ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-10-06 06:22 PM
Original message |
I See A Storm Coming. The "Unitary Executive" |
|
Edited on Fri Nov-10-06 06:23 PM by ThomWV
The Subpoena power we have recently regained is going to be challenged when applied to anyone from the Executive Agencies if my guess is correct. He will demand that his immunity to call by the Congress extends to the Executive Agencies and Bureaus and he will demand that they not come before Congress no matter if they are currently employed by Government or not.
You can just smell it in the wind.
|
William769
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-10-06 06:24 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Didn't we start to have this battle under the Clinton Administration? |
|
If so, could we use The Republicans statement of that time for compelling evidence on why they should be subpoenaed?
|
pacalo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-10-06 06:27 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I so agree. It's going to be interesting & I predict a firestorm. |
|
If so, that's okay. Just as the majority of people are fed up with this administration's nonsense, the numbers for impeachment will only grow.
|
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-10-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message |
3. ya know...I wonder...if |
|
anyone knows what laws are actually on the books. Bush did a lot of those signing statements. Can Congress legislate to prosecute?
|
Igel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-10-06 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Ignore the signing statements. |
|
They're good for spin and for an executive counterpart to legislative history. They let Congress know what'll be enforced under this administration and how the law will be interpreted--unlike what most presidents have done, simply ignoring laws they deem unconstitutional--and provide a record. Nothing more.
|
porphyrian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-10-06 06:54 PM
Response to Original message |
4. They're in a corner and they know it. |
Igel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-10-06 07:00 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Yes. He will deny that the Constitution gives Congress |
|
any oversight over the executive branch. He'll be relying on scant Constitutional evidence ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"). Congress will be relying on laws that they passed that give themselves authority over the Executive, and on tradition.
Executive privilege is a subject that's been much argued over the years, with no good text-based conclusion. When what's seen as legislative privilege is impinged upon, without regard to party legislators go bonkers--Jefferson comes to mind. When judicial privilege is encroached upon by Congress, the justices go bonkers.
Should make a fascinating case if it goes to SCOTUS: To what extent do those in the executive branch report to Congress, and where does the tripartite governmental system break down. :popcorn:
|
immoderate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-10-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Congress has the ultimate weapon. |
|
Impeachment. Beyond that we're in Constitutional crisis. Who loves Bush that much?
--IMM
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:33 PM
Response to Original message |