digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Congress Has No "Oversight Responsibility over the White House" What !????

tpmmuckraker.com — Today Tony Snow claimed that Congress Has No "Oversight Responsibility over the White House". What constitution have these people been reading?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • laroja, on 10/12/2007, -16/+203Tony Snow, apparently, has decided he has the authority to throw out the US Constitution. Congress has no authority over the Executive Branch now! It's final, Tony Snow says so, that's why.

    Really though why not? They decided the Bill of Rights no longer applies, so now let's move on; the White House is 'over' the whole US Constitution thing. It's so 1789.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -21/+93Actually Tony Snow doesn't decide anything. He's just a mouthpiece for the evil bastards who have decided to suspend the constitution.

      From the article: "separation of powers on crack."

      I'm pretty sure someone at the white house is on crack, and they're telling Tony Snow what to say.
    • gmarks, on 10/12/2007, -14/+60"I'm pretty sure someone at the white house is on crack"
      Yeah, maybe like the ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION!!!!!
    • dsignr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+74Goodbye checks and balances.
    • ufia, on 10/12/2007, -10/+49Let me sum it up for you. The CIA has made a career out of overthrowing foreign governments. You think the US government is immune to the CIA?

      /pulling tin foil hat tighter
    • ubunterd, on 10/12/2007, -17/+92Tony Snow used to work on the O'Reilly factor, then Bush picked him up as his head ***** spewer.

      Judging his employers, this guy is a complete *****.
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31The FBI probably thinks the submitter of this story is a terrorist.

      Hey don't bury me it's ***** true! Here! Here's a ***** link to what the FBI has been handing out to local law enforcement:
      http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/FBIsuspect.html

      . . /*****/ >_>
    • bracersofint, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9"I'm pretty sure someone at the white house is on crack"
      @InfamousAtheist

      likely benzodiazepines, and a healthy dose of we don't give a *****
    • baboonanza, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6@ufia
      'Let me sum it up for you. The CIA has made a career out of overthrowing foreign governments.'
      And many of them became the most hateful tyrannies of the 20th century. Good luck with that.

      The CIA are/were grossly incompetent. Ever heard the story about them selling heroin to American troops in Vietnam?
    • jbarnes1234, on 10/12/2007, -27/+22Genuine question here:

      How can one branch of government have oversight responsibility over another separate and co-equal branch of government? If they're co-equal, then by pure definition of the words involved, they can't be responsible for oversight.

      The American voters are solely responsible for oversight of the executive branch by virtue of their votes. Thus, you 36 percent who chose not to vote are solely responsible for this mess and you each deserve a punch in the neck.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -38/+9yawn, another comment taken out of context.
    • Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8...apparently they haven't been reading the US Constitution.
    • KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21If Congress has no oversight over the executive branch, then what is the point of even having a Congress? With zero oversight, all the Congress basically has the power to actually do is set a budget. They can't actually enforce where that budged amount goes, or whether or not the laws they pass are being enforced, or pretty much anything. So why not just throw it away at that point?
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46From http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10288.html about Congressional Oversight:
      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.”
      2. The power to organize the executive branch. Congress has the authority to create, abolish, reorganize, and fund federal departments and agencies.
      3. The power to make all laws for “carrying into Execution” Congress’s own enumerated powers as well as those of the executive.
      4. The power to confirm officers of the United States.
      5. The power of investigation and inquiry.
      6. Impeachment and removal.
    • withears, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14mdhauke, please include context in which Snow's statement is not ignorant.

      Feel free to invent something if the truth doesn't work for you (after all, that's what Fox News does).

      We're anxiously awaiting your context.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@bracers,

      If they were on benzos, I don't think they'd have the motivation to ***** over each and every one of us with such active malice.

    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Dumb & Dumber takin' one of them fancy copter rides:
      http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/06/13/PH2006061301464.jpg
      Accompanying the president on his surprise trip to Iraq, press secretary Tony Snow, left, and White House counselor Dan Bartlett ride in a military helicopter from Baghdad International Airport to the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone.
    • way2muchsense, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ubu - and all of these enumerated powers depend on the will of enough members of Congress to use them. As long as you have tools like Joe Lieberman who steadfastly refuse to do any of these six things, it will be difficult for Congress to really do much.

      I'd like someone in the Dem leadership to get up and say (for example), "Mr. President, here's your $100B with strings attached. If you veto this, it might be months before we take this issue up again, if at all. Our time is at least as valuable as yours. In other words, take it or leave it."

      I can dream, can't I?
    • Bamont, on 10/12/2007, -33/+7Once again the stupidity of Diggsters rears its ugly head. Check it.

      "Really though why not? They decided the Bill of Rights no longer applies, so now let's move on; the White House is 'over' the whole US Constitution thing. It's so 1789."

      Umm.. have you actually read the Bill of Rights? Has absolutely nothing to do about Jurisdiction. Here, let me give them to you - and in those, maybe you can tell me where it states that Congress should have Oversight Responsibility over the Whtie House.

      http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

      You can go there to read them - since it's quite apparent you've never actually read them before.

      What's ironic is how quick people on this website are to jump to conclusions based on whatever Leftist article they've read without bothering to do their own research.

      What's even better is when you say other people are sheep and follow propoganda.

      What do you think what your doing is called?
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@jbarnes1234

      In addition to what ubuwalker31 said, I have something else to think about. The Judicial branch has oversight of both the Executive and Legislative Branch in that they can declare executive actions and legislative laws unconstitutional. This does not make the Judicial branch less co-equal than the other two. The Legislative branch has oversight over the Judicial in that it can impeach and then remove judges. Ditto for impeachment/removal of members of the Executive branch. The Executive is really the weakest on oversight (I can't even think of any examples...). That reflects the fact that the Executive branch is ultimately a single person who isn't worried about re-election at least half of the time. Our founding fathers had a pretty deep aversion to giving power to a single person after the experiences with the British monarchy.

      (Note that I'm talking about oversight, not just "checks and balances" like appointments, vetos, etc.)
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@Bamont

      Ever heard of BALANCE of Power?

      An Executive Branch that has no Checks or Accountability is called a DICTATORSHIP!

      I swear, some people shouldn't be allowed to bear offspring.
    • Bamont, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6"@Bamont

      Ever heard of BALANCE of Power?

      An Executive Branch that has no Checks or Accountability is called a DICTATORSHIP!

      I swear, some people shouldn't be allowed to bear offspring."

      Simply because the un-educated SAY it's a Dictatorship, doesn't make it so.

      I'm not advocating for what a lot of what Bush has done - but anytime you ask someone to rationalize a statement or you tell them that their way of thinking isn't logical, people on Digg tend to jump to the conclusion that you're a Republican or a Neo-Con. It's fine, because Leftists I've met in person do that too. And I laugh at them just as hard.

      The balance of power is fine, but that power is not absolute - how could it be? There are certain things Congress can do, and certain things they can't - but I sincerely doubt you've ever read the law. I doubt 90% of the people Digging this up have read the law - and why would you? We expect our officials in the government to do what's legal. It's quite obvious that, if Bush had indeed done a whole slosh if illegal things - for all the people screaming and crying and bitching for him to be impeached - you'd think it woulda happened by now.

      You operate off this logic that everything he does is wrong, so anytime someone throws a stone in the water you get a wave.

      THAT is more like fascism than what Bush has done - the attitude of people on the Internet and those that are willing to jump on any band-wagon they agree with before doing any research to back up that assertion.

      None of you could ever argue logically with me why this is. Because you don't know. Because that's how propoganda works.
    • dagamer34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Since we're tearing up the Constitution so fast, amendments 13, 14, and 15 should be coming up soon. Goodbye "freedom", hello slavery!
    • tHePeOPle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5ubunterd,

      thank you for introducing me to the term "*****." I'll be putting that one to use as much as possible from now on. It's almost as awesome as "*****," which is a personal favorite.
    • glasnostic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

      Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

      One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law."

      Tony Snow - 1998

      so was he wrong then or is he wrong now?
    • ajkrik, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Have you ever READ the constitution. It refers to advise and consent. The congress has the power to pass laws and impeach judges and presidents for high crimes and misdemeanors. That's it fools. Read a little.
    • glasnostic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6From wiki

      “Congressional Oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its standing committee system. However, oversight, which dates to the earliest days of the Republic, also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff

      Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.”

      Anybody want to argue that congress does not have the power to investing or hold legislative hearings?

      Sure plenty of people are saying that those investigations don’t constitute “oversight” but that’s just semantics. Clearly it’s not what you call it but what effect it has. Since my boss can investigate my activities, determine whether I have broken the rules, and ultimately remove me from my position, I call that oversight.

      Are we equal? In many regards we are, since I could investigate my boss and bring that investigation to a higher power and have her fired. Either way, the power to fire somebody means the power of oversight.
    • glasnostic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ ajkrik

      So the congress has no power to investigate?

      Most people would agree that the president and congress work for us, the people. Don’t the people have the right to investigate what their employees are up to?
    • DesertJeepster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Maybe you should actually read the Bill of rights.
    • mikeyrock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@glasnostic

      No. Hence the Walmart lawsuits.
    • whoatemytuna, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ajkrik is right, there is no provision in the constitution for oversight of the Executive's actions (aside from the provision for impeachment and removal "for and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors." U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. So basically this means that Congress cannot impeach or remove the president unless he commits a crime. Congress could pass laws to limit the presidents actions but these would likely exceed the boundaries of constitutionality and would not likely survive judicial review on the grounds of separation of powers.However it is important to understand that the president's only power (aside from the power to make foreign treaties and his powers as CIC) is the execute the laws of the United States and if there is no law he can't execute it. I am not saying I agree with this but that is the way it is.
    • Augie1969, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away." With that, Tarkin has essentially siezed control of the galaxy, with his new toy as the enforcer.


    • barakatx2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Can the Bush administration really just do whatever they want? Checks and balances were made so they couldn't. Just because they say they aren't going to follow the constitution doesn't mean we have to sit and watch does it? Where are the checks and balances that congress is supposed to be using to stop them? They need to stop ***** around.
    • razor150, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4How would the Congress Impeach a a President for High Crimes and Misdemeanors if they don't have the power of over site? Without the power of over site the Congress has no ability to impeach a President since legally they need to prove a President has committed crimes before they are able to impeach and then remove him.

      Use your freaking head.
    • whoatemytuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Congress can investigate the president. Oversight however, is another word for supervision or management.
    • isellmacs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Is this not the very definition of a straw man argument?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

      Snow is declaring that Congress doesn't completely own and control all aspects of the executive branch. Ok. And? Was it not Snow himself that made the choice to use the word "Oversight"?

      From an outside standpoint, it looks like the entire administration is highly corrupt. Congress is wanting to investigate and find out the truth. How is this a bad thing? To a certain extent, I can understand the whole "Party Loyalty" thing and Republicans backing bush on everything regardless. But at what point do you start to think for yourself?

      You can attempt to manipulate wordings of laws to make it appear that the president may not have done anything illegal. Forget the law for a moment, what about truth? As near as I can tell this administration has LITERALLY sold out our entire country, every man, woman and child, and at least a few generations to come. How could you NOT want to find out the truth? Think about what is at stake?

      Bush has openly admitted his desire for America to be a dictatorship. Think about what would be required for him to accomplish this goal. Now look at his actions. Concidence? Sure, i'll admit it's possible it's just a conincidence, but when the freedoms and principles of our very country are at stake, I hope you'll understand that most of us aren't going to just take his word for it.

      This administration has repeatedly violated countless people's privacy under the guise of "national security" using statements like "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?" Well time to step up and DEMAND they practice what they preach.
    • oscarsonthepond, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Nothing quite like reading a bunch of people talk about a document that they no absolutely nothing about.
    • dle5, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3It's funny that Diggers care so much about the constitution, yet there's no doubt about 90% of you would support repealing the second amendment without any thought.

      Hypocrites.
    • nowayhoseb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Goodbye checks and balances"

      The only checks are the ones we pay taxes with so they can leave us with the balances to pay
    • LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There should be a group of highly trained Ninja's who's sole purpose is to restore order when ***** hits the fan.

      Oh could we use those ninja's...
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@dle5
      "It's funny that Diggers care so much about the constitution, yet there's no doubt about 90% of you would support repealing the second amendment without any thought."

      So, all those people who advocated the repealing of the Eighteenth Amendment hated the constitution?

      Oh, and lets not forget about those who were in favor of rewriting the Constitution to take out the whole 3/5ths thing. Bunch of freedom-haters.

      (FYI, I'm not one of the alleged 90%. But your argument is moronic.)
    • mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Bamont
      "None of you could ever argue logically with me why this is. Because you don't know. Because that's how propoganda works."
      now I know that you are just a troll nice back pedaling after you were made to look like a moron though. First you say there are no checks and balances then you say thats not really what I meant.
      "Simply because the un-educated SAY it's a Dictatorship, doesn't make it so." thats not what he said. work on your reading skills uneducated isn't spelled with a hyphen either.
  • Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -28/+16Hmm... better move to Canada while we still can...
    • jotux, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19Is someone stopping you?
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5Doesn't matter.
      Canada will be part of the North American Union (Google *****, can you use it?) too.
    • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38I googled '*****' but I did not get the results that you indicate I should......
    • incubusnb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6not gonna happen, too many Canadians are proud of being Canadian, in some cases they're proud because they're NOT American.

      The only way Canada would become a part of the U.S, would be through war, flatout mano-a-mano, fisticuffs, blow everything up war!

      True, the U.S would prevail in the short run, but most of the people I know would roit for days, even months, not to mention the formation of underground resistances. But you have to remember, we're not Iraq, there is no 2 distinct sides to have a civil war over here, the 2 distint sides would be us, and you, and you have no idea how hard it is to occupy a country that does not want to be occupied, and has firmly fixed its gaze on YOU.

      the 2 possible outcomes of the "North American Union":
      1 - The U.S invades, Canada pushes back and it become a modern day equivelant of 1812
      2 - the U.S invades, commits mass genocide on patriotic Canadians and takes over land with millions of corpses on it.

      there is no middle ground, those who would give in to American rule, are few and far between. God ahead, declare war, I'll see you on the other end of a PSG-1(google *****, use it)
    • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3If the US annexed Canada, there would be a WorldWar within minutes.
    • razor150, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The North American Union has nothing to do with the US annexing Canada, or taking control of Canada. So give your "Proud Canadians fighting off evil Imperial Americans" a freaking rest you douche bag.
    • isellmacs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1While it's possible Bush may be able to attain his dream of an American dictatorship under his command, there is a good chance of civil war shoud he succeed.

      If Bush were to actually invade our Canadian brothers and sister's, that would pretty much gaurentee 99% chance of all out civil war. It's one thing to villianize middle eastern countries the majority of Americans have never (or will ever) visit. There is no way a war against Canada would ever fly, the military is still made up of human beings, and it'd be damn near impossible to convince even the dumbest fool that Canada was a threat.
  • Gophergreg, on 10/12/2007, -64/+19> What constitution have these people been reading?

    The one that says that there is a separation of powers. There are checks and balances between the three branches of government, but neither checks nor balances constitutes "oversight".

    Time to put away the foil hat.
    • Nanite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+60Nixon thought the same thing...
    • Imus, on 10/12/2007, -35/+10Gophergreg, you are correct sir.

      Oversight: Watchful care or management; supervision.

      There's enough to complain about when it comes to the Bush Administration without this kind of distraction.
    • badken, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30@"There are checks and balances between the three branches of government, but neither checks nor balances constitutes "oversight"."

      Hmm, I guess that whole impeachment thing is just a red herring then.
  • anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -78/+21uh, congress does not have oversight responsibility over the white house. just as the white house does not have oversight responsibility over the supreme court. just as the supreme court does not have oversight responsibility over congress.

    jesus, talk about basics of the constitution. it's amazing to see people throwing out multiple exclamation points and question marks, and rhetorically asking "What constitution have these people been reading?", when the reality is that the constitution they are reading is THE ONE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ BEFORE WRITING ABOUT IT.

    unbelievable ***** idiots. i say that with all due respect.
    • digid, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21this doesn't seem sarcastic so you must be serious...

      WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!???
    • jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -5/+80Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is Congress' constitutional responsibility to investigate, and therefore oversee, the actions of the other branches. This is why Congress holds hearings and has the power to impeach both the President and the judiciary. In fact, constitutionally, the legislative should be the strongest and most authoritative branch. Just ask James Madison.
    • lostmongoose, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34@Anastrophe: Your full of *****, too. The Legislative watches the Executive and Judicial and keeps them from overstepping their Constitutional bounds, the Judicial watches the Executive and Legislative to ensure the same, and the Executive watches the Judicial and Legislative, again, to make sure they don't stray from their bounds. THAT is what 'Checks and Balances' means. Jackass.
    • Imus, on 10/12/2007, -28/+14Read his full quote:

      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.

      Snow is correct. He may be a lying jackass but in this case he's correct. Checks and balances over the executive branch? Sure, the Justice Department is part of the executive branch. However, Congress does not have "oversight" over the White House.
    • webhead74, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29@jackhole:

      None of the framers intended for any one branch to be stronger than the other. That's why we have three *separate* but *equal* branches.

      http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4705
    • koko775, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Congress not have oversight over the white house? As far as I can tell, all Americans should have oversight over the White House, except according to executive privilege (can someone corroborate this or prove I'm wrong, please). Like the article quotes, this is an executive privilege argument /on crack/. It's just less obvious.
    • jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@ webhead:
      True in theory, but I believe they recognized, in practice, the legislative should and would be strongest, and the judiciary the weakest. The situation in the early republic bears that out, what with the creation of the non-delegation doctrine for Congress, and the necessity for the judicial branch to "invent" powers for itself not expressed in the Constitution, such as judicial review. Both, of course, are "implied" in the Constitution, leading to the conclusion that the founding fathers set up a superior legislature and forbid it from undermining its own agency, and an inferior judiciary, which John Marshall and other chief justices had to work at to give it something to do.

      Impeachment and legislative oversight is written into the Constitution, judicial review is not.
    • LavaHot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25This is rapidly becoming a debate over what the meaning of the word, "oversight" is. So, like any good citizen, I will look it up on wikipedia.

      ...

      ...

      ...

      Ah, here it is.

      "Congressional Oversight: Congressional Oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its standing committee system. However, oversight, which dates to the earliest days of the Republic, also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff

      Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances." (Wikipedia)

      Now this clearly shows that Congress has the power of Congressional Oversight, but I believe anastrophe is referring to general Oversight defined as "2. supervision or management," which Congress does not have over the Executive Branch directly. (Wiktionary)

      Instead, the farmers created a checks and balances system of government in which the Executive Branch had absolute control and exercised supreme rule over its subjects, with underlying demonic influences. Then the framers ripped-off that system and modified it so that each branch of the government had an equal slice of the power pie, except the Judiciary Branch, which got a Ringo-sized slice. The term Oversight changes its meaning in the context of Congressional Oversight to imply a more specific and relevant meaning.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@imus

      You're correct, the administration does not have to willingly testify before congress, but congress has the right and duty to subpoena and force the administration to answer for what it's done and its continued activities.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5@jackhole:

      You are wrong. The way it is supposed to work: Legislative makes the laws, Executive upholds (investigate and prosecutes) the law, Judicial interprets the law.

      The only time Congress is supposed to investigate or try is in the case of impeachment.

      How the checks and balances work:
      Legislative can make a law, but the Executive can veto it and possibly refuse to enforce it and the Judicial can declare the law unconstitutional.
      The Executive's veto can be overridden and the refusing to enforce a law is impeachable. The Judicial can rule against the Executive in a number of different ways including dismissing the cases.
      The Legislative can change the Constitution, impeach the members of other branches, and controls funding.
    • glasnostic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ DaveV

      Um. Wrong.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight

      read it
  • dmason, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40He's turned into Baghdad Bob.
  • MrESaulved, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Hail, Caesar!

    I mean, that's what this ultimately comes down to, W thinks he is an Emperor of an Empire.
    • venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Personally I think he's too stupid for that. I think maybe Cheney thinks he's the Emperor of an Empire (at least behind the scenes).
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Since when do you have to be intelligent to be an emperor? Since MrE mentioned caesars, just look at Nero.
  • spookyttws, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3As much as I hate Snow, you gotta feel for this guy, he not only has to deal out the ***** talking points, he has to come up with some kind of defense for them.
    • howski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12No. He can resign if he thinks it's morally reprehensible. One does NOT have to feel for the guy. They don't him Crony McSnowjob for nothing.
  • curtisdead, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Warning!: FASCIST
  • gmarks, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7If Bush had his way, he would burn the constitution. 

    "we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution"-WTF, thats just wrong! Damn Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
  • MonGuSE1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@anastrophe

    Clearly your accepting or attempting to assist the misrepresentation that the white house is attempting to pass on to the unsuspecting populous. The legislative branch has a duty to provide a check to the other two branches and vice versa. How do you suppose that check is supposed to work? Tony Snow is basically trying to assert that congress is trying to run or tell the executive branch what to do. He is doing this by trying to frame the word 'oversight' with a negative and controlling connotation. Congress has a right to know what the White House is doing and vice versa basically the white house is saying you don't have the authority to know what we are doing, go back to your sand box, ours is the entire world, you just fill out our checks. This would be comparable to the White House saying the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to hear and decide a case against them. Congress is simply trying to hold hearings to figure out what the hell is going on. If Bush doesn't want to go along fine he can get impeached and he can have his administration unfunded. Those are the two powers explicitly given to the congress to provide checks on the other two branches.
    • MattCruikshank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"This would be comparable to the White House saying the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to hear and decide a case against them."

      They can - the President can pardon.
    • lazzers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Congress is in the process of tying the President up in hearings over an action he has every rignt in law to take. The reason for this is to continue to slime the administration until 2008. He should tell them to go to hell, if they don't like it then let's visit the Supreme Court.
  • gmarks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!
  • TheWonderer, on 10/12/2007, -29/+8They've been reading the United States Constitution. Tony Snow is right. There is a system of checks and balances in place. Congress only has the right to get involved in White House business to the extent allowed by the Constitution. That, and no more, no less. Again, checks and balances, not oversight.
    Try reading before writing.
    • MonGuSE1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Genius how does Congress provide the check and balance against the White House? By being in the loop and knowing what is going on... How do they do that you may ask. By having hearings and subpoenaing people to testify.
    • MattCruikshank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8MonGuSE1 is exactly right.

      The people in this discussion who think that Tony Snow is correct, please correct MonGuSE1's assertion, if it is at all possible for you to.
    • thefaithful, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think Congress has definitely sat on its heels and let certain things go. However, checks and balances relate to Congress approving Executive appointments, creating laws and even being able to overturn Executive vetos. Congress is not a court of law. They are the people's representatives. We did not elected hundreds of judges to call into account every little thing a President's aid has done or said.
      If something illegal has been done then there are branches of the government to deal with that. If the people's representatives believe those other branches are not fulfilling their duty they are within their rights to pass laws to correct that. But the Congress is not law enforcement. If the Congress as a whole really feel the President and his administration has been unlawful then they have impeachment powers. Stop pussyfooting around with aids. It's like the Congress is afraid to really do anything substantive.
      And if the people really feel their Congress of representatives is failing then they need get off their butt, care about what's going on and elect some different people next time.

      The thing that gets me about the attitude of the current Administration is can't they be a little forward thinking and see a time when maybe people with their ideology won't be in power? If that other group was doing things they way they are now how would they react? Maybe they seriously think a republican of their nature will keep being elected from now on.
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@thefaithful -

      You said: "If something illegal has been done then there are branches of the government to deal with that." -

      Yeah - that branch of government is the Executive branch. They do the actual enforcement of the law. Now, what happens if the Executive branch are the ones who are breaking the law? Who enforces the laws against the enforcers? - um, err, um......Constitution doesn't say but the implied power in this case defaults to the Congress to issue subpoenas for testimony. Ironically, it is the US Attorney's office that are obliged to prosecute the subpoenas.

  • YellowStar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15R.I.P America 1776-2007
  • Phssthpok, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3This thread needs more question marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • olsonchr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12While not explicitly given oversight powers by the Constitution, Congress is understood to possess such capabilities as implied by the enumerated powers in Articles I and II. In order to perform the tasks assigned by the Constitution ("raise and support armies," "declare war," "regulate...commerce," "advise and consent," etc.), Congress has to have the ability to oversee the plans and executions of programs they have/will appropriate or generate.

    Moreover, there are well established statutory precedents that delineate legislative oversight. In the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act, for example, Congress was given numerous oversight abilities and duties including the ability "to exercise continuous watchfulness" over agencies under their jurisdiction.

    For more info, check out the Congressional Research Service's brief history of Congressional Oversight: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-936.pdf
    • Imus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Look at the word. Oversight: to oversee, to manage, to supervise. Oversight implies subordination, not separation, of powers. Congress should and does have oversight over the Justice Department. But ask yourself, should Congress oversee the White House, or vice versa?
    • MattCruikshank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@imus

      When you put it that way, neither.

      Everyone is distorting here. Congress doesn't manage the White House, but Congress can subpoena pretty much anyone they want to. (They can even impeach the President.)
    • lazzers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Which agency, exactly, is the White House and it's staff?
  • DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Looks like the giant vortex of suck that is known as the Bush administration just consumed the very last of what little common sense may have been leftover from the previous one.
  • schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If Congress issues subpoenas who enforces them? Right, the Justice department. What if Justice refuses?
    • olsonchr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The other option is to have a full trial under the "inherent contempt" procedure. Due to its "cumbersome and time-consuming" nature, this power has not been exercised since 1935.

      For more info, take a peek at Page 2 of this CRS report on Congressional Investigations: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/95-949.pdf
  • figurearts, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Precisely which article of the Constitution stipulates that Congress has oversight of internal White House staff? This is an awfully long thread without a citation from source (you know, "facts").

    Before asking "What constitution have these people been reading?", perhaps you should read the US Constitution first, yourself. To save you some time, I'll go ahead and drop a hint to my initial question: nowhere does the Constitution say this. Look it up.
    • Joe091, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the Constitution does not spell out every law in our country. It is just the framework. Our Republic is based on something called "Common Law" and the courts use things like case law and legal precedents to determine the legality of something. Just because something is not spelled out in the Constitution, does not mean it is not so. If it comes down to it, this could go to the Supreme Court for them to decide, and whatever they decide would become a precedent and enforceable by law. Of course, Congress will not want it to go to the Supreme Court because it is run by the Republicans now.
    • figurearts, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1The precise powers of each branch of the government are enumerated by the Constitution in plain English and cannot be changed without amendment. Again, where does it say that Congress has oversight of internal White House staff? Again, it doesn't.

      Try reading "The Federalist" by Publius (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison) before posting pure drek. Again, The Federalist might be a wee bit hard to understand without a 5th grade understanding of American civics.
    • MattCruikshank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@figurearts

      Can Congress subpoena people? How far does that power extend?

      If Congress votes to impeach the President, can they still not subpoena his staff?
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@figurearts - "The precise powers of each branch of the government are enumerated by the Constitution in plain English and cannot be changed without amendment. Again, where does it say that Congress has oversight of internal White House staff? Again, it doesn't."

      And by that same logic and reasoning, please point out anywhere in the Constitution that it mentions anything about Executive Privilege? Hint: it doesn't.

      One of the expressed powers of Congress is the power to impeach in the case of high crimes and misdemeanors. How do you expect the Congress to impeach without the power to investigate? Hence; investigative powers are implied as a result. It is well accepted practice that Congress has the power to conduct investigations and one of the mechanisms to force testimony is the issuance of subpoenas.

      Executive Privilege is also a well accepted practice that Presidents can exclude testimony that can endanger national security. It's not expressed anywhere in the Constitution but it is recognized as a legitimate power of the President and can be called at his discretion. Only problem here is most reasonable people can not see how national security figures into a purely political and domestic issue of US Attorney dismissals.

      This is the reason why this whole issue is heading for a Constitutional showdown - precisely because neither of these powers have been expressly defined in the Constitution. This will probably end up going to the Supreme Court to decide (which is proper) unless and until either Congress or Bush backs down. For the moment, Congress seems to have the advantage in this case.
  • Mactard, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

    To establish post offices and post roads;

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

    To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

    To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

    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.

    okay diggtards, let me have it. but where is oversight of the executive branch? USA is not diggnation. It is not a democracy, although we have democratic processes.
    • figurearts, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3At last, a correct citation of the US Constitution. For those who yammer on about "checks and balances" or "issuing subpoenas" and the like, sorry, but one should have at minimum at least a 5th grade understanding of American civics before posting drek like "they been trashing the constitution, maaannn!!"

      And no, the US is absolutely not a democracy. It is a republic. Democracy only exists on the local level, if at all. This protects us from the totalitarian power of mob rule, and prevents the majority from revoking the rights of the minority, as well as from political factions joining together across state and local boundaries to seize too much power. A republic is completely the opposite of diggnation-type mob rule, in fact.
    • olsonchr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11If you read the very Article you quoted you'll have your answer. In order to perform the duty of the Legislative Branch (namely, making laws), Congress must have an understanding of the issues and subjects they intend to make laws about.

      In order to "coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures" they certainly have to investigate and understand the Department of Commerce...part of the Executive Branch.

      In order to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" Congress has to comprehend what the Department of Defense (another part of the Executive Branch) does and how they do it.

      And in order to "make ALL laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution...all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," Congress most certainly has to understand what and how "any...officer" of the government does what they do.
    • Joe091, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17http://digg.com/politics/Congress_Has_No_Oversight_Responsibility_over_the_White_House_What#c5819019

      Jesus ***** christ. I mean, this is basic, basic legal stuff. If it was as easy as "the constitution doesn't say that," don't you think someone else besides you would have noticed it by now and everyone would have stopped talking about it? NOT EVERY LAW IS IN THE CONSTITUTION. And I don't see how in the world anyone can stick up for these rotten bastards at this point. After everything they have done and lied about, the people that have died for no reason, you STILL think that whatever they do is ok, and Congress shouldn't maybe look into things a little? How can you defend such an obviously wrong group of people? Do you WANT to live in the society they are trying to make?
    • figurearts, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1"Jesus ***** christ, maaannnn!..." Um, no law can supercede what's spelled out in the Constitution, nor change the powers and responsibilities of each branch. Oversight of White House staff would require amendment of the Constitution to allow it.

      Again, this isn't true because one "feels" it should be. Go look it up. Man, every single law in the federal code isn't spelled out in the Constitution?? The dickens you say, especially when making ***** up to support what's politically expedient at the moment.
    • Joe091, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@figurearts:

      Please explain to me why the Constitution would require an amendment if Congress "were" to provide oversight of the White House? You do realize that Congress has interviewed White House staff on record as recently as the Clinton administration, right? So I suppose the Republicans must have passed an amendment and have since then struck it from the Constitution. See, the thing is, I have studied constitutional law somewhat, and you listen to what Tony Snow says. That doesn't inherently mean I'm right by any means, and I would willingly admit if I was incorrect, but somehow I doubt your expertise in this field.
    • Robaticus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@joe091:

      "Please explain to me why the Constitution would require an amendment if Congress "were" to provide oversight of the White House?"

      -- because it is a fundamental change of the powers of the legislative branch. That absolutely requires a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, a similarly-minded congress could, by 2/3 majority vote give themselves supreme power over the other two branches.

      "You do realize that Congress has interviewed White House staff on record as recently as the Clinton administration, right?"

      -- Interviewed is different from "deposed," and, if they deposed White House staff, it was either at the privilege of the White House, or during the course of a DOJ investigation. Even then, looking back at the Clinton era, the White House blocked deposition of key players from the DOJ in at least two very public situations.

      "See, the thing is, I have studied constitutional law somewhat, and you listen to what Tony Snow says. That doesn't inherently mean I'm right by any means, and I would willingly admit if I was incorrect, but somehow I doubt your expertise in this"

      -- as Wikipedia would say [citation needed]. Where did you study constitutional law?
  • 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3You wanna see the Constitution lit on fire, Martial Law declared and both upper and low houses disbanded? I dare Congress to issue subpoenas and halt the staging operation for the war on Iran.
    • LavaHot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well, yes, if that means the Bush Dynasty will finally be over. I'd rather fight for my freedom then have some politician lie to me and change the meaning of the word to exercise his own agenda.
  • bigfatelvis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19This is another semantic challenge, like this administration is want to have.

    " We know where the WMD are, they in Bagdad, Tikrit, and north,south, east and west of there."
    " We never said we knew where they were..."

    "Mission Accomplished"
    "We never really said Mission Accomplished, we only meant 'major combat oporations.'"

    The list goes on...
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Didn't Orwell call that "doublespeak" in 1984?
    • anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1yeah. semantics. you remember of course the finest example of same? "it depends upon what the definition of 'is' is".

      no party has a lock on being disingenuous.
  • drum_bum, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Buried for the excessive use of question marks.

    Seriously people, you don't need to end every title with!!???! If a story is worthy of making it to the homepage it will, it doesn't need 10 exclamation marks at the end of it.
  • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The legislature and executive have a dynamic power struggle,
    each trying to grab power from the other. When there is a
    contentious issue of this sort, it's taken to the courts.
    The system is working. Personally, I think the Democrats are
    trying to divert attention from the fact that they aren't ready to
    stop funding the Iraq War.
  • tvolpe78, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Tony Snow is CORRECT, they DON'T have oversight responsibility over the White House. It's because congress have passed so many crazy laws and let the president do extreme write in on the laws they've passed.

    This is a definate case of "If you don't use it, you lose it." Congress better start getting some work done to take things in the oppisite direction!
  • robbiedo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Karl Rove is an employee Executive Office of the President (EOP) created by an act of Congress in 1939. As a creature of the Congress, theoretically, the Congress would have broad oversight over the EOP. Certainly, the President has broad claim of executive privilege in regards to communications between the President and his staff.

    However, the staff members are probably not immunized from the oversight prerogatives of the Congress when communications between EOP and other executive departments do not involve implementation of Executive prerogative and communications, and are based on initiatives of employees of the EOP, who are not carrying out Presidential directives.

    If in the investigations, it is determined that Karl Rove or other members of the executive staff operated independently of executive direction, delegation, and communication, it is likely that executive privilege could not be invoked, which based on the the content of the inter office emails would likely be the case.

    Where the Congress would probably be on shaky ground is if they were to ask Rove whether the President had directed the EOP in conjunction with the DOJ to pursue or prevent political motivated prosecutions through the US attorneys. In this case, executive privilege might be claimed, but would probably require an opinion of the Supreme Court, unless the investigation was in pursuit of a criminal case, and that would clearly fall under the precedent of US v. Nixon.

    There is no constitutional authority of oversight of the executive decision and deliberative process, except in those limits addressed by the Supreme Court.


    • robbiedo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8As an addendum, I am starting to think this might be the tip of the iceberg in some serious obstruction of justice problems for this administration. This does not look good, and portends of serious criminality in the White House, but how far it goes, I do not know.
  • akentevans, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Love the discussion - don't agree with all of it - but I am left to wonder why several folks cannot articulate their point without using foul language - seriously - if you have only a couple dozen words in your vocabulary, go back and get an online degree in English before re-digging. "Oversight" - it's true, the "oversight" isn't in the constitution - the loose fit of "ability to investigate and understand the goings on" is just that, a loose fit indeed.

    The "oversight" some refer to is called "voting" - do it in 2008.
  • joebagodonuts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Tony Snow felt differently about 9 years ago.
    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/snow_swallows_h.html

    It seems to me the real problem here overall isn't the executive branch, it's that for the last 6 years or so we haven't had a congress checking and balancing.
    Where we're all of these people for the last 6 years? Some are newly elected, but most have been there for longer than 6 years. Suddenly they grow a set? Please.

    The time to be brave and show some backbone was when the vote came up for the patriot act, when the vote came to invade, when the vote came up to allow the president to determine who is an enemy combatant. Every member of congress is in my view more culpable than the President. We count on them to curb the executive branch, and they haven't.
  • OMGKewl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0cia is ex nazi spy agency (SS)
    research 'operation paperclip'

    do your homework!
    wake up!
  • Varchild, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Buried for Innacuracy and lame-ness. I suppose President Bush has to win by 1 million votes in order to have a legit win and if the Democrats win by a couple votes then that's a legit win?

    Wake me up when liberals admit they lost an election rather than whining about the election being stolen.
  • IanRReardon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm taking constitutional law right now in law school

    Its amazing the number of people who chime in here with no freaking idea what they are talking about.

    I'm not going to weigh in either way here, but this really shows you, take everything you read here with a HUGE grain of salt because 90% of the posts are totally incorrect and just the ranting of someone who has a vague idea of what the constitution is.

    To get a real idea of whats going on here you need to read all the separation of power cases and really see how the supreme court defines it. US v. Nixon, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and a few others.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not everyone can afford to go to law school to be experts on constitutional law, and its not a course i've ever heard of in high school or most colleges. Can you really be suprised these people have no understanding of the Constitution?

      Could it be said those who control the education system deliberately leave out the Constitution from their curriculum so that they can usurp your rights and you wont even know it?
  • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0It's all in the interpretation and pretty much everybody has his or her own interpretation of the constitution.
    • OMGKewl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1u r pathetic and i doubt that u have a brain. constitution is constitution, written on paper. no interpretation necessary.
      i sound like ya president. LOL
    • an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@daves
      So therefore it's meaningless!
      That's what you are saying, right?
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@OMGKewl
      "u r pathetic and i doubt that u have a brain. constitution is constitution, written on paper. no interpretation necessary.
      i sound like ya president. LOL"

      Your statement only proves that you are an idiot. "constitution is constitution, written on paper." Where did you learn how to construct sentences? We have many freedoms and rights based upon the constitution that are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, this is a result of judicial interpretation. Go back to school, you are obviously in dire need of some more educating.

      @an0nymous

      "@daves
      So therefore it's meaningless!
      That's what you are saying, right?"

      Your statement proves my point. I said everybody has his or her own interpretation of the Constitution and I never said it's meaningless, that is how you interpreted my statement. The Bush administration is attempting to interpret the constitution in a manner that allows them to continue with their current activities without having to answer to congress.
    • LukeSkope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0He's correct, the constitution is not clear 100% of the time and interpretation happens constantly in the Supreme Court. Times change, circumstances change, the meaning of words change and the Supreme court has constant battles between Originalists (now in the minority) and Non-Originalists.

      I hate the Bush Dynasty as much as the next man, but it's hard to be on the side of some of the Anti-Bush reactionaries, many of whom, I suspect don't read books and get all their information about the world off the net. They're almost as bad as those whose world is shaped by Faux News.
  • Bahimiron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So there go checks and balances. Huh.

    So when will Bush be declaring himself Emperor for Life and forcing the American people to post pictures of him in their homes?
  • BJKWJK, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1This is very simple, If congress had the responsibility of supervising the Executive Branch, then why bother having an Executive Branch?
    Also, Mr. Snows position makes sense. Look at it this way, Imagine you are an assistant coach for a football team. Your job is to watch the game and offer advice to the head coach, based on your area of responsibility. Now suppose that everything you say to the coach, is broadcast on National Television and you had every douche-bag sportscaster criticizing your every word. Do you think you could do your job under those circumstances? Or would you be inhibited, knowing that anything you tell the coach is going to be dissected and second guessed? It's easy to hate this Administration, Tony Snow, etc.. But remember, one day there might be an administration that you like in office. Do you really want presidential advisers that are afraid to advise?
    • Wormfather, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Exactly, the Legislative branch MAKES the laws. That's there job plain and simple. The executive branch enforces those laws, that's their check on the legislative branch, they don't like it, they don't enforce it (Those random laws that forbid oral sexual pleasure come to mind).

      Congress can only check the president two ways. A. By approving his cabinet. B. By impeaching him if he's done something illegal/unconstitutional.
  • WaltDismal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Impeach the monarchy before it gets us into a nuclear war.
  • pique, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I am truly amazed at how ignorant you bunch are pretending to be. It is pretty clear that Mr. Snow was talking about White House staff, which the Congress, despite it's desire, does not have the right to compel under oath. You remember that last guy in office. Bill, I think. A few folks lost their jobs, perhaps at the request of his wife. Hillary is her name. They fired a bunch of folks in the travel department. Those people also work at the pleasure of the President. And no, they can not be compelled either. Those people who work for the President are under his oversight. Like it or not.
    Really, I know you guys pretend to have read the Constitution, but getting the answers from You Tube is really not a good way to study for your government final.
    • Wormfather, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0ROFLMAO. "Youtube", nice!

      OK, digg me down now.
    • BJKWJK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Well Said !!
    • pjhurst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First congressional oversight of the executive branch is not in the constitution, but neither is executive privilege. So both are interpreted from the constitution. Second, the supreme court ruled against Nixon, ruling that he did not have unfettered Executive Privilege. It amazes me that most of the people arguing against oversight would have been arguing the other way when Clinton's staff was being subpoenaed.
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ pique "It is pretty clear that Mr. Snow was talking about White House staff, which the Congress, despite it's desire, does not have the right to compel under oath."

      What are you basing this assessment on that Congress does not have the right to compel White House staff to testify? Executive Privilege? And what part of the Constitution outlines the usage of Executive Privilege and for whom does it cover and under what circumstances can it be invoked? Last time I checked, my copy of the Constitution did not include the words "Executive Privilege" anywhere in it.

      While the Supreme Court in US vs. Nixon did acknowledge the genuine need for protected communications within the Executive Branch in items pertaining to military and foreign affairs; it also rejected the notion that Presidents have an "absolute privilege" that can be called at his discretion especially if it involves the suspicion of criminal activity:

      "To read the Art[icle] II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art[icle] III." [Wikipedia.org]

      IANAL - but this sounds to me that the Congress specifically does have the power to subpoena anyone it likes in the course of it's investigations. I simply do not see how White House staff members are automatically exempt. Citing Executive Privilege must therefore be limited only to items that endanger national security [read above re: nonmilitary and nondiplomatic affairs] - I do not see how a matter involving the dismissal of US Attorneys qualifies in this respect.
  • edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3OMG. These nutballs in the White House need to be prosecuted for war crimes and hung from the nearest tree ASAP.
    • iamlutheran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Do we still have rope hangings in America? I would love to see those two babbling idiots dangling from a nice long rope. These two bloody idiots deserve far worse for getting over 3600 Americans soldiers killed for no reason.
  • rfawkes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Aren't many of congress' powers voluntarily suspended under the Anti Terrorism Act and War Powers Act which congress voted for by democrats and republicans.
  • BJKWJK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think it's funny how all these people who are railing against the "Monarchy" are actually advocating for a Government structure that is more repressive than what we have now.
  • mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't see why anyone is surprised at anything that comes from an administration that has single handedly ripped the tree from it's roots. And like others have said, Tony "Snowball" Snow is nothing more than a puppet with a hand shoved up his ass.
    • BJKWJK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2A typical response from a typical Bush hater. Are you people incapable of anything but insults and personal attacks with no substance behind them?
      First of all, I'd love to hear you explain how the administration "has single handedly ripped the tree from it's roots". What does that even mean? Is "Handedly" a real word? But don't bother, I'm sure your explanation would be nothing more than BS talking points with even less substance than a tree being ripped from it's roots..
      And in case you've forgotten, being a "puppet" is Tony Snow's job. He's a SPOKESPERSON!!. His job is to present the views of the White House. He's not a policy maker, he's a guy who speaks well, looks good for the cameras and deals with his hooligan buddies in the press !!
      I'd venture to say that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and the Liberal Media all have their hands shoved up your ass..
      • iamlutheran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Me thinks you love Bush a little too much there. Do you secretly spank your monkey while watching him try to talk on TV?
    • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow! And I thought only Republican-White-Right-Wing-Christians were able to conjure hate-speech!
    • mr.hostility, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@bjkwjk
      I'm the typical Bush hater, you're the typical Bush apologist. But hey, at least I don't live in denial.

      Oh, and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/single-handedly. I forgot my hyphen, so kill me. Or just send me to Cuba for being an enemy combatant to grammar!
  • frankengeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0pique, Nice comment and well said.
  • HotMovies, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is a strange, almost fanatical, leap in logic.

    Sounds like they're trying awfully hard not to answer questions.

    I'd suggest they're covering up something else but what else could this admin be accused of?
  • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I may disagree with Snow on this point but the bigger point is that this whole attorney mess if a made-up issue. Clinton did the same thing. These attorney's serve the President and he can fired them at will. The Dems are reaching on this one.
    • spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Of course this should send up a red flag immediately. The prosecutors were investigating potential wrongdoing by this administration and may or may not have been fired for it (circumstances strongly pointed to for). An independent investigation should be set up to continue the work of those prosecutors that were let go.
  • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FWIW: I can't find that quote from Snow anywhere but the parent. Anyone have another link?
  • waterboy1628, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Amendment 28: Anyone named Tony Snow is an incompetent moron.
  • wolfe1978, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3All hail King Bush and his court jesters....

    What a joke. And to the early comment that this is somehow the responsibility of those of us that did not vote... what were we supposed to do? Vote for a man who has no idea the value of a dollar and lived his life off a silver spoon, or vote for the retard who only got the nomination because of his daddy? No thanks, I'd rather spend my time on the couch watching reruns of Night Rider than spend 30 minutes voting for either of those clowns.

    Bush will spend the rest of his time swinging his executive epeen at anyone that comes near him, and then pardon all the people that commited crimes for him at the end of his presidency. Once out of office he'll be living well off the billions he will make selling Iraq's oil to the big oil companies (for more info look up the contracts being created right now in Iraq having to do with sale of oil rights to the US oil companies).

    We should really start a government sponsorship program. You know, like Nascar. Politicians can walk around all day with their corporate sponsor's logo plastered all over them... at least then we would get a little bit of truth out of these assholes.
  • Proximity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Geezus Kryst I am just so sick of this. Every day, it's something new with this old, corrupt government.

    Like this: http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431

    Everyone keeps telling me not to worry much because Bush's term is up soon (as if someone just as corrupt and vile isn't going to step in after him) but what about THAT law in the above link? What's to stop him from saying "Elections? noooo no, we're under martial law because of...... trrrists.... homeland security... uh... patriotic... stuff.. duties... threats to... safety..? Hey! I don't have to tell you! I'm the PRESIDENT and it'd be a threat to national security to tell you why I made myself your military dictator!" ... This type of behavior is what caused people to break away from Great Britain to escape "tyrrany" in the first place.
  • bshock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Just a matter of time before Emperor Bush abolishes the Senate in an effort to sweep away the last remains of the Old Republic.
  • payan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0For further information tune up HBO's Rome on sundays :)
  • xbugmenotx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I would like to hear Tony Snow say that under oath.
  • twilo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think the White House had Chuck Norris roundhouse kick the Constitution.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.