Congress then says they'll file Contempt of Congress charges, and the White House tells the DoJ that it's fine if Congress wants to file those charges, but no one in the executive branch (which the DoJ is part of) is to enforce or prosecute the Contempt of Court finding. Or as Andrew Jackson said (paraphrasing), "They can pass it, but let's see them try to enforce it," which is now leaving Congress with some tough choices, none of them particularly satisfying.

Congress still has the power of the purse...which is a rather blunt tool. Technically they could also impeach, but the Democrats are for whatever reason loathe to explore that option. Lastly, I heard that Congress has it's own bailiff or sheriff equivalent separate from the Executive branch that can go and ...I dunno. Arrest them or make funny faces at them or something.

Now I'm a pessimist. I'm fairly certain that this wussy-ass Congress will ultimately back down. They lack the political balls to force the issue.

I'm more interested, however, in the concept of Executive Privilege, and I'd like to have a discussion about it. Both Democrats and Republicans have invoked Executive Privilege. While it's not explicitly laid out in the founding fathers' Constitution, it's been accepted for some time that there is a de facto Executive Privilege implicit and necessary for the carrying out of a President's duties.

So the questions are...Is this President pushing the boundaries? Are there boundaries? What controls are there on the limits of Executive Privilege? Is there any real way to rein it back in shy of the options I mentioned above? I heard something about they could sue in court over it, but even if a Judge found in the favor of Congress, if the Executive Branch refuses to ENFORCE the Court's findings....

This is political theater, nothing more, kinda like the whole Valerie Plame thing.

I'm more curious about the actual extent of Executive Privilege, though.

Some jokes, stolen from the Sunday comics:

Q: How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb?
A: No one knows; they won't release that information.

Q: How many Democrats/Liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A: No one knows; they won't stop crying over the broken bulb.

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Maradon! stammered:
No crime was committed, no crime is alleged. The duders were presidential appointments which may legally be hired or fired at whim without reason or justification.

This is political theater, nothing more, kinda like the whole Valerie Plame thing.

---

Then there is nothing to hide, go ahead and testify.

This entire thing reeks from both sides, no one involved has clean hands. I think the administration is just trying to wag the dog so to speak. This entire ordeal could have and should have gone away months ago. But for the lack of a better target the Democrats keep trudging on.

As to the matter of executive privilege, I am not a constitutional expert but I can see why it exists. The Executive Branch cannot exist without oversight, but the President must be able to get candid and honest advice from his advisers. This privilege is not unlike that which exists between a lawyer and their client.

Now from my understanding this protection extends only to the President and Vice President in regards to conversations and documents that passed between them and their cabinet.

As to the actual legality of the contempt charges, on that I cannot even begin to guess. There is an ethical question though if the Department of Justice refuses to act upon those charges on orders from the White House.

It is all stinky and at the end of the day Maradon is right, as much as it pains me to say. About the firing of the prosecutors, that is, not about CIA leaks.

Tyewa Dawnsister fucked around with this message on 07-23-2007 at 09:01 PM.

It might be an interesting read for you.

quote:

---

Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Tyewa Dawnsister who doth quote:
not about CIA leaks.

---

Richard Armitage confessed to being the originating leaker, and it's been confirmed by Bob Novak who wrote the article that started it all. Armitage is facing no charges.

He's facing no charges because explosing valerie plame was not a crime, because valerie plame was a desk jockey who hadn't had covert status for years.

Being a democrat doesn't hurt either, I guess.

political. theater.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-23-2007 at 09:52 PM.

See, Congress can pull funding. They wont do that because it would cause them to lose popularity (with a 14% rating, you cant afford to lose any) and impeachment wont work. They cant even get the votes to push through the liberal objectives they are trying to slip past everyone. They wont try impeachment because even though Bush is not a terribly popular president, he is still more popular than congress right now. It has a lot to do with the military. The president is all gung ho military, where the congress is antiwar. To many people, antiwar=antimilitary, and being perceieved as antimilitary is a very bad position nowadays. Just look at Kerry after his slip of the touch a year ago.

The judicial branch is the one who defines the executive privelige, I believe (correct me if I am wrong, I'm several years removed from US Government class in high school) because they define what is and what is not constitutional. Bush puts his judges in the high court. The court is definately going to back Bush. Much as we like to think all justice should be blind, when someone hands you a cushy government job, you arent likely to turn on the hand that feeds you, so to speak.

So the executive branch has the judicial branch virtually in its pocket, and without the judicial branch on its side, our ineffective congress has even less clout than it did before.

Really, Bush cannot be in a better position of power. Notice how congress always comes to HIM with compromise, rather than the other way around. Much as Pelosi, Clinton, and the other liberal senators grandstand, with the ratio of republicans to democrats in congress, they cannot really get anything passed if the president isnt on board 100%.

And for the record, Bush scares me with some of the shit he says, but I would be much more worried if many of the ideals of this congress actually came to fruition.

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Gork wrote:
I didnt read anything in this thread, but I just want to say our government dosent fear us anymore, we need to start shooting politicians and government officials who are misrepresenting us.

---

False.

After the immigration amnesty fiasco, I would say that our government has received a healthy dose of fear.

The thought of losing your job because you pissed off a few million people can put the fear into you real quick.

quote:

---

Azakias impressed everyone with:
False.

After the immigration amnesty fiasco, I would say that our government has received a healthy dose of fear.

The thought of losing your job because you pissed off a few million people can put the fear into you real quick.

---

You make a very stong point, let me retract what I said, and say instead; I couldn't be happier with the way the US government has handled things in the last 50 years. I feel that the will of the people is in harmony with the way our government goes about doing things.

quote:

---

Maradon! was naked while typing this:
Junk

---

Unlike with firing of federal prosecutors, revealing the identity of Valarie Plame was indeed illegal.

Political Theater or not, that is the difference between the two.

This is an argument for a different thread though.

quote:

---

Gork was naked while typing this:
You make a very stong point, let me retract what I said, and say instead; I couldn't be happier with the way the US government has handled things in the last 50 years. I feel that the will of the people is in harmony with the way our government goes about doing things.

---

Thank you for taking my point too far. Though in your defense, I could have worded it better.

The government is not in morbid fear of the people, but they have felt a little of what it is like to have trepidation of them.

The public reaction to the amnesty bill was a turning point, in my mind, of how and when the government listens to the people. They used to largely write off the unwashed masses, but now that the same masses have discovered what a more or less unified opinion can do up on capitol hill, the politicians are probably fearing the average american taking it into their head to actually put forth the effort to help govern the country.

Which is how it should be.

quote:

---

Azakias had this to say about Duck Tales:
Stuff.

---

One of the reasons Congress' approval rating is so low is that they didn't stand up to Bush, which was a major campaign point for a lot of them. Personally I think they started screwing up from the get-go. I know impeachment wouldn't have actually happened, but taking the possibility off the table just defenestrated them all the more.

Likewise, I would think that a low approval rating for the President means more than a low approval rating for Congress. Keep in mind that Congress' approval rating seldom gets over 50% even in the best of times.

That having been said, Presidential cockups aside, what seems spooky about this is the fact Bush (and more to the point Cheney) have a longstanding interest in the expansion and retention of Executive Power that I find...troubling.

quote:

---

This one time, at Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael camp:
One of the reasons Congress' approval rating is so low is that they didn't stand up to Bush, which was a major campaign point for a lot of them. Personally I think they started screwing up from the get-go. I know impeachment wouldn't have actually happened, but taking the possibility off the table just defenestrated them all the more.

Likewise, I would think that a low approval rating for the President means more than a low approval rating for Congress. Keep in mind that Congress' approval rating seldom gets over 50% even in the best of times.

That having been said, Presidential cockups aside, what seems spooky about this is the fact Bush (and more to the point Cheney) have a longstanding interest in the expansion and retention of Executive Power that I find...troubling.

---

One way or another History won't remember him well. Assuming we aren't all readin the history books of the Bush Dictatorship.

quote:

---

Malbi had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
One way or another History won't remember him well. Assuming we aren't all readin the history books of the Bush Dictatorship.

---

As a second-rate citizen, you are hereby forbidden from posting in this thread again.

On the other hand, I do think this sort of asserted extension of power is going to cause all sorts of problems in the long-run in terms of reining in the chief Executive in the future, whatever his party.

Mr. Parcelan fucked around with this message on 07-24-2007 at 09:19 PM.

I'm pretty sure the firings were politically motivated, and I suppose democrats in congress think that would be embarrassing for the president to have exposed, though I have no idea why, as this president is completely oblivious to public opinion.

I wish our legislature would grow some balls and punish the president, but that won't happen. All they do in grandstand anymore. He can probably keep stonewalling them with executive privilege until his term of office expires. Or they can start removing funding for things he doesn't let them examine, which they won't do.

BOY WON'T EVERYONE BE EXCITED WHEN A CREEPY PEDOPHILE GETS BANNED

Mr. Parcelan fucked around with this message on 07-25-2007 at 03:37 AM.

quote:

---

Malbi had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I still feel that there will be a diminishing in the power of the Executive branch after Bush's presidency ends.

---

No, there won't be, and let me tell you why. Doing things like that has a nasty habit of coming back to haunt you further on down the road. Viz; the Republicans were really in favor of the Constitutional amendment limiting the President to two terms in office. After FDR's four straight terms in office, it was a natural and understandable reaction.

Fast forward 40 years and the Republicans now have a popular president who could've run for and won a third term. Some in the Republican party were kicking themselves over term legislation.

Talking about limiting the powers of the President is all well and good, but really depends on whose ox is getting gored when you talk about it.

quote:

---

Malbi.
THIS IS MY LAST WARNING

BOY WON'T EVERYONE BE EXCITED WHEN A CREEPY PEDOPHILE GETS BANNED

---