It's Official: Executive Privilege Trumps All

KGB

Diamond Member
May 11, 2000
3,042
0
0
Article

This should outrage anyone who values our democracy.

If this is allowed to stand, the only option is impeachment.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
I note that Congress has the authority to both hold trials and imprison violators. It hasn't been used in a long time. Time to dust that policy off.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Now if this claim doesn't scream "You had better impeach me or I am going to take total control".....then I don't know what does.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Now if this claim doesn't scream "You had better impeach me or I am going to take total control".....then I don't know what does.

Impeachment is a fantasy. There are enough Rep votes to sideline any such efforts. You thing resistance to troop withdraw is stiff? Nothing at all compared to this.

There are three practical alternatives Congress can:

Give up

Take it to the SCOTUS

Revive Congressional trials.


I think the third may be the best choice. I don't want the first, and the SCOTUS might side with Bush. The Reps would have a harder time justifying blocking their own Congressional rights than impeachment, and their constituents are getting less and less happy with the situation.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
-- George W. Bush

 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I note that Congress has the authority to both hold trials and imprison violators. It hasn't been used in a long time. Time to dust that policy off.

I really don't see what that's going to do. The same WH officials who are ignoring Congress now will ignore Congress then, and what enforcement arm does Congress have to compel witnesses to testify? Besides, any Congressional trials would just be spun as political witch hunts. As you noted in a subsequent post, if this is headed anywhere, this is headed to the Supreme Court.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91

Congress needs to back off this attorney firing issue. When it comes to something such as firing somebody, laws don't give people a right to work. There are more pressing issues than this.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I note that Congress has the authority to both hold trials and imprison violators. It hasn't been used in a long time. Time to dust that policy off.

I really don't see what that's going to do. The same WH officials who are ignoring Congress now will ignore Congress then, and what enforcement arm does Congress have to compel witnesses to testify? Besides, any Congressional trials would just be spun as political witch hunts. As you noted in a subsequent post, if this is headed anywhere, this is headed to the Supreme Court.

Congress DOES have it's own police force and could use them to arrest those in violation. Of course Bush could send Federal agents to prevent it. At that point it would become painfully clear to almost everyone (including Congressional Reps up for reelection) that Bush has slipped a cog. THEN head to the SCOTUS. Have as much ammo for that as is possible, because they are going to need it. However the SCOTUS rules will determine the way the separation of powers works forever. I'm not against Congress going to the SCOTUS, but I am against them losing if they do.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I note that Congress has the authority to both hold trials and imprison violators. It hasn't been used in a long time. Time to dust that policy off.

I really don't see what that's going to do. The same WH officials who are ignoring Congress now will ignore Congress then, and what enforcement arm does Congress have to compel witnesses to testify? Besides, any Congressional trials would just be spun as political witch hunts. As you noted in a subsequent post, if this is headed anywhere, this is headed to the Supreme Court.

Congress DOES have it's own police force and could use them to arrest those in violation. Of course Bush could send Federal agents to prevent it. At that point it would become painfully clear to almost everyone (including Congressional Reps up for reelection) that Bush has slipped a cog. THEN head to the SCOTUS. Have as much ammo for that as is possible, because they are going to need it. However the SCOTUS rules will determine the way the separation of powers works forever. I'm not against Congress going to the SCOTUS, but I am against them losing if they do.

I seriously doubt Congress has the guts to order its police force to arrest and detain WH officials for contempt.
 

KGB

Diamond Member
May 11, 2000
3,042
0
0
Originally posted by: dyna

Congress needs to back off this attorney firing issue. When it comes to something such as firing somebody, laws don't give people a right to work. There are more pressing issues than this.


Can't you see the bigger picture here? This could be heading for a Constitutional crisis!

How old are you?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I note that Congress has the authority to both hold trials and imprison violators. It hasn't been used in a long time. Time to dust that policy off.

I really don't see what that's going to do. The same WH officials who are ignoring Congress now will ignore Congress then, and what enforcement arm does Congress have to compel witnesses to testify? Besides, any Congressional trials would just be spun as political witch hunts. As you noted in a subsequent post, if this is headed anywhere, this is headed to the Supreme Court.

Congress DOES have it's own police force and could use them to arrest those in violation. Of course Bush could send Federal agents to prevent it. At that point it would become painfully clear to almost everyone (including Congressional Reps up for reelection) that Bush has slipped a cog. THEN head to the SCOTUS. Have as much ammo for that as is possible, because they are going to need it. However the SCOTUS rules will determine the way the separation of powers works forever. I'm not against Congress going to the SCOTUS, but I am against them losing if they do.

I seriously doubt Congress has the guts to order its police force to arrest and detain WH officials for contempt.

You're probably right, but the alternative IMO is to forever cede it's co-equal Constitutional status. The SCOTUS may bail out Congress, however that's even riskier because once it turns over the decision to the courts, they are bound by it for good or ill. Personally, I think it's worth pushing the issue.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Well the Reps and the Bush administration know they have SCOTUS in their pocket now. Arrest the White House criminals now and let the SCOTUS make a partisan joke out of it all later. Make the death of the republic official.







 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You're probably right, but the alternative IMO is to forever cede it's co-equal Constitutional status. The SCOTUS may bail out Congress, however that's even riskier because once it turns over the decision to the courts, they are bound by it for good or ill. Personally, I think it's worth pushing the issue.

They're going to be bound by the courts regardless, absent a Constitutional amendment.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
Originally posted by: KGBMAN
Originally posted by: dyna

Congress needs to back off this attorney firing issue. When it comes to something such as firing somebody, laws don't give people a right to work. There are more pressing issues than this.


Can't you see the bigger picture here? This could be heading for a Constitutional crisis!

How old are you?


LOL, you have to be kidding me. I do see the bigger picture and this issue should have never gone this far. In the end congress are going to look like fools. I see the president as making this decision to say, this issue is over with move on. If it goes to SCOTUS then so be it and hopefully they make a correct non-partisan judgement. But congress needs move on.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: GrGr
Well the Reps and the Bush administration know they have SCOTUS in their pocket now. Arrest the White House criminals now and let the SCOTUS make a partisan joke out of it all later. Make the death of the republic official.

I tire of those upset about the Executive Branch abusing power (not that they don't have a good point), but raise nary a peep about Congress forgetting the phrase 'enumerated powers' ever existed. Congress doesn't even try anymore to make some farcical case that its legislation meets Article I standards. If you let gov't overstep its bounds in ways you like, don't complain when it oversteps its bounds in ways you don't like.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: dyna
Originally posted by: KGBMAN
Originally posted by: dyna

Congress needs to back off this attorney firing issue. When it comes to something such as firing somebody, laws don't give people a right to work. There are more pressing issues than this.


Can't you see the bigger picture here? This could be heading for a Constitutional crisis!

How old are you?


LOL, you have to be kidding me. I do see the bigger picture and this issue should have never gone this far. In the end congress is going to look like fools. I see the president as making this decision to say, this issue is over with move on. If it goes to SCOTUS then so be it and hopefully they make a correct non-partisan judgement. But congress needs move on.

So when there is reasonable cause to believe that investigations are warranted for illegal activities (I'm referring to the wiretaps not the firings, or any other potential serious matter) and the President overrules Congress, Congress should move on?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
This has been incredible and sad to watch unfold.

Not just as of late but the last seven years.

How anyone can still support this blatent America hating group of thugs is beyond my little pea brained comprehension.

The only thing that Bush and Republicans have not done yet is rename the Country.

 

KGB

Diamond Member
May 11, 2000
3,042
0
0
Originally posted by: dyna
Originally posted by: KGBMAN
Originally posted by: dyna

Congress needs to back off this attorney firing issue. When it comes to something such as firing somebody, laws don't give people a right to work. There are more pressing issues than this.


Can't you see the bigger picture here? This could be heading for a Constitutional crisis!

How old are you?


LOL, you have to be kidding me. I do see the bigger picture and this issue should have never gone this far. In the end congress are going to look like fools. I see the president as making this decision to say, this issue is over with move on. If it goes to SCOTUS then so be it and hopefully they make a correct non-partisan judgement. But congress needs move on.


A non-partisan judgement by the Supreme Court?
Who's kidding who?

If the Congress does not push back on this now, and hard, they will have forever ceded their oversight powers.

This could get very bad.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: dyna
Originally posted by: KGBMAN
Originally posted by: dyna

Congress needs to back off this attorney firing issue. When it comes to something such as firing somebody, laws don't give people a right to work. There are more pressing issues than this.


Can't you see the bigger picture here? This could be heading for a Constitutional crisis!

How old are you?


LOL, you have to be kidding me. I do see the bigger picture and this issue should have never gone this far. In the end congress is going to look like fools. I see the president as making this decision to say, this issue is over with move on. If it goes to SCOTUS then so be it and hopefully they make a correct non-partisan judgement. But congress needs move on.

So when there is reasonable cause to believe that investigations are warranted for illegal activities (I'm referring to the wiretaps not the firings, or any other potential serious matter) and the President overrules Congress, Congress should move on?


They should move on unless they want directly attack the president. They keep trying to push this issue, side-stepping all the presidents statements. They need to stop attacking the people he said not to attack. If the president overstepped his bounds make him accountable.

 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Maybe the farmers will pick up their pitchforks and ride to Washington.

Every time the farmers go to Washington, they just ask for more subsidies.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Its going to take a long time to resolve in the courts---but there are a variety of various tactics that should be used by congress.

a. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the Justice department was not named in the constitution---and like the EPA, was a agency later created by congress and tucked into the executive wing. And what congress creates, congress can uncreate, and then recreate without the error of tucking it into the executive wing. Meanwhile we all need to ask who justice department officials work for---is it the President or the American people? But if GWB&co. care to assert that they work for the President--then why on earth should the taxpayers fund the justice department?---Let GWB&co. fund the justice department out of their own pockets. And then let congress create a justice department that works for the American people and is worth publically funding.

b. This is right at the yearly budget time right now--if GWB&co. does not want the justice department to work for the people. Defund it right now. Let GWB&co go to court and see what kind of speedy hearing they get.

c. Yes do exactly that---have the SGT of arms of congress go out and serve that arrest warrant on Harriet Miers---she ignored the subpoena to testify---and she has to answer for it.
And then what is the executive branch going to do? Especially if congress sets up its own court system because the justice department can no longer be trusted to be impartial or fair.

d. And as other have pointed out--the correct remedy is impeachment. Don't be shy about it,
its the cure the constitution mandates.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: dyna

Congress needs to back off this attorney firing issue. When it comes to something such as firing somebody, laws don't give people a right to work. There are more pressing issues than this.

Congress issued subpoenas to white house staff. The president ordered them to not respond to the subpoenas. This is no longer aboot attorney firings. This is aboot precedent. This is aboot justice. What? Why are you laughing?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
You guys with all your demands for courts and arrests etc seem to miss one HUGE factor in all of this.

This is a POLITICAL battle. It is not a legal battle, the President is not trying to hide some illegality by using privilege. EVERYONE agrees that the President was within his powers to fire these people. There has NEVER been ANY allegation of law breaking during this whole mess.

The courts have been very clear on this topic in the past.
Congress does NOT have the right to ask questions about the internal workings and policy decisions of the White House, unless there is allegations of illegality.

Let me make this clearer for you?

Bush and five people go into a room and have a meeting. They then come out and say this is our new policy on subject X.
Congress can ask questions about the policy and what it means, but they can NOT ask for notes from the meeting or question who was for or against the new policy.

Finally, I?ll quote the Supreme Court in its US v Nixon ruling to back up what I say above
"the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties"
and
"Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."
And
"To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III."
Note the bolded part, there is NO allegation of any criminal statutes being broken, therefore congress does not have the right to ask the questions they are trying to ask.