Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 23, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

FUN WITH DICK AND DICK....Last night at dinner my mother was outraged over Dick Cheney's ridiculous contention that he's not part of the executive branch. So she'll be happy to learn that Democratic pit bull Rahm Emanuel is calling Cheney's bluff and threatening to defund the VP's office:

The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments.

This is excellent political theater. It's not going to win any elections or anything, but it's a clear and graphic way of exposing both Cheney's chronic contempt for the rules everyone else has to follow and George Bush's inability to stand up to him — and that's never a bad thing.

POSTSCRIPT: By the way, back in February when this story was first reported, Cheney wasn't arguing that the VP's office wasn't executive. He was arguing that the VP's office was both legislative and executive, and thus could ignore the rules of either branch whenever it suited him. So here's my question: If a quantum superposition of a dead cat and a live cat is Schrödinger's Cat, is a quantum superposition of legislative Cheney and executive Cheney Schrödinger's Dick?

POSTSCRIPT 2: Another question: Will the principled conservatives at National Review manage to avoid commenting on this entirely? Or will they somehow tie themselves into pretzels trying to justify Cheney's position? They'd be wise to ignore it, but my bet is that Mark Levin won't be able to restrain himself. So, ten bucks on #2.

Kevin Drum 7:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (83)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The question is WAY above WingNuts pay grade.

Posted by: R.L. on June 23, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Kevin, finally working blue, eh?

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Btw, what's with Rahm sending out press releases to Duncan before he even posts it to his website?

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Emmanuel has the look of a fanatic and makes Begala and Carville look almost civilized.
mhr

Whereas mhr needs no help whatsoever to look like a complete idiot.

Posted by: DJ on June 23, 2007 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

This is excellent political theater.

Yes, the problem with Rahm is he likes to play political games with what looks like serious criminal intent.

Cheney wants to do away with the "achives unit" and Rahm want to treat the whole issue like a joke.

Rep. Pelosi said she didn't want to impeach Bush but she didn't say anything about not impeaching Dick Cheney, and it looks to me like you can't get anymore criminal looking that Cheney is acting right now.

It's time to start talking about matters of impeachment. If Bush's polls go any lower, he'll be in Nixon range anyway BUT congress's polls are so low too, that perhaps Rahm needs stop the political theater and get serious about democratic government. I, like most Americans, am not amused.

Posted by: Me_again on June 23, 2007 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe you could get your mom to blog here, this blog could use a bit more outrage....

(And most of your women guest bloggers are pretty crazy....)

Posted by: jerry on June 23, 2007 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

So I guess the question for the Bush Administration: Does the president control the vice president? If the president gives an order to the vice president, does the vice president follow that order? If the president and the vice president both give orders to agencies or the military, whose orders do they follow?

Posted by: gfw on June 23, 2007 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

I have to agree that the best time for political theater is when you are seen as being effective.

If your reputation is one of not getting things done, and waffling on the right thing to do, than political theater is probably not your best option.

Unless Rahm Emanuel is serious and plans to do something serious about it, he should probably resign and STFU.

Posted by: jerry on June 23, 2007 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

If the Democrats really wanted to do something, they wouldn't frame it as overreach by Cheney.
Instead they would taunt Bush over his weakness. He really hates that and would be forced to act.

Posted by: xyz on June 23, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Does the president control the vice president? If the president gives an order to the vice president, does the vice president follow that order?

POTUS and VPOTUS are both constitutional officers. POTUS cannot fire VPOTUS. Short of begging Congress to impeach and remove VPOTUS, there is nothing POTUS can do to force compliance from VPOTUS. Of course, VPOTUS can make the same request of Congress regarding POTUS.

If the president and the vice president both give orders to agencies or the military, whose orders do they follow?

As I have addressed in this forum before, that to me is the *big* question. VPOTUS is not in the chain of command, however POTUS has obviously delegated an unprecedented amount of exec authority to VPOTUS. Whose orders are followed would depend upon whether the person receiving the orders privileges the titular head of the exec branch or the person who wields the real power.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

The reference to Schrodinger's cat is priceless! I am sending the ref to all my friends who know quantum mechanics!

How many IS that? Oh well . . . .

Posted by: troglodyte on June 23, 2007 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

The POTUS could also remove any authority and all tasks from the VPOTUS given to him by the POTUS and let him do the tasks delegated to him by the Constution, which are none, apart from breaking ties at the Senate and waiting for the POTUS to croak.

Posted by: jerry on June 23, 2007 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush people are trying to rub out the old lines defining the separation of powers. Isn't it time for the courts to step in and re-define (and thereby re-establish) the rule of law, or are we going to be entertained by "political theatre" while our republic erodes away?

Posted by: Martin Gale on June 23, 2007 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

Jerry - remember the FORTRAN thread? Where we took the how-geeky are you quiz? And I was an ultra-geek queen?

Well, I sent Schrödinger's Dick to 23 people...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

xyz: "If the Democrats really wanted to do something, they wouldn't frame it as overreach by Cheney. Instead they would taunt Bush over his weakness. He really hates that and would be forced to act."

Why not? It always worked like a charm in 6th grade. Judging by the Bush's rhetoric, he hasn't advanced much beyond that stage.

However, because Dubya fits the classic psychologial profile of a bully, he's just as likely to repond to such domestic baiting by attacking Iran or Syria, because bullies will always prey upon those they perceive as weaker than them. And let's face it, Bush is looking pretty weak right now domestically.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 23, 2007 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you're totally pwned. Can I have a job as a big time blogger now?

Posted by: SP on June 23, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Orwell lives:
"All animals are equal, But some animals are more equal than others."

Posted by: Cycledoc on June 23, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

I'm quite sure some of us wish we knew who was at that energy meeting way back when, aren't you? Maybe waterboarding could reveal the answer.

Posted by: slanted tom on June 23, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

Schrödinger's Dick!

Yes! At last a technical term for his reanimated corpse aspect, the super-position of dead and alive.

It explains so much. He is in our world, but not of it.

Posted by: cld on June 23, 2007 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry...why is this maniac still allowed in office? How the FUCK can the VP not be considered part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH?!?!?

How is this not clearly an abuse of the constitution and grounds for immediate impeachment?

Posted by: mercury on June 23, 2007 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't Cheney oppose disclosing information about his energy task force upon the asserted basis that he was part of the Executive Branch and disclosing that data would impair it?

Posted by: Duncan Kinder on June 23, 2007 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

So here's my question: If a quantum superposition of a dead cat and a live cat is Schrödinger's Cat, is a quantum superposition of legislative Cheney and executive Cheney Schrödinger's Dick?

Schrödinger's Dick. Ok.

Or will they somehow tie themselves into pretzels

Pretzels. Yes.

So, ten bucks on #2

Bettin’ man.

This pretty much confirms it. Weekends, like me, you tend to drink beer and wax expansively, on the internet for all to see. Cool.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 23, 2007 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

As he is Schrödinger's Dick, that energy task force can't be said to have even happened.

Must have been about zero-point energy.

Maybe, maybe not.

Posted by: cld on June 23, 2007 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

"Bush claims oversight exemption, too!"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney23jun23,0,863839.story?coll=la-home-nation

As Emptywheel says, "Shorter Bush: I Wrote It in Invisble Ink"

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/shorter-bush-i-.html

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on June 23, 2007 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

So I guess the question for the Bush Administration: Does the president control the vice president? If the president gives an order to the vice president, does the vice president follow that order? If the president and the vice president both give orders to agencies or the military, whose orders do they follow?

Actually, this puts it into perspective. The President in no way controls the Vice President if the Vice President is not part of the legislative branch. Separation of powers, you know.

It’s all pretty pathetic. Cheney’s views would get him an F in any 8th grade civics class. His behavior is so stupid, you have no idea whether he is joshing or if he really dumb enough to believe what he says.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 23, 2007 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't Cheney oppose disclosing information about his energy task force upon the asserted basis that he was part of the Executive Branch and disclosing that data would impair it?

Posted by: Duncan Kinder

Yes, thank you.

Posted by: slanted tom on June 23, 2007 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

Tilli - When I posted about it, I asked to see the signing statement.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney wasn't arguing that the VP's office wasn't executive. He was arguing that the VP's office was both legislative and executive-- therefore laws don't apply.

I want to know how SCOTUS will rule on this issue, keeping in mind that Dems will most likely be the Party in power in 08.

I guess I want to know if Chief Justice Roberts is nothing more than another Albert Gonzales. Since certainly I think Justice Scalia is nothing short of Albert Gonzales type of Justice. Dems should be able to have closed door energy task meetings too, with enviromental groups - and no oil people. I don't want to hear a peep out the GOP and Scalia with his duckhunt scenario.

Posted by: Me_again on June 23, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Quantum superposition. Hmmm. Cheney on top? Bush on top? Both on top?

At least with Bill and Monica we knew who the man was.

Posted by: jackohearts on June 23, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

It's time Schroedinger's Dick was circumcised.

Posted by: lampwick on June 23, 2007 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Principled conservatives at the National Review? Well, there are principled conservatives and then there is the crew at the National Review. The intersection of these two is the null set.

Posted by: pgl on June 23, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

I can't imagine why either the President or the Vice President wouldn't want to obey the executive order pertaining to security oversight. Claiming they don't have to follow the rules the President himself established for the protection of national secrets makes both the Vice President and the President look like they are hiding something.

Either tomorrow or Monday the big question will be, "Mr. Cheney, what are you hiding?" "What have you done that would demand you make such incomprehensible argument when simple compliance would be the best possible course?"

Those questions will be followed shortly by others directed at President Bush. You can almost hear, "Mr. President, you claim that you don't have to follow routine security procedures, why?" "What kind of example does that set?" "What do you have to hide?"

This mess doesn't have an up side for either Bush or Cheney.

Posted by: corpus juris on June 23, 2007 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

The Congress SHOULD defund the Office of the VP (but not the VP himself - that would likely be found unconstitutional in the courts), BUT ALSO prohibit transfers of money or personnel 'on loan' from other agencies, including the Executive Office of the President.

Deprive him of staff and Cheney will be a paper tiger.

Then pass a law that all matters pertaining to the VP should be open (and published contemporaneously) to the public.

Then impeach the Son of a Bitch.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on June 23, 2007 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

It's time Schroedinger's Dick was circumcised.

Yeah.

And too bad the entire country couldn’t have pulled on a condom a few years ago.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 23, 2007 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

well the conservative dream of smaller government has finally come true, the Vice Presidents job has been 'out sourced'. Dick Cheney is neither an American or a Human Being.
the same applies to the Presidents office as well.

Posted by: flex on June 23, 2007 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

If the argument is that the v.p. is part of the legislative branch because his job is to preside over the Senate, couldn't somebody check to see how often he's shown up for work? Maybe we could just fire him as a feckless employee.

Posted by: john sherman on June 23, 2007 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

It's interesting this story was on the same front page(Washpost) as the one about the CIA giving up its "family jewels."
I think the people who know what a totalitarian society really looks like have looked in the mirror and decided they really don't want any part of it and figured giving up their secrets would undercut the adminstration and its fellow travelers.
The headline that popped into my mind, on seeing both stories, was, "Administration scares sh!t out of CIA."

Posted by: brodix on June 23, 2007 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Ironically, the Vice President's office just sent a letter to the committee investigating the ex-Smithsonian secretary Lawrence Small arguing that the problem with the Smithsonian was that it was... wait for it... both a non-profit organization and a governmental organization, leading to lots of unhelpful confusion that ought to be clarified for the good of the Institution going forward.

In other words, hybridity for me but not for thee.

Posted by: Patience on June 23, 2007 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure this has been pointed out before, but the administration is asserting an absolute right to secrecy at the same time that it is attempting to gather to itself the power to wiretap without warrants, to monitor all internet communications, and to datamine all our personal data.

Posted by: blog on June 23, 2007 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

"US Constitution:

"Article II

"Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, **together with the Vice President**, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows..."

If there is a person alive today who would believe that the president TOGETHER with the vice-president do not constitute the executive branch of the US government, then they must surely be held in a mental ward somewhere.

Posted by: James Hogan on June 23, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

More blatant, sendetious twattle from the internets cheif Bush hater, Kevin Drum.

Kevin, did you even read the executive order? It deals only with executive AGENCIES. THe VP office is not an agency, Kevin, per the constitution.

Plus, it has both executive and legislative qualities. THat means while it is not wholly bound by executive rules, it still needs to receive executive funding, because it qualifies in part as exec.

Rahm (Muslim?) Emanual's little political stunt is nothing more than bald faced political posturing and will never stand up in court. be laughed out of court.

Posted by: egbert on June 23, 2007 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Postscript 2:

Will the principle manage to avoid commenting on this entirely?

That would be you, Kevin. On a number of crucial subjects. But you just don't have the balls.

Posted by: notthere on June 23, 2007 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

ROTFLMAO.

Yeah, Rahm's a Muslim.

Oh, boy.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert and TheBoyz are a little late to the show, aren't they?

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on June 23, 2007 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

The American people should have realized the craven self-promotional nature of Dick Cheney when he headed Bush's vice presidential search committee and found - himself.

Why anyone would think that that this criminal would become anything other than the worst vice president in history, which he clearly has, was a damn fool. Very few men have done as much damage to America as this man. He needs to die serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 23, 2007 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

"laughed out of court"

What, the VP is going to sue Congress for his funding? There are a few Constitutional problems with that scenario.

One problem with this situation is that it's a question of compliance with a presidential directive, which the president could presumably alter at will. A stronger step would be to pass a law requiring the scrutiny which the directive mandates. Bush would look silly vetoing a law which merely emphasizes one of his own initiatives.

Posted by: bad Jim on June 23, 2007 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

For twits who (a) have never read the Bible or (b) cannot Google, Rahm Emmanuel is Jewish. The last name gives it away.

Posted by: jhh on June 23, 2007 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert, did you read the Executive Order before you accused Kevin of not reading the executive order? If you did, you would note that it defines an agency as an "executive agency [as defined by statute] . . . and any other entity within the executive branch." As you pointed out, the Vice President is an entity within the executive branch.

It looks like you, Egbert, just read some talking points, not the Executive Order.

By the way, this new rule that Congress "needs" to fund the Vice President's office is very interesting. Did you make that up all on your own, or did you get help from Sean Hannity?

Posted by: Teh prophet on June 23, 2007 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

The last name gives it away.

Right. And it's spelled Emanuel, not Emmanuel.

Egbert continues to entertain. I'll always love him.

Posted by: shortstop on June 23, 2007 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

So he's not part of the executive branch, so executive privilege no longer applies. Ok.

Posted by: dj on June 23, 2007 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

The last name gives it away.

Rahm is a French porn star?

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

Who's impersonating cmdicely now?

Posted by: shortstop on June 24, 2007 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

and waiting for the POTUS to croak

"Dick? What are you doing with that shotg-"
BLAM.

Posted by: Geoduck on June 24, 2007 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

Another question: Will the principled conservatives at National Review manage to avoid commenting on this entirely? Or will they somehow tie themselves into pretzels trying to justify Cheney's position? They'd be wise to ignore it, but my bet is that Mark Levin won't be able to restrain himself. So, ten bucks on #2.

Short term, my money's on #1 for $10.

Long term hedging: Jonah Goldberg beats Mark Levin to the punch, simply because Jonah is the one of the stupidest people to ever ride the internet tubes. $5.

Posted by: Monty on June 24, 2007 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

Shouldn't Dick have to follow both the executive and legislative branch's rules under this cock-uh-may-mee rational?

Posted by: elmo on June 24, 2007 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

[Handle Hijack]

Posted by: Al on June 24, 2007 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

I think the Cheney effect is other than quantum mechanical. Cheney appeared to have a brain but only when people assumed Cheney had a brain and when no attempt was made to observe that brain. When observing Cheney's brain Cheney's brain disappears. In quantum mechanics the wave function collapses and the particle becomes real only upon observation but Cheney's brain becomes irreal upon observation. There however may be a sort of black hole in Cheney's skull that is attempting to suck all sense from the universe.

Posted by: apollo on June 24, 2007 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

The argument is that the Constitution does not vest the Vice-President with any Executive Power.

LOL!

Posted by: elmo on June 24, 2007 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

[Handle Hijack]

Posted by: Al on June 24, 2007 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

which Executive power is vested in the Vice-President?

The power to not pose as cmdicely?

Posted by: Disputo on June 24, 2007 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

[Handle Hijack.]

Posted by: Al on June 24, 2007 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

A place where the Constitution implies that the VP is an executive officer is the following:


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

According to this: either the VP is an executive officer, or the VP is not bound by the Oath of Affirmation. (which Cheney did take -- I checked).

Posted by: JS on June 24, 2007 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

The last name gives it away.

As I understand it, his last name means "The Force is with us."

Posted by: mattsteinglass on June 24, 2007 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

That should be Oath or Affirmation.

Come to think of it, Cheney has not been acting as if he's bound by any oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, so he is consistent as far as that goes.

Posted by: JS on June 24, 2007 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK

David, yes I know that. But the Constitution defines the set of those who must take such an oath as the following:

1. The Senators and Representatives
2. The Members of the several State Legislatures
3. All executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States.

So which of these three groups does Cheney belong to? He is not a senator or representative, nor a member of a state legislature, nor a judicial officer. That leaves only one possibility -- executive officer.

Posted by: JS on June 24, 2007 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK

Right. He is a hybrid. But does this mean that he must comply with the rules of both branches -- or of neither?

If you have double citizenship, does that mean that you don't have to obey the laws of either country you are a citizen of?

Posted by: JS on June 24, 2007 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK

The White House website has a link to usa.gov, which describes the structure of the US government.

On this usa.gov page, the Vice President is listed as being clearly in the executive branch.

[This is true as of right now, of course. Wouldn't be surprising if this listing disappeared in the next day or two.]

Posted by: JS on June 24, 2007 at 3:16 AM | PERMALINK

WaPo has huge article on Cheney right here.

3 more parts coming as well.

Posted by: JC on June 24, 2007 at 3:21 AM | PERMALINK

LA Times:


Gordon Silverstein, a constitutional scholar at UC Berkeley, said Cheney's claims were all the more noteworthy given his repeated assertions of executive privilege, based on his senior position within the Bush administration, as a reason why he has not had to testify before Congress or provide lawmakers with information on such national security issues as torture, interrogation and CIA renditions of terrorists.

"Here's a guy who raises 'executive privilege' to historic levels to exempt himself from all rules and oversight, and now he says he's not part of the executive branch?" said Silverstein. "Here we have a subordinate part of the executive branch asserting independent constitutional authority even against its own superior. It is flabbergasting."
Posted by: JS on June 24, 2007 at 3:35 AM | PERMALINK

Here's what the inimitable Keith "The Man" Olbermann said on Countdown this week--
"There are four branches of government:
the Executive, the Judicial, the Legislative, and the DICK."

Posted by: consider wisely always on June 24, 2007 at 5:28 AM | PERMALINK

6 years ago , would you ever have imagined having to argue this point?

Posted by: david on June 24, 2007 at 7:26 AM | PERMALINK

Dick Cheney, the Entity formerly Known as the Vice President, leaves the planet at http://imissfaf.blogspot.com/..

Posted by: MR. Bill on June 24, 2007 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

Good morning! Soon the mods will wake up and clear the Charlie spam out of this thread. And so the circle of life continues.

Posted by: shortstop on June 24, 2007 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe he's going to move his office to the Caymans.

Posted by: Steve Paradis on June 24, 2007 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Soon the mods will wake up and clear the Charlie spam out of this thread.

Has Washington Monthly published the rules that are followed in deleting comments? On the face of it, it doesn't seem kosher to be deleting opposing views from a blog comment thread. What is the intention here? Any pointers to a prior discussion or policy announcement on this will be appreciated.

All of my prior comments here were responses to what seemed to be pro-Cheney comments (which have now been deleted).

Posted by: JS on June 24, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

[JS - the posts were deleted because an IP match verified they were from a banned poster. Sorry for any confusion -- mod. Kevin has posted his commenting policy]

Posted by: - on June 24, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Has Washington Monthly published the rules that are followed in deleting comments? On the face of it, it doesn't seem kosher to be deleting opposing views from a blog comment thread. What is the intention here? Any pointers to a prior discussion or policy announcement on this will be appreciated.

Kevin has posted his single rule, which is that the policy consists of the moderators' mood du jour. Well, it's his blog.

I brought the cmdicely impersonation to the mods' attention last night because the dude was hijacking somebody else's handle--something the mods will fix if they know about it.

Posting as "David" (the posts you answered), he wasn't hijacking, but my "soon the mods will clear Charlie's stuff out" comment was made with the knowledge that the mods delete Charlie no matter what, because of a previous decision to ban him. As far as I know, he's the only poster ever banned here. Of course, I could be way off on that.

Posted by: shortstop on June 24, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks -- I guess I was asking if there is a stated policy as to what it takes to ban a poster.

The posts I was responding to were from the other side politically, but they were not spam, nor did they contain racist or hate messages. Again, what are the rules for banning posters from this Political Animal Farm?

Posted by: JS on June 24, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

I guess I was asking if there is a stated policy as to what it takes to ban a poster.

Charlie and American Hawk are the only two banned commenters. They are maniacally intent on hijacking threads. (Oh - we banned the one guy who wouldn't shut up about moderation, too, since we prefer to be an unnoticed presence.)

Posted by: - on June 24, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

I take that as a warning. And "we prefer to be an unnoticed presence" is pure Orwell too. It all smells. Thanks for the clarification though, and feel free to delete this message too.

Posted by: JS on June 24, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

egbert defrauded forth:

"Plus, it [the VP's office] has both executive and legislative qualities. THat means while it is not wholly bound by executive rules, it still needs to receive executive funding, because it qualifies in part as exec."


Now here, for those who need it:

The only logical principle is: If there are rules which apply to members of set A, and rules which apply to members of set B, then if you are a member of both set A and set B, the combined sets of rules should apply to you (at least, as per the context of which realm you are expressing at the moment.) By no means, do you get to beg off both or even either one of the sets of rules due to the combination.

Posted by: Neil B. on June 24, 2007 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK
If there is a person alive today who would believe that the president TOGETHER with the vice-president do not constitute the executive branch of the US government, then they must surely be held in a mental ward somewhere.

If you reread the provision you quote carefully, you will note that it vests executive power in the President alone, but specifies that he shall be elected "together with a Vice-President".

Its not really a good argument for the VP having, Constitutionally, any executive power.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 25, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

So... using schrodinger's analogy... is Cheney a Dick or is he merely a Dick Cheny?

Posted by: quantum mechanic on June 28, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly