Chuck Hagel Resigns

[Just This Once...]

NYT - Hagel Said to Be Stepping Down Under Pressure

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was asked to resign his post, officials said, as President Obama’s national security team has struggled to stay ahead of an onslaught of global crises.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/hagel-said-to-be-stepping-down-as-defense-chief-under-pressure.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Finningley Boy]

So when did politicians become specialists in specific areas of conflict?

Just what is it that Chuck did which nobody else would know to do? Don't they all work in cohesion with the senior commanders of the armed forces heads of intelligence etc, and work from there. Surely any radically different approach to such matters would be on policy based on the kind of politician the Defence/se Secretary is or what kind of Government or President is in office?:confused:

FB:)

[MPN11]

The truth might lie somewhere near here ... Mr. Hagel, they said, in many ways was exactly the kind of defense secretary whom the president, after battling the military during his first term, wanted.
"Someone who just says 'Yes, Mr President' ... until he stopped doing it"?

As the US turns gently from a democracy to a totalitarian state, where the President calls ALL the shots and defies Congress and [marginally] the Constitution, I could imagine anyone wanting to bail out [or be sacked for not bending the knee to POTUS].

[Tankertrashnav]

I understand that the president has been accused of "acting like a king"

The thing is, in this country where we do have a monarch, she (or he) would be entirely unable to make decisions like, indeed they can do nothing without the support of their government.

I did ask, on another thread, how the US would work in the present situation it finds itself at present, with a president on one side of the political fence, and senate and congress on the other. It was politely explained to me that in such a situation president and government were constitutionally obliged to find compromises.

This does not appear to be working. So I repeat my earlier question - what is the point of having a president in a constitutional democracy when he appears to be able to exercise powers not available to a monarch in this country since the time of King John?

[brickhistory]

I fear we are to found the answer to that question; if not in this administration than within the next few as each builds upon the precedents set.



As to Hagel, no great loss and he was acceptable loss for the current U.S. administration.

[GreenKnight121]

Hagel had at least one unique quality that no other SecDef has ever had - he served in combat as an enlisted soldier, receiving two Purple Heart medals while an infantry squad leader in Vietnam.


Points against him were: the only Republican in Obama's cabinet; he had reportedly "gotten tired of Obama's micromanaging of military operations".

The second point invites comparisons with Lyndon B. Johnson (36th President of the US, 1963-68) - who famously bragged “Those boys can’t hit an outhouse without my permission”.

[effortless]

If I agree with the president he is a strong leader, if I don't then he is a despot.

[BillHicksRules]

Effortless,

Well said:D

[Boudreaux Bob]

Agreeing with the President is not the criteria which determines whether he is a Despot.

Whether he lives up to his Oath to defend and support the Constitution and faithfully execute the Laws of the Land....is the criteria.

We have a Despot on our Hands currently.

[Tankertrashnav]

I suppose your last resort is impeachment (less messy than our solution of beheading, although that hasnt been done since 1649).

Still, proving that introducing legislation that you don't approve of amounts to "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" might be problematical.

Any other ways of getting rid of an incumbent, or do you have to just sit it out and grit your teeth?

[brickhistory]

Alternatives include the judicial branch weighing in to break the logjam between legislative and executive.

Alternatives include the legislative exercising the ultimate control - that of the purse.

The first is painfully slow.

The second is politically suicidal in today's climate.

Beheading, you say?

Hmmm.....




*note to the NSA: I am kidding/joking/not serious/exercising satire and in no way, shape, or form condone violence.

No, really...

[MPN11]

It all gets a bit tricky when the US Supreme Court are "almost" political appointees, and serve forever!!

The Separation of Powers doesn't work quite as well as the Founding Fathers imagined it would go.

[Brian W May]

Sensible lad . . .

[MPN11]

Fox News now also suggesting that GITMO will be closed by Presidential Decree, since Congress won't agree with Him after 6 years of negotiation.

[con-pilot]

Naw, the real reason Hagel resigned was that it was just now that President Obama discovered that Hagel is a Republican. :p

[Tankertrashnav]

note to the NSA: I am kidding/joking/not serious/exercising satire and in no way, shape, or form condone violence.

I read that as "note to the NRA..."

Somewhat puzzled for a minute or two. Must get new specs!

;)

[KenV]

So I repeat my earlier question - what is the point of having a president in a constitutional democracy when he appears to be able to exercise powers not available to a monarch in this country since the time of King John?


You appear to have a serious misunderstanding of how the US federal government is organized. The US has three separate branches of government. The Legislative Branch (Congress) is tasked with writing the laws of the land (and with controlling the purse strings.) The Judicial Branch is tasked with adjudicating/interpreting those laws. And the Executive Branch is tasked with executing/enforcing those laws. And "the point" of this structure is to limit the power of any one branch and enable any one branch to "check" the powers of the other two.

The current British Monarch is only the Head of State, a figure head position with essentially no power. The US President is Head of State AND Head of Government AND Commander in Chief. So yeah, POTUS has considerably more power than the current British Monarch. But the British Head of Government, the Prime Minister, has far far more power than POTUS because the PM heads the legislative branch, the executive branch AND the treasury, and Britain has no judicial branch.

As for the King John comparison, I challenge that. King George, who lived centuries after John, had far greater power than POTUS ever had, which excess of power resulted in a certain rebellion in the late 18th century.

[KenV]

Fox News now also suggesting that GITMO will be closed by Presidential Decree, since Congress won't agree with Him after 6 years of negotiation.


That seems awfully unlikely. Where would Obama send the terrorists who are still housed there? If he were to release them (which is within his powers to do.) the political fall out would be immense.

[Roadster280]

Ken,

I think it is a fair point that the incumbent President is taking the piss.

Congress to Obama - "Shove your immigration policy until you can sort out the abortion known as "Affordable Care Act" that you inflicted on us for vote-winning reasons".

Obama to Congress - "No, and furthermore, here it is imposed by Presidential decree".

Voters to Obama - "Your party has made a pig's ear of the last 6 years. You now have a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House to block your cretinous policies.

Obama "Oh, and here's another one - Gitmo's closing, on my orders before I lose my job"

On the night this selfish moron got elected, I was in the Hilton Baltimore. A very large atrium. You could have heard a pin drop when John McCain came on the TV to concede. Lots and lots of businessmen with their heads held low, knowing what was coming.

Still, only 2 more years to push, so chin-chin.

[Tankertrashnav]

Ken V - you are quite correct, I dont really understand the US system of government which is why I have quite often asked serious questions about it on here. My remarks about "acting like a king" were prompted by a US acquaintance seriously asking me whether it was correct that The Queen ruled the United Kingdom (she probably said England but I'll let that pass) and that we all had to do what she said!

My serious question in this instance was the news that the President had apparently enacted a law concerning the status of immigrants that was opposed to the wishes of the majority in both the Senate and Congress. It appeared that in spite of the checks and balances which you explain in your post, in this instance the President was able to act as a de facto dictator and there was nothing the legislature could do about it.

So tell me, in spite of all these checks and balances, if Obama says (for example) that from tomorrow everybody has to paint their face bright blue, will you all be walking about blue-faced next week?

(Oh ok, I'll give you George III, btw, - but he was a nutcase!)

[Two's in]

So tell me, in spite of all these checks and balances, if Obama says (for example) that from tomorrow everybody has to paint their face bright blue, will you all be walking about blue-faced next week?

TTN,

Only if he can find existing Laws or a clear intent in the Constitution that supports blue faces. If not the Supreme Court will overturn it, but while waiting for that challenge, some people will definitely have blue faces.

Congress can also launch the "anti-blue face law" to counter the Executive Order, but Barry can then veto that Law unless it has a super majority of 66% of the Congress, which is usually political suicide for those in the same party as the President who vote against him.

In 2 years however, the next guy or girl can overturn any Executive Order he or she doesn't take a shine to. Now do you see why nothing ever gets done except the interminable wank-fest of self serving politicians?

[ihoharv]

send this over to Jet Blast - USA Politics - Hamster Wheel where the same ol' half dozen or so angry misanthropes can scream at each other.

BTW: don't worry boys there will soon be another White President. Not that you'll like her much better...

[Tankertrashnav]

I agree up to a point, ihoharv but actually, for a political thread this has been much calmer than the ones on JB, probably because some of the "usual suspects" haven't noticed it!

Two's in - thanks for the explanation. I'm gradually getting to grips with the US system of government. Oh, and in the light of your answer I'm getting into face paint futures, just in case Obama reads PPRuNe!

[KenV]

My serious question in this instance was the news that the President had apparently enacted a law concerning the status of immigrants that was opposed to the wishes of the majority in both the Senate and Congress. It appeared that in spite of the checks and balances which you explain in your post, in this instance the President was able to act as a de facto dictator and there was nothing the legislature could do about it.

First off, there is some controversy about whether or not Obama exceeded his authority with his latest executive order. It's not quite that black and white. In any event there are two immediate remedies:

1. Since Congress controls the purse strings, Congress can defund implementation of Obama's executive order. Government runs on money and without funds to execute the order, the order is effectively mooted.

2. Congress can pass new legislation that undoes legislatively what Obama did with his executive power.

Sadly, Congress is in such a mess that it will take them months or years to accomplish either one so this "check" is weak due to political machinations.

Longer term, one of the 50 states affected by the executive order (or even an individual, but this is a very remote possibility) can sue in federal court and claim that the president exceeded his authority and violated the constitution. This will enable the Judicial Branch to kill the executive order. This has already been done with portions of the ACA. Sadly, the judiciary moves slowly.


So tell me, in spite of all these checks and balances, if Obama says (for example) that from tomorrow everybody has to paint their face bright blue, will you all be walking about blue-faced next week?

Technically, Obama can do no such thing. Let me explain.

In the case of this immigration executive order, Obama is responsible for enforcing immigration laws. His executive order directs the immigration officers (whom he controls) how they will enforce those laws. Some interpret that his executive order to his immigration officers effectively countermands the immigration laws enacted by Congress. His order probably does, but maybe does not countermand those laws. We'll have to wait to see how that plays out.

In any event, Obama simply has zero power to direct private citizens or state authorities to paint their faces blue or do any other thing by executive order. He could (theoretically) direct those federal officers who work in the executive branch (he only controls officers in the executive branch. He cannot control officers in the judicial or legislative branches of government) to paint THEIR faces blue. But that would almost certainly result in those officers either quitting so he no longer has control of them, or just plain defying him without quitting. After all, who would Obama direct to enforce his decree?

[brickhistory]

More germane, perhaps, than this particular Executive Order, which is generally believed to be far beyond the scope of previous ones

- and every President has issued such; usually for some sort of administrative reason within the Executive Branch that affects the behavior of only the Executive Branch personnel -

is that if it takes a very long time to be overturned/defunded, then the next President is very likely to take the concept even further, regardless of political party. Much easier to govern by fiat than negotiation.

Nothing new in the thought, but power accumulates, it generally doesn't disperse without something going 'bang.'

That is my genuine fear. That the separation of powers was a good run for a bit over two centuries, but that those days are waning.

[KenV]

That is my genuine fear. That the separation of powers was a good run for a bit over two centuries, but that those days are waning.


Maybe. Maybe not. One thing is certain. Abraham Lincoln used his executive power FAR more broadly than Obama has so far. And the union survived, albeit barely. So this is not really all that new.

[Heathrow Harry]

Abe also had a bloody great Army at hand

[KenV]

Abe also had a bloody great Army at hand


Two comments:

1. The "greatness" of that army can be debated forever. But one thing is beyond much debate. Many (most?) of the Generals that ran that Army were miserably inept and regularly defeated by smaller and much less well equipped forces.

2. Non sequitur. Abe's Army had little or nothing to do with the Executive Orders he issued. The Army (and Navy, and Air Force and Marine Corps) that Obama commands are far superior to Abe's even in relative terms, and they have nothing to do with his latest executive order.

[Lonewolf_50]

If we could get back to Chuck Hagel, the Secretary of Defense on the way out ... and for that matter, who was Abe Lincoln's secretary of war?

He had two.
Simon Cameron Pennsylvania
March 5, 1861 January 14, 1862

The gent obviously was unable to cope with generals and with the war in progress in 1862.

Edwin M. Stanton Pennsylvania
January 20, 1862 May 28, 1868
Outlasted the president and served president Andrew Johnson as well.

However, he was one of those radical reconstructionist :mad:'s who eventually pissed off President Johnson so badly that he was fired. Johnson, like Lincoln, was not in favor of the Radical Reconstruction. His intent was to heal the nation's wounds. The RR's were all about rubbing salt into the wounds.

Stanton being fired led to the impeachment of President Johnson. For all that Stanton was a right prick, he handled the cabinet post well enough.

Secretary of War or Secretary of Defense: the cabinet position is one where one serves at the pleasure of the President. If the President isn't pleased, you get sacked.

Best wishes, Chuck Hagel, and thanks for the effort.

[KenV]

Secretary of War or Secretary of Defense: the cabinet position is one where one serves at the pleasure of the President. If the President isn't pleased, you get sacked.


True enough. But then again that's true of every cabinet level position. The interesting part is that no one seems to want to take over the SecDef job. Obama seems to have so poisoned those waters with his micromanagement, that everyone so far has turned down the job. It'll be interesting to see who finally decides to be Obama's yes man at SecDef.

[Heathrow Harry]

Well Ken the Union Army WAS run by a bunch of turkeys but they won in the end - and in fact every year of the war the Confederacy east of the Mississippi (the bit that counted) was smaller than it had been at at the start of that year so someone was doing the right thing

Seem to remember that Abe used troops to enforce a number of his exec. orders in various places

[KenV]

Seem to remember that Abe used troops to enforce a number of his exec. orders in various places


Indeed he did. Then again he was in the midst of a full on civil war and declared marshal law here and there as required. But the bottom line is that the union survived a President who was willing to push his powers to the limit and pushed them much farther and much more often than Obama. Hopefully the next president will not build on Obama's precedent and see how far (s)he can push his/her executive powers.

[KenV]

Just a quick update on the "King Obama" sub thread.

The State of Texas has sued Obama in federal court about his Executive Order concerning illegal immigrants. So yeah, the system of checks and balances is working.

[Heathrow Harry]

how long before it gets to the Supreme Court??

5 years?????

[Lonewolf_50]

Ken, I prefer the system of Czechs and brewmasters in your neck of the woods. :ok:

[KenV]

how long before it gets to the Supreme Court?? 5 years?????


Hard to say, but probably quicker than that. In any event, it'll get reviewed by a local federal court fairly soon. That court could kill the Executive Order pretty quickly. Of course Obama could appeal, dragging things out. But even then, it would likely take less then 5 years before the Supremes decide.

[KenV]

My neck of the woods (south central Texas) was settled by Germans, not Czechs. The Czech part of Texas is around Waco, a few hours north of here.

[Lonewolf_50]

Plenty of Czechs in and around Yokum and Shiner ... to include the ancestors of a couple of people I am related to by marriage ... but I guess the density might be more as you say.

[KenV]

Yup. Prince Solms of Braunfels originally settled this area around 1844/45. He was a huge supporter of the Adelsverein. Prince Solms named New Braunfels in honor of his homeland There's still lots of places here that bear his name as well as the name of his wife and his daughter.

[West Coast]

how long before it gets to the Supreme Court??

What does the Supreme Court have to do with it? Plenty of intended government action has been derailed at far lower levels by judges few have ever heard of.

[Q-RTF-X]

On the role of the (British) Monarch and his or her powers, I seem to remember there is a provision for the Monarch, under appropriate circumstances, to dissolve parliament and “return the country to the people” i.e. we are between a rock and a hard place, the difference of opinions has created an irreconcilable stalemate, we shall call an election. This also extends to the dominions a point in case being Australia in 1975 when the Governor-General, acting with the authority of the Monarch, dissolved the government and called for fresh elections that were held just the following month. The move was seen contentious by many but, a stalemate was broken and “the people” took to the polls. Pretty neat in my opinion and (again in my opinion) a magnificent safety valve. For my somewhat basic knowledge in the structure and working of the British government I must thank my need to pass RAF education test part II which I did in evening classes in Limassol. Surprising we never touched that in school, it proved to be an interesting subject.

[KenV]

QUOTE: The State of Texas has sued Obama in federal court about his Executive Order concerning illegal immigrants. So yeah, the system of checks and balances is working.

how long before it gets to the Supreme Court?? 5 years?????


All it would take is one federal judge on the 5th circuit to rule that Obama's executive order is unconstitutional to prevent its implementation in Texas, Luisiana, and Mississippi. A similar ruling by one judge on the 9th and 10th circuit would kill it for every state that borders Mexico.