Reply
Fri 23 Mar, 2007 06:01 am
Quote:Q If it's behind closed doors, what's the problem?
MR. SNOW: The thing that we have said all along is, we think that you ought to have the ability for members of Congress to get information in a way that also does not create precedence, and is going to have a chilling effect for presidential advisors to be able to give their full and fair advice to the President of the United States. We think that the compromise we shaped enables us to fulfill that obligation to the President, and to the public in terms of first-rate advice from the White House and the people working in the White House, and at the same time, allows Congress to do what it has to do, which is conduct oversight. There is nothing that says Congress has to have television; it says that Congress does have oversight responsibilities and needs to get at the facts.
Furthermore, the people who are first and foremost in the decision loop here, the folks at the Department of Justice, they aren't going to be out. I mean, they're going to be out, they're going to be testifying, they're offering all their documentation, as well.
Q They get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.
MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002849.php
Congress has no oversight over the White House?
Here's a counterpoint.
Quote:Look, I know these guys are into all kinds of strange ideas about a unitary executive, but this is ridiculous. If the legislative branch doesn't have oversight responsibilities over the White House, does Snow think the White House has to answer to anyone?
I was struck by Snow's notion that Congress "created the Department of Justice." Historically, that's true; the legislative branch was responsible for establishing cabinet agencies, which lawmakers then fund and oversee, even though the agencies are part of the executive branch.
I won't get into a lengthy, turgid poli sci thesis here, but this new argument seems to be that the legislative branch may pay the White House's bills, but that doesn't mean it can serve as a check on the White House's power. If that's literally the best the Bush gang can come up with, they're in trouble.
Alex, in the last thread, pointed to this helpful report (.pdf) from the Congressional Oversight Manual.
The Constitution grants Congress extensive authority to oversee and investigate executive branch activities. The constitutional authority for Congress to conduct oversight stems from such explicit and implicit provisions as:
1. The power of the purse. The Constitution provides that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Each year the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate review the financial practices and needs of federal agencies. The appropriations process allows the Congress to exercise extensive control over the activities of executive agencies. Congress can define the precise purposes for which money may be spent, adjust funding levels, and prohibit expenditures for certain purposes.
2. The power to organize the executive branch. Congress has the authority to create, abolish, reorganize, and fund federal departments and agencies. It has the authority to assign or reassign functions to departments and agencies, and grant new forms of authority and staff to administrators. Congress, in short, exercises ultimate authority over executive branch organization and generally over policy.
3. The power to make all laws for "carrying into Execution" Congress's own enumerated powers as well as those of the executive. Article I grants Congress a wide range of powers, such as the power to tax and coin money; regulate foreign and interstate commerce; declare war; provide for the creation and maintenance of armed forces; and establish post offices. Augmenting these specific powers is the so-called "Elastic Clause," which gives Congress the authority "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Clearly, these provisions grant broad authority to regulate and oversee departmental activities established by law.
4. The power to confirm officers of the United States. The confirmation process not only involves the determination of a nominee's suitability for an executive (or judicial) position, but also provides an opportunity to examine the current policies and programs of an agency along with those policies and programs that the nominee intends to pursue.
5. The power of investigation and inquiry. A traditional method of exercising the oversight function, an implied power, is through investigations and inquiries into executive branch operations. Legislators often seek to know how effectively and efficiently programs are working, how well agency officials are responding to legislative directives, and how the public perceives the programs. The investigatory method helps to ensure a more responsible bureaucracy, while supplying Congress with information needed to formulate new legislation.
6. Impeachment and removal. Impeachment provides Congress with a powerful, ultimate oversight tool to investigate alleged executive and judicial misbehavior, and to eliminate such misbehavior through the convictions and removal from office of the offending individuals.
Keep in mind, based on Snow's comments today, this isn't the executive privilege argument, this is the executive privilege argument on crack. The principle of executive privilege, while fluid, addresses a president's need for candor from advisors. As the president said the other day, "f the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served."
But today's argument goes much further and suggests Congress lacks the authority to ask the White House questions at all. And given the frequency with which Snow used the argument today, we can expect to hear quite a bit more about this in the coming days.
I have a hunch this is going to get ugly
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10288.html
The President and the White House staff were surprised to learn after the elections of November past that there was more much than they had ever suspected going on in a place in the District of Columbia called The Congress. Prior to that time, the President had only a few reasons to even think about The Congress, mostly he referred to it as Capitol Hill, but in the same way that a Carolinian would refer to Chapel Hill, it was place to go, to visit with friends and say a few words. Nothing to be hung up about as the poet once said.
So he was a little putoff when Karl told him about the news reports, still it is difficult to keep his attention:
"So what if I fired those guys?" he said, "I'm the President, right?"
"Yes, you are." said Karl, "But, if I may, you really didn't fire those guys, and the one in California was a female, you asked for their resignations."
"I did?" said the President.
"Actually, we aren't sure you were involved at all, but we may have to think about finding some way to make it look like you were in charge but that it was some bad advice that you were going on."
"Kind of like those weapons of mass destruction thing?
"Er, yes. Kind of like that."
"And the Strengthening Social Security Program."
"Yeah, that too."
"And the NSA phone spy thing."
"Yes."
Pause
"And my stand on Global Warming?"
"Mr. President, we've written up a short statement for you to read to the press."
"And stem cell research. That's just makes me look -- What's it say?"
"It just outlines the idea, remember we talked about controlling the right idea?, that this whole thing was businesss as normal for you and perhaps we haven't been completely successful at making ourselves clear, but that we can't allow the Congress to start any kind of fishing expedition into the matter."
"I like bass fishing." said our President, "Did I ever tell you about that seven and half pounder I caught on my lake?"
"Yes. Several times. I mean, I always enjoy hearing about it, but this is going to be a tough fight with Congress."
"How come? They are not the boss of me."
Karl sighed. He got his phone out and dialed Tony Snow. It was going to be a long Spring.
I don't really see any question here. In reading the two quoted articles it looks like they are talking apples and oranges.
"tpmuckraker", in holding true to his/her name, only quoted select sections of the transcript and creates a misleading story where there isn't one. Snow's comments are in reference to questioning of Whitehouse staff and the President's advisors. That is pretty clear to anyone that reads the
full transcript of teh press breifing. The questions immediately before the one's he/she quoted are referring to Rove and other advisors testifying before the Congress.
The Constitutional limits of executive privilege and extent of the Congress's permissible intrusions into Whitehouse operations are fairly well laid out in several Supreme Court cases from recent years (i.e. United States v. Nixon, Clinton v. Jones and Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia).
From those cases it seems pretty clear to me that the Whitehouse is not 100% immune from Congressional oversight but it does enjoy a large swath of autonomy when it comes to discussions between the President, Vice President and advisors.
fishin wrote:I don't really see any question here. In reading the two quoted articles it looks like they are talking apples and oranges.
"tpmuckraker", in holding true to his/her name, only quoted select sections of the transcript and creates a misleading story where there isn't one. Snow's comments are in reference to questioning of Whitehouse staff and the President's advisors. That is pretty clear to anyone that reads the
full transcript of teh press breifing. The questions immediately before the one's he/she quoted are referring to Rove and other advisors testifying before the Congress.
The Constitutional limits of executive privilege and extent of the Congress's permissible intrusions into Whitehouse operations are fairly well laid out in several Supreme Court cases from recent years (i.e. United States v. Nixon, Clinton v. Jones and Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia).
From those cases it seems pretty clear to me that the Whitehouse is not 100% immune from Congressional oversight but it does enjoy a large swath of autonomy when it comes to discussions between the President, Vice President and advisors.
I can see where Congress has no right to know what advisors tell the president. But if it has to do with legal or ethical issues the Congress is investigating than I would think they should have a right to know.
USDA's are not suppose to be political. By that I mean the president should not have the power to appoint USDA's that will persecute members of the opposite party and ignore the corruption of his own party. If the president has the power, or gives himself the power, ot hire and fire any USDA he chooses without any intervention from Congress what would prevent him from appointing John Bolton types of USDA's in key election districts. When election time approachs they may press charges of any type against opponent without much evidence and taint that persons name so as to make them lose the election. After the election it will not matter if the charges are dropped, the damage is done.
Looking at NM I can see now how this could happen, especially with this present administration.
The insertion of a provision in the Patriot Act, since voted out, that allowed the AG to appoint an interim USDA without approval from Congress for in indefinite period of time could, it appears, to be a method to use USDA's to persecute opponents and/or drop investigations of members of their own party.
If this type of behavior is behind these firing than I think the Congress has every right to have oversight of the WH, at least for this particular event.
I'm sorry,
But while USA's are appointed politically, they do not serve politically. They are required to serve apolitically. If they are being fired for not doing so, then they are not being terminated for valid reasons and there most definitely should be an investigation.
Cycloptichorn
xingu wrote:fishin wrote:I don't really see any question here. In reading the two quoted articles it looks like they are talking apples and oranges.
"tpmuckraker", in holding true to his/her name, only quoted select sections of the transcript and creates a misleading story where there isn't one. Snow's comments are in reference to questioning of Whitehouse staff and the President's advisors. That is pretty clear to anyone that reads the
full transcript of teh press breifing. The questions immediately before the one's he/she quoted are referring to Rove and other advisors testifying before the Congress.
The Constitutional limits of executive privilege and extent of the Congress's permissible intrusions into Whitehouse operations are fairly well laid out in several Supreme Court cases from recent years (i.e. United States v. Nixon, Clinton v. Jones and Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia).
From those cases it seems pretty clear to me that the Whitehouse is not 100% immune from Congressional oversight but it does enjoy a large swath of autonomy when it comes to discussions between the President, Vice President and advisors.
I can see where Congress has no right to know what advisors tell the president. But if it has to do with legal or ethical issues the Congress is investigating than I would think they should have a right to know.
USDA's are not suppose to be political. By that I mean the president should not have the power to appoint USDA's that will persecute members of the opposite party and ignore the corruption of his own party. If the president has the power, or gives himself the power, ot hire and fire any USDA he chooses without any intervention from Congress what would prevent him from appointing John Bolton types of USDA's in key election districts. When election time approachs they may press charges of any type against opponent without much evidence and taint that persons name so as to make them lose the election. After the election it will not matter if the charges are dropped, the damage is done.
Looking at NM I can see now how this could happen, especially with this present administration.
The insertion of a provision in the Patriot Act, since voted out, that allowed the AG to appoint an interim USDA without approval from Congress for in indefinite period of time could, it appears, to be a method to use USDA's to persecute opponents and/or drop investigations of members of their own party.
If this type of behavior is behind these firing than I think the Congress has every right to have oversight of the WH, at least for this particular event.
How many Democrates have been persecuted for any thing in the last 6 years? How many Republicians have been persecuted in the last 6 years?
Your going to tell me that: "By that I mean the president should not have the power to appoint USDA's that will persecute members of the opposite party and ignore the corruption of his own party."
As I asked above how many Dems have been persecuted in the last 6 years?
If you look you will see that the Reps have been far more persecuted in the last 6 years and almost no Dems. We all know that both parties are corrupt so how come so many more Reps? Because they were in power and I think they were going after Reps more the Dems because of this. I don't see an issue with asking why the other party hasn't gotten the same attention.
Quote:If you look you will see that the Reps have been far more persecuted in the last 6 years and almost no Dems.
Really?
Is that so?
Let me ask, did you
actually look, or are you telling someone else to look when you yourself have not done so?
Let's see:
Quote:A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration's Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who've faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found - only 18 percent were Republicans. During that period, Democrats made up 50 percent of elected officeholders and office seekers during the time period, and 41 percent were Republicans during that period, according to the study.
"The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.
The vast disparity came not from the more high-profile investigations of state-wide or federal officeholders (the disparity there was 55-44 Democratic), but from the far more numerous investigations of local officials. The study found that 85 percent of the 309 local officials and candidates who faced investigation were Democrats.
The study, based on press reports of federal investigations, was conducted by two retired professors, Dr. Donald C. Shields, Professor Emeritus from the Department of Communication, University of Missouri-St. Louis, and Dr. John F. Cragan, Professor Emeritus from the Department of Communication, Illinois State University, who have been collecting the data over the past several years. An earlier version of the study was presented to the National Communication Association in 2005. The latest summary of their data (through the end of 2006) was provided to us by Dr. Shields.
Seems to me that you are 100% incorrect.
Cycloptichorn
xingu wrote: I can see where Congress has no right to know what advisors tell the president. But if it has to do with legal or ethical issues the Congress is investigating than I would think they should have a right to know.
Everything anyone within the Whitehouse and Congress does is either a political or ethical issue. The "right" would also work both ways. Do you also believe that the Bush admnistration should be able to to decide on their own that the Congressional hearings themselves are a political or ethical issue and be able to seize the computers and papers of the Congressional Reps and call in thier aids for public questioning?
The Congress seemed to be speaking pretty clearly on the issue of seperation of powers previously.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/25/news/congress.php
I should point out that in that case it wasn't a political or ethical dispute - it was an active criminal investigation.
Quote:If this type of behavior is behind these firing than I think the Congress has every right to have oversight of the WH, at least for this particular event.
Just for this particular event? Who gets to decide which events can be looked into and which ones can't be?
Quote:
Everything anyone within the Whitehouse and Congress does is either a political or ethical issue. The "right" would also work both ways. Do you also believe that the Bush admnistration should be able to to decide on their own that the Congressional hearings themselves are a political or ethical issue and be able to seize the computers and papers of the Congressional Reps and call in thier aids for public questioning?
Why not? They've already decided that they have access to the computers and papers of every American whenver they want.
The Dems should just say that this is for 'national security reasons.' Bush wouldn't have a good answer to that without talking against their own rationales for grabbing information.
Cycloptichorn
Baldimo wrote:xingu wrote:fishin wrote:I don't really see any question here. In reading the two quoted articles it looks like they are talking apples and oranges.
"tpmuckraker", in holding true to his/her name, only quoted select sections of the transcript and creates a misleading story where there isn't one. Snow's comments are in reference to questioning of Whitehouse staff and the President's advisors. That is pretty clear to anyone that reads the
full transcript of teh press breifing. The questions immediately before the one's he/she quoted are referring to Rove and other advisors testifying before the Congress.
The Constitutional limits of executive privilege and extent of the Congress's permissible intrusions into Whitehouse operations are fairly well laid out in several Supreme Court cases from recent years (i.e. United States v. Nixon, Clinton v. Jones and Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia).
From those cases it seems pretty clear to me that the Whitehouse is not 100% immune from Congressional oversight but it does enjoy a large swath of autonomy when it comes to discussions between the President, Vice President and advisors.
I can see where Congress has no right to know what advisors tell the president. But if it has to do with legal or ethical issues the Congress is investigating than I would think they should have a right to know.
USDA's are not suppose to be political. By that I mean the president should not have the power to appoint USDA's that will persecute members of the opposite party and ignore the corruption of his own party. If the president has the power, or gives himself the power, ot hire and fire any USDA he chooses without any intervention from Congress what would prevent him from appointing John Bolton types of USDA's in key election districts. When election time approachs they may press charges of any type against opponent without much evidence and taint that persons name so as to make them lose the election. After the election it will not matter if the charges are dropped, the damage is done.
Looking at NM I can see now how this could happen, especially with this present administration.
The insertion of a provision in the Patriot Act, since voted out, that allowed the AG to appoint an interim USDA without approval from Congress for in indefinite period of time could, it appears, to be a method to use USDA's to persecute opponents and/or drop investigations of members of their own party.
If this type of behavior is behind these firing than I think the Congress has every right to have oversight of the WH, at least for this particular event.
How many Democrates have been persecuted for any thing in the last 6 years? How many Republicians have been persecuted in the last 6 years?
Your going to tell me that: "By that I mean the president should not have the power to appoint USDA's that will persecute members of the opposite party and ignore the corruption of his own party."
As I asked above how many Dems have been persecuted in the last 6 years?
If you look you will see that the Reps have been far more persecuted in the last 6 years and almost no Dems. We all know that both parties are corrupt so how come so many more Reps? Because they were in power and I think they were going after Reps more the Dems because of this. I don't see an issue with asking why the other party hasn't gotten the same attention.
I might point out that this has to be dealt with so no president, regardless of their party or ideology, will use USDA's for political purposes. If Bush is allowed to get away with this it will set a precedent that can be used by either party in the future.
Does anyone know if any of these fired USDA's were working on cases involving corrupt Republicans? If all these USDA's got very high preformance ratings than the firings must be motivated by something other than what the WH says.
I don't need to remind anyone here that to install Attorneys General with the object that they will perform at the will of the party in power is an affront to the very basis on which this nation was founded.
Don't focus only on the ones who were fired, look carefully at the ones who were retained. They are ones who are applying acid to the pillars of justice.
Joe(shame on Alberto)Nation
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace