breitbart.com — WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Jun 28, 2007 View in Crawl 4
modernjazzJun 29, 2007
Yes - Congress should have the power to tie up any branch or office of government with pointless proceedings, inquiries, and "investigations." They're definitely not getting anything done... why should other branches be allowed to?
markofthedeadJun 29, 2007
i always wondered how s**tty it would be to be born with the name bubba. people either think you're gunna molest children or end up in jail :(
pfhreakJun 29, 2007
The point being made is not that 60% is enough to override veto, it's that the current situation, where one party has barely more than 50%, creates an almost impossible barrier to get the 67% needed. If the Dems were in the upper 50s, they could likely get enough Republicans to cross the aisle to override most vetoes. The current situation requires some 15--20% of Congress to cross the aisle to override veto, where a composition close to 60/40 would only require 5--10% to cross.
mikalJun 30, 2007
DaveV: Thanks, but I figured that much. See what I found: <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy</a>
kuzotzJul 2, 2007
more like drop the soap control.
vbdonJul 27, 2007
You were mis-taught. Separation of powers means that two branches need to agree for something to happen. If the legislative branch disagrees with the executive branch, then the judicial branch can decide the winner. Too bad they don't teach real history anymore. The first such test came when the Supreme court ordered Andrew Jackson to do something he didn't want to do. Congress agreed with Jackson and the Supreme court was forced to suck it up, because the Supreme Court has no enforcement power, only the President does.
vbdonJul 27, 2007
You have one thing wrong. No President can approve a law that limits the Constitutional powers of a successive President. If Clinton signed such a law, it would simply be a "gentlemen's agreement" that wouldn't apply to Bush. No law, short of a Constitutional Amendment, can limit the powers of the President as statet in the Constitution. Even if 100% of the Congress and Senate votes for a law limiting Presidential power and the President signs it, it's only good until the President revokes his approval or is replaced by someone else.