Tuesday, March 27, 2007

to comply or to not comply

that is the question that the white house is wrangling with over the al gonzales/karl rove flap. i am not a lawyer and i am not a constitutional law scholar. i don't know all of the precedents and rules and whatnot. i simply have my well worn copy of the united states of america's constitution- and in there it says that congress has the right to information from the executive branch.

contrary to popular belief, there is no executive privilege in the constitution- presidents have implied that there is such a thing based on interpretation of 'the separation of powers' that is in the constitution. this is often litigated because it is open to interpretation. the common notion is that presidential advisers and who not would not advise and speak freely to the executive if he/she thought that they would be hauled in front of a congressional committee.

my thought is- don't do stuff that will get you hauled in front of a congressional committee- but i realize that partisan politics come into play. there is a great summary of this issue here.

the big issue that is getting lost here is that it is highly unusual for a lame duck president's justice department to fire folks this late in the game- because usually he already has appointed his own minions. comparisons to clinton coming into the white house and clearing folks out are like apples and oranges because an incoming first term president wants to put in his own folk. couple this with the fact that this admin orchestrated- and got from the last congress- a provision in the patriot act renewal that the attorney general can appoint who he/she wants without congressional oversight- well- i think that this congress has a duty to oversee this nonsense. the cheney admin has a track record of hiring and keeping loyal folks- not folks who are interested in doing what is best for the country or even doing the job for which they are hired- competently. it has been strictly a power grab by cheney et al from day 1- and they are just pissed because they are being checked. get over it. and go and re-read the constitution. separation of powers does not mean the executive gets its way all of the time.

9 comments:

dawn said...

I asked the question because you know I am not very political and my own experience with politics has made me very cynical with all the ass kissing that has to be done. It occured tome after hearing about this and reading a little of the summary that it must be nice to be a presidential advisor. The regular folks of America can't just not answer and can't ask for behind the door closed meetings without the oath. To me it makes everyone of them look guilt. God knows what these people have been doing. Funny me I thought this was our gov't and we had a right to know. Thanks for the info I am going to finish reading the summary

Time said...

This all comes under the heading "what are they trying to hide."

It shows just how bad an executive crack boy is. Why would he want to protect people who have given him such bad, illegal advice. His advisers have ensured that he will go down as the worst President ever.

I guess it's normal to hide such embarrassing, stupid decisions.

This President must be void of honor and honesty to cover-up the kind of behavior that's been going on in this administration.

He's the decider. The buck stops at his desk. He's making and backing all these decisions. An uneducated, drug addict would be better.

C-dell said...

I for one think that in order of power it is the Courts, Congress, and executive. I am not one for a powerful executive branch. It is dangerous we see what can happen.

betmo said...

congress comes first in the constitution. it is the only branch of government directly voted for by the american people. for whatever that is worth.

Donnie McDaniel said...

They have a lot more to worry about with Gonzo. I posted something on Gonzo failing to have pedophiles prosecuted.

Peacechick Mary said...

I'm surprised Bush doesn't declare monarch privilege.

Kvatch said...

Now that Congress has backtracked on the unconfirmed prosecutor appointments, wonder if Bush will veto. He's almost certainly got a minority large enough to sustain it.

The Future Was Yesterday said...

When Bush repacked his cabinet with all yes men for his second term, we had an early warning of this. He had the courts all handpicked, all he needed to do was get yes men prosecutors. What will come of this?

My prediction is a lot of noise, maybe a low level nobody swings....and Election year politics until you puke!...(: It's pretty late in the game for anybody to suddenly "find Jesus." There's too much "well, why didn't you bitch about this, then?" hanging fire out there.

Undeniable Liberal said...

Imho, the real target was Carol Lam, who was onto something big, perhaps involving Darth Cheney. The rest are merely a smokescreen. That said, it's obviously a power grab, and one can only imagine if the Clenis had done something like this. Remember, Repukes made a major issue out of the Clintons' christmas card list.
And the lapdogs of the press are still playing along.....