What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
108 Comments
- fixty, on 10/10/2007, -2/+63Again, the President has legislative duties too - he signs the bills. So to say the VP isn't in the Executive because he has legislative duties is silly. That each branch has a finger or two in the business of the other branches was by design - checks and balances and all that. Congress has just as much Constitutional authority to investigate the Executive as the VP does to cast tie breaking votes in the Senate.
For more info see the Congressional Oversight Manual (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf)
Specifically, the part entitled "Authority to Conduct Oversight", which includes the following:
A. United States Constitution
The Constitution grants Congress extensive authority to oversee and investigate
executive branch activities. The constitutional authority for Congress to conduct
oversight stems from such explicit and implicit provisions as:
1. The power of the purse. The Constitution provides that “No Money shall
be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made
by Law.” Each year the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
Senate review the financial practices and needs of federal agencies. The
appropriations process allows the Congress to exercise extensive control
over the activities of executive agencies. Congress can define the precise
purposes for which money may be spent, adjust funding levels, and
prohibit expenditures for certain purposes.
2. The power to organize the executive branch. Congress has the authority
to create, abolish, reorganize, and fund federal departments and agencies.
It has the authority to assign or reassign functions to departments and
agencies, and grant new forms of authority and staff to administrators.
Congress, in short, exercises ultimate authority over executive branch
organization and generally over policy.
3. The power to make all laws for “carrying into Execution” Congress’s own
enumerated powers as well as those of the executive. Article I grants
Congress a wide range of powers, such as the power to tax and coin
money; regulate foreign and interstate commerce; declare war; provide for
the creation and maintenance of armed forces; and establish post offices.
Augmenting these specific powers is the so-called “Elastic Clause,” which
gives Congress the authority “To make all Laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Clearly, these provisions grant
broad authority to regulate and oversee departmental activities established
by law.
4. The power to confirm officers of the United States. The confirmation
process not only involves the determination of a nominee’s suitability for
an executive (or judicial) position, but also provides an opportunity to
examine the current policies and programs of an agency along with those
policies and programs that the nominee intends to pursue.
5. The power of investigation and inquiry. A traditional method of exercising
the oversight function, an implied power, is through investigations and
inquiries into executive branch operations. Legislators often seek to know
how effectively and efficiently programs are working, how well agency
officials are responding to legislative directives, and how the public
perceives the programs. The investigatory method helps to ensure a more
responsible bureaucracy, while supplying Congress with information
needed to formulate new legislation.
6. Impeachment and removal. Impeachment provides Congress with a
powerful, ultimate oversight tool to investigate alleged executive and
judicial misbehavior, and to eliminate such misbehavior through the
convictions and removal from office of the offending individuals.
THE SUPREME COURT ON CONGRESS’S POWER
TO OVERSEE AND INVESTIGATE
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 177, and 181-182 (1927):
Congress, investigating the administration of the Department of Justice during the Teapot Dome
scandal, was considering a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially
aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.” The “potential” for
legislation was sufficient. The majority added, “We are of [the] opinion that the power of
inquiry — with the process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
legislative function.”
Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 509 (1975):
Expanding on its holding in McGrain, the Court declared, “To be a valid legislative inquiry
there need be no predictable end result.” - smurf22, on 10/10/2007, -4/+59Hes old and senile, I say we put him down...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32They don't call him DICK for nothing.
- yomamaisfat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24So now it's a four branch system? My teachers won't buy that on the Government test, Dick.
- jutl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20(a) Throw not Through
(b) Please stop spamming your site - Jyff, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20I'm over being mature and articulate and fair about Dick Cheney. So let's just cut right to the chase and say..
***** you Dick Cheney. we have you to blame for the deaths of more people. - Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Skip crooksandliars, which only has the top blurb from the original:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-lets-leahys-deadline-pass-2007-08-20.html - raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15The Bush Regime, yes REGIME, is sickening, and those that would support it are nothing less than treasonous. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, and all the other Neo-Con cronies of Bush should IMMEDIATELY and WITHOUT DELAY be removed from their respective offices and tried as TRAITORS to the U.S.A. under U.S.C. 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2381
This administration is a fraud, our liberties are being removed in the name of freedom? WTF? Seriously, if you cannot see the sinister intent here, then you are either brainwashed, blind or just completely stupid. - youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Regardless if he is old and senile, he needs to be put down.
- Shaman760, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11The guy isn't even a human being so I guess that is how his logic removes him from the executive branch.
I hope Santa Claus brings this ***** something good this year....like a stroke. Not one that renders him desceased, but rather one that will cause him to live the rest of his days as a vegetable, inside looking out....as if in a prison cell. - wolfzbane, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7although, If I were your teacher, I'd get a kick out of the attempt!
- isismaxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8As staunch of a republican as I am, I still think Cheney sounds silly saying he's not part of the executive branch. The President is the chief EXECUTIVE, and he is the Vice President! I loved it when one of the Democrats said " fine, if he's not part of the executive branch then we need not fund an office for him at the White House." It would serve him right if he had to set up office in a broom closet or the men's room at the capital building.
- bman784, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Man, Dick must be one hell of a thinker if no one has figured this little fact out for 218 years.
- moracity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If you read the Constitution, you will discover that the VP has no Executive authority. The only 2 official roles of VP are:
1) "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" (Article I, section 3)
2) receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1)
The VP is also not an member of the Cabinet and historically never attended Cabinet meetings. It's only been in recent times that this has become common. One could argue that the VP should be formally prevented from attending Cabinet meetings since he is provided no Executive powers. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the Constitution that even implies that the VP is part of the Executive branch. If the Constitution does not assign the VP to the Executive branch, then the VP is not part of the Executive branch. In the end, the VP is nothing more than a spare tire and has no powers until he is needed. It's really a useless position when you think about it. Why on earth would we want a powerless position to assume the duties of President?
Personally, I think we need to repeal the 12th amendment and go back to the VP being the runner-up in the Presidential election OR keep the 12th amendment and let the conventions pick the VP candidate, as the Constitution actually calls for. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the Presidential candidate to choose the Vice Presidential candidate. That is something that is customary. I think it's time to end that custom and once again give voters a real choice for VP.
This is just another example of how "we, the people" have allowed the government to just make stuff up and do what they want. It's not about political parties, it's about following the Constitution that formed our government. People are always calling up the Constitution for stupid things that don't matter(abortion, gay marriage, etc), but ignore it when it comes to things that really do matter (voting). - lexnaturalis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I'm torn on this. He is actually paid as part of the Legislative Branch (See http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-53.pdf for details).I find it interesting that the US Senate lists him officially as part of the legislative branch and not the executive branch (they breakdown the pay of federal officials by their branch... with Dick listed in the legislative branch) and nobody seems to be talking about this. The last time I posted this, I was simply Dugg down.
Are there any good theories behind why the Senate lists him in the Legislative Branch? - ReturnToFreedom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I think I now know why the government has been pushing for super spy powers that would allow them to easily squelch a revolution.
Seriously, if some rich guys who believe wholeheartedly that the way they govern our country is better than what we the people can ever come up with, how the hell would we stop them if they get elected as President and as Senators? - theroyalweman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6how much time until Bill O'Reilly calls digg a left-wing hate-site now?
- m0tbaillie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Wiki-wild wild, wiki-wild wild west. Jim West. Desperado.
- Acewrap, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You are not smart.
- FLLawLibrarian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well frankly, this is all legal speak. Lawyers just trying to get around the subpoena for documents on warrantless wiretapping. I am not too sure Cheney even gets involved here, just lets the lawyers do their thing. So who knows what they are really hiding...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Who cares what loofa-boy says?
- reboare, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Well with Blackwater mercs as his custom home-grown Imperial Guard, I say he can say whatever the f_ck he wants!
I wonder if this is foreshadowing? - MrGrinchstick, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Someone arrest that son of a whore bitch!
HANG HIM !!!!!! - jroll8481, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you make this statement like it is listed somewhere. because the president is the chief executive officer that does not automatically give the vp the title of vice chief executive officer. the president is also the commander and chief to the troops, that doesnt make the VP second in command of the troops. you are making general assumptions out to be facts when there is nothing to support your statements.
- mbelleghem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Is he asleep in that photo? All class.
- nakani, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!"
wtf does that even mean? Yelling the same things repeatedly with no explanation doesn't get through to anyone. - mattfugitive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5What else is new?
- ubuntuedgy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"Please God, make this administration go away. Amen."
Unfortunately, since our congress won't keep these guys in check, I am forced to pray...even that isn't working. - thekronz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2From "www.whitehouse.gov":
"The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government."
Cheney claims he isnt a part of the executive branch?? ......NO *****, DICK! - XHashmeerX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
-The US Constitution
I don't see what's so difficult about it... - Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4*sighs*
Why do we elect politicians who are only interested in helping themselves instead of helping America?
Why do we sit back and accept the ***** "candidates" from the two parties election after election?
Seriously, i try to watch the debates but its more of a popularity contest, filled with high school drama than it is electing the best possible leader for our country. Its terrible! They ask the same ***** questions where the candidates all have the same ***** answers, anyone who does think differently is cast to the side.
Although what the ***** do I expect from a country who has a higher voter turnout for American Idol than for our political elections. - pnyphnz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sounds like Steve Martin in Roxanne.
- breckinshire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The he really needs to give back that "Executive Branch" coffee mug. Those are only for employees.
- americajones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Boycott the two-party system in 2008.
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have NO vote, unless they be equally divided." That's the key. They don't have to manipulate all of America, but only so many Americans as fall within the statistical margin of error. 95% of America is brainwashed, 5% gets manipulated. 95% of America accepts canned McRhetoric from the Left or the Right, and the 5% who tries to figure things out is led through a labyrinth of self-contradiction, deception, and tautology.
Take "No Child Left Behind" as an example. If you're for Bush, you're for it. If you're against it, you want to leave our children behind. If you think about it, you notice that the program is predicated on the assumption that competition breeds innovation. But why should STANDARDIZED education be subject to COMPETITION? What do you do if you can see this? Or if you've read "Systems of Survival" by Jane Jacobs and understand WHY government should not be run like a business?
Vote for the MICKEY MAUS PARTY candidate of your choice (Ru Paul, Paris Hilton, Darth Vader, etc., ad infinitum) and demand to see your vote in print after the elections. Help verify the statistical accuracy of the new voting machines, while sending a clear message of discontent to media outlets. Don't give your vote to a monster. Vote for yourself if you want to be certain you're not voting for fascism.
Want a candidate who can win? Mickey Mouse has gotten more votes for President than any other candidate in history. There's your winner.
Vote with Mickey Maus '08. - CZzyzx41, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3well at least the democrats are consistent. When the government started pushing for military strikes in Iraq, didn't they scream about solving this diplomatically? That's what they're doing now to the Republicans. They're trying to solve it diplomatically and be all polite about it. Meanwhile, they're allowing this administration to destroy our country. So I say, ***** the congress, ***** the white house and someone start constructing the guillotines! What this country needs is a good old fashioned revolution!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Guns...lots and lots of guns and angry civilians.
- rudyghouliani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well if that is the case that The DICK has his own personal mercenary army doing his dirty work, may I politely suggest that you go out and purchase an assault rifle and stacks of ammunition to be able to defend yourself against these ***** i the need arises. Many thinking people have been doing just that lately and advising their fellow citizens to do likewise.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
- Fabc001, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5When are our military going to uphold their oath "TO DEFEND FROM BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES" There is only one enemy at the moment for the USA and it isn't Foreign!
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2(http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/exec.html) ... See the link that says "to learn more about the executive branch, please visit the President's cabinet page? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html). Now, scroll down to the "Cabinet Rank Members Section." Look carefully, who is the first person listed? http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/
- tannerpetry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why is no one making the effort to clarify this language in the Constitution. Either the VP is, or is not, part of the Executive Branch. I don't want this BS loophole to ever be used by anyone again. Get out the chisels and lets set this in stone once and for all.
- kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1More traffic is good :D , plus I would KILL for krose to debate him!
- kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you could explain the answer to me after class and prove you know the real answer I'd give you the points in a heartbeat.
- neko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And spark the first World Edit War (WEW1)?
- Eljefedeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Off topic a little, most of government classes are taught with the the bureaucracy as the unofficial 4Th branch.
On topic, as I really am a government teacher if you explained your logic I would give you the points. - Spymodhf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I like how you'll all trusting crooksandliars.com as a credible source of information.
- spartan789, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3if he claims he's not part of the executive branch, how can he be claiming executive privilege? Can't congress just subpoena him / his underlings on the wiretapping fiasco?
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1truthiness, you mean
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2(http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/exec.html) ... See the link that says "to learn more about the executive branch, please visit the President's cabinet page? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html). Now, scroll down to the "Cabinet Rank Members Section." Look carefully, who is the first person listed? http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/
- MadScientist68, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Finally some people here are actually paying attention to the facts.
For those of us without an agenda, he is actually part of the LEGISLATIVE branch. That is why he is called by the Constitution "the President of the Senate" (a very powerless position by the way).
Whether you like it or not these are the facts. Impeach him if you must, but this is the case.
In addition, he CAN claim executive privilege on communication that deals with the President. I don't think such a claim could be made for Cheney's communication with a congressman for instance. -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is