• commentary
  • SATURDAY MARCH 24 2007 2:00 PM

White House Decides One Branch Of Government Is Best

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by FearTheReaper

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: “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.


Um. Okay. Now I’m 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 don’t 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."


Don’t 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 he’s not going to play by the rules set forth by our Constitution? What happens when a President just says, “I’m not going to do that?” Not follow laws, just going to do what he wants to do. Welcome to scary territory.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 9

Next

Comments
Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 25, 2007 09:50 AM

It could happen. It wouldn't do much good at this point, but it could happen.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 25, 2007 10:04 AM

I agree. As I've said before, I think the best plausible outcome would be prosecutions after the Administration departs in disgrace in 2009. Even that's pretty unlikely.

The damage done to our democracy by the Bush dynasty and the Republican Congress of 1994-2006 is not going to be easy to undo, and there's no certainty at all that it will be undone.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

MAR 25, 2007 10:06 AM

Zarth said:
It could happen. It wouldn't do much good at this point, but it could happen.



President Pelosi FTW.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 25, 2007 10:07 AM

That'd be so rad.

d_day

d_day

San Bernardino, CA
July 2002

MAR 25, 2007 10:14 AM

I think our best hope is that our next president declare Bush an "unlawful enemy combatant" and ship him off to some secret prison someplace, where he undergoes waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and many many simulated homosexual acts.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 25, 2007 10:32 AM

That's not our best hope. Whether he deserves it or not, nobody should undergo that at the hands of the state.

d_day

d_day

San Bernardino, CA
July 2002

MAR 25, 2007 10:37 AM

Zarth said:
That's not our best hope. Whether he deserves it or not, nobody should undergo that at the hands of the state.



That sounds like hippy talk you dirty hippy!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
wink

Christophoros

Christophoros

Los Angeles, CA
March 2007

MAR 25, 2007 11:01 AM

Poptard said:

Zarth said:
It could happen. It wouldn't do much good at this point, but it could happen.



President Pelosi FTW.



Dude, don't give me nightmares.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 25, 2007 11:09 AM

d_day said:

Zarth said:
That's not our best hope. Whether he deserves it or not, nobody should undergo that at the hands of the state.


That sounds like hippy talk you dirty hippy!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
wink


I'll dirty hippy you!

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

MAR 25, 2007 11:45 AM

Zarth said:

d_day said:

Zarth said:
That's not our best hope. Whether he deserves it or not, nobody should undergo that at the hands of the state.


That sounds like hippy talk you dirty hippy!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
wink


I'll dirty hippy you!



Nobody should have to undergo being "dirty hippied" by the hands of anyone, let alone the state.

SouGei

SouGei

Blackwood, NJ
January 2007

MAR 25, 2007 01:09 PM

bedukay said:

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



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.




Yeah, there is that whole "Constitution" thing...but Bush lowered taxes!!!!

Ryoukansan

Ryoukansan

Picton, ON
September 2005

MAR 25, 2007 01:36 PM

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.



point 6, your a fucking idiot.
Regardless of which side of the fence you are on this is not good

d_day

d_day

San Bernardino, CA
July 2002

MAR 25, 2007 01:47 PM

Skism said:

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.



point 6, your a fucking idiot.
Regardless of which side of the fence you are on this is not good



attn_ho's "a fucking idiot" is what? Or did you mean, "You're a fucking idiot?" Name calling is bad enough. But when one is calling someone else an idiot, it would seem important to use the correct words. Failure to do so might make one seem like an idiot themselves.

TheJuanupsman

TheJuanupsman

Hopkins, MN
April 2004

MAR 25, 2007 02:07 PM

bedukay said:

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



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.



Actually I am pretty sure that incorrectly inrepreting the Constitution is the basis for most Libertarian thought.

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

MAR 25, 2007 02:08 PM

d_day said:

Skism said:

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.



point 6, your a fucking idiot.
Regardless of which side of the fence you are on this is not good



attn_ho's "a fucking idiot" is what? Or did you mean, "You're a fucking idiot?" Name calling is bad enough. But when one is calling someone else an idiot, it would seem important to use the correct words. Failure to do so might make one seem like an idiot themselves.



um... there wouldnt be an apostraphe on my name unless i own a "A fucking idiot"

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 9

Next

featured interviews