Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » USA and Cuba to normalize relations? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: USA and Cuba to normalize relations?
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
"Is this eve up for debate?"

Yes, obviously, though it's not exactly surprising that you are unable to parse those two phrases to understand how they differ.

Well I guess it's back to "that depends on your definition of is" logic.

So if there can be a legal "interpretation" allowing the government to interpret any law however it wishes, what is even the point of law?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It makes one wonder why the original text uses "when the President determines that Y is true" rather than simply stating "when Y is true". It's amusing to me to think that this language may not have been an accident. Basically, the President can "determine" whatever he likes, and we can all point and say it isn't so, but the condition is therefore met, nonetheless.
In short, be careful what you write.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
It makes one wonder why the original text uses "when the President determines that Y is true" rather than simply stating "when Y is true". It's amusing to me to think that this language may not have been an accident. Basically, the President can "determine" whatever he likes, and we can all point and say it isn't so, but the condition is therefore met, nonetheless.
In short, be careful what you write.

Um, sorry to break it to you but a "democratically elected government" is a fairly defined thing that either exists or it doesn't.

Is anyone going to try and argue that the existing Castro regime meets this requirement?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The President might.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Seneca.

This is amusing.

First, you paraphrased requirements for lifting the embargo. That's not what Obama is trying to do, and he even announced that he needs Congress to do it (if it gets done).

Second, you vaguely waved at the Purpose section, even though it didn't clarify anything.

Third, you quote this:

quote:
To consider the restoration of diplomatic recognition and support the reintegration of the Cuban Government into Inter-American organizations when the President determines that there exists a democratically elected government in Cuba
Which is under the heading "The policy of the United States is as follows."

What this clearly says is that if the President determines there's a democratic government in Cuba, he should consider restoring normal diplomacy etc.

It clearly does NOT say that the President is restrained from doing so under other conditions.

It's "If A, then B". Not "If and ONLY if A, then B."

When you later paraphrased it, you made up a word - "UNLESS". That's not in the law.

Do you have a 4th attempt?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The President might.

He doesn't need to.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, yeah, I didn't need to imply that he did. But he could. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Um, sorry to break it to you but a "democratically elected government" is a fairly defined thing that either exists or it doesn't.

Is anyone going to try and argue that the existing Castro regime meets this requirement? [/QB]

That footing isn't as firm as you might think. I hate to be arguing legalese, but who gets to decide what "democratically elected" means? Is that when 99% of ballots point to one guy and other candidates are conveniently imprisoned?
I'll tell you who gets to determine the extent to which "democratically elected" must actually mean in fair elections. The President, that's who. It's written right there. [LOL]

...although yeah, what sci said about the missing "unless".

[ December 17, 2014, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In that case I guess Saddam Hussein was democratically elected, as was the Taliban!

[Roll Eyes]

The amount of linguistic play and legal acrobatics would be amusing under other circumstances.

Even democrats see how this is wrong. The law is clear, any unbiased view can see that.

quote:
Which is under the heading "The policy of the United States is as follows."

What this clearly says is that if the President determines there's a democratic government in Cuba, he should consider restoring normal diplomacy etc.

It clearly does NOT say that the President is restrained from doing so under other conditions.

It's "If A, then B". Not "If and ONLY if A, then B."

When you later paraphrased it, you made up a word - "UNLESS". That's not in the law.

Incredible. Do you understand how a limited government works? Some of the authors of this law are still alive, I'm sure the courts can interview them if they really needed to determine legislative intent, however any sober and reasonable reading of this law obviously sees that the intent is to prevent any administration from re-establishing ties with Cuba until they have a democratic government. There is no other way to read it. The law is filled with specific exceptions to this requirement but being Barack Obama isn't one of them.

quote:
Do you have a 4th attempt?
They were in reality all the same, I wish I hadn't wasted my time.

[ December 18, 2014, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
any unbiased view can see that
Remember how I once suggested to you that each time you catch yourself writing something like the above, you stop and rethink your position?

quote:
I'm sure the courts can interview them if they really needed to determine legislative intent
Is this something you think courts do? [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not only do democrats stand opposed to this violation, some even believe this new approach toward Castro's regime will make Cuba LESS likely to democratize over time.

quote:
Outgoing Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) quickly criticized the White House, saying it “vindicated” the “brutal behavior of the Cuban government” by trading Gross for convicted spies.
“Trading Mr. Gross for three convicted criminals sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It invites dictatorial and rogue regimes to use Americans serving overseas as bargaining chips,” Menendez said. “I fear that today’s actions will put at risk the thousands of Americans that work overseas to support civil society, advocate for access to information, provide humanitarian services, and promote democratic reforms


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:

quote:
To consider the restoration of diplomatic recognition and support the reintegration of the Cuban Government into Inter-American organizations when the President determines that there exists a democratically elected government in Cuba
Which is under the heading "The policy of the United States is as follows."

What this clearly says is that if the President determines there's a democratic government in Cuba, he should consider restoring normal diplomacy etc.

It clearly does NOT say that the President is restrained from doing so under other conditions.

It's "If A, then B". Not "If and ONLY if A, then B."

When you later paraphrased it, you made up a word - "UNLESS". That's not in the law.

Your reading of this law is equivalent to the following:

The restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba can be done at any time at all we feel like it, and further, it must be done in the event that Cuba has democratic elections.

Does this really seem to you to be what the law intends? If so your case is that the law is in place only to make sure that diplomatic relations aren't still off if Cuba becomes a democracy; i.e. that the law is there to protect Cuba from an unfairly long embargo if they change their ways.

I'm not familiar with the details of the drafting of this law. For anyone who is, can this possibly have been the intent of its authors, as a clause meant to protect Cuba should they reform, and having nothing to do with what the U.S. may or may not do? It seems to me more likely that "when" means "when that happens", and not "when that happens, or also if it doesn't happen." It sounds like an if-and-only-if clause, but I could be wrong.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Incredible. Do you understand how a limited government works? The authors of this law are still alive, I'm sure the courts can interview them if they really needed to determine legislative intent, however any sober and reasonable reading of this law obviously sees that the intent is to prevent any administration from re-establishing ties with Cuba until they have a democratic government. There is no other way to read it. The law is filled with specific exceptions to this requirement but being Barack Obama isn't one of them.
You know, if that's what they meant, they would have used that magic word "UNLESS". Your denial that it can be read any other way is comical.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
can this possibly have been the intent of its authors
Oh, absolutely. We've been throwing meaningless, symbolic sops towards the Miami Cuban refugee population since Florida became an important swing state in the early '80s.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Incredible. Do you understand how a limited government works? The authors of this law are still alive, I'm sure the courts can interview them if they really needed to determine legislative intent, however any sober and reasonable reading of this law obviously sees that the intent is to prevent any administration from re-establishing ties with Cuba until they have a democratic government. There is no other way to read it. The law is filled with specific exceptions to this requirement but being Barack Obama isn't one of them.
You know, if that's what they meant, they would have used that magic word "UNLESS". Your denial that it can be read any other way is comical.
Please show me another law that is written so narrowly as to make the obvious object of the law only possible under the most specific conditions and always and forever excluding all others but that condition. Most of the time law is simply not written that way because Congress doesn't have the time or manpower to obsess over every possible way that dishonest administrations might try and twist meaning or inject new meaning.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your reading of this law is equivalent to the following:

The restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba can be done at any time at all we feel like it, and further, it must be done in the event that Cuba has democratic elections.

No. Only the second part. The first part doesn't need to be spelled out in law. The President (Eisenhower) closed the US embassy in Cuba; embassies are under the authority of the executive branch.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Incredible. Do you understand how a limited government works? The authors of this law are still alive, I'm sure the courts can interview them if they really needed to determine legislative intent, however any sober and reasonable reading of this law obviously sees that the intent is to prevent any administration from re-establishing ties with Cuba until they have a democratic government. There is no other way to read it. The law is filled with specific exceptions to this requirement but being Barack Obama isn't one of them.
You know, if that's what they meant, they would have used that magic word "UNLESS". Your denial that it can be read any other way is comical.
Please show me another law that is written so narrowly as to make the obvious object of the law only possible under the most specific conditions and always and forever excluding all others but that condition. Most of the time law is simply not written that way because Congress doesn't have the time or manpower to obsess over every possible way that dishonest administrations might try and twist meaning or inject new meaning.
That's ridiculous. That paragraph is prescriptive, and not proscriptive. There's no limiting or exclusive language in the paragraph you quoted. The limit you believe is being imposed is being inserted by you. If they intended a limit, they would have used a word like "only" or "unless" or the like. That's not a lot of effort for something you think was such an obvious intent.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. Your interpretation is ridiculous. Any plain reading can see that the intent of the law was to say that we should wait to reestablish ties with Cuba after they became a democracy. It would be absurd to pass this law if the intent was to let the president reestablish ties with Cuba anytime for any reason.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is amusing how often the claim is made that Obama is breaking the law, yet no one seems to be able to file a lawsuit against him.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it's the intent that matters rather than the words, can we follow the intent of the 2nd Amendment rather than the words?

Does the act say anywhere else that the President can't normalize relations? Especially since this isn't even a 'shall' statement. It just says 'considers', so there isn't even an obligation to restore ties if Cuba meets the criteria (which appear to be defined in section 206).

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
It is amusing how often the claim is made that Obama is breaking the law, yet no one seems to be able to file a lawsuit against him.

On the contrary, several judges have ruled against him. Already, just a couple days ago a judge has ruled his illegal alien amnesty as unconstitutional.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If it's the intent that matters rather than the words, can we follow the intent of the 2nd Amendment rather than the words?

Does the act say anywhere else that the President can't normalize relations? Especially since this isn't even a 'shall' statement. It just says 'considers', so there isn't even an obligation to restore ties if Cuba meets the criteria (which appear to be defined in section 206).

Both the language and the intent are clear in this case. Attempting to say the act doesn't prohibit the president from doing the opposite of the act is a tortured interpretation.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
It is amusing how often the claim is made that Obama is breaking the law, yet no one seems to be able to file a lawsuit against him.

On the contrary, several judges have ruled against him. Already, just a couple days ago a judge has ruled his illegal alien amnesty as unconstitutional.
Is that the Escobar case? Where no one brought up Obama's executive actions? And the judge wasn't actually ruling about the constitutionality of Obama administration delaying prosecution of some classes of illegal immigrants?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If it's the intent that matters rather than the words, can we follow the intent of the 2nd Amendment rather than the words?

Does the act say anywhere else that the President can't normalize relations? Especially since this isn't even a 'shall' statement. It just says 'considers', so there isn't even an obligation to restore ties if Cuba meets the criteria (which appear to be defined in section 206).

Both the language and the intent are clear in this case. Attempting to say the act doesn't prohibit the president from doing the opposite of the act is a tortured interpretation.
You need to be more precise.

Of course the intent of the act is to shun Cuba until the government is toppled or drastically reformed. But the specific legal effects of the act depend on what it says. And the act doesn't say that the President is barred from warming up diplomatic relations until certain conditions are met (although it does say that he should when those conditions are met).

The intent of a Sunday alcohol sales prohibition is to keep people from getting drunk on Sunday and tarnishing the Sabbath day. That doesn't mean it's a blatant violation of that law when someone drives across county lines to buy a case of beer.

Congress doesn't govern through intent, they govern through written law. And the law, as written, doesn't prohibit what the President is doing.

It's worth noting that even after the President's changes, Cuba is still facing harsh economic sanctions. The intent of the law is still expressed. You can call what Obama is doing exploiting a loophole and I won't complain, but it's false to say he's violating the law, and "the opposite of the act" would require a great deal more than the narrow actions the President is taking.

[ December 18, 2014, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're arguing that Obama can read the law any way he likes as long as he sees it as being open to a loophole; but that's not how law works. A guy can't just read it and interpret it in the way he personally chooses to. If you show a judge ruling that the law doesn't intend what Seneca says, that would be something else. Obama and his lawyers can unilaterally interpret a law any way they like, but that doesn't mean it's legally accurate. If laws are somewhat unclear then it's the job of a court to eventually rule on its intent if it comes to that. This is the whole purpose of the judicial branch - to make sure that the enforcement of whatever is passed by Congress is interpreted properly. Just saying "oh, it reads to me like it's ambiguous and open to a loophole" has no legal standing. It either means one thing, or the other, period. I personally think claiming it means that the restrictions can be lifted any old time is an incorrect reading, but it's not up to me or to you, but up the a court.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's not really responsive to anything I've said, Fenring. I'm not arguing for a creative interpretation, and I'm most certainly not arguing that they can run with an arbitrary and false interpretation.

For one thing, it's not true that Obama is lifting "the restrictions". There are various kinds of restrictions spelled out in the law.

[ December 18, 2014, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Of course the intent of the act is to shun Cuba until the government is toppled or drastically reformed. But the specific legal effects of the act depend on what it says. And the act doesn't say that the President is barred from warming up diplomatic relations until certain conditions are met (although it does say that he should when those conditions are met).

The intent of a Sunday alcohol sales prohibition is to keep people from getting drunk on Sunday and tarnishing the Sabbath day. That doesn't mean it's a blatant violation of that law when someone drives across county lines to buy a case of beer.

Congress doesn't govern through intent, they govern through written law. And the law, as written, doesn't prohibit what the President is doing.

The part I italicized and bolded it exactly the part where you are, personally, interpreting what you think the law means as a way of explaining how perhaps the President read that law the same way. Since your interpretation of it (which seems somewhat ad hoc) seems really to be at odds with the apparent purpose behind such a law, and since Seneca obviously thinks your reading of it is 'tortured' (and I agree), it is therefore not clear that you're right, and it becomes a matter for a judge to settle. Tom may be right that the law is intended only as a token gesture to Cuban Americans and not at all to do with describing until what point the U.S. must wait before lifting the restrictions. But if so then it's a very weird law and is worded very strangely if that's the intent. So yes, I was responding directly to this claim of yours.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Regardless of whether there should be an embargo on Cuba, Seneca seems to have a point about the legality of removing it in this manner. Bear in mind Seneca isn't saying that it categorically should not be lifted, he's saying that according to the law it should not be lifted now, and not without congressional approval.

Without regard to anything else at the money- can you clarify that you understand that Obama is not lifting the embargo- he has, in fact directly said that he looks forward to working with Congress on terms to lift or at least loosen it? The only thing he's doing now is opening up diplomatic channels so that we can discuss our relationship and future terms of our relationship and expectations.

More to the current point, the fact that the law explicitly bans trade where it uses the much weaker prescriptive language with regards to diplomatic relations shows that perhaps there is supposed to be a difference in interpretation. Other wise it could easily have used the same clear proscriptive language in regards to diplomacy as it did for trade.

However, I think that would have put it at strong risk of being struck down as unconstitutional, because it would have involved congress stepping out of it's powers and directly dictating to the executive a matter that's within its field of discretion. I don't think Congress reasonably has the power to preempt the State Department where it comes to managing diplomacy.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it were a product spec, I'd read that clause as not much more than an informative statement, particularly the portion regarding normalizing relations. It's notably missing the usual words that impose restrictions rather than obligations. Usually, an explicit requirement would have an explicit statement rather than depending an inference depending the inverse of a statement.

Also, I'd expect a ban on normal diplomatic relations would be found in the sections regarding sanctions rather than the sections regarding a free Cuba.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But if so then it's a very weird law...
I would say, rather, that it's a very sloppy law.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, what's your explanation for why the law contains no proscriptive language establishing limits on when the executive may establish normal diplomacy with Cuba?

Why would an act full of specific prohibitions not prohibit this other thing, if it was meant to be prohibited? (They weren't trying to save ink.)

Why do you think it's clear that Congress intended a specific effect that is not actually included in the act? They weren't shy about listing out lots of details about other things. Why was this one left to the imagination?

It's important that you keep in mind that Obama didn't "lift the restrictions" or "end the embargo". You've repeated that a number of times now, and I'm not sure you get it. The embargo remains. Obama is doing something else, restoring something that wasn't barred by the act in the first place.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This court decision covers a lot of the history and court precedent with the "recognition power" which is what Obama is exercising by recognizing the government of Cuba:

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8DC59BCC7D10E6D85257BB10051786D/$file/07-5347-1447974.pdf

quote:
All told, given the great weight of historical and legal
precedent and given that “carefully considered language of
the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must
be treated as authoritative,” United States v. Oakar, 111 F.3d
146, 153 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted),
we are compelled to conclude that “[p]olitical recognition is
exclusively a function of the Executive,” Sabbatino, 376 U.S.
at 410. Indeed, all three of our colleagues who considered this
question the last time this case was before us agreed. See
Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State, 571 F.3d 1227, 1231 (D.C.
Cir. 2009), vacated and remanded by Zivotofsky v. Clinton,
132 S. Ct. 1421 (2012); id. at 1240 (Edwards, J., concurring).
To hold otherwise, we would have to disregard not only their
considered views, but also the Supreme Court’s repeated
statements to the same effect, see e.g., Goldwater v. Carter,
444 U.S. 996, 1007 (1979) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“Our
cases firmly establish that the Constitution commits to the
President alone the power to recognize, and withdraw
recognition from, foreign regimes.” (citing Sabbatino, 376
U.S. at 410; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 212 (1962); United
States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 228–30 (1942))), as well as
centuries of largely consistent historical practice, see Court’s
Op. at 17–22. Moreover, in light of the President’s “primary
responsibility for the conduct of our foreign affairs,” New
York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 741 (1971),
locating the recognition power in the Executive branch
conforms to our broader constitutional design.

This isn't a novel question, it's come up many times in the past. Congress has repeatedly conceded that the Executive branch has the recognition power.

This could explain why they didn't attempt to ban him from recognizing the government of Cuba.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never said Obama was removing the embargo; the time I mentioned it I was addressing sentiments here that the embargo was a failure and so why not remove it.

As far as what exactly the law intends, how can I answer you? I've already said I don't know and that it will have to be settled by people whose job it is to interpret the law.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifibum, it would also explain why the Act doesn't explicitly tell him to recognize a free Cuba. It just says to considers it, which is essentially meaningless in terms of guaranteeing action.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, what did you mean when you said "lift the restrictions"?

Let's recap.

1. Seneca claims that recognizing the government of Cuba is blatantly in violation of the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, that he doesn't have the authority to recognize Cuba.

2. He's asked to back up that claim.

3. After some runaround, he points to what amounts to a recommendation that the President exercise his recognition power if Cuba does such and such.

4. I point out that this does not bar the President from exercising his recognition power.

5. You weigh in with a misreading:

quote:
Does this really seem to you to be what the law intends? If so your case is that the law is in place only to make sure that diplomatic relations aren't still off if Cuba becomes a democracy; i.e. that the law is there to protect Cuba from an unfairly long embargo if they change their ways
(Note here you're conflating diplomacy with the end of an embargo.)

6. Another misreading:

quote:
You're arguing that Obama can read the law any way he likes as long as he sees it as being open to a loophole; but that's not how law works. A guy can't just read it and interpret it in the way he personally chooses to. If you show a judge ruling that the law doesn't intend what Seneca says, that would be something else. Obama and his lawyers can unilaterally interpret a law any way they like, but that doesn't mean it's legally accurate. If laws are somewhat unclear then it's the job of a court to eventually rule on its intent if it comes to that.
I never said that Obama gets to interpret the law however he likes. I pointed out that the law doesn't have any language that restricts the Executive from exercising its recognition power. This isn't something that needs to be referred to a court if no one can even mount an argument that the law does have that language.

And,

6. The act does not establish the de facto situation where the Cuban government is not recognized. It refers to that situation, but it does not establish it. That's because of

7. There's clear precedent that Congress doesn't have the power to tell the Executive whether/when to recognize a foreign government. This dovetails neatly with the fact that the act lacks any language to this effect, and the fact that the specific language that Seneca came up with is actually that the US should "consider" it under certain circumstances.

so...

quote:
...it will have to be settled by people whose job it is to interpret the law.
No, no it really doesn't. It's clear.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why wasn't the review on whether or not to still list them as a state sponsor of terrorism done before this decision was announced? It's going to look like the decision to remove that designation was outcome oriented rather than fact based if it happens. And if it doesn't happen, we are going to have regular relations with a country that we still list as a sponsor of terrorism? Really?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fact check: we also have diplomatic relations with Syria and Sudan.

http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm

It is worth noting that the designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism happened in 1982. I haven't looked into it, but it's not impossible that things have changed since then.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I should point out that I shouldn't have called diplomatic recognition of Cuba exploiting a loophole. I was mistaken about that (although I wasn't mistaken about the lack of any restriction on the recognition power in the act in question).

Congress simply can't tell the President which countries to recognize. The act in question said recognition should be considered under certain circumstances. But that power rests with the Executive.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Republicans also seem to concede that Obama has the recognition power, but are contemplating a variety of defacto ways to prevent real action, including refusal to fund an embassy and refusal to confirm appointment of an ambassador.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
State department report on Cuba as a terror sponsor (2013):

quote:
CUBA
Cuba was designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1982.
Cuba has long provided safe haven to members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) and the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Reports continued to indicate that Cuba’s ties to
ETA have become more distant, and that about eight of the two dozen ETA members in Cuba were
relocated with the cooperation of the Spanish government. Throughout 2013, the Government of Cuba
supported and hosted negotiations between the FARC and the Government of Colombia aimed at
brokering a peace agreement between the two. The Government of Cuba has facilitated the travel of
FARC representatives to Cuba to participate in these negotiations, in coordination with representatives
of the Governments of Colombia, Venezuela, and Norway, as well as the Red Cross.
There was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to
terrorist groups.
The Cuban government continued to harbor fugitives wanted in the United States. The Cuban
government also provided support such as housing, food ration books, and medical care for these
individuals.

Scary stuff, brokering peace agreements and giving people food.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1