Lindsey Graham: how the GOP fails to understand the nuances of the constitution, exh. #209

[SimpleDon]

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senior senator from South Carolina is running for president. He has outlined for us what his first day in office will be like if indeed he is elected. He is going to order the military to stage a coup, apparently. He is going to lay siege to Congress to force them to restore the cuts to the military budget that his party's austerity program made. It is here, Lindsey Graham: As president I would deploy the military against Congress

Republican senator and presidential maybe-hopeful Lindsey Graham stopped by the "politics and pies" forum in Concord, New Hampshire, today, where he announced that if he is elected president in 2016, his first act will be to deploy the military in Washington to force Congress to reverse cuts to the defense and intelligence budgets.

Yes, you heard that right. Here are Graham's exact words:

And here's the first thing I would do if I were president of the United States. I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We are not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.

Graham would use the military to force members of Congress to not just vote on the bill — but to pass it. Graham didn't say "until I get an up-or-down vote on restoring defense cuts." He said "until we restore these defense cuts."...

Political scientists often refer to that type of action as a "self-coup," a situation in which a legitimate leader uses the military or other armed force to unlawfully seize more power than is permitted under the constitution of the country in question. Usually that's a permanent seizure of power and a total shutdown of the legislature, so what Graham is proposing is a relatively mild version. But as silver linings go, "it's a coup, but only a small one" isn't very comforting. ...

What Lindsey Graham is proposing is to physically force members of Congress to vote how he commands. His plan violates constitutional separation of powers in just about the most extreme way imaginable, by forcing the executive branch's will on the legislature. ...

Update: Graham's spokesperson has clarified to Bloomberg that when Graham said "I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to," that statement was "not to be taken literally." Glad that's been cleared up.

Laugh until you cry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A President that uses military force as a threat on Congress? Now we know that he was just using hyperbole, however, the hyperbole from the right-wing continues becoming more and more authoritarian.

What is next? "I'll have their wives and children locked away until they pass my proposed legislation."

 

[SimpleDon]

I try not to encourage the outrage of the day type posts. We need to solve the bigger problems here, not jump on every mis-statement by someone. This seemed to be more than that, nearly an entire mistaken speech.

Hopefully this is a huge misunderstanding. Well, obviously it is, a misunderstanding on Senator Graham's part about the separation of powers in the constitution.

The really amazing thing is that Graham is a JAG lawyer in the Army Reserve or the National Guard, I forget which.

 

[SimpleDon]

A President that uses military force as a threat on Congress? Now we know that he was just using hyperbole, however, the hyperbole from the right-wing continues becoming more and more authoritarian.

What is next? "I'll have their wives and children locked away until they pass my proposed legislation."

I assume that he is making a hyperbolic statement. But even at that he has picked kind of a creepy one. And I don't see where he qualified it or marched it back.

Scratch a reactionary and you will find a fascist.

 

[dismal]

A President that uses military force as a threat on Congress? Now we know that he was just using hyperbole, however, the hyperbole from the right-wing continues becoming more and more authoritarian.

What is next? "I'll have their wives and children locked away until they pass my proposed legislation."

As opposed to the reasonable people on the left who actually have a petition with 100,000+ signatures to lock up 47 republican senators for speaking?

You guys would come off a bit more genuinely concerned for the Constitution if you came out clearly against such things.

 

[laughing dog]

Any rational person already recognized Sen. Graham as a national embarrassment. Perhaps this recent statement will induce some ideologues of the right to come to their sense on him.

 

[SimpleDon]

A President that uses military force as a threat on Congress? Now we know that he was just using hyperbole, however, the hyperbole from the right-wing continues becoming more and more authoritarian.

What is next? "I'll have their wives and children locked away until they pass my proposed legislation."

As opposed to the reasonable people on the left who actually have a petition with 100,000+ signatures to lock up 47 republican senators for speaking?

You guys would come off a bit more genuinely concerned for the Constitution if you came out clearly against such things.

The fact that they have freedom of speech doesn't immunize them from the consequences of what they say. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Last time I checked, not a single petition was put forth for those Senators speaking against the potential agreement. If memory serves, and granted, it has been a whole week, so it may have been easy to forget, but the petition was about a letter the Senators sent to the leadership in Iran. A letter that has been getting condemned diplomatically from outside the US including Germany.

Multilateral talks between five nations are taking place and the 47 Republicans Senators imposed themselves right into the middle of it by sending a taunting letter to Iran.

You do understand the difference between the free speech angle and an attempt to diplomatically derail / destroy multilateral talks? Right?

 

[Bronzeage]

A President that uses military force as a threat on Congress? Now we know that he was just using hyperbole, however, the hyperbole from the right-wing continues becoming more and more authoritarian.

What is next? "I'll have their wives and children locked away until they pass my proposed legislation."

As opposed to the reasonable people on the left who actually have a petition with 100,000+ signatures to lock up 47 republican senators for speaking?

You guys would come off a bit more genuinely concerned for the Constitution if you came out clearly against such things.

100,000+ people think 47 Senators committed treason. Do you think they should remain silent about it?

 

[dismal]

As opposed to the reasonable people on the left who actually have a petition with 100,000+ signatures to lock up 47 republican senators for speaking?

You guys would come off a bit more genuinely concerned for the Constitution if you came out clearly against such things.

The fact that they have freedom of speech doesn't immunize them from the consequences of what they say. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Actually it does immunize them from being arrested for speaking.

 

[dismal]

Last time I checked, not a single petition was put forth for those Senators speaking against the potential agreement. If memory serves, and granted, it has been a whole week, so it may have been easy to forget, but the petition was about a letter the Senators sent to the leadership in Iran. A letter that has been getting condemned diplomatically from outside the US including Germany.

Multilateral talks between five nations are taking place and the 47 Republicans Senators imposed themselves right into the middle of it by sending a taunting letter to Iran.

You do understand the difference between the free speech angle and an attempt to diplomatically derail / destroy multilateral talks? Right?

I understand that people who want them arrested for speaking are not doing so well with their Constitutional ideals.

 

[Bronzeage]

Last time I checked, not a single petition was put forth for those Senators speaking against the potential agreement. If memory serves, and granted, it has been a whole week, so it may have been easy to forget, but the petition was about a letter the Senators sent to the leadership in Iran. A letter that has been getting condemned diplomatically from outside the US including Germany.

Multilateral talks between five nations are taking place and the 47 Republicans Senators imposed themselves right into the middle of it by sending a taunting letter to Iran.

You do understand the difference between the free speech angle and an attempt to diplomatically derail / destroy multilateral talks? Right?

I understand that people who want them arrested for speaking are not doing so well with their Constitutional ideals.

Is treason protected by the Constitution?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I understand that people who want them arrested for speaking are not doing so well with their Constitutional ideals.

Is treason protected by the Constitution?

Only if Democrats commit it. Liberals in 2001/2002 onward to 'watch what they say' by the White House Press Secretary, and that was just addressed to citizens, not Democrats writing a letter to the Taliban saying that if they didn't give up bin Laden that military force may not happen because the President requires Congressional approval for military force.

 

[dismal]

I understand that people who want them arrested for speaking are not doing so well with their Constitutional ideals.

Is treason protected by the Constitution?

Speaking an opinion that is different than the dear leader's is not treason.

 

[Sarpedon]

Threatening the Congress with the Military is.

 

[dismal]

Threatening the Congress with the Military is.

Suggest you google the term "true threat".

But again you guys are making my point rather nicely. In the future it would be best not to couch these threads in terms of concern for the Constitution if you can't hold back your zeal to lock up politicians for speaking.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bored now.

 

[maxparrish]

As opposed to the reasonable people on the left who actually have a petition with 100,000+ signatures to lock up 47 republican senators for speaking?

You guys would come off a bit more genuinely concerned for the Constitution if you came out clearly against such things.

100,000+ people think 47 Senators committed treason. Do you think they should remain silent about it?

No, they should take High School Civics again.

 

[laughing dog]

100,000+ people think 47 Senators committed treason. Do you think they should remain silent about it?

No, they should take High School Civics again.

yes they should. And the Senators should recuse themselves from the Senate until they pass the class.

 

[Sarpedon]

I understand the difference between a true threat and a false, bombastic one.

The fact that people like him are cowards who are nothing but talk is why I don't go out and buy a gun.

But the reason he says things like that is because he thinks it will get him votes. And the fact that people would vote for someone who says things like that shows that there are people, lots of them, who want to overthrow our democracy. We'd be fools to ignore that.