توضیحات
We still imagine ourselves a nation of laws, not of men. This is not merely an article of faith but a bedrock principle of the United States Constitution. Our founding compact provides a remedy against rulers supplanting the rule of law, and Andrew C. McCarthy makes a compelling case for using it.
The authors of the Constitution saw practical reasons to place awesome powers in a single chief executive, who could act quickly and decisively in times of peril. Yet they well understood that unchecked power in one persons hands posed a serious threat to liberty, the defining American imperative. Much of the debate at the Philadelphia convention therefore centered on how to stop a rogue executive who became a law unto himself.
The Framers vested Congress with two checks on presidential excess: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment. They are potent remedies, and there are no others.
It is a straightforward matter to establish that President Obama has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, a term signifying maladministration and abuses of power by holders of high public trust. But making the legal case is insufficient for successful impeachment, leading to removal from office. Impeachment is a political matter and hinges on public opinion.
In Faithless Execution, McCarthy weighs the political dynamics as he builds a case, assembling a litany of abuses that add up to one overarching offense: the presidents willful violation of his solemn oath to execute the laws faithfully. The fundamental transformation he promised involves concentrating power into his own hands by flouting lawstatutes, judicial rulings, the Constitution itselfand essentially daring the other branches of government to stop him. McCarthy contends that our elected representative are duty-bound to take up the dare.
What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Impeachment is rare in American historyand for good reason. As the ultimate remedy against abuse of executive power, it is politically convulsive. And yet, as the Framers understood, it is a necessary protection if the rule of law is to be maintained.
But what are impeachable offenses? There is widespread confusion among the American people about the answer to this question.
Article II of the Constitution lists treason and bribery, along with other high crimes and misdemeanors as the standard for impeachment. Despite what crimes and misdemeanors connote, the concept has precious little to do with violations of a penal code. Rather, it is about betrayal of the political trust reposed in the president to execute the laws faithfully and preserve, protect and defend our constitutional system, as his oath of office requires.
At the constitutional convention in 1787, the delegates concurred that the high crimes and misdemeanors standard captured the many great and dangerous offenses involving malfeasance, incompetence, and severe derelictions of duty that could undermine the constitutional order.
The Framers were clear that high crimes and misdemeanors involved misconduct that did not necessarily break penal laws; it might not even be considered criminal if committed by a civilian. It would apply strictly to the misconduct of public men or the abuse or violation of public trust, as Alexander Hamilton put it. High crimes and misdemeanors are of a purely political nature as they relate to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
To be clear, high crimes and misdemeanors is not a standard conceived for normal law enforcement. It applies instead to oath, honor, and trustnotions that are more demanding of public officials than the black and white prohibitions of criminal law.
While the standard is high-minded it is not an abstraction. The Framers were very clear: betrayals of the constitutional order, dishonesty in the executives dealing with Congress, and concealment of dealings with foreign powers that could be injurious to the American people were among the most grievous, and impeachable, high crimes and misdemeanors.
Above all, the Framers had in view the presidents oath of allegiance to our system of government, a system in which the presidents highest duty is faithful execution of the laws. The mere attempt to subvert the constitution would be a breach of trust that warranted impeachment and removal.
A free country requires the rule of law. But the rule of law is a sham if lawlessness is rampant among those who govern. This was the deep political truth that the Framers of this country recognized in the providing for the impeachment of an errant executive. It is a truth that we ignore at our peril.
Faithless Execution Author Q&A
You are a well-known conservative commentator how would you answer the accusation that Faithless Execution is just a partisan stunt?
McCarthy: Well, conservative does not mean Republicanin fact, the book is not very flattering when it comes to GOP fecklessness in the face of the presidents lawlessness. But the main point is: Faithless Execution argues against partisan hackery. I analyze the legal case for impeachment as a former prosecutor who would not go to court without a sufficient case. And as far as the politics goes, I argue that, despite the sizable majority Republicans hold in the House, articles of impeachment should not be filed unless and until there is a strong public will to remove the president from powerone that transcends party lines.
Many Republicans say an effort to impeach Barack Obama is political suicide for the Republican Party. How do you respond to this?
McCarthy: The failure to pursue impeachment is likely to be suicide for the country, which is much more important than the political fate of the Republican Party. But, again, making the case for impeachmentwhich would probably help not only Republicans but any elected official who defends our constitutional frameworkis not the same as moving forward with articles of impeachment, which should not happen absent public support.
How does the case for Barack Obamas impeachment compare to the campaigns to impeach Nixon and Clinton?
McCarthy: Obamas presidency is a willful, systematic attack on the constitutional system of separation of powers, an enterprise that aims to bring about a new regime of government by executive decree. This is exactly the kind of subversion the Framers designed the impeachment power to address. The Nixon and Clinton episodes involved misconduct that did not aim to undermine our constitutional framework.
You describe impeachment as a political and not a legal remedy. Whats the distinction?
McCarthy: Legally speaking, a president may be impeached for a single offense that qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanorsa breach of the profound public trust vested in the president, a violation of his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. But real impeachment requires the public will to remove the president from office. You can have a thousand impeachable offenses, but without that political consensus, impeachment is not an appropriate remedy.
The authors of the Constitution saw practical reasons to place awesome powers in a single chief executive, who could act quickly and decisively in times of peril. Yet they well understood that unchecked power in one persons hands posed a serious threat to liberty, the defining American imperative. Much of the debate at the Philadelphia convention therefore centered on how to stop a rogue executive who became a law unto himself.
The Framers vested Congress with two checks on presidential excess: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment. They are potent remedies, and there are no others.
It is a straightforward matter to establish that President Obama has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, a term signifying maladministration and abuses of power by holders of high public trust. But making the legal case is insufficient for successful impeachment, leading to removal from office. Impeachment is a political matter and hinges on public opinion.
In Faithless Execution, McCarthy weighs the political dynamics as he builds a case, assembling a litany of abuses that add up to one overarching offense: the presidents willful violation of his solemn oath to execute the laws faithfully. The fundamental transformation he promised involves concentrating power into his own hands by flouting lawstatutes, judicial rulings, the Constitution itselfand essentially daring the other branches of government to stop him. McCarthy contends that our elected representative are duty-bound to take up the dare.
What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Impeachment is rare in American historyand for good reason. As the ultimate remedy against abuse of executive power, it is politically convulsive. And yet, as the Framers understood, it is a necessary protection if the rule of law is to be maintained.
But what are impeachable offenses? There is widespread confusion among the American people about the answer to this question.
Article II of the Constitution lists treason and bribery, along with other high crimes and misdemeanors as the standard for impeachment. Despite what crimes and misdemeanors connote, the concept has precious little to do with violations of a penal code. Rather, it is about betrayal of the political trust reposed in the president to execute the laws faithfully and preserve, protect and defend our constitutional system, as his oath of office requires.
At the constitutional convention in 1787, the delegates concurred that the high crimes and misdemeanors standard captured the many great and dangerous offenses involving malfeasance, incompetence, and severe derelictions of duty that could undermine the constitutional order.
The Framers were clear that high crimes and misdemeanors involved misconduct that did not necessarily break penal laws; it might not even be considered criminal if committed by a civilian. It would apply strictly to the misconduct of public men or the abuse or violation of public trust, as Alexander Hamilton put it. High crimes and misdemeanors are of a purely political nature as they relate to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
To be clear, high crimes and misdemeanors is not a standard conceived for normal law enforcement. It applies instead to oath, honor, and trustnotions that are more demanding of public officials than the black and white prohibitions of criminal law.
While the standard is high-minded it is not an abstraction. The Framers were very clear: betrayals of the constitutional order, dishonesty in the executives dealing with Congress, and concealment of dealings with foreign powers that could be injurious to the American people were among the most grievous, and impeachable, high crimes and misdemeanors.
Above all, the Framers had in view the presidents oath of allegiance to our system of government, a system in which the presidents highest duty is faithful execution of the laws. The mere attempt to subvert the constitution would be a breach of trust that warranted impeachment and removal.
A free country requires the rule of law. But the rule of law is a sham if lawlessness is rampant among those who govern. This was the deep political truth that the Framers of this country recognized in the providing for the impeachment of an errant executive. It is a truth that we ignore at our peril.
Faithless Execution Author Q&A
You are a well-known conservative commentator how would you answer the accusation that Faithless Execution is just a partisan stunt?
McCarthy: Well, conservative does not mean Republicanin fact, the book is not very flattering when it comes to GOP fecklessness in the face of the presidents lawlessness. But the main point is: Faithless Execution argues against partisan hackery. I analyze the legal case for impeachment as a former prosecutor who would not go to court without a sufficient case. And as far as the politics goes, I argue that, despite the sizable majority Republicans hold in the House, articles of impeachment should not be filed unless and until there is a strong public will to remove the president from powerone that transcends party lines.
Many Republicans say an effort to impeach Barack Obama is political suicide for the Republican Party. How do you respond to this?
McCarthy: The failure to pursue impeachment is likely to be suicide for the country, which is much more important than the political fate of the Republican Party. But, again, making the case for impeachmentwhich would probably help not only Republicans but any elected official who defends our constitutional frameworkis not the same as moving forward with articles of impeachment, which should not happen absent public support.
How does the case for Barack Obamas impeachment compare to the campaigns to impeach Nixon and Clinton?
McCarthy: Obamas presidency is a willful, systematic attack on the constitutional system of separation of powers, an enterprise that aims to bring about a new regime of government by executive decree. This is exactly the kind of subversion the Framers designed the impeachment power to address. The Nixon and Clinton episodes involved misconduct that did not aim to undermine our constitutional framework.
You describe impeachment as a political and not a legal remedy. Whats the distinction?
McCarthy: Legally speaking, a president may be impeached for a single offense that qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanorsa breach of the profound public trust vested in the president, a violation of his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. But real impeachment requires the public will to remove the president from office. You can have a thousand impeachable offenses, but without that political consensus, impeachment is not an appropriate remedy.
————————————————————–
ترجمه ماشینی :
ما هنوز خود را ملتی از قوانین تصور می کنیم، نه مردمان. این صرفاً یک اصل اعتقادی نیست، بلکه یک اصل اساسی قانون اساسی ایالات متحده است. قرارداد تأسیس ما راهحلی را در برابر حاکمانی که حکومت قانون را جایگزین میکنند ارائه میکند و اندرو سی. مک کارتی برای استفاده از آن مورد قانعکنندهای ارائه میکند.
نویسندگان قانون اساسی دلایل عملی برای قرار دادن اختیارات عالی در یک مدیر اجرایی واحد مشاهده کردند. ، که می توانست در مواقع خطر سریع و قاطعانه عمل کند. با این حال، آنها به خوبی دریافته بودند که قدرت کنترل نشده در دستان یک فرد، تهدیدی جدی برای آزادی، امری تعیین کننده آمریکاست. بنابراین، بسیاری از بحثها در کنوانسیون فیلادلفیا بر این موضوع متمرکز بود که چگونه میتوان یک مجری سرکش را که برای خودش تبدیل به قانون شد، متوقف کرد.
فریمرز دو کنترل در مورد مازاد بر رئیسجمهور را به کنگره واگذار کرد: قدرت کیف پول و قدرت استیضاح آنها راهحلهای قوی هستند، و هیچ چیز دیگری وجود ندارد.
تأیید اینکه پرزیدنت اوباما مرتکب جنایات و جنایات بزرگی شده است، موضوعی ساده است که به معنای سوء مدیریت و سوء استفاده از قدرت توسط دارندگان اعتماد عمومی بالاست. اما تشکیل پرونده قانونی برای استیضاح موفق کافی نیست و منجر به برکناری از سمت می شود. استیضاح یک موضوع سیاسی است و به افکار عمومی بستگی دارد.
در اعدام بیوفا، مک کارتی پویاییهای سیاسی را در حین تشکیل پرونده ارزیابی میکند و مجموعهای از سوء استفادهها را جمعآوری میکند که در مجموع به یک مورد کلی میپردازد. جرم: نقض عمدی رئیس جمهور از سوگند رسمی خود مبنی بر اجرای صادقانه قوانین. دگرگونی بنیادینی که او وعده داده بود شامل تمرکز قدرت در دستان خود با زیر پا گذاشتن قوانین، احکام قضایی، خود قانون اساسی و اساسا جرأت دادن به سایر شاخه های حکومت برای جلوگیری از او است. مک کارتی ادعا می کند که نماینده منتخب ما موظف است این جسارت را بپذیرد.
جرایم سنگین و جنایت چیست؟
استیضاح چیست؟ در تاریخ آمریکا نادر است و دلایل خوبی دارد. به عنوان راه حل نهایی در برابر سوء استفاده از قدرت اجرایی، از نظر سیاسی تشنج آور است. و با این حال، همانطور که فریمرز فهمیده است، اگر بخواهیم حاکمیت قانون حفظ شود، حمایت ضروری است.
اما جرایم قابل استیضاح چیست؟ سردرگمی گسترده ای در میان مردم آمریکا در مورد پاسخ به این سوال وجود دارد.
ماده دوم قانون اساسی خیانت و ارتشاء را همراه با سایر جرایم و جنایات سنگین به عنوان معیار استیضاح ذکر کرده است. علیرغم آنچه که جنایات و جنایات به آن اشاره می کنند، این مفهوم ارتباط کمی با نقض قوانین جزایی دارد. بلکه در مورد خیانت به اعتماد سیاسی است که به رئیس جمهور برای اجرای صادقانه قوانین و حفظ، حفاظت و دفاع از نظام قانون اساسی ما، آن گونه که سوگند ریاست جمهوری او ایجاب می کند.
در کنوانسیون قانون اساسی در سال 1787، نمایندگان موافق بودند که استانداردهای بالای جنایات و جنایات شامل بسیاری از جرایم بزرگ و خطرناک شامل بدعهدی، بیصلاحیتی، و تخطیهای شدید از وظایف میشود که میتواند نظم قانون اساسی را تضعیف کند.
Framers واضح بود که جنایات و بزهکاریهای بالا شامل سوءرفتار است. که لزوماً قوانین جزایی را زیر پا نمی گذاشت. اگر توسط یک غیرنظام
نویسندگان قانون اساسی دلایل عملی برای قرار دادن اختیارات عالی در یک مدیر اجرایی واحد مشاهده کردند. ، که می توانست در مواقع خطر سریع و قاطعانه عمل کند. با این حال، آنها به خوبی دریافته بودند که قدرت کنترل نشده در دستان یک فرد، تهدیدی جدی برای آزادی، امری تعیین کننده آمریکاست. بنابراین، بسیاری از بحثها در کنوانسیون فیلادلفیا بر این موضوع متمرکز بود که چگونه میتوان یک مجری سرکش را که برای خودش تبدیل به قانون شد، متوقف کرد.
فریمرز دو کنترل در مورد مازاد بر رئیسجمهور را به کنگره واگذار کرد: قدرت کیف پول و قدرت استیضاح آنها راهحلهای قوی هستند، و هیچ چیز دیگری وجود ندارد.
تأیید اینکه پرزیدنت اوباما مرتکب جنایات و جنایات بزرگی شده است، موضوعی ساده است که به معنای سوء مدیریت و سوء استفاده از قدرت توسط دارندگان اعتماد عمومی بالاست. اما تشکیل پرونده قانونی برای استیضاح موفق کافی نیست و منجر به برکناری از سمت می شود. استیضاح یک موضوع سیاسی است و به افکار عمومی بستگی دارد.
در اعدام بیوفا، مک کارتی پویاییهای سیاسی را در حین تشکیل پرونده ارزیابی میکند و مجموعهای از سوء استفادهها را جمعآوری میکند که در مجموع به یک مورد کلی میپردازد. جرم: نقض عمدی رئیس جمهور از سوگند رسمی خود مبنی بر اجرای صادقانه قوانین. دگرگونی بنیادینی که او وعده داده بود شامل تمرکز قدرت در دستان خود با زیر پا گذاشتن قوانین، احکام قضایی، خود قانون اساسی و اساسا جرأت دادن به سایر شاخه های حکومت برای جلوگیری از او است. مک کارتی ادعا می کند که نماینده منتخب ما موظف است این جسارت را بپذیرد.
جرایم سنگین و جنایت چیست؟
استیضاح چیست؟ در تاریخ آمریکا نادر است و دلایل خوبی دارد. به عنوان راه حل نهایی در برابر سوء استفاده از قدرت اجرایی، از نظر سیاسی تشنج آور است. و با این حال، همانطور که فریمرز فهمیده است، اگر بخواهیم حاکمیت قانون حفظ شود، حمایت ضروری است.
اما جرایم قابل استیضاح چیست؟ سردرگمی گسترده ای در میان مردم آمریکا در مورد پاسخ به این سوال وجود دارد.
ماده دوم قانون اساسی خیانت و ارتشاء را همراه با سایر جرایم و جنایات سنگین به عنوان معیار استیضاح ذکر کرده است. علیرغم آنچه که جنایات و جنایات به آن اشاره می کنند، این مفهوم ارتباط کمی با نقض قوانین جزایی دارد. بلکه در مورد خیانت به اعتماد سیاسی است که به رئیس جمهور برای اجرای صادقانه قوانین و حفظ، حفاظت و دفاع از نظام قانون اساسی ما، آن گونه که سوگند ریاست جمهوری او ایجاب می کند.
در کنوانسیون قانون اساسی در سال 1787، نمایندگان موافق بودند که استانداردهای بالای جنایات و جنایات شامل بسیاری از جرایم بزرگ و خطرناک شامل بدعهدی، بیصلاحیتی، و تخطیهای شدید از وظایف میشود که میتواند نظم قانون اساسی را تضعیف کند.
Framers واضح بود که جنایات و بزهکاریهای بالا شامل سوءرفتار است. که لزوماً قوانین جزایی را زیر پا نمی گذاشت. اگر توسط یک غیرنظام
tag : دانلود کتاب اعدام بیوفا: ایجاد پرونده سیاسی برای استیضاح اوباما , Download اعدام بیوفا: ایجاد پرونده سیاسی برای استیضاح اوباما , دانلود اعدام بیوفا: ایجاد پرونده سیاسی برای استیضاح اوباما , Download Faithless execution : building the political case for Obama’s impeachment Book , اعدام بیوفا: ایجاد پرونده سیاسی برای استیضاح اوباما دانلود , buy اعدام بیوفا: ایجاد پرونده سیاسی برای استیضاح اوباما , خرید کتاب اعدام بیوفا: ایجاد پرونده سیاسی برای استیضاح اوباما , دانلود کتاب Faithless execution : building the political case for Obama’s impeachment , کتاب Faithless execution : building the political case for Obama’s impeachment , دانلود Faithless execution : building the political case for Obama’s impeachment , خرید Faithless execution : building the political case for Obama’s impeachment , خرید کتاب Faithless execution : building the political case for Obama’s impeachment ,
برای فرستادن دیدگاه، باید وارد شده باشید.
نقد و بررسیها
هنوز بررسیای ثبت نشده است.