Wash Post: Bush Abolishes One of 3 Branches of Goverment

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 8:39am

This effectively dismantles the Legislative branch, leaving only the Executive and the Judiciary.

When do we declare this a dictatorship?

===
WASHINGTON POST

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings

White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; A01

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

[more at link}


Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings: White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

Updated On: 7/20/07 at 08:39 AM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 9:31am

You really have to wonder what GWB is so afraid of being uncovered. This is more than a power struggle. If you truly believe that what you did was legal, then wouldn't you be forthcoming with the evidence to prove that, instead of trying to block the investigation at every turn? Something smells very fishy and the stench is coming straight from the Oval Office. Bush is making Nixon look good.

Updated On: 7/20/07 at 09:31 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 10:17am

Comments from the conservatives, please.

At what point is it appropriate to say "I told you so"?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 10:19am

Freaking unbelievable. Between this and Cheney's claim that "I'm my own branch of government!", you really have to wonder what drugs these guys are taking.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 10:44am

Next stop: INHERENT CONTEMPT

From the WaPo article:

===

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:00am

spork goddess assures me we have nothing to worry about.

[cooperross]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:39am

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (our unalienable rights), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same objective, evinces a design to reduce {the people} under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--The Declaration of Independence

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 12:20pm

Amen.

What say you, Spork?

Posted: 7/20/07 at 1:53pm

Inherent contempt is the way to go. Randi Rhodes first talked about this a few weeks back on her Air American show and I think it's the only way to get this government back in balance. Failing that, I think we need to all sit down and watch "V for Vendetta" and realize that we need our freedom more than we need a building right now and announce a date that we will be setting fire to the white house.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 4:28pm

Okay, sorry it took me so long, but I had to fact-check and make sure that my interpretation of this article was accurate.

US attourneys serve at the will of the president, meaning that the executive branch can fire them at will without Congressional interference. If Congress really wants to pursue charges against the President, they need to follow the constitutional process of impeachment. This "dispute" is just Congress harassing the WH with phoney allegations and trying to usurp power that it does not possess. Congress has absolutely no authority to go through the executive branch papers when no wrong has been committed. All this does is claim that anyone who acted on the President's claim of executive privilege cannot be punished for it--which is true.

Updated On: 7/20/07 at 04:28 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 4:37pm

But Congress has the subpoena power to find out if a wrong has been committed.

And, if the claim of executive privilege gives someone cover not to testify, then Congress has lost a major tool in investigating possible wrongdoings by the Executive.

By this order, Bush is trying to immunize himself and his followers from any liability for wrongdoing.

I honestly believe you do not understand the ramifications of this. The Judiciary is not an arm of the Exective - and just because the President can hire and fire, does not mean that he can direct policy or actions of the Judiciary.

There are three, distinct branches of government, and a system of checks and balances that are in place to make sure that one branch does not get too powerful. The Bush Administration is attempted to destroy those checks by using a claim of Executive Privilege to shield investigations into possible wrongdoing.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 4:52pm

Spork--I am profoundly and deeply disappointed in you. I thought you had a mind of you own. That response was intellectually stingy and dimwitted. You are just repeating Republican Noise machine talking points that are patently and blatantly false.

I thought more of you. I thought you THOUGHT.

You've just acted like just as much a tool as the others.

What a disappointment.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:04pm

YouWantItWhen: The legislature indeed has the power to subpoena; the executive has the power to invoke privelege and not testify on certain matters. It indeed hampers Congress' ability to investigate; too bad. If it was such a pressing issue, Congress would attempt to pass a law defining the scope of executive privelege. It has not, because it understands the need for invoking privilege--made all the more important when those who wish to investigate the executive have apparently already arrived at their conclusions, which is exactly what you have done when you claim that "Bush is trying to immunize himself and his followers from any liability for wrongdoing."

It is you that does not understand the ramifications here. You are upset that a Democrat-run Congress cannot investigate a Republican president for behavior you alread termed "wrongdoing." If you had your way, every president would be subject to endless politically-motivated investigations by a Congress whose majority party is not the president's own. There is no issue of a runaway executive here, nor are the checks and balances created by the Constitution in danger here. In fact, the Constitution allows for the executive to hire and fire at will: the US Attorneys in question serve at the pleasure of the president. To claim that the Bush administration has destroyed the Constitution by adhering to it is absurd. Even if your claims are all true, that the inability of Congress to investigate the firing of a handful of US Attorneys has destroyed the balance of the branches of the government, then it's not Bush's fault that balance was destroyed: Clinton fired nearly all of the US Attorneys during his tenure.

PalJoey: Um, what. What I said isn't a talking point, it's the Constitution.

Updated On: 7/20/07 at 05:04 PM

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:13pm

SG:

"If it was such a pressing issue, Congress would attempt to pass a law defining the scope of executive privelege."

Yes, and the GWB would add one of his lovely little signing statements, and everyone goes back to square one.
Updated On: 7/20/07 at 05:13 PM

[cooperross]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:13pm

ah yes..I see how it is now.

Lying about WMDs to start a war, trampling the constitution by invoking executive privilege to cover your ass and save your cronies is okay.

Lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:17pm

So, in other words... you don't really care about the sociopolitical issues in question; you just want to see a president you don't like removed from office.

It's not trampling over the constitution if the constitution allows it in the first place.

Updated On: 7/20/07 at 05:17 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:23pm

Ummmm...yeah.

There are times where there is a need to invoke the privilege - but most privileged as not absolute (for example, attorney-client privilege does not extend to covering up a crime). What this action by the President does is attempt to protect those who are under a valid, legal subpoena, from Congress from testifying, and making sure there are no consequences from invoking executive privilege as a basis to stop testimony.

So, what this does is basically let the President determine who will testify in investigations of his own office.

If a court finds that the president wrongly invoked Executive Privilege, there is no legal recourse against those who chose not to testify. I want transparency in goverment, regardless of who is in power, and this makes such transparency impossible.

And, for the record, Bush would never sign a bill by Congress trying to limit his power - he would use a signing statement to indicate that he is not agreeing to provisions he does not like -which he has repeatedly done.

We have three branches of government, and the Congress' job is oversight - and Bush is trying to prevent it from doing its job. The President is not a monarch with absolute powers - he or she is restricted by laws, and should not be able to circumvent oversight and investigation in this manner.

And again, Bush does have the right to hire and fire U.S. Attorney's, but he does not have the right to dictate policy decisions of an independent branch of government. Had he fired all of them, then the issue would be as you describe - but only firing those who did not follow the agenda of his political advisors is something quite different. Even in at will employment situations, there are terminations that are violation of public policy.

If Bush was so confident in his ability to hire and fire, why did he lie about the cause and defame those he let go? Because this was an attempt to politicize the judiciary - something which is very different from standard operating procedures.

[cooperross]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:23pm

The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:32pm

Once again, I am amazed yet not surprised at how people can defend this "man" a every turn no matter what he does. It's baffling. Stockholm Syndrome perhaps?

[cooperross]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:36pm

no..probably fear that Cheney would be even worse.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:37pm

This "dispute" is just Congress harassing the WH with phoney allegations and trying to usurp power that it does not possess. Congress has absolutely no authority to go through the executive branch papers when no wrong has been committed.

Spork--that's intellectually shallow. It comes right from right-wing radio. It's bullSH*T and you know it.

1. Congress is not harassing the White House.

2. The allegations are not phony.

3. Congress is not trying to "usurp" power. The administration is, with Cheney's phony new idea of a "unitary" executive to replace our constitutional concept of three distinct branches and a balance-of-powers.

4. Congress absolutely has the right to investigate. ABSOLUTELY.

Next time, read the damn Constitution before you quote it to ME, little girl!

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:37pm

cooperross: No, but it was first invoked by Eisenhower and has now become precedent. If I implied to you that Congress constitutionally has no right to interfere with executive privilege, I was wrong. Sorry about that.

YouWantItWhen: There was no violation of public policy, except on the part of the fired US Attorneys. That's why they were fired; they weren't enforcing the policy of the chief executive, their boss. And it wasn't Bush who lied, but rather assistants in the Department of Justice. The point remains, Bush has the right to hire and fire US Attorneys. Period. It doesn't matter if an assistant gave the wrong reason for that hiring or firing--it only matters that the executive can when he so chooses. And Bush chose to. Period.

broadwayguy2: Cute. I could just as easily accuse you of having paranoid personality disorder because you're convinced that anyday Bush is going to suspend the constitution and declare himself "Il Duce."

PalJoey: I was rather wrong in some of what I said; apparently I did not fact check well enough. However, the ultimate point is that Bush and anyone acting under his executive privilege has the right to fire US attorneys at his will.

Updated On: 7/20/07 at 05:37 PM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:40pm

Okay.. Spork, you want to spar... give me a list of FIVE things that George Bush has done while in the office of president that are considered scandalous or a wrong-doing of any sort. THEN give me a list of FIVE things that Clinton did that are considered Scandalous or wrong doing. Not PERSONAL scandal... professional ONLY.

GO.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:40pm

If you incorrectly, inaccurately and insultingly say PERIOD one more time, I am going to slap you.

PERIOD.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 5:43pm

Okay, I won't say it again. Sorry.

broadwayguy: No, I don't want to spar, I was saying that if you can use ad hominem attack, I can too.