Above the Law...

[Baptist in Richmond]

Stop whining.

Ah, the as-expected juvenile contumely I have grown to expect from you.

I know: it's tough when everything you allege comes crashing down by the evidence contained in your own post.

I'm still waiting for you to get back on topic and show us more of how the President's claims of "executive privilege" place him "above the law" as you title to this thread claims.

Simple - just look at the behavior of Harriet Miers. She received a Congressional subpoena. She has no basis for simply ignoring it. She could have shown up and exercised her fifth-amendment rights; however, she opted to simply avoid making an appearance.

See if you can stay on track this time.

Nice try, carpro. I suppose that when faced with your own postings refuting what you allege, it does sting a little.

:tonofbricks:

 

[carpro]

Simple - just look at the behavior of Harriet Miers. She received a Congressional subpoena. She has no basis for simply ignoring it. She could have shown up and exercised her fifth-amendment rights; however, she opted to simply avoid making an appearance.
:tonofbricks:

Hardly.

That point was defeated immediately by the Supreme Court ruling from 1959.

The democrats can't win. All they can do is make noise.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Hardly.

That point was defeated immediately by the Supreme Court ruling from 1959.

They can ignore a Congressional subpoena?

The democrats can't win. All they can do is make noise.

Yep, heard that on several of the radio programs on XM channel 166 today........

Found this article interesting:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070713.html

 

[carpro]

They can ignore a Congressional subpoena?

Yep.

One Congress had no legal grounds to issue.

Now Congress will issue a contempt citation and nothing will come of it. Paper tiger. Smoke and mirrors. Playing politics.

Perish the thought that they would actually try to legislate:BangHead: instead of issue subpoenas to investigate firings of political appointees fired by the people that appointed them.

I'm sure you found Ex con John Dean's article interesting. You agree with the ramblings of his opinion column.

Find us some legal justification for your position that this was against the law and not just your opinion that they think they are "above the law". So far, you have provided none at all.

 

[just-want-peace]

The democrats can't win. All they can do is make noise.

Kinda like liberals in general, eh!!??

I must admit that I've rarely seen/heard/read any poster that can use so many words to say nothing! (But he says it real nice!)

Edited to correct above "nothing"

Should read --"use so many words to say so little!"

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Yep.
One Congress had no legal grounds to issue.
Now Congress will issue a contempt citation and nothing will come of it. Paper tiger. Smoke and mirrors. Playing politics.

A point worth noting is that nothing you have offered gives any credence to such an assertion.
Harriet Miers has no legal justification to simply ignore a Congressional subpoena.

Perish the thought that they would actually try to legislate instead of issue subpoenas
to investigate firings of political appointees fired by the people that appointed them.

Yes, like the Congress that went after Clinton for Whitewater, right? Care to give us the justification for that witchhunt?

I'm sure you found Ex con John Dean's article interesting.
You agree with the ramblings of his opinion column.

:laugh: <---- This is me laughing at you.
The "proof" you offered was the legal opinion of Janet Reno.
The comment you made about John Dean shows us that you didn't read his article.

Find us some legal justification for your position that this was against the law and not just your opinion that they think they are "above the law". So far, you have provided none at all.

That is up to Congress, and they will if there was anything that "was against the law." I am sure that, as a well-document acolyte, you believe in the concept of the "unitary executive."

 

[carpro]

A point worth noting is that nothing you have offered gives any credence to such an assertion.

This is your thread. Why do you espect me to disprove your point when you have offered absolutely no justification for your claim that Bush is "above the law" with their actions?


Yes, like the Congress that went after Clinton for Whitewater, right? Care to give us the justification for that witchhunt?

Off topic effort at misdirection.



:laugh: <---- This is me laughing at you.
The "proof" you offered was the legal opinion of Janet Reno.

The proof I offered, and it can come from any number of souces, is a direct quote from the Supreme Court. John Yoo and Janet Reno both cited the same quote for the same reason. It seems you object to both of them using it now. I suspect it is what the Supreme Court said that you actually have a problem with. It defeats your claim before you can get off the blocks. I suspect you know that as well. Even so, your defense is spirited for one that has no reason not to know they were wrong from the get go.




That is up to Congress, and they will if there was anything that "was against the law."

Congress is conducting an investigation beyond the scope of their Constitutional authority. They know it, and they know they are bound to be defeated. It's all for show. Political theater.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Congress is conducting an investigation beyond the scope of their Constitutional authority. They know it, and they know they are bound to be defeated. It's all for show. Political theater.

Who confirms these appointments, carpro?
Who confirmed the appointments who succeeded the ones who were fired?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Still waiting for an answer.....

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

No one here has produced evidences showing from a statute or the Constitution that they are compelled to answer these subpoenas.



"the White House has remained staunch in its stance that it has the right at any time to fire attorneys. Furthermore, it has rebuffed attempts to bring any more White House officials before public hearings using the claim to executive privilege."

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

No one here has produced evidences showing from a statute or the Constitution that they are compelled to answer these subpoenas.

Are you sure about that?

"the White House has remained staunch in its stance that it has the right at any time to fire attorneys. Furthermore, it has rebuffed attempts to bring any more White House officials before public hearings using the claim to executive privilege."

Where in the Constitution is there an allowance to simply disregard a Congressional subpoena? While they may show up and plead the Fifth, there is no support for the action of simply disregarding a subpoena.

 

[hillclimber1]

The democrats can't win. All they can do is make noise.

And that is their only intent. To cast yet more doubt, and suspicion on the WH. The Dems are despicable, thank you slick willy.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

And that is their only intent. To cast yet more doubt, and suspicion on the WH. The Dems are despicable, thank you slick willy.

And the wiggety wack right continues to blame President Clinton for the world's problems, even though he has not been in public office in nearly 7 years. When does the current administration start being responsible? And what about all the "noise" made by the GOP during the last Democratic administration?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where in the Constitution is there an allowance to simply disregard a Congressional subpoena? While they may show up and plead the Fifth, there is no support for the action of simply disregarding a subpoena.

Why would you show up to honor an illegitimate subpoena? Simply by showing up, you are giving credence to the legitimacy of it.

I tend to agree that she should have showed up and refused to speak. Tell them, "That's none of your business. If you want to know what goes on in the WH, win an election."

But I still wonder why one should show up in honor of a subpoena that should have never been issued.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Why would you show up to honor an illegitimate subpoena? Simply by showing up, you are giving credence to the legitimacy of it.

I tend to agree that she should have showed up and refused to speak. Tell them, "That's none of your business. If you want to know what goes on in the WH, win an election."

Larry, our government is not (or is not supposed to be) a covert, secretive club making decisions in the dark with no accountability. The White House is accountable to "We the People", and "We the People" are represented by our congressional delegation. Congress DID win an election, and they have a duty to perform the checks and balances required for open, honest government. All 3 branches have a role to play in that.

Despite the opinion of those who look to a single leader, this is not a dictatorship, nor even a country ruled by mandate of the President. He is not stronger than Congress or the SCOTUS...all are co-equal branches, by design.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, our government is not (or is not supposed to be) a covert, secretive club making decisions in the dark with no accountability.

I don't think anyone disagrees. I certainly don't.

The White House is accountable to "We the People", and "We the People" are represented by our congressional delegation. Congress DID win an election, and they have a duty to perform the checks and balances required for open, honest government. All 3 branches have a role to play in that.

But do those checks and balances come into play here? The congress is operating unchecked, and when the WH checks them by refusing to comply with an illegitimate subpoena, they cry foul.

What would the Congress think if Bush starting calling in Congressional aides to ask about discussions that were going on in congressional offices? I bet they wouldn't be too happy.

So under what rationale do they think it is okay to do this? Simple: It's politics.

Despite the opinion of those who look to a single leader, this is not a dictatorship, nor even a country ruled by mandate of the President. He is not stronger than Congress or the SCOTUS...all are co-equal branches, by design.

I don't know of any who look to a single leader. But the point is, if they are equal, the Congress cannot pull rank over the WH in this way. Congress has no more right to call WH aides to testify about internal communications than they have to call SCOTUS clerks to testify about what goes on in deliberations. Separations of powers still exists.

Remember, there are no allegations or suspicions of actual wrongdoing. The US attorneys work at the pleasure of the president. He can get rid of them at any time he chooses.

The Dems complain that Bush politicized the attorney's office. They are doing the same thing by politicizing this.

Remember, Bush offered to make these witnesses available, and the Dems refused. Then they turn around an issue a subpoena.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

There is also separation of powers and congress cannot just infringe on the executive powers because of "suspicion". If this were the case then the agendas could be used to delay, convolute, or undermine the duties of the President.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Why would you show up to honor an illegitimate subpoena? Simply by showing up, you are giving credence to the legitimacy of it.

I tend to agree that she should have showed up and refused to speak. Tell them, "That's none of your business. If you want to know what goes on in the WH, win an election."

But I still wonder why one should show up in honor of a subpoena that should have never been issued.

Um, you answered my question with a question.
Again, what is the basis for such a claim? Whether or not you want to acknowledge the legitimacy of the subpoena, it was indeed issued. One cannot simply ignore the subpoena. I am surprised that all the "law and order" types don't see this (last sentence not directed at you, Pastor Larry).

Hope all is well with you and your ministry,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

There is also separation of powers and congress cannot just infringe on the executive powers because of "suspicion". If this were the case then the agendas could be used to delay, convolute, or undermine the duties of the President.

That didn't stop the Whitewater investigation, did it?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

That didn't stop the Whitewater investigation, did it?

'

Did the Watergate investigation begin because of evidence or suspicion?