It's not just an idea: it's the law
I do know that some people seem to believe that our current president is the Antichrist. Whether this is the case or not, only time will tell. As for me, although I am in disagreement with my president's choices as regards the manner of prosecution of the war in Iraq, attempts to democratize that nation, and various other matters, I am reminded of Napoleon's maxim: Never ascribe to malice and conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence. I see nothing in our current president's actions that is inconsistent with the latter.
Nonetheless, would some of you guys please get a grip, a life, or the point? When I hear that some Congresscritters are seeking to subpoena the President's staff for the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, I have to laugh.
The reason for my laughter is 28 U.S.C. section 541, which I will proceed to quote in its entirety:
(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. (Emphasis added by weblogista)
Finish. Punto. End of story.
As I seem to recall, Congress is authorized to subpoena individuals if a federal crime of some sort has been committed. As far as I can see here, no crime occurred. It would appear that under the above U.S. code, the President had full and unqualified authority to remove whomever he chose. While one may disagree with his decision to do so (and personally, I think that the matter stinks to high heaven), as Congress voted on and passed the above law, Congress has in fact authorized the President to take exactly the action which he did. If Congress at this point should decide to change the law, it still would not make the President's actions a crime: you see, there is this little concept called ex post facto. . .
So, boys and girls, can we get on to some really important matters instead, such as why the U.S. Government is not bothering to finance research on what promises to be the best news that we've had regarding fusion technology in the last fifty years?
posted by Bernard Brandt at 2:52 PM
2 Comments:
Thank you, Mullah Nasrudin. It's always amusing to see professional politicians, especially Loon Lefties, make such clowns of themselves. Not novel; just amusing.
I agree that many of Bush's decisions have been poor, and I don't defend them per se. I just want to add that there's always the fog and friction of war. A great warrior of the Middle East, about to lead an attack, asked his mentor (who was too old to fight any more), "My lord, how should I conduct this battle?" His mentor answered, "Oh my dear boy, do not fret yourself. Battle conducts itself."
The American Civil War ballooned to a size and destructiveness almost nobody foresaw. One exception was William Tecumseh Sherman, retired from the army for insanity when he predicted how bad the war could get. (He turned out to have badly underestimated it.) He was brought back after a couple of the earlier bloody battles--notably Shiloh--showed that, whaddaya know, he wasn't so crazy after all.
But that brings me to another Civil War commander: U.S. Grant. More competent than our president, he nevertheless drew terrible flak for the casualties incurred under his command. But I want to repeat something Lincoln said when people complained about Grant: "I can't spare this man. He FIGHTS." I must confess I rather feel this way about Bush. At least he fights.
Regards,
LogEyed Roman
Hi Ho, Bernard! Haven't visited here for a while b/c about 9 months ago you just stopped posting for a LONG time. New job, if I recall correctly.
I agree with you that GWB is not malicious; rather, he's far from the sharpest pencil in the drawer.
And he's done what he can to hand the Presidency to a Dimowit.
As to Gonzales, Tom Roeser, a man for whom I have the utmost respect (and one who really, really, really knows the players in DC) posted on his blog that Gonzales is a 'shifty-eyed' character not worthy of the office of AG.
Search on my blog for either name; the post will come up with a link.
You might be fascinated to read Roeser's blog, by the way. The guy's a walking history book, especially for the period beginning around 1940-date.
Post a Comment
<< Home