News > Politics > White House Decides One Branch Of Government Is Best

commentary
SATURDAY MARCH 24 2007 2:00 PM

White House Decides One Branch Of Government Is Best

Tags: Tony Snow, White House, Congress, Constitution, Oversight

George Bush is king. It happened yesterday, while we were all going about our business. Tony Snow broke the news to us on almost every news show and even during a White House press conference.

Snow to MSNBC: Theres another principle, which is Congress doesnt 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 doesnt have oversight.

Snow to Fox: Congress doesnt 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: Congressdoes 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.

Um. Okay. Now Im not sure what to do. When someone tells you everything you learned as a child about your government is wrong and that person is IN CHARGE, what do you do? This is quite simply freaky and disturbing.

The president has declared himself above the laws of our country and has said he will not be a part of our system of government. I dont give a shit if you are conservative or liberal or moderate, you should understand we are walking into some very strange territory and anyone who supports this bullshit should be cast into the sea. (Do we do that?)

Oversight is real. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, on more than one occasion.

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."

Dont sit back and think, wow, this is so out of character. We have been heading toward this for quite some time. Bush lied to get us into a disastrous war, he has been illegally tapping our phones, illegally looking at our internet exchanges, he broke campaign funding laws, he is writing his own little additions on laws passed by Congress, he has violated the anti-torture statute, as well as international torture laws, he has suspended habeas corpus and outed a CIA agent. Representative John Conyers believes Bush has broken 26 laws.

Put aside the fact that this makes the White House seem like it really has something to hide, that they are so guilty and have committed such crimes that they have to defy the Constitution.

Ask yourself this: What does happen when a sitting president decides hes not going to play by the rules set forth by our Constitution? What happens when a President just says, Im not going to do that? Not follow laws, just going to do what he wants to do. Welcome to scary territory.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 9

Comments

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ

April 2006

MAR 24, 2007 03:57 PM

I currently have 3 prime thoughts on this:

1:

Bella303 said:

I figure Bush knows this and thinks "Hell, Im gonna be outsed either way..."

2.

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

And do any of these laws fall outside his presidential immunity, so he can actually be charged for it?

and 3.

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?

As soon as the Ministry of Truth shuts down this article

JekyllAndHyde

Baltimore, MD

April 2005

MAR 24, 2007 04:08 PM

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.

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

MAR 24, 2007 04:28 PM

Just read an article by John Dean, of Nixon Watergate fame. It's a very good read. He breaks down the power struggle that is going on and why.

Here's an excerpt.

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.

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA

March 2004

MAR 24, 2007 04:33 PM

this is the path Bush has been heading on since, at least, 9/11 (i'm sure i'm not the only one who didn't pay much attention to politics before that). the number one rule in Bush's book is, Bush gets to do what Bush wants to do. every major move he makes confirms this, from the invasion of Iraq to the wiretapping to the firing of the US attorneys. and every step of the way, the reasoning he's presented has been "i am the president, you can't stop me."

the problem is, he's setting precedents, and we loves us some precedents. no matter who succeeds Bush as presiden--even Obama bin Laden, the One True Dyke Joke, or Our Lord and Savior Al Gore (pbuh)--i have hard time seeing any of 'em willingly giving up the power that Bush has collected within the Oval Office. their presidency will be a living hell, because if Congress does the right thing, it will fight them tooth and nail on every issue for the sole purpose of putting the presidency back in its place.

scylis

USA

November 2004

MAR 24, 2007 04:34 PM

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.

could be worse. it could be the Post Office.

Greybeard

Los Angeles, CA

December 2006

MAR 24, 2007 04:45 PM

It's just a replay the the Nixon "Imperial Presidency." It didn't work then, and it won't work now, for pretty much the same reasons. When push comes to shove, the Congress will assert itself, if for no other reason than protecting its own privilege and prestige.

Investigations will continue, more people will be jailed, and the President's largely imaginary base will be exposed and weakened.

It may not go as far as an impeachment, but it will do a lot for discrediting "Executive Privilege."