Reply With Quote
I'm only using your logic. It's not my fault your logic sucks, future America hater. Why don't you just move out of the country now?
Talking to you is like talking to a two year old.
I'm only using your logic. It's not my fault your logic sucks, future America hater. Why don't you just move out of the country now?
Shhhh.....Children are to be seen, not heard......
You hate America. I won't be silenced.
Now don't throw a temper tantrum.
I don't approve of America haters like you.
I don't approve of America haters like you.
I never implied such a thing. Investigate they can all they want. They do have limits. Powers of subpoena is what I'm disagreeing with being outside their authority when it comes to an equal branch of government. Where does it say they have such powers?
I don't know. Too many possibilities without first hand knowledge.
I would contend that the way they are pursuing this, it amounts to actions required by the judicial branch. Otherwise they have no right to demand the executive branch comply. This is in my view, optional by Rove to comply with.
Perhaps, the same place that the right to claim executive privilege exists.
You would contend that, but you're an avowed ideologue who fundamentally disagrees with the political persuasions of those undertaking the investigation. Your contention that this action is one required to be taken by the judicial branch is fundamentally absurd, given your concession that you'd basically have no quarrel with the issuance of the subpoena if it came from the Senate.
And, again, if subpoenas issued by the House are optional upon the executive, aren't you saying that the executive is somehow superior to the House?
In any event, such a contention, however, would be quite different than a claim of executive privilege. A contention that the House lacks subpoena power and cannot investigate the executive through executive officers would be a structural challenge to the investigation and would be manifested by a claim that the subpoena is void, not a claim that the subpoenaed party is exempted from testifying by a testimonial privilege like the one claimed here.
No. To imply a subpoena power exists that the house can subpoena the executive implies the house is superior. I'm saying they are equal. To change that stalemate, you must involve a third party. The judicial branch.
Bush rules!!
That argument is nonsensical, too, unless you're prepared to admit that the Senate, which you admit has subpoena power, is superior to the executive.
Its simple WC. When Congress (be it the HoR or Senate) subpoenas you, you go.
Simple.
If only there was ever a reason for me to be.
I would have to. I have little choice but to. My point is that the house is not above the executive.
But the Senate, apparently, is.
Possibly in cases of a judicial nature. I only say that because it is the senate that the cons ution gives the power of trying impeachments. The house only decides weather to impeach or not. It is the senate that finalizes the process. They are the ones who judge it as valid or not.
I say possibly because I believe supreme court justice is still required. This is now two branches over one. If impeachment is voted on by the house, then as it goes to the senate, I think more doors to discovery can be opened. As it is, I see it as a fishing expedition for incriminating evidence. If they don't have enough already, then it's just a witch hunt.
I'm not sure is the senate can ever be considered above the executive. I just know that the notion the legislative branch cannot dictate actions to the executive because they are suppose to be equal.
Now if the house went for a warrant from the supreme court, then Rove would have to comply. Short of that, why do people agree with violating what could be a person's fifth amendment rights.
So any investigation of the executive is an impeachment? Again, your logic here is baffling to me. Would it be your argument that the Senate has no investigatory power over the executive absent impeachment proceedings?
Certainly that is true. But what, exactly, precludes either the House or the Senate from investigating the executive short of impeachment and subpoening witnesses in the course of that investigation? I don't dispute that in certain instances, those who work for the executive and are subpoenaed might have valid claims of executive privilege in the context of responding to those investigations. But that's an extremely far cry from saying that there is absolutely no congressional power of oversight short of impeachment and that no house of Congress may procure evidence directly from the executive short of impeachment.
Simplistically, your contentions would give the executive not only veto power over legislative actions, but veto power over any effort by the legislature to investigate the executive. It would, in essence, insulate the executive branch from any oversight short of impeachment. That would be absurd.
Of course you do -- you're an ideologue who sees this with a political tint. I'm quite certain that if the roles were reversed, you'd be all in support of either house of Congress acting in an oversight capacity with regard to a Democratic administration with which you disagreed.
There's a very big difference between dictating a course of action and asking respect for the investigatory powers of a co-equal branch of the government. The acts of members of Congress can be investigated by the executive, as can the acts of members of the judiciary. But you're telling me that neither the legislative nor the judicial branch has the power to investigate the acts of the executive, save for impeachment?
What Fifth Amendment rights are in jeopardy here? If Rove fears that his testimony will be incriminating, he's perfectly within his rights to assert the Fifth Amendment in response to questioning from the committee conducting the investigation. But that's a very, very different thing than simply disregarding a subpoena because you believe yourself exempt from having to give any testimony at all. Certainly that is true because in one case, the witness is asserting a right guaranteed to him by the Cons ution while in the other, the witness is claiming exemption through the tangential application of a common law principle.
At that, I don't believe that the assertion of executive privilege creates a blanket exception to testifying at all -- if applicable at all, executive privilege in Rove's case would serve to allow him to avoid certain questions that might be asked of him. Certainly, Rove couldn't claim executive privilege if, for instance, IRS (another executive agency) investigated him for an issue related to his personal tax returns. The same would be true if a House committee subpoenaed Rove to testify on some matter that had nothing to do with his service to the executive branch.
Again, however, nothing about the Administration's contentions regarding these subpoenas suggests a dispute with the inherent power of the House to investigate. This strawman argument of yours would seem to be both cons utionally unique (and untenable) and wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Pelosi is killing this country.
Your logic is baffling me. I realed legal authority to impeachment. I was not saying they are the same. I'm done with this argument if you are going to keep trying to dismantle it with arguments against points I don't make. You are acting like Random. Please. I've had enough of him.
My primary argument is that the banches are equal. Either the judicial must get involved, or the legislative cannot effectively take the actions that we think of as a warrant. I don't know all the legalities behind this. I just have a strong enough understanding of the cons ution to stand by that basis.
Consider this. Is there an instance you know of where the someone from the executive branch didn't want to testify before congress, and was legaly forced to without the judicial branch involvement?
I don't think there ever has been such an instance without judicial involvement.
Looks like we've all misjudged Karl Rove...
Such hard hitting questions from O'Really.......
true...she said Bush is a total failure..yet since the Democrats took over...Congress has a lower approval rating than the Bush.
And to think the Dems will increase their majorities this fall..
BOR: Mr. Rove, let me just say that liberals are dumb poopyheads.
KR: Hahahahahaha! Bill, you are just so right! They are stupid peepeemouths.
I'm just trying to understand where the limits are of your cons utional construction. It seems to me that your basis for believing that the Senate has investigatory (and subpoena) power over the executive grows out of the fact that the Senate sits in trial of impeachments and the fact that there is no such similar power cons utionally delegated to the House. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but that comes through on these pages as the basis for your argument that the House is exceeding its authority while the same action from the Senate would be legally permissible.
My question, then, is how you deduce that the Senate (and not the House) has investigative authority with respect to the acts of the executive and quasi-judicial power to subpoena witnesses who serve in the executive branch when the investigation falls short of impeachment. Where is the cons utional authority for drawing that line, other than the grant of impeachment power? I don't see any cons utional basis (outside of impeachment power) to grant the Senate greater investigatory power than the House, so I honestly don't understand the logic that leads you to a conclusion that such is the cons utional structure.
More than that, I wonder just how far your belief in the lack of House investigatory power goes. Does the House lack authority to investigate acts of executive agencies, such as ATF, ICE, IRS, and others? If the House lacks investigatory power over anyone acting pursuant to Article II, how can it investigate those agencies? And if it has investigatory authority concerning some Article II offices, how do you draw a line between those offices and the White House?
I don't see that notion written anywhere in the Cons ution and despite more than a decade studying law, I don't know of a single legal principle that would support such a conclusion. Article II concerns more than just the President, but only a trial for impeachment of the President compels judicial involvement in the legislative investigatory process. That is, if anyone in the executive branch other than the President is investigated, there is no cons utional basis to compel judicial involvement as a predicate to legislative action. Thus, if the Vice President is impeached, there is no judicial involvement at all. It seems to me that your argument basically falls apart at that point, particularly because Rove isn't the President and the investigation doesn't seem to contemplate the President in any way.
More than that, while it is certainly clear that courts can issue certain types of warrants, there is nothing in the Cons ution to suggest that only courts can ever issue warrants or subpoenas.
I'll apologize for not having an encyclopedia knowledge of congressional investigations. I'll also note, however, that executive branch officials don't often cite executive privilege as a basis to resist giving testimony to Congress.
Given the above, that would seem to be a bit like saying that Mars doesn't exist because we don't know of anyone who has ever set foot upon it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
