Reply With Quote
Would someone remind me where in the cons ution such oversight is granted? I did a quick search, and couldn't find it.
Dubya ready to quit pretending this is a democracy...
Bush won't supply subpoenaed do ents
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON -Yahoooooooooo!The White House, moving toward a cons utional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for do ents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed do ents for former presidentialcounsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.
"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."
Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the do ents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House of Representatives' main investigative body, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has been compiling evidence regarding the mismanagement of classified do ents by the Bush administration. Waxman has taken sworn testimony from whistle-blowers from within the White House security agencies. The statements of these whistle-blowers "casts doubt on [White House] assertions. According to White House whistle-blowers, "White House practices have been dangerously inadequate with respect to investigating security violations, taking corrective action following breaches and physically securing classified information," Waxman said in his letter.
These breaches in security, lack of FED oversight, and failure to take corrective action, makes the Sandy Berger case which wing-nuts like to flab on and on about at just about anything really, seem laughable.
Would someone remind me where in the cons ution such oversight is granted? I did a quick search, and couldn't find it.
I assume Dan means letting Sandy Burglar have access to
the National Archives was mishandling of do ents.
Oh, Dan. You know this was a EO order don't you?
Your right the President or VP are untouchables. They don't have to answer to anyone and they can do whatever they want in secret..
Any why not?
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
-Thomas Jefferson
To restore and keep the public's confidence in the integrity of their government, state government and its officials must be open, honest and transparent.
-John Lynch
Cons utional crisis?
This is a separation of powers argument that has been fought before. I'd be surprised if it gets past the Waxman bloviation stage.
But, with this Congress, anything's possible.
How would some of your lefties like it if some deranged guy knocked on your door and wanted to check your bedroom out to see if his girlfriend panties were there for no other cause?
That's what the democrats are doing. They are just unwarranted in the snooping they want to do.
Of non-citizens.
For enemy combatants.
I don't have a problem with it.
Prove that.
Prove what?
I'm sure you don't...that's the problem. We are no better than them. I believe it was Jesus that said...
"You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust"
An enemy combatant can be a US citizen...look at the Military Commissions Act. Does anyone else not see the problem with this? You can basically be detained for anything and surrender habeas corpus. Maybe the Bush admin doesnt abuse this power (although they probably do). So who's to say future admin's wont?
Dan, I might give the nod to you having a valid point if you weren't defending Sandy Berger like he was family when he was lifting classified do ents to cover his and Clinton's ass.
Just a tad bit hypocritical....
Maybe if James Madison had been visited in his dreams by a prophetic vision of Cheney, he and the rest of the Founding Fathers wouldn't have taken their own deep respect for both the letter and the spirit of the law for granted when drafting the Cons ution.Congressional Oversight
Oversight is an implied rather than an enumerated power under the U.S. Cons ution. The government's charter does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for do ents or testimony from the executive.
There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Cons utional Convention of 1787 or later in the Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Cons ution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., has noted that ``no provision in the American Cons ution gave Congress express authority to conduct investigations and compel testimony.'' He added, ``but it was not considered necessary to make an explicit grant of such authority. The power to make laws implied the power to see whether they were faithfully executed. The right to secure needed information had long been deemed by both the British Parliament and the colonial assemblies as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the people to legislate.''
Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Cons ution. It is implied in the legislature's authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.
The Supreme Court made legitimate the oversight powers of Congress, subject to cons utional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the High Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress was considering a subject ``on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.''
I'm not too worried though, you'll be back to loving congressional oversight once a "Demonrat" becomes president, just like you guys were back in '94.
That the wire tapping has only involved non citizens?
Prove otherwise.
I was merely stating the obvious, that I'm not opposed to secret prisons for enemy combatants or warrantless surveillance of non-citizens.
But, if during the warrantless surveillance of a non-citizen, believed to be an enemy combatant, a citizen joins the conversation -- oh well; so long as they weren't the original target of the surveillance, I don't have a problem with that either.
And, quite frankly, I have no clue why anyone would have a problem with it.
Last edited by Yonivore; 07-02-2007 at 09:30 AM.
What about 'em?
Yoni doesn't have to know anything. He just selectively preumes things on certain issues. Of course these 'presumptions' always concern democratic wrongdoing. No proof needed Yoni jumps on it.. The point you and I are trying to make is that no one knows who this is happening to but Yoni's ok with that. Now if Dem wins in 08 be prepared to see Yoni jump to our side on this issue.. and want Congress and the courts to oversee and Dem program..
Name one U.S. citizen harmed by the NSA Surveillance Programs.
I already asked you to prove that only non-citizens have been wire tapped. You said it couldn't be done. So now you ask this ridiculous question..I'll play though. If it's secret how would I know?
So, how would you propose that be done without revealing valuable intelligence methods to the enemy? I would argue that the New York Times' leak of the NSA programs is proof that you can't.
First, why is it ridiculous? If U. S. Citizens aren't being harmed, why all the gnashing of teeth?
I say, unless you produce a harmed U. S. citizen, there's no proof the U. S. Government is doing anything illegal.
So, I say, STFU and let them fight the enemy.
In other words trust this govt?
Give me a reason to distrust them on this matter.
You're merely speculating they've violated the law without any evidence.
Look up Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi. They were both US citizens detained as "illegal enemy combatants" for su ion of being involved in 9/11. Both were denied habeas corpus and Hamdi was even sent to Guantanamo
Trust the Repug Exec now? on what ing grounds? Because they're "conservatives"?
They've ed up everything they've touched since 20 Jan 01, including failing to heed terrorist attack/al Qaida warnings and permitting WTC to occur.
trust dubya and head? only someone as ridiculous as yoni could trust them today.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
