Rudy Endorses Dictatorship

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:44:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update [2007-4-3 12:44:16 by Big Tent Democrat]: See also Glenn Greenwald on Dictator Rudy, who also believes the President has the power to imprison American citizens without due process. A dangerous lunatic is Giuliani.

Via Matt Yglesias, Rich Lowry describes Rudy Giuliani endorsing dictatorship:

Rudy . . . began to muse about, after a veto, "would the president have the constitutional authority to support them [the troops], anyway?" . . . He seemed to suggest that Bush could fund the Iraq war without Congress providing funding. . . [He] said, since the war had been authorized by Congress, the president has "the inherent authority to support the troops." But he added, "You have to ask a constitutional lawyer." . . . I asked Rudy whether he was saying Bush could veto the supplemental and, in the absence of a deal with Congress, fund the troops in Iraq under his own authority. "If he vetoes it, he's going to have to find a way to support the troops," Rudy said. "They have given him the authorization to fight the war," and "Bush has the power to redirect the money and time to work something out" with Congress. . . .

This is blatantly unconstitutional. It advocates for dictatorship in wartime. It is a great example of what Rudy Giuliani is.

As I have written before, Alexander Hamilton makes it perfectly clear that what Rudy advocates for is one of the main reasons the American Revolution took place:

that standing armies [need not] be kept up in time of peace; [n]or [is] it vested in the EXECUTIVE the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion, in any shape, to the control of the legislature. . . . [T]he whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; . . . there [is], in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.

Rudy does not care. Even Rich Lowry realizes this is crazy talk from Rudy:

my understanding is that Rudy is wrong: the president can't simply re-direct money Congress has appropriated for specific purposes. If Bush wanted to go down a very confrontational route, he could sign the supplemental and defy the timetable as unconstitutional, but he can't simply pull money out of nowhere or take it from elsewhere for his own preferred purposes.

And Yglesias sees what Rudy is:

Frankly, people with an outsized view of presidential powers shouldn't be tarred by association with Giuliani, a power-hungry egomaniac who just happens to be running for president at the moment. When he was Mayor, he thought he had the power to abrogate the City Charter and illegally extend his term in office. If he winds up as Borough President of Brooklyn he'll take an outsized view of the powers of that office. The difference is that there are pretty strong institutional checks on the power of local government officials -- even mayors of giant cities -- in the United States so it didn't matter all that much that Giuliani was a power-hungry egomaniac.

If Rudy has a real chance of becoming President, I would be terrified.

< Bush's Press Conference - He Will Never Leave Iraq, Never | Italia Federici Gets Target Letter in Griles - Abramoff Probe >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Rudy Endorses Dictatorship | 68 comments (68 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What is the ::process:: ? (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:54:57 AM EST

Where exactly does the money come from? Treasury? Who authorizes disbursement? Can that be done without congressional appropriation?

Last question first (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:56:09 AM EST

No money not authorized by the Congress can be spent. Zero.


That's what I thought. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:58:45 AM EST

So Rudy would set himself up for impeachment. Bright guy.


He is a dictator type (5.00 / 5) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:00:44 AM EST

always has been.


I suspect Rudy just (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:05:58 AM EST

shot himself in both feet, re his presidential chances. ;-)


Yes and No (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:19:05 AM EST

He certainly won't be getting our votes, but there is no telling what poor judgement the rest of america has.


Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:25:26 AM EST

From the 26 percenters?

Best wishes, Rudy. Look what they did to George. ;-)


you mean (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Jen M on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:29:46 AM EST

electing him twice?


Touche, Jen. ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:33:58 AM EST

I was being facetious of course - although I find it a hard to believe that enough people could be flat out ::dumb:: enough to elect Giuliani after electing Bush twice and seeing the results...

Maybe I have too much faith in peoples intelligence?


Fooled Twice.... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:46:23 AM EST

that enough people could be flat out ::dumb:: enough to elect Giuliani after electing Bush twice and seeing the results...

Maybe the fascist thing is working. I was actually shocked when NYers were going on and on about how great Giulian was during 9/11. Not only did I think he was f'ing up then, but I couldn't believe that NYers had such a short memory, He was not liked prior to 9/11.

I was sure that he would pull off his coup regarding calling off elections, and was pleasantly surprised that NYC gave a resounding no to him on that.

As for the rest of America, why should they be so diferent than Germany in the 30's? People are people. Humans seem to react favorably to autocrats when they are scared enough. It has little to do with intelligence.


Well.... good points... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:54:00 AM EST

There seems to be some pathological self destuctive need in a lot of people for an authority figure, yes. I'm on the west coast and you see it so rarely here. But you're in NYC, right? Is it that widepread do you think?

Germany in the 30's is a good case in point - but I hope the fact that Germany in the 30's didn't have Germany in the 30's to learn from is something that would make some difference?

Some time ago you linked to a psychological study of authoritarianism re conservatives/bush supporters. Do you remember where that link was?


pschological study (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by gollo on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:10:06 PM EST

It was probably this study edger

the authoritarians

hope you don't mind the butting in.


Not at all (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:28:29 PM EST

You're never "butting in", squeaky! I think that was it - but it seems to me it was a link to something explaining the personality types that need authority figures - almost to the point of being unable to function without them - and how that was reflected among bush voters and WOT supporters. Ring a bell?


: Sorry, gollo. (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:32:33 PM EST

You're not either. (I'm at work and replied before I realized who I was replying to)

Don't Know (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:18:25 PM EST

I'm on the west coast and you see it so rarely here. But you're in NYC, right? Is it that widepread do you think?

I live on a small Island off the east coast of America, how should I know what the country is thinking. We are thinking of floating it off to the coast of France.

The link that comes to mind is the Dean article about Presidential characteristics, which you have also linked to. I can't recall the essay you are thinking about. But if it comes to me I will post it in an open thread.


: Squeaky (none / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:56:08 PM EST

We are thinking of floating it off to the coast of France.
Bon Voyage!

Edger (none / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:54:59 PM EST

Maybe you have too much confidence in your own.


Guiliani: is he an attorney? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:44:45 AM EST

Was US Atty (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:48:44 AM EST

for the SDNY.


True, but not a constitutional scholar. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by cal11 voter on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:58:28 AM EST

He can consult with Gonzales and his people on that question. I wonder what would be the answer?


: Heh (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:59:39 AM EST

Yes (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:49:14 AM EST

: NYU, no less. But skipped the relevant classes. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:53:19 AM EST

Not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by LarryE on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:00:32 PM EST

No money not authorized by the Congress can be spent.

Technically true but imprecise. There are sprinkled through the budget "contingency funds" and "unallocated surpluses" which could legally be moved around and used to fund the war. Add a little creative thinking on exactly what the parameters of an authorized program are (and therefore on what its budget can be spent), and you have funding.

The only way to stop that would be to go beyond the negative "don't fund" to the positive "notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be expended, etc."

On the other hand, compared to the massive amounts being spent on the war, the amounts that could legally be found through such means are pretty small.


Terrified? Me too (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:04:06 AM EST

Hopefully America will rise up as NYC did and reject Rudy based on his natural propensity to disregard law and the constitution, aka act like a dictator.

Uh? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:28:50 PM EST

When did New York "rise up" and reject Giuliani? He was elected twice -- narrowly the first time and more widely the second.

It's true his ratings weren't good in the period leading up to 9/11 and that his bid to extend his term was not well received. But there's an illusion on the left that Giuliani was about to be run out of New York in tar and feathers -- which is not true.


Guiliani's recent admission that he knew Bernard (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:39:23 PM EST

Kerik was a crook b/4 he appointed in chief of NYC's "homeland" security: that's what I thought would sink Guiliani's presidential bid.


He has lots of strikes (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:53:50 PM EST

against him, that's true. And an appropriately negative oppo-campaign organization could cut him down to size pretty easily. Unfortunately Democrats don't seem to play that game too well (at least, not against Republicans. They did a number on Dean of course). McCain seems to be losing his nerve (along with his mind) these days. I guess our big hope in sliming Giuliani down to size is Mitt Romney, although it's true that the media has been showing uncharacteristic signs of life when it comes to Giuliani.

But in a country where George W. Bush could serve two terms as President what, really, is impossible?


his wife used to ... (none / 0) (#43)
by Sailor on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:48:35 PM EST

... kill doggies for fun and profit


Better clarify--its Guiliani's current wife, not (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:55:13 PM EST

Kerick's.


: thanks (none / 0) (#50)
by Sailor on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:19:55 PM EST

Might we have a link proving that?? (none / 0) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:57:40 PM EST

you mean aside (none / 0) (#57)
by Jen M on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:18:37 PM EST

from the link provided?


Here's what I read: (none / 0) (#58)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:37:03 PM EST

Sorry, my link didn't link. It was NY Times, (none / 0) (#59)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:38:03 PM EST

March 30/07


: oculus (none / 0) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:04:20 PM EST

You mean he said, "I knew he was a crook?"
Somehow I doubt that.

reject Giuliani (none / 0) (#51)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 04:44:53 PM EST

When did New York "rise up" and reject Giuliani?

Sorry for my poor writing skills. What I was referring to was when Giuliani tried to extend his Mayorship by canceling elections. NYC roundly rejected that attempt, and I was pleasantly surprised.


Thank Goodness (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by vcmvo2 on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:05:40 AM EST

He doesn't really have a shot at the Presidency.

But I don't know that I thought GW really had a chance either! I'd better stop because I'm scaring myself- Ugh!

Nice analyis!

Yes (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:15:02 AM EST

I would say that after seeing Regan, Bush, and Bush get elected I have a much more open mind as to what Americans are capable of doing in the privacy of a voting box.


: Keep the population entertained and distracted (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by TexDem on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:23:07 PM EST

and you can do most anything. Throw in a little fear and you have a combination that would let Bush get re-selected and a Guiliani get elected. With a complicit MSM. The MSM should be all over this for days, giving it the coverage they gave Anna Nicole, but we all know that won't happen.
Guiliani's comments should scare the bejeesus out of all thinking Americans. The problem is that thinking American only applies to about thirty percent of the population, another thirty percent are Koolaid drinkers so that leaves forty percent to get their attention.

: Add Nixon's re-election to the list. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:34:08 PM EST

He certainly. . . (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:31:15 PM EST

has a shot. He's far ahead in the Republican primary and competitive with Democrats. He's also a sleazebag who will certainly employ every slimeball tactic known to Republicans if he is the candidate. Of all the Republican candidates he's the one most like Bush in his sense of entitlement.

The only people I can imagine who want to be in the business of pushing the "no chance Rudy" line these days are people inside the Giuliani organization.


Please clarify your last sentence. (none / 0) (#48)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:34:35 PM EST

: I mean that (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:23:56 AM EST

It would be in Giuliani's interest at this point to be perceived as a candidate with little or no chance of winning.
The most likely threat to his perceived super-mayor image comes from his fellow Republicans (since Democrats just don't play the slime-the-Republican game very well). If Giuliani is considered of no consequence it's less likely that other Republicans will target him for personal destruction -- as happened with McCain in 2000.

He just doesn't know (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:11:50 AM EST

That makes him both unqualified and dangerous.

The last paragraph (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by HeadScratcher on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:23:35 AM EST

of Rich Lowry's article says he isn't sure what Rudy meant. My guess, is that he was speaking about dictatorship (Viva Chavez!), but that he was speaking in terms of expanded presidential powers - which isn't good either.

Squeaky, when did New York City reject him after he was elected mayor.

There's an element of the Republican party (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by kindness on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:17:04 PM EST

, the neo-con element, which absolutely loves leaders taking the law into their own hands because a)it makes the leader look decisive, b) it does away with all that un-necessary advise & consent of others & c) they just think they don't need no stinking badges. The trogladite wing of the Repubs. let's get as far away from a Democracy or a Constitutional Republic as we can and call all the others traitors.....

And this flies with rank & file republicans.....Now THAT, I don't get.

: Small federal government, states' rights--you know (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:41:58 PM EST

: Just a note (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 08:03:57 PM EST

let's get as far away from a Democracy or a Constitutional Republic
Actually, it is a Constitutional Republic.

Legally no. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:34:04 PM EST

But practically, if a Republican President were to play chicken against the Dems with US soldiers by keeping them in the field past the cut-off and then demanding the Congress go along with some kind of reallocation my guess is he would win.

Telling grammar. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:36:18 PM EST

I wonder whether you meant "If Rudy had a real chance of becoming President, I would be terrified" or "If Rudy has a real chance of becoming President, I am terrified"?

In my opinion, you ought to be terrified. It's absurd to suggest that someone so far out in front of the others in a major party primary race this far before the election doesn't have at least a chance of winning the general election.

: Same opinion re Hillary Clinton, I gather--have to (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:45:51 PM EST

take her seriously, as she is the current front runer on the Dem. side.

If Rudy has a real chance of becoming President, I (none / 0) (#10)
by NycMets on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:19:03 AM EST

"If Rudy has a real chance of becoming President, I would be terrified".

And that is why, I think, Obama myth is being created by the MSM. Just to try and take away the nomination from Sen. Clinton. So, if Obama wins the nomination on the democratic side and Rudy wins the nomination on the republican side, then we can all guess who will win the presidentship in a landslide manner. But if sen. clinton wins the nomination, then she will definitely be the next president. Rudy stands no chance against her, especially with all the baggage he has. And this is what the republicans and their friends in the MSM don't want to see. MSM and the republicans do want a republican president in 2009 to carry on what they are doing now. And to achieve that they will play all sorts of tricks. Let me just make one thing clear - I am not for any candidate but for the democratic party. After watching sen. Obama, I do feel that he needs a lot of experience on the national stage before he can even think of presidentship. This is just a thought. Any comments appreciated.

Be terrified my fellow Mets fan..... (none / 0) (#42)
by kdog on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:46:06 PM EST

He's got a real shot at winning if he can get the nomination. Personally....I think he would stomp Hillary. Authoritarianism is very popular in America today. People want their false sense of security and safety at any cost I'm afraid, and Rudy is the poster-boy for authoritarianism.

The same reason I despise him is the reason many love him. His lasting legacy in NYC is making the squeegee men disappear. His supporters don't care what happened to those human beings as long as they weren't bugging them at red lights, his detractors like me wonder where they went. Prison? Mental Hospital? Beats me.

The best hope for the future is he gets eaten alive by the Jesus patrol.
Politics sure does make strange bedfellows:)


Question (none / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:59:39 PM EST

Given that Hillary has a 50 plus negative rating, why do you think she is a shoo in??


: got links? (none / 0) (#64)
by Sailor on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:48:33 AM EST

Is Rudy talking about an emergency situation? (none / 0) (#21)
by cal11 voter on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:53:25 AM EST

Where there is no funding legislation in place although troops remain in the war theater. Isn't he talking about the classic situation of a need to support our troops in time of war? What's a Commander in Chief supposed to do for his military forces in that situation? He said for time to work something out with Congress, didn't he? At the very least, funds could be expended to safely withdraw from the theatre.

You gotta be kidding (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:58:18 AM EST

In any event, it's a hypothetical since no one... (none / 0) (#26)
by cal11 voter on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:03:35 PM EST

is going to play chicken with funding for the troops in Iraq. Something will be worked out, or it will be a political disaster for one of the political parties.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:10:22 PM EST

Are you calling the Reid-Feingold bill playing chicken?


: Nope. Did Obama do that? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by cal11 voter on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:20:16 PM EST

Or was he speaking of hypotheticals down the line? Wonder what he thinks about the President's inherent powers?

: Don't you think they are playing chicken to some (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:36:21 PM EST

extent? They don't have the votes.

Let's try this again: (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:40:12 PM EST

NY TIMES: (none / 0) (#62)
by oculus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:47:12 PM EST

Giuliani Testified He Was Briefed on Kerik in '00

By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: March 30, 2007

Rudolph W. Giuliani told a grand jury that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Bernard B. Kerik's relationship with a company suspected of ties to organized crime before Mr. Kerik's appointment as New York City police commissioner, according to court records.
Mr. Giuliani, testifying last year under oath before a Bronx grand jury investigating Mr. Kerik, said he had no memory of the briefing, but he did not dispute that it had taken place, according to a transcript of his testimony.
Mr. Giuliani's testimony amounts to a significantly new version of what information was probably before him in the summer of 2000 as he was debating Mr. Kerik's appointment as the city's top law enforcement officer. Mr. Giuliani had previously said that he had never been told of Mr. Kerik's entanglement with the company before promoting him to the police job or later supporting his failed bid to be the nation's homeland security secretary.
In his testimony, given in April 2006, Mr. Giuliani indicated that he must have simply forgotten that he had been briefed on one or more occasions as part of the background investigation of Mr. Kerik before his appointment to the police post.
He said he learned only in late 2004 that the briefing or briefings had occurred, after the city's investigation commissioner reviewed his own records from 2000. To this day, Mr. Giuliani testified, he has no specific recollection of any briefing or the details of what he was told. But he said he felt comforted because the chief investigator had cleared Mr. Kerik to be promoted.
"He testified fully and cooperatively," a statement from Mr. Giuliani's consulting firm said of the former mayor's grand jury appearance. The statement added: "Mayor Giuliani has admitted it was a mistake to recommend Bernie Kerik for D.H.S. and he has assumed responsibility for it."

THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM MARCH 30/07 NY TIMES ARTICLE

And your point is??? (none / 0) (#66)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 06:20:44 PM EST

that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Bernard B. Kerik's

: Mea culpa. I overstated what G knoew when if (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 12:39:06 PM EST

actually could remember anything.

: where are the links? (none / 0) (#68)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 01:01:36 PM EST

Given that Hillary has a 50 plus negative rating
amazing how rethugs have such bad memories when they're under oath:
Mr. Giuliani's testimony amounts to a significantly new version of what information was probably before him in the summer of 2000 as he was debating Mr. Kerik's appointment as the city's top law enforcement officer. Mr. Giuliani had previously said that he had never been told of Mr. Kerik's entanglement with the company before promoting him to the police job or later supporting his failed bid to be the nation's homeland security secretary.
shorter rudy: I got caught lying about appointing a crook to be a cop.

Thanks. Good strategy, given his negatives. (none / 0) (#65)
by oculus on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:16:46 PM EST