|
An offense so enormous that it is technically not illegal; there is no law prohibiting the eradication of the law.
It hasn't happened, not completely, not yet. Here's the deal: the breadth and scope of Bush's executive privilege claims have no precedent in American history. According to his doctrine, the Executive branch in its entirety - the workings, the papers, and all the people employed therein - will not allow any kind of oversight, investigation or scrutiny from any agent, agency or branch of government, period, end of file, go fuck yourself.
Simply put, the White House is above the law. They announced this breathtaking offense by refusing to honor several legally issued subpoenas served upon them by members of congress. They said, "Nope, we ain't coming to your hearing, you can't see our papers, and once again, go fuck yourself."
If I get served a subpoena that says I need to show up at this place on this day at this time, and says for me to bring along evidentiary documents A-Z, well, guess the fuck what? You can be sure my ass will be at the place on the day at the time stipulated by the subpoena, and with an armload of papers to boot. I have no choice, because that's the law. To paraphrase the rules:
"When you get a subpoena, you have to do what it says to the letter. If you want to fight it, you get a hearing to make your argument before a judge who will decide what's what. If the judge rules against quashing the subpoena, you must abide by that decision and show up as ordered. If you don't, you're in contempt and subject to arrest and detention." I go to jail if I blow off a subpoena. So do you, and everyone you know, because that's the law and we are all subject to it.
By declaring himself and all his people above that law, Bush has ignited a fuse on a powderkeg big enough to blow our constitutional system of government to smithereens. Somehow, he managed to blunder into an entirely vague and unsettled area of constitutional law: Executive Privilege. The founding documents contain exactly one sentence on the matter - "The president shall have Executive powers" - and that's it. The Federalist Papers address the issue in detail, but have no force or weight of law.
In point of fact, the Federalist papers are basically 1776-era versions of modern-day blog posts; their entire purpose was to provide argument and advocacy so as to win popular approval for the creation of a national constitution and the establishment of a federal government. Those collected essays are, to this day, nothing more or less than the most magnificently crafted users manual ever written by anyone, about anything, from anywhere.
But they have no legal powers, and thus have no standing on the issue of Executive privilege and its parameters. One sentence from the Framers is all we have outside of decisions on the matter by the Supreme Court...but as it stands today, the high court has not handed down any decisions that nail down the precise nature of Executive privilege. Marbury v. Madison is so off-point and dated as to be useless...which leaves only one other case dealing with this issue.
US v. Nixon.
The decision? Potter Stewart basically punted the ball by saying yes, the president enjoys Executive privilege, but that privilege is not absolute or total, and obviously cannot be used in furtherance of, or to hide from the consequences of, any illegal activities...of course, you can't find out about illegal activities without conducting an investigation, and if no illegalities are manifest, a declaration of Executive privilege will stave off any investigation, lather rinse repeat.
Basically, the parameters and limitations of Executive privilege are an unsettled and undefined area of constitutional law. If a case comes before the high court on the matter - say, a suit against Bush and his definition of the privilege - the court's decision will become THE LAW regarding privilege.
Bush defied the subpoenas, Conyers declared them in contempt, and a lawsuit against Bush's definition for Executive privilege has entered the court system. It has already passed through the DC circuit court, and is moving up the food chain.
If it makes it to the Supreme Court,
If they grant cert and decide to hear the case,
And if they decide the case in favor of Bush,
Well, that's the end of the rule of law. The Executive branch will have a sound legal basis for blowing off any subpoenas, investigations or any other kind of oversight, thanks to the Supreme's decision. No more separation of powers, Congress will become the president's pet, and the court will become flooded with like-minded nitwits whose decisions will be motivated by party fealty before anything else.
When all is said and done, and provided we even survive all this as a nation intact, the one overarching lesson to be learned from all this is HOW FRAGILE OUR NATIONAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE ACTUALLY IS.
This country is basically an idea written on old parchment that only survives upon the will and honor of good people who pay willing obeisance to the rule of law. Get a subpoena, go to the hearing. Period.
If that case goes all the way to the top court, and if the decision backs Bush's executive privilege claims, that will be his legacy, his most historic achievement, and damnation for all eternity will not be a sufficient punishment for him, should this actually ever come to pass.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
