioners. In 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Supreme Court ruled the president acted unconstitutionally.
Read it again: "[A] commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president."
The chairman serves at the pleasure of the President. Senate confirmation is only required when someone new is being made a commissioner.
The President can "fire" the chairman at any time and replace him with another commissioner. He cannot remove a commissioner from the committee.
OK. I'll turn the massive brain off again.
Hey, "Rape-Kit", read the article:
But while the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president.
From time to time, presidents have attempted to remove commissioners who have proven "uncooperative." However, the courts have generally upheld the independence of commissioners. In 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Supreme Court ruled the president acted unconstitutionally.
Read it again: "[A] commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president."I did read the article. McCain is not talking about removing a commissioner, he's talking about replacing the chairman.
You thinking about Humphrey's Executor v. United States? Does not apply here. McCain is talking about firing the chairman and replacing him with a new chairman. Everyone remains a commissioner but someone new gets to sit in the big chair.
I did read the article. McCain is not talking about removing a commissioner, he's talking about replacing the chairman.
Rape-Kit, the chairman is a commissioner.
Yes he is and the chairman can be replaced by another commissioner at any time for any reason by the President. So yes, the President can fire the "chairman" and remove him from his post as "chairman". He can not "fire" him from being a commissioner.
I did read the article. McCain is not talking about removing a commissioner, he's talking about replacing the chairman.
Rape-Kit, the chairman is a commissioner.
Yes he is and the chairman can be replaced by another commissioner at any time for any reason by the President. So yes, the President can fire the "chairman" and remove him from his post as "chairman". He can not "fire" him from being a commissioner.
Rape-Kit, the President cannot replace the chairman of the SEC "at any time for any reason". Please read again, and maybe look up some of the bigger words in the dictionary.
“The creation, composition, and powers of the SEC are found in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The commission consists of five members who are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The terms of the commissioners are staggered and the basic length of each term is five years. No more than three of the commissioners may be members of the same political party. The statute does not provide for a chairman. Until 1950, the Chairman was elected annually. Following Reorganization Plan No. 10 of 1950 (see, Reorganization Act of 1949, 5 U.S.C. §§ 901-913), the President designates the chairman. Pursuant to this Reorganization Plan, the chairman succeeded to most of the executive and administrative functions of the commission.†S.E.C. v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 855 F.2d 677, 681 (10th Cir. 1988).
The President’s powers with respect to appointment and removal of commissioners from the commission thus differ from the President’s power with respect to the appointment and removal of one of those commissioners from the office of Chairman. As to the former, “The Act does not expressly give to the President the power to remove a commissioner. However, for the purposes of this case, we accept appellants’ assertions in their brief, that it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner only for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.’†Id. Whether the President could remove Cox from the Commision on one of these grounds is debatable, at best, but at least theoretically it’s possible.
Update: To like effect, see MFS Securities Corp. v. S.E.C., 380 F.3d 611, 619 (2d Cir 2004, in which the court stated that “the power to remove Commissioners belongs to the President,†albeit while noting that that “power is is ‘commonly understood’ to be limited to removal for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.’†See also S.E.C. v. Bilzerian, 750 F.Supp. 14, 16 (D.D.C. 1990), in which the court stated that: “While the Act does not expressly give the President the power to remove a commissioner, it is generally accepted that the President may remove a commissioner for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.†So ABC’s Wright’s and Tapper’s citation of a 1935 SCOTUS case dealing with a different agency (namely, the FTC) is irrelvant. The understanding with respect to the SEC is that the President, at the very least, can remove a Commissioner for cause. What is not debatable, however, is that “The Chairman of the SEC serves as such solely at the pleasure of the President.†Harvey L. Pitt & Karen L. Shapiro, Securities Regulation by Enforcement: A Look Ahead at the Next Decade, 7 Yale J. on Reg. 149, 280 n.557 (1990). Indeed, the Tenth Circuit so held in the Blinder, Robinson case cited above. See 855 F.2d at 681, stating that “as the President has the power to choose the chairman of the SEC from its commissioners to serve an indefinite term, it follows that the chairman serves at the pleasure of the President.â€Â
Hence, when McCain said “The Chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President,†he was right at the very least insofar as Cox’s position as Chairman (as opposed to his position as a commissioner) is concerned.
May I ask that we return to civil discussion instead of calling someone "rape-kit" because they thought it was a rape prevention kit and not a "how to investigate whether you've been raped" It doesn't add anything to the discussion...
The truth should prove your argument not a childish nickname, Why is it that the oldest people here are the least mature...
Okay, then . . . (notice how I didn't say "Rape-Kit"?), please read your article. Your best piece of material comes from a footnote in a law review article. Law review articles are not the law.
The case quoted said that it was case-specific and said that it was not the general rule. So that is no the law, wither. The second citation of that case was a little devious. The quotation was dicta. Dicta is also not the law.
So, you have one case that explicitly said that it was not stating a general rule and you have a law review article. That's not the law.
Perhaps the confusion is coming from the use of the word "fire." I think "demote" might be a little more appropriate, since we are not talking about removing him from his job. We are talking about taking away the title of Chairman and giving it to one of the other commissioners. No one is being removed from the office of commissioner, theoretically.
Even if they were...
The government has done things that were in gray areas (or blantantly against the law) before. What makes you guys so certain that McCain wouldn't be able to pull this off somehow if he WAS trying to remove someone from office? Especially if he could show Cause. Precedents and court cases are not expressly written law...and comparisons between cases that are not exactly the same cannot always be drawn with certainty.
Comments
Presidential approval of the Budget is like a stoplight...they don't have the ability to make the light turn. Only the President can do that. Refusing to compromise will just make them sit at the red light indefinitely. So yeah, they went ahead and gave the troops that were over there funding.
Withdrawing funding for the war without a change in the action plan is stupid and suicidal. The amount of funding needed must drop so that we can cut funding. We do that by removing troops and scaling back operations. Otherwise we sentence people who are over there supporting us to living in worse conditions than they already are. Now, I'm all for lowering the population of the planet so we have less poverty issues, but I'm pretty sure this would be an extreme and very poor way to go about it.
The fundamental truth is that they were never serious about ending the war. It was all about politics. They duped their constituents. The only silver lining is that they got a lot of money for their pet projects in the deal. Of course it had the appearance of a sellout.
Anyone who is serious about seeing this war end should be ashamed of both parties.
It is important to note that McCain never said that Spain was in Latin America. He didn't know the name of the president of Spain, and made a bad assumption. (If you're going to criticize the guy, at least be truthful about what he said.) Kind of like when Obama had no clue who the future president of Russia was. Last time I checked, Russia is a little more of a threat than Spain.
Further, this was an interview with the Spanish Press. Do you think you might want to know something about Spain when you give an interview to the Spanish Press? Source.
You've also left out the fact that the interviewer asked specifically about Latin America. She used that term. She asked about Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba. (McCain knew the leaders of those countries as well as the president of Columbia.) It was on the heels of this that she slopped in the name of Zapatero - with no context whatsoever.
Funny trivia, Zapatero is a very unusual last name for a person who speak spanish. A most common last name would be Zapata. Zapatero literally means shoe maker or shoe seller.
The chairman serves at the pleasure of the President. Senate confirmation is only required when someone new is being made a commissioner.
The President can "fire" the chairman at any time and replace him with another commissioner. He cannot remove a commissioner from the committee.
OK. I'll turn the massive brain off again.
You thinking about Humphrey's Executor v. United States? Does not apply here. McCain is talking about firing the chairman and replacing him with a new chairman. Everyone remains a commissioner but someone new gets to sit in the big chair.
The truth should prove your argument not a childish nickname, Why is it that the oldest people here are the least mature...
The case quoted said that it was case-specific and said that it was not the general rule. So that is no the law, wither. The second citation of that case was a little devious. The quotation was dicta. Dicta is also not the law.
So, you have one case that explicitly said that it was not stating a general rule and you have a law review article. That's not the law.
Even if they were...
The government has done things that were in gray areas (or blantantly against the law) before. What makes you guys so certain that McCain wouldn't be able to pull this off somehow if he WAS trying to remove someone from office? Especially if he could show Cause. Precedents and court cases are not expressly written law...and comparisons between cases that are not exactly the same cannot always be drawn with certainty.