According to this principle the job of enforcing laws is left to the President. Which means he chooses who works for him as prosecutors and who does not.
When congress gets involved in a situation like this and tries to tell the President who he can and can?t have working for him they are over stepping their grounds.[q/]
He does so within the rules set up by Congress. When he violates the rules, Congress holds him accountable. He runs the administration; Congress has oversight of his actions.
Notice how Congress says whether the appointees needed Senate approval or not. They say other things, too, about the rules he has to follow.
If he's violating the integrity of the system by politicizing it, Congress investigates.
Think of it this way? how would congress react if Bush started calling them to the White House to explain how they voted on certain bills. Or congress called members of the Supreme Court to testify on how they decided certain cases?
Bad analogy and logic. You can't fit a legitimate oversight action into the same group with violations of the seperation of powers just because you list them in a group.
You can't prove lizards are a mammal by asking whether cats and dogs are.
Congress does have the power to approve, or disapprove of many Presidential appointments, but once they are approved they have no say in how they do their job.
You appear not to have heard of "oversight". The Congress doesn't issue troop movement orders, and the president doesn't hold committee hearings overseeing Congress.
The president orders the executive branch to do things, and the Congress oversees what he does, and takes legislative action as they see fit.
Congress is the people's representative to oversee that the Administration is acting within the law - up to and including the power to remove the president if he's not.
The doctrine of executive privilege has limits. Congress has the power to subpoena. The burden of proof is on the president to show why he has the right to deny information.
Facebook
Twitter