Congressional Oversight of Executive Disappears (or almost)

Forums: Politics, Government
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This ain't good for democracy. In the article, you'll find the role the Dems played in facilitating the problem.

Quote:

Congress reduces its oversight role
Since Clinton, a change in focus
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | November 20, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.

In the past two years, a House committee has managed to take only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

The jarring comparison reflects the way Congress has conducted its oversight role during the GOP's era of one-party rule in Washington.

While congressional committees once were leaders in investigating the executive branch and powerful industries, the current Congress has largely spared major corporations and has done only minimal oversight of the Republican administration, according to a review of congressional documents by The Boston Globe.

An examination of committees' own reports found that the House Government Reform Committee held just 37 hearings described as ''oversight" or investigative in nature during the last Congress, down from 135 such hearings held by its predecessor, the House Government Operations Committee, in 1993-94, the last year the Democrats controlled the chamber.

Party loyalty does not account for the difference: In 1993-94, the Democrats were investigating a Democratic administration.

''What aren't we doing? We aren't going after the mini scandal du jour, to try to embarrass the administration on a hearing that's going nowhere," said Davis, Republican of Virginia.

Across the House, panels that once aggressively scrutinized the workings of the government are now restricting themselves largely to subjects that advance a particular goal or a cause favored by the GOP leadership, such as recent oversight hearings on the benefits of having social services provided by faith-based organizations and drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

full story here

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2005/11/20/1132482792_8673.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 9,266 • Replies: 201

No top replies

graphic isn't pasting in, but is linked in article

0 Replies

This has actually been going on for some time. Congress has gradually been giving up its role of executive oversight for some decades. For example, it ceded its Constitutional right to be the sole declarer of war back in the 1970s when it authorized the Chief Executive (the President) to deploy US troops at will without asking Congress' permission. That's why this country has not been at war, at least not technically, since 1945. The Constitution plainly states that only Congress has the power to declare a state of war. But that's no longer necessary. The prexy can start us fighting anyone anywhere at his/her whim.

Wimps.

0 Replies

Merry

Yes, but what is occuring right now isn't merely a continuance of a trend, it is something far more acute and recent.

0 Replies

Declaring war is formal and forces allies and other nations to take sides thus disrupting international relations. The sneaky war avoids all of that. But this Republican Congress is actively aiding and abetting a criminal adminstration.

0 Replies

This keeps up, the expression 'a system of checks and balances' will soon have absolutely no meaning. The SCOTUS has been a GOP rubber stamp for quite some time now.

0 Replies

IF this is correct, I certainly hope that the Democrats win back the House and Senate in 2006.

Imagine, the lack of Congressional Oversight.

The Republicans are even trying to block the rights of the loyal opposition when they threaten a filibuster against Judge Alito.

Yes, it appears almost Nazi-like.

I do not know how the Republicans were able to influence a large number of Democrats to give Bush authority to go to war in October 2001.

Why-- the Democrats appear to be highly disorganized. The repressive Patriot Act is in danger of passing in the next month. The Republicans not only snuck a far right winger, Judge Roberts, past the Democrats, but they also put in place a man who was actually an economic advisor to Bush--Dr. Ben Bernanke--who will soon hold the VERY IMPORTANT POST of Fed.Chairman.

I don't know what has happened to the Democrat watchdogs. They have allowed Bush to place scores of conservative judges on the Appelate Bench. At this time, over 65% of the Appelate Judges have been appointed by Republicans.

This is not good.

As the man who had the election stolen from him in 2004(John Kerry) commented-- One of the most imporatant reasons you should vote for me is that the President will be able to appoint many judges including Supreme Court Judges and that is critical to the FUTURE of our country.

Well, all may not be lost. Perhaps the Democrats can take back the House and Senate in 2006.

And, if they do not? Well, then Hillary may lead them out of the darkness in 2008.

0 Replies

Corruption was the reason for the Iraq war, nothing else.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

IF this is correct, I certainly hope that the Democrats win back the House and Senate in 2006.

Highly unlikely, but I guess you have to have your fantasies.

Mortkat wrote:

The Republicans are even trying to block the rights of the loyal opposition when they threaten a filibuster against Judge Alito.

The filibuster that was not used by the Republicans on the Democrat's judicial nominees when the Republicans were in the minority.

Mortkat wrote:

Yes, it appears almost Nazi-like.

The last battle cry of a lack of concrete commentary.

Mortkat wrote:

I do not know how the Republicans were able to influence a large number of Democrats to give Bush authority to go to war in October 2001.

So if Democrats vote for something you are in favor of, they must be 'voting their consciences'.
If they vote on something you are opposed to, they must have been under the influence of some evil 'Republican Mind Control Device'

Mortkat wrote:

Why-- the Democrats appear to be highly disorganized. The repressive Patriot Act is in danger of passing in the next month. The Republicans not only snuck a far right winger, Judge Roberts, past the Democrats, but they also put in place a man who was actually an economic advisor to Bush--Dr. Ben Bernanke--who will soon hold the VERY IMPORTANT POST of Fed.Chairman.

Its so terrible that the President is allowed to nominate people he wishes in accordance with the Constitution.

Mortkat wrote:

I don't know what has happened to the Democrat watchdogs. They have allowed Bush to place scores of conservative judges on the Appelate Bench. At this time, over 65% of the Appelate Judges have been appointed by Republicans.

I see, so you had no objections to all the liberal judges that President Clinton appointed during his 8 years in office. Judges that the Republicans didn't filibuster by the way.

Mortkat wrote:

This is not good.

Depends on your point of view.

Mortkat wrote:

As the man who had the election stolen from him in 2004(John Kerry) commented-- One of the most imporatant reasons you should vote for me is that the President will be able to appoint many judges including Supreme Court Judges and that is critical to the FUTURE of our country.

Still on the non existent 'stolen election'.
And now by your own admission, it would have been ok for Senator Kerry to have appointed his selections to the bench had he been elected but it is somehow a conspiracy of evil when President Bush appoints his selections.

Mortkat wrote:

Well, all may not be lost. Perhaps the Democrats can take back the House and Senate in 2006.

Once again, a pipe dream, but if it helps you sleep at night...

Mortkat wrote:

And, if they do not? Well, then Hillary may lead them out of the darkness in 2008.

And thus will begin 4 years of darkness across the land as the Evil One takes her throne.

0 Replies

Fedral- I must apologize to you. My satire did not work. If you are familiar with my other posts, you will find that I attempted to satirize the Democratic position.

Your responses to my commentary were quite correct. I agree with all of them.

0 Replies

I thought your satire was working quite well, Mortkat. When Fedral actually responded to it as though it were a serious post, I was laughing too hard to post any sort of response or comment.

0 Replies

Fedral's post swooped down like a hashish-crazed angel of retribution , ripping, tearing. Oh the humanity.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew appears to be concerned that we are losing our system of Checks and Balances. He is quite wrong.

We still have a system of checks and balances. The executive cannot, or should not, commit troops to a theatre like Iraq without obtaining authority from the legislature. President Bush obtained the authority onOct. 10th and 11th 2001--Checks and Balances--

The Congress has some misgivings about the Patriot Act. There will be some minor tweaking of the act before it is reinstated before the end of this year--checks and balances.

In 2003, the Supreme Court again took up the issue of affirmative action in education when it decidd the cases of Gruttinger v. Bollinger and Gratz v.Bollinger--check and balances.

The system of checks and balances in is place. It seems to me that Merry Andrew objects not so much to "checks and balances" but to the fact that the Republicans hold the Senate and the House as well as the presidency and are in the process of placing a couple of "originalists" on the USSC bench to protect the Constitution.

0 Replies

Mortkat, I told you this on another thread: I don't give a rat's ass about Republicans or Democrats, don't much care which one of those parties -- clones of each other, really -- hold sway in the legislature or the executive office. What I care about is the Constitution being slowly used up as waste paper.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Fedral's post swooped down like a hashish-crazed angel of retribution , ripping, tearing. Oh the humanity.

Hydrogen will do that.

0 Replies

goodf

Isn't hydrogen an up-swooper?

0 Replies

It is yes, blatham (I remember little from high school physics). My obscure response was reflexive. I was tuned in to the "oh the humanity".

0 Replies

goodf

Well, considering that the fundamental identifying characteristic of Mortkatgato and Fedral's notions of the world are exactly down-side-up, there seems no imminent danger to the poetic truth of our story.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew- I don't believe you can show, using evidence and documenation, of course, that the constitution is "being slowly used up as waste paper" Surely, you can be more precise than that.

Mark R. Levin in his book- "Men in Black" agrees with you and gives specific instances but he does not indict Republicans or conservatives as the those who "use up the Constitution as waste paper". He excoriates Democrats and the left wing.

0 Replies

Or else it simply means that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few military personnel and not requiring so much testimony. One wonders where blatham's moral outrage is when almost everyone except the US treats prioners worse than the US does, e.g. using them for blackmail and then cutting off their heads.

0 Replies

Congressional Oversight of Executive Disappears (or almost)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know