What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
67 Comments
- gronne, on 10/12/2007, -10/+120More proof that this administration sees itself as above the rest of us. Our measly peasant laws don't apply to them.
- Phantamage, on 10/12/2007, -8/+86"If you haven't got anything to hide, what's there to be afraid of?"
--- Isn't that a Republican argument? - sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -7/+49I totally agree that the "administration sees itself as above the rest of us." I'm sure bush and cheney will assert some twisted interpretation of constitutional authority to hide behind when the Dems want to take a look into things like the secret meetings for energy bill and who from big oil helped write it and the no bid contracts in Iraq.
- kalebell, on 10/12/2007, -8/+40Yeah, that only applies to the general public, not our royalty
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32The better question is: "Mr. Cheney, if convicted, would you step down?"
- shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Why wouldn't he go? He has no problem lying to the American people. Under oath just makes it more exciting.
Why don't the "liberal" media ask Dick who Pamela Wileford is and how come she was at the ranch in February when our VP shot his friend in the face? How come Pamela was disappeared and nobody mentioned her attendance at this hunting weekend? - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Newsflash, if impeached the Vice-President will HAVE to appear before Congress.
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18
Contempt of Congress, (we all know he has contempt of anyone that disagrees with him)
Congress has conducted investigations of malfeasance in the executive branch–and elsewhere in American society–since 1792. In 1798 Congress authorized taking testimony under oath and established punishments for perjury. In 1827, the House empowered its Committee on Manufactures "to send for persons and papers" relating to tariff legislation, and since then both houses have considered it their right to summon anyone, whether inside or outside the government to testify. In 1857, Congress provided that reluctant witnesses could be held in contempt and tried by federal courts. - Four20, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23@ Jammer
Just because they aren't required to, doesn't mean it would be in the best interest for the moral of the US for them to do it.
If he has nothing to hide, I don't see why this is such a big issue. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15The framers had exactly this scenario in mind, though.
The situation is too politically hot to actually get at any "truth" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Hallliburton, haliburtion, haliburtion....hallllliburton, haliburrrrrrton hey!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12They can impeach someone based ont he fact of ignoring a subpoena but they as yet can not enforce a subpoena. But if they go through the articles of impeachment and remove him from office, he will have to answer the subpoena.. kinda of a nuclear option for congress.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16cheney: i would probably not .. eat the beating heart of a small child. unless, it were offered to me freely.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I didn't make a stink over Jefferson's office being searched. I don't feel that corrupt Congressmen deserve protection.
Besides, subpoenaing someone isn't the same as even accusing them, let alone convicting them.
Honestly,, I think it's time for the executive branch to be deemphasized. It's only 1 (or 2) men we elect, and we only elect them every 4 years. They don't have enough reason to be responsive to the citizens, and so it's time to change how that branch works. - blarn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@Jammer i did check the constitution, and i couldn't find any such statement. which article and section of the constutition are you refering to?
- delong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10It's called separation of powers, executive privilege, and executive immunity. It's only been part of our Constitutional jurisprudence since the founding of the Union, why should diggers be bothered to know it?
The Executive Branch is not subordinate to the judicial or legislative branches, it is a co-equal branch of government that cannot be impinged upon by the others. A Congressional subpoena of an Executive high officer has never been done to compel personal appearance before Congress, ever, and would not stand Constitutional scrutiny. The Constitution provides the means for Congress to check the Executive - impeachment and the power of the purse. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@Jammer: Care to qualify your assertion with a citation? I know the Constitution _fairly_ well and I don't recall ever learning about this. I've just browsed the Constitution and searched it for applicable terms and came up with nothing supporting what you've said. This isn't to say you are necessarily wrong, I would just like to know where in the Constitution this is stated.
- bboston, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Come on guys,
Everyone knows that;
In a Theocracy, you are only accountable to the voices in your head....
-bruce - Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13 I keep hearing the same crap here. Those who are right of centre claiming that this is all just Liberal bias, or hating on Bush. I can't see that as being true.
You see, if I lie to you once, you probably won't believe me a second time. If I lie to you repeatedly you may question my charactor. If I lie to you repeatedly and cause the deaths of 10's of thousands of your friends, brothers, and fathers, which turns out were at best incompetence and at worse(once again) a blatant lie - then do you not have every right to "hate" me? Also, could pointing out my lies be considered as "hating", or merely pointing out the lack of charactor I have displayed?
That is why Bush is disliked. Some who caught on to his lies prior to 2001, are at the end of their rope in putting up with him. Others who slowly have come around after each successive lie dislike but not to the extent of those that figured it out from the start. Those that just recently figured it out, dislike him less than those who figured out earlier. So, what I am saying to you is this - you simply haven't figured it out yet.
- DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@logicnazi:
Executive privelage has in fact been asserted since Washington's time. However, ever since controversy over the Vietnam War during Nixon's administration, the Supreme Court has denied it's absolute legitimacy. Nixon tried to claim absolute immunity to a congressional inquiry, and in US v. Nixon the Supreme Court rejected the doctrine as a constitutional feature of the presidency. Why? Because nowhere is it stated in the Constitution -- it was merely implied by those in power.
It has still been exercised by every president since; however, almost every instance was one in which the executive branch had something to hide of questionable legality (Iran-Contra, Clinton's allegedly illegal land purchases and sexual intrigues). The only situation in which it might still hold up in Court is over issues of National Security. However, use of it would have to be _challenged_ in court for it to be denied.
In short, unless someone can cite the exact line from the Constitution claiming that the VP has the legal right to ignore Congressional subpoenas, I call *****. Executive privelage does not translate into immunity from Congressional investigations. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7When it comes to that.. and hopefully it will, hopefully congress will reject any attempts to "resign" and pubically prosecute to their fullest extent. We need an image of the former president and vice walked out of congress in handcuffs to go to jail... it would make the rest of the world take us much more seriously. This time around, it's time for the courts and congress to grow balls and cut the balls out from under presidents for years to come.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7we will drag him to court, despite his objections, if we must
- nuflux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@delong
"Separation of powers" does not mean "unaccountability" to the legislature. The President may be impeached for misconduct, and the common law "executive privilege" is far from absolute, despite what pro-authoritarian "unitary executive" ideologues might want everyone to believe.
P.S. Using the word "ineluctably" (proper spelling) doesn't make your argument any more true. A+ for paying attention during those Con Law lectures, though. - solu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8republicans scream bloody murder when Clinton gets a bj, so hypocritical.
- undauntedspirit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7After all, if you've got nothing to hide.... why not appear before congress?
Works both ways.
Actually I'd rather send him to one of his own secret prisons. - acroyear2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6remember the 5th of november.
- WebsterJTC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8actually, executive privilege isn't in the Constitution at all...so check it all you want, you won't find it.
Executive privilege was first recognized in the 1970's by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. US...
The Court also held that executive privilege was not absolute, as they did in the Nixon case. - logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes but it was first successfully claimed against congress is 1796 by none other than Washington himself in the negotiations over the Jay treaty where he refused to provide information about the negotiations to the house.
- starguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5LOL that reminds me of the Monty Python scene with the Peasant arguing against the King about the unjust olgiarchy... classic Python. The Britons!?! Who are the Britons?
http://anarchy.shellprompt.com
Happy Guy Fawkes Night - GoldenAvatar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Cheney could certainly be called to appear in front of a Grand Jury Investigation into these issues...
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7He can claim execute privilege. Sure if impeached he has to show up, though what he has to answer is still limited by executive privilege. I don't believe it is explicitly written into the constitution but executive privilege is a precedent that dates from Washington's presidency and well recognized by the courts.
Separation of powers is on Cheney's side here. Congress doesn't get to just harass the executive and make it answer whatever questions it wants. They are supposed to be coequal branches and all. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4funny though the executive did not see it self as a coequal branch of government when it raided congressmans jeffersons office.. And even newt was upset with that.
Noone denys that jeffereson is scum and should be investigated, but it is how it was done. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6On separation of powers, congress can impeach an executive official for obstruction of justice. Bill Clinton, as I recall, was impeached for that very crime (though he was acquitted by the Senate).
Refusal to testify could be considered obstruction of justice if there is a valid reason to believe that the testimony is vital to serving justice. I don't think it would be a good idea (or pass judicial review, if they can make a case) if it were simply to put the VP on the hot seat. But I can imagine situations where the testimony of the P or VP would be vital to completing a congressional inquiry and there is no other way.
In any event, it's not a good idea to force the issue. Impeach or don't impeach. Best not to play games with such weighty issues. - Zantozz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot..."
.. amen to that. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The LAST thing a Democratic congress wants to do is set precedent of having a sitting vice president testify ....sooner or later there will be another Republican congress with a democratic administration and what would the administration say then?
- mjpatey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Cheney was simply stating a fact (that the Executive Branch isn't required to go before Congress), and didn't rule out such an appearance; in fact he said they'd have to "look at it".
When Ford appeared before Congress it was because he decided to, not because he was subpoenaed. - delong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5And the Supreme Court, since 1807, has said that the Executive is presumptively immune from process.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Willeford
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Funny how Bush-Cheney apologists will throw the Constitution in there just when it pleases them.
According to the Constitution there is not to be a standing army, and it needs to be disbanded after 2 years, when was the last time somebody followed the Constitution on that one? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3not sure what the point of that comment was
btu she has a wiki entry obviously
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Willeford
someone will have to update me on that particular conspiracy..
i know bush said jokenly that he was upset that cheney shot the only trial lawyer in american that supported him.
Was he aiming at her? - delong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"actually, executive privilege isn't in the Constitution at all...so check it all you want, you won't find it"
That's because it's a principle that flows ineluctibly from the Constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. The Constitution is more than the text of the document, it must be understood in the context of the principles that ordered its drafting by the Founders, and the English common law as it was known to the Founders in the 18th century. The Constitution was not drafted in a legal or philosophical vacuum, and it doesn't explicate the assumptions that it is founded upon. - delong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is precisely the policy grounds underlying executive immunity and privilege. The President and the high executive officers necessarily must, in conducting their Constitutional duties, exercise a great deal of discretion and make many policy decisions that may be very unpopular. As Justice Marshall wrote, immunity and privilege are necessary to prevent the government machinery from screaching to a halt because the officers of the executive branch are being tugged here, there, and everywhere by frivolous, quite likely merely political, private lawsuits and demands by Congress.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@blarn:
actually it is on findlaw.. and it isnt completely settled and congress has concidered laws to make it settled.. but their one case to the supreme court, they lost..
The supreme court did NOT rule on executive power just on that one subpoena case.. they(congress) are afraid to push it..i would link but I am lazy and it was hard to find and i have no browser history. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4if congress makes a lawful order for the pres or vice to appear they must... otherwise that would be contempt of congress. The President can refuse to appear, but then technically he would be breaking a lawful order... of course,who can arrest him as he's the president? so the sides can slug it out.. of course congress can refuse to hear laws until he appears.. that would shut the country down if it was budget time... Just like the Supreme court can release a guilty man because the executive didn't follow the rules of arrest, nothing SAYS the cops HAVE to release the person... but the courts can simply refuse to hear ALL the cases until their verdict is respected.
The branches can slap each other around like this all day if they have to... it would benifit the citizens because they'd stop passing stupid laws, and illegally detaining peoplle for a while!!!! - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5delong for the WIN!
An excellent spanking of the ignorant. - logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Indeed being the president gets you certain rights that private citizens don't have.
When you're a coequal branch of the government you can have those rights too. - millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Check the Constitution, genius; the Executive Branch is not required to appear before Congress if summoned or supoenaed. The people who think otherwise are idiots."
But... but... but... Clinton...
(Wow, I didn't know that works both ways!) - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Funny how the cubicle monkeys can't seem to come up with any real arguments other than smearing knowledgeable people as "apologists."
OR.....bringing up off topic flatulence attempts to be a stinky distraction from the main point. - n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love how, by Cheney's own logic(recall the illegal wiretapping, you were told that it's okay to allow them to commit illegal acts, because if you're not a terrorist, you have "nothing to worry about"), if he has nothing to hide as he so fervently claims, he would answer the subpoena, yet he refuses to do so. Cheney sure looked worried to me. ***** hypocrites.
- Shodemofi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Happy Guy Fawkes Night!
(Bush administration has been the ruination of this country and he should be exiled if not given the death penalty as he has given a million people around the world by being such a terrible person) -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is