What is Digg?197 Comments
- 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. - 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.
- 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 *****. - 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. - dsignr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+74Goodbye checks and balances.
- Nanite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+60Nixon thought the same thing...
- 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!!!!! - 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. - inactive, 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 - dmason, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40He's turned into Baghdad Bob.
- ray901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38I googled '*****' but I did not get the results that you indicate I should......
- 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.
- 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 - 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. - 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. - 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
. . /*****/ >_> - 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.
- 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?
- 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... - 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. - 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.
- 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? - digid, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21this doesn't seem sarcastic so you must be serious...
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!??? - gmarks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!
- 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. - inactive, 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. - 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? - 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.) - 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 - 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.
- 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. - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -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.) - 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. - 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. - 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? - schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If Congress issues subpoenas who enforces them? Right, the Justice department. What if Justice refuses?
- 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.
- 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? - 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 - 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. - YellowStar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15R.I.P America 1776-2007
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- jotux, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19Is someone stopping you?
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - glasnostic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ DaveV
Um. Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight
read it - curtisdead, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Warning!: FASCIST
-
Show 51 - 100 of 193 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is