Comments Posted By Tulkinghorn
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
COMEY'S TALE RAISES STAKES FOR BUSH
Fascinating question: Can a President act in a constitutional manner yet still break the law? Could the NSA program be illegal under statute but the President ordering it using his powers under Article II be acting constitutionally?
I don't think you are asking the right question. Impeachment is always political, in part because there will always be gray areas of the law -- any president acting in good faith could take actions that are in that gray area and that can be determined after the fact to be illegal. The political element comes after the acts are determined to be illegal: Congress has prosecutorial discretion to decline to impeach.
We can use the Johnson and Clinton impeachments as examples. Johnson directly violated the law, as he considered the law in question to be unconstitutional. Since Johnson was later proven right, Congress was right to refuse to convict him. Clinton certainly violated the law, but I would question as to whether the impeachment was wise considering the de minimus nature of the offense.
Congress is prosecutor and the jury - it can choose to not prosecute, it can jury nullify by failing to convict even when the law is broken. Both decisions are appropriately entirely political. Not necessarily partisan politics, but political nonetheless.
If Congress concludes that Bush has operated in good faith, they ought not impeach, and if they do impeach, they ought not convict.
I have seen very little evidence of Bush and Cheney EVER acting in good faith.
Comment Posted By Tulkinghorn On 17.05.2007 @ 19:27
