NEWS: White House Decides One Branch Of Government Is Best

Snow to MSNBC: “There’s another principle, which is Congress doesn’t have the legislative — I mean oversight authority over the White House.”

Snow to MSNBC: “First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn’t have oversight.”

Snow to Fox: “Congress doesn’t have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House.”

Snow to NBC: "Congress doesn't have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House."

Snow to NBC: "First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn't have oversight."

Snow to ABC: "The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."

MR. SNOW: Congress…does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

In affirming Congress' oversight powers, the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty stated that "the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." In Watkins v. United States the Court described Congress' oversight power by stating that the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad." The Supreme Court also observed that "a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change."

attn_ho said:
great sobering article.
now lets wait for our conservative/ libertarian underdogs to make absolutely no points, but lots of bluster.
wait: i got some!

1. its not a big deal.
2. clinton did it too!
3. you guys wouldnt be complaining if a democrat did this.
4. you know, in a way, this is the right choice.
5. god, you liberals are such losers.

DyeWhiteGirls said:
You know what's funny? If someone said this 5 years ago, they would have been called a conspiracy theorist. Today, they'll be called a liberal. In a year, we'll just be called inmates.

Welcome to the New World Order in which none of us ever has a say in anything. Go read "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" and wonder just how insane (because he was at least a little insane) Bill Cooper was.

attn_ho said:
conservative/ libertarian underdogs to make absolutely no points, but lots of bluster.
wait: i got some!

bedukay said:

Well considering that strict adherence to the Constitution is the basis of Libertarian thought its completely ignorant to think that a Libertarian would defend this.

attn_ho said:

hey i cant keep the real and fake libertarians on this site straight.

thatoneguy23 said:
Then again, if you really think about it, who knows if he really would have to leave in '08? He is the commander and chief, and I know from personal experience that a lot of the people in lower end of our military have a tendancy to be easily manipulated, conservative in nature, and follow the orders given to them to the T. Who's to say that he couldn't just stage his own little coup... .

Bella303 said:

FearTheReaper said:
Representative John Conyers believes Bush has broken 26 laws.

OpticNerve said:
I wonder how long it will be before the White House starts using a variation of the Divine Right of Kings to justify its policies?

Fielding was White House Counsel, however, during one of the more thrilling episodes involving executive privilege -- one that could parallel the current situation, with Congress calling for testimony by White House aide Karl Rove and former aide Harriet Miers. In explaining what happened back in 1982, I've drawn heavily on -- paraphrasing, greatly abbreviating, and then quoting -- Mark Rozell's report:

Two House committees issued subpoenas to EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, directing her to appear before Congress with certain documents. Gorsuch was prepared to turn over the documents, but the Justice Department urged President Reagan to assert executive privilege. When he did so, White House Counsel Fielding assured Gorsuch that "the administration would stand solidly behind this claim of executive privilege."

When Gorsuch invoked the privilege, both committees voted to hold her in contempt, and on December 16, 1982, the House of Representatives voted 259-105 to find her in contempt of Congress. Immediately following the House vote, however, the Justice Department filed civil suit against the House of Representatives. Then, rather than follow the language of the contempt statute, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia -- obviously after being instructed by the Justice Department regarding this matter- refused to "bring the matter before the grand jury for their action" while the suit against the House was pending. (It was a delaying ploy.)

The House requested that the federal district court dismiss the civil lawsuit, which the court did. The court also encouraged the two branches "to settle their differences without further judicial involvement" and warned that "f these two co-equal branches maintain their present adversarial positions, the Judicial Branch will be required to resolve the dispute by determining the validity of the Administrator's claim of executive privilege."

Two weeks later, the Administration made a deal with one of the congressional committees, agreeing to a limited disclosure of the requested information. Again, EPA administrator Gorsuch pushed for full disclosure, but the White House disagreed. Meanwhile, the other congressional committee would not agree to a limited release and continued to press for full disclosure, advising the White House that the investigations would continue until the documents were provided.

Having had enough, Gorsuch resigned her position as head of EPA when the White House finally agreed to release its documents Congress wanted. Following the contempt statute, the U.S. attorney presented a contempt citation to a grand jury, which unanimously declined to indict Gorsuch.

Rozell concludes, "Although the administration initially had taken a strong stand on executive privilege, it backed down in the face of mounting political pressure. The decision to compromise did not settle the executive privilege controversy. The House Committee on the Judiciary further investigated the Justice Department role in the controversy and concluded that the department had misused executive privilege by advocating the withholding of documents that had not been thoroughly reviewed. T bghe committee also alleged that the department withheld documents to cover up wrongdoing at EPA. The administration's compromise served as a temporary political expedient which eventually allowed Congress to examine previously withheld documents and draw broader conclusions about the exercise of executive privilege. Reagan may have won a temporary reprieve from political pressures, but he had lost ground in his effort to re-establish the viability of the doctrine of executive privilege."

It Seems Likely Bush, with Fielding, Will Go to the Wall on Executive Privilege

This time, it is my belief that Bush -- unlike Reagan before him -- will not blink. He will not let Fielding strike a deal, as Fielding did for Reagan. Rather, Bush feels that he has his manhood on the line. He knows what his conservative constituency wants: a strong president who protects his prerogatives. He believes in the unitary executive theory of protecting those prerogatives, and of strengthening the presidency by defying Congress.

In short, all those who have wanted to see Karl Rove in jail may get their wish, for he will not cave in, either -- and may well be prosecuted for contempt, as Gorsuch was not. Bush's greatest problem here, however, is Harriett Miers. It is dubious he can exert any privilege over a former White House Counsel; I doubt she is ready to go to prison for him; and all who know her say if she is under oath, she will not lie. That could be a problem.

JekyllAndHyde said:
It's weird; I just started rewatching my DVDs of Babylon 5 a few days ago and this all sounds uncomfortably similar. Unfortunately for us, we don't have a Captain Sheridan with a fleet of White Stars to kick the tyrant out of power.

scylis said:

could be worse. it could be the Post Office.

OpticNerve said:
I wonder how long it will be before the White House starts using a variation of the Divine Right of Kings to justify its policies?