Edwards threatens to violate Constitution if elected.

[geek tragedy]

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/edwards_threatens_congress_in_new_iowa_ad.php#comments

In his new ad in Iowa, John Edwards reiterates his threat that as president he would take away Congress' health care if they don't provide universal coverage for everybody.

Matthew Yglesias and others have pointed out that such an action might not actually be Constitutional, as the 27th Amendment declares: "No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." It's also doubtful that the president has any sort of statutory authority like this.

No, the President has ZERO statutory authority to take away Congress's healthcare benefits if he doesn't like what they're doing.

So, is Edwards:

1) Someone who doesn't care about the Constitution;

2) A lightweight who doesn't understand the Constitution; or

3) A dishonest panderer?

"Or" being conjunctive, not disjunctive.

[Birthmark]

1. The Constitution?

What's that?

[geek tragedy]

13. Some of us remember. n/t

[Birthmark]

77. Well, I'm glad someone does.

But the Constitution is clearly no longer in operation.

[Tellurian]

14. Edwards is going off the deep end making wild unattainable promises..

in a desperate effort to improve his poll numbers.

Yes, and he claims he's going to bring the troops home the day after he's elected. When all the other candidates , especially Biden and Hillary, say it's near impossible. They both agree it will take 10 mos to a year to safely deploy all the troops.

Edwards has never taken 5 min out of his life to visit the troops in Iraq over the last 7 yrs. Why is that?
Empty promises fraught with hypocrisy!

[Renew Deal]

30. You can't even spell your candidates name, even though it's in your sig.

That's telling.

[Tellurian]

53. You do realize we have a low regard for the spelling police..

when it's well known, the spell cops, are a cheap shot at a distraction for the message in the post..

(Thanks, anyway!):hi:

[Renew Deal]

65. I don't usually care for it either. But spelling your candidate's name is fundamental

Especially when it' sitting in your sig.

[Birthmark]

75. Gosh, that's terrible.

You won't be too offended if I don't give a damn, will you?

I'll stifle my traditional chuckle, too, in the interest of politeness.

[1932]

2. It's nice to see that you've broadened your horizons beyond hating Nader.

But aren't you worried that Nader is going to get away with a lot of evil shit while you focus on Edwards?


And, btw, according to the first part of your argument, Edwards might be able to do this after 2010 and you don't give enough of a reason to hate edwards with the second part of your argument.

[rodeodance]

3. Edwards would not violate the Constiution. Anyone know how he would

do this. Did he say??---cut off health care for congress.

[Mass]

52. No, he would not. He is just making an empty promise that is also a good rethorical point.\nt

[Renew Deal]

4. D: A true leader that puts his money where his mouth is.

It's about time someone got serious about health care in this country. People die in this country because they can't afford the basic care. Infant mortality is shockingly high. Congress is complacent about it. This type of serious action is long overdue.

There are many political hacks that will attack Edwards. You're just pissed that your candidate didn't think of it first.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. How serious is someone who promises to do something he knows (or should know) is unconstitutional?

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

18. Why are you asuming they will break the law?

That's an unfair assumption.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. He said he would take away the health care of members of Congress

This would be unconstitutional. What part of the 27th amendment do you not understand?

[Renew Deal]

36. Again, why do you assume that he will break the law?

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Because he said that he would do something which is unconstitutional

Are you assuming that he is lying about this?

[Renew Deal]

43. He didn't say he would do something unconstitutional.

He said he would take their benefits away. There are legal ways to do this. Why do you assume he will do something illegal?

[geek tragedy]

46. HE CAN'T TAKE THEIR BENEFITS AWAY.

Period.

He can't do it legally.

[Renew Deal]

48. We keep ending up in this circle.

Legally he can. He might not be able to do it himself, but he can do it.

[geek tragedy]

49. Lol only because you're contradicting yourself.

Either he can do it or he can't. And the answer is that he can't--only Congress can.

So, his idea is to threaten Congress by . . . asking it to take away its own health insurance? That's nonsensical.

[Renew Deal]

66. He can do it.

He can keep his promise. He can accomplish his goal. Just because he can't do it by himslef doesn't mean he can't do it. And forget about the argument about whether insurance is "compensation."

[geek tragedy]

68. What powers would he use to take it away from

Congress?

[rodeodance]

5. you post is more Shiller than RW fear ads. good grief!

[geek tragedy]

6. So, you would have no trouble with Bush threatening

to take away Congress's health care if they refused to pass FISA legislation?

[Renew Deal]

10. They're not equivalent

Morally, Edwards is correct.

[geek tragedy]

12. So, violating the Constitution is acceptable so long as

you believe your cause is moral and just?

[Renew Deal]

15. Who said anything about violating the constitution?

Not me. There is probably a legal way to do this. Are you a constitutional lawer?

[geek tragedy]

20. I have litigated Constutional cases before.

And, the President has no legal authority to interfere with Congressional salaries and benefits.

[Renew Deal]

22. I don't mean as a juror.

Just because the president doesn't haev legal authority, doesn't mean that there isn't a legal way to do this.

[geek tragedy]

23. That's what Cheney said. n/t

[Renew Deal]

25. lol

That's all you got.

[geek tragedy]

28. Yes, Edwards is threatening to act in an illegal

and unconstitutional manner.

But, if you want a Democratic version of Dick Cheney, go ahead. Just don't complain about the Unitary Executive or Gitmo.

[Renew Deal]

35. Prove it.

All he said is that he's going to take their benefits away. You have already acknowledged that there are legal ways to do this. Spare us the faux outrage. You wish your candidate thought of it first.

BTW, Edwards is not my candidate.

[geek tragedy]

37. No, there are NO legal ways for the President to do this.

He has no statutory authority to do this. And, he has no constitutional authority to do this.

[Renew Deal]

38. That doesn't mean that there aren't legal ways to do it.

Why do you assume that he will break the law? I know it's tough to rely on our congress critters to do the right thing, but it's not impossible.

[geek tragedy]

Because the President CAN'T do it.

Only Congress can.

[Renew Deal]

67. Yes, and he CAN keep his promise.

I still do not assume that he will do something illegal.

[geek tragedy]

69. As I said, he could just be lying and pandering. n/t

[Renew Deal]

72. Yes, or he could be serious about the health care issue. n/t

[Forkboy]

57. I know one. Whenever someone starts their posts of with, "So...."

You can bet one lame ass question is going to be right behind it.

[rocktivity]

7. Presidential statutory authority? We haven't had that since 2000.

:eyes:
rocknation

[geek tragedy]

9. It appears he'll continue the Cheney tradition. n/t

[Skinner]

8. I think it is 4.

4) Political candidates often promise to do things that they are not able to do entirely on their own. Often, presidential candidates will make promises that require an act of Congress, or that are otherwise contingent on Congressional action -- even though they cannot control what Congress does. In this case, he means that he will do what he can as president, in accordance with the laws of this country, to deny Congress health care if they do not pass universal health care. I do not know what law gives Congress health care, but I suspect it will have to be renewed at some point, and if so he could veto it.

If this changes the law then there would probably have to be a congressional election in there between the time when the law goes into effect and when the Congress actually receives their new compensation, in order for it to be constitutionally valid. But again, that depends on the specific legal details, and I don't know the legal details about how Congress is compensated.

[geek tragedy]

11. Congressional pay and benefits are automatically renewed

and actually increased (in the case of pay) under already existing statutes. Congress doesn't need to even vote on it.

Let's put it this way: Could Bush threaten to take away Congress's health insurance if they didn't pass a war funding bill?

This is seriously anti-democratic stuff here.

[Renew Deal]

17. I don't know. Could he?

Is there a legal way to do this? I bet there is. The same way yuo give benefits, you can take them away.

[geek tragedy]

19. We have a President, not a King. No, there is no

legal way for him to do this.

[Renew Deal]

21. Who made you King?

You can take benefits away the same way you assign them.

[geek tragedy]

24. The President doesn't assign benefits.

They're determined by statute.

[Renew Deal]

26. And who creates statutes?

[geek tragedy]

29. Congress. n/t

[Renew Deal]

34. OK, so that disproves your theory that there is no legal way to do this.

Now, is it possible that he would have a majority of congress on his side?

The more difficult question is, is congress willing to take a principled position that would adversely directly affect them?

[geek tragedy]

44. What part of "Edwards can't do it"

is unclear?

He could ask Congress to do it themselves, but that's not what he's promising. He's promising/threatening to take it away himself.

[Renew Deal]

47. Because Edwards can do it.

With help.

[geek tragedy]

50. No, he can't do it at all.

Only Congress can.

Since he's threatening Congress with this action, it hardly makes sense that he would threaten Congress while asking for Congress's help in carrying out that threat.

[Skinner]

31. I don't know the specifics of the law, but I have no doubt that there is a way he could do this.

It only depends on how hard Edwards wants to push for it.

For example, he could threaten to veto all spending bills until Congress sends him a bill that takes away their own health care. I tend to think doing such a thing would be political suicide, but you never know -- the American people might love it. :shrug:

[geek tragedy]

39. Well, he could just threaten to shut down the government

until they pass UHC reform. That would be appealing, and it would be perfectly constitutional.

The point is, the President can't take it away--only Congress can.

[Renew Deal]

41. I get the point.

My point is that you shouldn't assume he's going to break the law.

[geek tragedy]

42. He's promising to do something that he has no legal

authority to do.

When Bush and Cheney do it, we call it breaking the law.

[Renew Deal]

45. Now we're getting somewhere.

He might actually have allies in congress that are willing to help him do this. Hopefully a majority of them. But there is no reason to assume he's going to break the law.

[Skinner]

51. At this point we are talking past each other.

You are saying that the president has no legal authority to unilaterally make this happen. That is true.

I am saying that even if the president does not have legal authority to unilaterally make this happen, he or she would have many options at their disposal which they could use to try to make this happen. That is also true.

As I said, presidential candidates frequently make promises that require an act of Congress. This is no different.

[geek tragedy]

54. Sure, but in this case he's threatening Congress.

Which makes it utterly nonsensical if he's going to depend on Congress to carry out that threat.

Moreover, he's explicitly saying he'd use "my powers" to do this. That is a reference to inherent executive authority, not an act of Congress.

[Skinner]

55. When a candidate uses the phrase "my powers" in a *campaign commercial*...

...there is no guarantee that he is referring to "inherent executive authority."

[geek tragedy]

56. Well, "my powers" certainly is not a reference

to Congress's powers.

[Skinner]

59. The power of persuasion is one of his powers.

The power of the bully pulpit is one of his powers.

The power to veto everything that congress sends him and shut down the government is one of his powers.

The bottom line is this: Edwards' statement can be broadly interpreted and therefore does not require a violation of the Constitution.

[geek tragedy]

61. The Politics of Parsing, then? n/t

[geek tragedy]

63. Also, he's threatening to TAKE IT AWAY from them.

"When I'm President I'm gonna say to members of congress and members of
my administration - including my cabinet, "I'm glad that you have
health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if
you don't pass universal healthcare by July of 2009 in six months,I'm
gonna use my power as President to take your healthcare away from
you." There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having
healthcare when you don't have healthcare."

It takes quite some imagination to view this as anything other than a threat to act extra-legally.

[Renew Deal]

70. Lets imagine.

He has a majority of both houses and they vote for it.
He is of the view that health care benefits is not compensation and fights it in court. BTW, you are not taxed for the value of health care, so there is some argument there.
He has some other legal maneuver up his sleeve.
He legally shuts down the government until congress does what he wants.

It's not that hard to imagine a legal set of circumstances.

[Sparkly]

71. I figure Edwards knows the law better than most.

I'm sure he isn't threatening to act illegally (or "extra-legally").

I think it's another case of seizing upon a "gotcha" to criticize a candidate, when there are plenty of other criticisms to make or debates to have that are actually significant.

[Ignis]

81. Precisely! Don't argue against words you put in others' mouths.

Geek Tragedy: You're the one inserting "unilaterally" into Edwards' promise here. It's not fair to attack him for that portion of the promise when he didn't actually make that claim.

If nothing else, the Shrub Years have taught us that there are many powers that a President can wield to cause change. Aside from the obvious bully pulpit and veto powers, the executive branch is the perfect vehicle for a leader to push the country in a particular direction.

Have you perused all of the campaign promises from every single other candidate under the same lens? I can think of several promises made by the other two Democratic front-runners that aren't likely to be achieved unilaterally. Why the outrage over this one promise from Edwards? What's your horse in this race?

[Ninga]

33. The Bully Pulpit is a powerful and influential tool. Edwards knows what he is doing, I have

all the confidence in the world in him.


He will use the influence of the Bully Pulpit to influence and "lead" policy makers to do that.........make policy.


Isn't it time we have a President who is willing to take on policy makers in behalf of the American people?

[MaineDem]

27. Good grief!

Sounds like this came from Faux News.

:eyes:

The title of this thread is so inflammatory I can't believe it's on a Democratic site!

[FormerDittoHead]

62. It directly echoes the same pedantics which I've heard about Hillary on talk radio...

edited because I'm not feeling good, and I'm not up to the snarking...

[nancyharris]

58. The 27th Amendment refers specifically

to "compensation" which is legally defined as payment for work performed, by salary, wages, commission or otherwise. Compensation does not include "benefits" like health insurance, life insurance, franking privileges, housing and travel stipends or retirement accounts. A President Edwards would not be restricted by the 27th Amendment from issuing Executive orders on Congressional benefits. No doubt it would cause a fervor, but I think that is the point.

[geek tragedy]

60. President Edwards would not have statutory

or Constitutional authority to issue such an Executive Order.

I swear some people love John Edwards more than they love the Constitution.

[nancyharris]

73. I'm afraid you are incorrect on that point

A President Edwards could issue an Executive Order to the Secretary of Health and Human Resources (the federal agency that provides Congressional Health coverage) to increase the out of pocket cost of Congressional Health plans to a level that is equal to the average out of pocket cost for American citizens. Such an Executive order would undoubtedly be quite popular with Americans and unlikely to be challenged in any Federal Court. Nor would such an Order be unconstitutional.

[Renew Deal]

74. Who do you love more than health care for all?

Because that's what this is all about. You're just pissed that your candidate didn't think of it first.

[Sparkly]

64. I'm sure Edwards is familiar with the Constitution and the law.

Maybe his "powers as president" couldn't do this directly, but I'm sure he had something in mind. And I don't think ANY Democrats are threatening to do anything that violates the Constitution.

It does, however, point up the fact again that we must elect a strong Democratic majority in Congress, as well as a Democratic president.

[Debi]

76. Yep - Congress would have to vote on it

Don't see them doing that any time soon.

[rinsd]

78. Oh I so cannot wait until the debates.

Edwards just handed his opponents two weapons in the span of a day.

[Cameron27]

79. I hope they use it.

[Vickers]

80. this thread has to take some sort of prize for containing

the most concentrated exhibition of ignorance ever.