How is this not a coup?

Question

Bush just declared an effective coup, by stating that not only does he believe that he is above the law, but that he can block any attempt to prosecute any member of the executive branch for any alleged violation of law.

In other words, he has asserted that he is able to break the law with complete impunity, and there is nothing the courts or congress can do about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html?hpid=topnews

If he has sworn an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed, shouldn't that mean that US Attorneys would be required to prosecute a Contempt of Congress charge? Otherwise, there is no legal accountability.

How is this not effectively a bloodless coup?

Actually, I was hoping for arguments from the other side (logical arguments, not personal attacks) explaining why it wasn't a coup.... Hence the phrasing "how is this not..."

Can anyone provide a logical legal argument justifying his actions?

Interesting overview of current executive orders and relevant laws passed in 2006.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Establishing_martial_law_in_the_United_States

Answer 1

You can certainly see /why/ he's done it. Congress has been using (and perphaps abusing) it's powers for years to harrass the executive, it happened to Clinton, the prior Bush, and Reagan. It's always been partisan, and this investigation is too. So is the desperate defense you've sited.

But that's just a squable between two branches. The courts are still there, and, in spite of the recent changes in the Supreme Court, I doubt they're going to want to cede all power to president.

So, no, it's not a coup. It's a possible abuse of executive power as a political stunt, to counter an arguable missuse of power by Congress, that is also merely for the purposes of orchestrating a political stunt.

It shows how profoundly dysfunctional our current political parties have made our government, though.

Answer 2

I don't think that, as we speak, the letterheads are being changed to " The Facist States of America", however....

It's yet another instance where BushCo has asserted that his "unitary executive" branch is above the law (domestic and international), our other branches of government and the Constitution. The real problem is that he's opened a pandora's box that will extend way beyond this current administration. Paradoxically, the very powers it will take to close the lid are vested in the ones who have the most power to yield in keeping it open. Consider the 2008 candidates VERY carefully!

For those that argue that this is all 'much ado about nothing' anyway because Bush was within his rights to fire the US Attorneys... look a little deeper at how an unnoticed provision in the Patriot Act allowed for new ones (21 or 22, I think) to be hired, totally bypassing the usual presidential appointment and Senate confirmation process.

Born_in_the usa... have you looked into National Emergency?
On September 21, 2006, Bush submitted a continuation of national emergency, thus renewing Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060921-13.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/09/fr091801.html
In May 2007, Bush signed the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51/HSPD-20). Unlike the National Emergency Act that sets up congress as a balance, the new directive:
1. does not contain any provisions allowing for congressional approval or oversight.
2. creates the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without Congress approval
3. negates any requirement that the president submit proof of the existence of a National Emergency to Congress
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Coragryph.... I'm sorry this response turned out so long and still didn't answer your question, but looking over the many good and thoughtful answers, nobody else could either. I'm all for being an individualist, but I do draw the line at attempting to defend the "Son of a Bush"!

Answer 3

It isn't a coup in the traditional sense, for at least two reasons:

Although the Congress hasn't done so in 70 years, they have the power to try a contempt charge in Congress. They don't need the President's permission, or the cooperation of the Justice Department. That power was given to them for exactly this reason.

In addition, a coup requires the compliance of the military. While Bush may be able to control the generals, I doubt that the rank and file would fall in line to apply martial law if the President was clearly not acting legally. It has never been tested of course, but I would expect the military to be faithful to the constitution, and not the encumbent.

We are though in murky waters; and we are inevitably now I think set on the road to impeachment. I suspect this may be something Cheney welcomes. The considerable distraction that impeachment hearings cause will further reduce the prospects of Congress cutting off war funding, and will prevent other meaningful legislation from reaching the floor over the next year and a half.

Answer 4

Terry is right... this is a distraction to keep the Congress in disarray. The old-school politics has to go, or they will never keep up with this guy.

I hate to give anyone ideas, but what are the odds of an extreme national emergency in the works, leading to martial law in time for the next election, as others alluded to?

(EDIT) With apologies to Civil_av8r and ELEcTric_HeD, comparisons to Clinton fall short of what is going on here. If Bill had pulled off what his successor did, there might have been no successor.

The executive branch is exploiting a weakness in our system, which is that it can always outmaneuver the deliberative branches through sheer speed.

Had Clinton made these same moves, by now Rush Limbaugh might be a guest commentator on NPR, if there still was such a thing.

Answer 5

The statement you make in the second paragraph has a flaw in my reasoning...quote " he is able to beak the law with complete impunity, and there is nothing the courts or congress can do about it" Excuse me Coragryph but It's We the people of this great United States that can Do something about it. Vote members of Congress OUT along with members of our Court system. Vote for the honest people we can trust and if this doesn't work...Impeach the SOB. Stop voting Party and start voting for those you trust, respect and have done our nation proud! People need to Vote. Stop this now ! We made it an effective less coup. Stand up for what you know is right...VOTE and for those whom don't, Quit Your Bitching.

Answer 6

It may be that Congress is acting unconstitutionally in attempting to limit the President's authority and/or enlarge its own, not the other way around.

Maybe the "bloodless coup" is being attempted by Pelosi, Reid, et. al.

Or maybe letting the courts decide, rather than resorting to hyperbole, would be the better way to address this.

PS At least Bush didn't say "stroke of the pen, law of the land. Cool."

PPS We always DISagree, strongly, but I appreciate that someone intelligent and respectful is giving the other side. I TRY to keep the tone relatively high too. Although it's for the reader to decide whether I succeed. :)

Answer 7

i've got self assurance it occurs in many cases interior the undeveloped countries who have not have been given lots protection or order. yet, a protection tension Coup to my awareness is whilst a small protection tension tension tries to over-run the present government so as to earnings administration of the country or a small ingredient to it. the two that or they're attempting to tutor a think approximately order to get somebody who became into exiled from the government interior the 1st place back in or merely to tutor that the present government is very lots disliked by using the country. i think of an occasion became right into some years in the past, in Thailand? i'm no longer precisely advantageous yet a protection tension Coup abducted and siezed administration of the government in that united states of america.

Answer 8

With every executive order he attempts to usurp any authority the other two branches have over his actions. Each executive order shows his true colors. Congress had better start proceeding on the Impeachment before it is too late. The Supreme Court better tread the correct path on this one, because it is sure to go to them.There is no dastardly action this dictator would not stoop to to keep his position and have his edicts obeyed. It is time for all citizens to demand answers. No one in this nation is above the law, not even King George.

Answer 9

From an Englishman.
It's been mentioned elsewhere on answers, that the USA may be in danger of imploding in the future, unless it can adhere to the fine ideals on which it was founded.
What everybody has to remember, is that the governing elite actually represents a miniscule proportion of the populace. If a population could get used to voicing their opinion, all at once, on every issue, things might change for the better.

A pipedream maybe, but it's being tried at myverdict.net.

Great question, by the way.

Answer 10

I am sorry to say so, but the justifications behind this action cannot be found in a legal way! What they are clearly doing here, is to redraw all the political system and mechanism of the USA! I am not sure it means anything good in the near future for all of us. Especially, when it has been known that the prosecutors fired by the whitehouse were investigating corruptions charges on them... Which means, that they set the parameters to become untouchable. And I guess it was a non-spoken law, not to use this ''option'', but clearly now, there is no limit to their actions... Everything can happen tomorrow! For the worst I mean!

Answer 11

That's what I've been saying. It is becoming blatantly clear that congress has become powerless against it. This administration has took over the powers of all the other branches and the Dept. of Justice with all of the self appointments. The supreme court is also party controlled. It is definitely a stronghold. Smells like a coup to me.

Edit: The only argument in my book that they could possibly have is that the tables are turned during times of war (hence a never ending occupation.) I haven't been able to find that much on it however just more arguments on constitutional law. Declaring Martial Law seems to be the most legal way to maneuver and stay within the bounds of the law. Because that way the constitution is suspended and Bush stays within his powers that be and all bets are off. I think congress needs to seek independent council outside of the Justice Dept. or bring it to court on the floor of the senate.

Here is a link that supports the argument on the time of war debate.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011017_levinson.html

I would also argue with some of these answers, that a coup is not defined by the type of force or stronghold that they use, just that whatever means they use is effective for the said purpose and that the president already has the power of the military at his disposal.