A Coming Battle Over Bush's Executive Privilege

[BioCatholic]

Executive Privilege: George Washington invoked it, Dwight Eisenhower named it and Richard Nixon abused it. Now it looms as the nuclear option in George W. Bush’s battle with Congress over its investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. So what the heck does it mean, and how much weight will it carry in the current standoff?

Despite Fielding’s reference to "constitutional prerogatives, "executive privilege is not actually mentioned in the Constitution and has been called “a constitutional myth” by legal historian Raoul Berger

time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1601450,00.html?cnn=yes

Priest-penitent, marital, and attorney-client privilege are all granted by Congress via statute. These are framed under the “Rules of Evidence”, which are for the framework of the Federal Codes. Executive privilege, however, has no mention in the Constitution.

I smell a “Contempt of Congress” citation a comin’. Bush will have a hard time refusing to enforce the Contempt warrant issued, which theoretically he could issue a blanket and forward standing Pardon for.

Congress is actually more powerful than given credit for, It has passed statutes signed into Law that give it Contempt ability, subpoena ability, and many other powers. A President has already signed them into law, hence a sitting President has no real choice other than to enforce them. The Presidential Check on Congress is directed at the Veto of a Bill at the time of passing, but once signed, a latter President must adhere to and “faithfully execute”.

For “Strict Constructionists”, the Supreme Court has essentially “invented” a Check of the President on Congress by upholding Executive privilege. Read the decisions on this issue, where “The Supreme Court acknowledged that need as early as 1803, in Marbury v. Madison”.

 

[gilliam]

This will be an interesting case for the SCOTUS. Pure constitutional law at it grittiest.

 

[ReginaNova]

Oy vey, this is what the new Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are spending their time on? So all that hoopla about how the Democrats were going to get us out of Iraq, bring universal health care, etc, etc. And what we get are non-binding resolutions opposing the war in Iraq and “committing” (morally) to getting out of Iraq; and Congressional grandstanding on Valerie Plame and on fired federal prosecutors. I am waiting for some substantive legislation from the Democratic Congress–not just the same polarized politics that we had when Clinton was President and the Republicans held both houses of Congress.

 

[system]

Oy vey, this is what the new Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are spending their time on? So all that hoopla about how the Democrats were going to get us out of Iraq, bring universal health care, etc, etc. And what we get are non-binding resolutions opposing the war in Iraq and “committing” (morally) to getting out of Iraq; and Congressional grandstanding on Valerie Plame and on fired federal prosecutors. I am waiting for some substantive legislation from the Democratic Congress–not just the same polarized politics that we had when Clinton was President and the Republicans held both houses of Congress.

It’s the American way! Here’s a fun fact I learned here at CAF:

The republican congress issued over 1000 subpoenas to the Clinton administration over just a couple years! So while he was trying to intervene to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, sort out some stubborn politicians in Northern Ireland, and get some sort of deal between the Palestinians and Israel, he was receiving 2 or 3 subpoenas per day!

I don’t think the dems will even get close to a QUARTER of the number the last bunch did.

 

[litllulu]

If I am correct, under the Clinton Admin. all but one US attorneys were fired. If I am wrong, someone correct me. I didn’t hear the same fight from the Dems at that time.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Let’s face it. The primary objective of any politician is to ensure that the other party is defeated at the next election.

If the nation receives any benefit from these actions it is a bonus.

 

[beckers]

Oy vey, this is what the new Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are spending their time on? So all that hoopla about how the Democrats were going to get us out of Iraq, bring universal health care, etc, etc. And what we get are non-binding resolutions opposing the war in Iraq and “committing” (morally) to getting out of Iraq; and Congressional grandstanding on Valerie Plame and on fired federal prosecutors. I am waiting for some substantive legislation from the Democratic Congress–not just the same polarized politics that we had when Clinton was President and the Republicans held both houses of Congress.

I was trying to figure out the same thing. We have all these fights to show who is in power but nobody seems to be doing anything but arguing PLUS now we have a full swing president election already in effect almost a year and half before the people go to the polls. Is anyone actaully working in DC? What are we paying for???

Yes you would be correct clinton fired all of his prosecutors and there was talk of bush firing all of his. I don’t see why this is becoming an issue. he appoints them and if he wants he can fire them. i live under the same rules in texas. It’s called At-Will Employeement.

 

[ReginaNova]

I was trying to figure out the same thing. We have all these fights to show who is in power but nobody seems to be doing anything but arguing PLUS now we have a full swing president election already in effect almost a year and half before the people go to the polls. Is anyone actaully working in DC? What are we paying for???

Yes you would be correct clinton fired all of his prosecutors and there was talk of bush firing all of his. I don’t see why this is becoming an issue. he appoints them and if he wants he can fire them. i live under the same rules in texas. It’s called At-Will Employeement.

It’s all entertainment. Congressional politics this year are the opening act, getting the electorate/audience in the mood for the main act, which is the Presidential campaign to come.

 

[mary_bobo]

It’s all entertainment. Congressional politics this year are the opening act, getting the electorate/audience in the mood for the main act, which is the Presidential campaign to come.

How right you are. This is a spectacle trying to grab presidential power by the Dems in Congress. I wonder if they care that their approval figures are going down. And I wonder how much of this the American people will tolerate.

 

[rlg94086]

Let’s face it. The primary objective of any politician is to ensure that the other party is defeated at the next election.

If the nation receives any benefit from these actions it is a bonus.

Sad, but true. And most of the time, it isn’t benefit we receive, rather more bureaucracy.

 

[2shelbys]

It’s the American way! Here’s a fun fact I learned here at CAF:

The republican congress issued over 1000 subpoenas to the Clinton administration over just a couple years! So while he was trying to intervene to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, sort out some stubborn politicians in Northern Ireland, and get some sort of deal between the Palestinians and Israel, he was receiving 2 or 3 subpoenas per day!

I don’t think the dems will even get close to a QUARTER of the number the last bunch did.

You make Bill sound so noble. If you wanted to be accurate you would have said “while he was trying to intervene to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans that was not happening in preparation for his illegal and immoral attack on a sovreign European nation”, sort out some stubborn politicians in Northern Ireland when the internal politics of a foreign nation are none of his business, and get some sort of deal between the Palestinians and Israel knowing full well that his ideas didn’t have even the slightest chance of success"…
You are right about one thing, there probably won’t be even a quarter as many because there is no where near the amount of questionable and illegal activity going on as there was under Clinton. Man, if you look at what went on in Arkansas you realize that he was more of a mob boss than a Governor.

 

[2shelbys]

Let’s face it. The primary objective of any politician is to ensure that the other party is defeated at the next election.

If the nation receives any benefit from these actions it is a bonus.

Exactly.

 

[mary_bobo]

Let’s face it. The primary objective of any politician is to ensure that the other party is defeated at the next election.

If the nation receives any benefit from these actions it is a bonus.

I’d call it a miracle, Joe.

 

[system]

You make Bill sound so noble.

He’s looked at that way in many places around the world.

If you wanted to be accurate, you would have looked up those historical events before coloring them as “none of his business” . The USA’s help was asked for and he responded.

I can tell nothing I say will convince you otherwise, since you obviously despise him, so I won’t waste my time.

In the long run, we’ll all get to see how the "legacies’ pan out in history.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Oy vey, this is what the new Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are spending their time on? So all that hoopla about how the Democrats were going to get us out of Iraq, bring universal health care, etc, etc. And what we get are non-binding resolutions opposing the war in Iraq and “committing” (morally) to getting out of Iraq; and Congressional grandstanding on Valerie Plame and on fired federal prosecutors. I am waiting for some substantive legislation from the Democratic Congress–not just the same polarized politics that we had when Clinton was President and the Republicans held both houses of Congress.

Hey, while the Dems in both houses are wrapping themselves in a perpetual rounds of supena after supena just maybe they wont be passing new spending and tax bills.

 

[beckers]

It’s all entertainment. Congressional politics this year are the opening act, getting the electorate/audience in the mood for the main act, which is the Presidential campaign to come.

Well the campaign is already here. I am thinking that all the front runners burn out and we get some really leaders.

Did you see that the anti-war protesters are going to take over nancy’s office next? thehill.com/leading-the-news/codepink-plans-takeover-of-pelosis-office-2007-03-22.html
Should be fun times

Check out what the drudge is reporting…Seems no one is in charge
**Dem leadership pulls DC voting bill from floor; conservative Dems were supporting DC gun repeal…
Leader Hoyer seen yelling at staff on floor…
Speaker Pelosi absent because she is desperately searching for Iraq supplemental votes…
Holmes-Norton standing silently in disbelief… **

 

[2shelbys]

He’s looked at that way in many places around the world.

If you wanted to be accurate, you would have looked up those historical events before coloring them as “none of his business” . The USA’s help was asked for and he responded.

I can tell nothing I say will convince you otherwise, since you obviously despise him, so I won’t waste my time.

In the long run, we’ll all get to see how the "legacies’ pan out in history.

Perhaps you can cite some facts on this, especially where Yugoslavia asked him to bomb the heck out of them. I would be interested in seeing that. I don’t despise Bill, I just don’t like to see people get away with committing crimes just to avoid the damage to their political party. I would feel the same way if the Republicans had steadfastly tried to cover Nixon’s butt after it became obivous that something was up. That is another good comparison. Nixon did not commit any crime, he just involved himself in trying to cover it up and his party did not try to cover his butt. Clinton actually commited felonies himself and by refusing to recognize the law and pretending that felonies “didn’t rise to the level of impeachment” (although the misdemeanor under Nixon somehow did) his party showed once again that the one and only thing they care about is their own wealth and power.
As you say, we will all get to see how the legacies pan out.

 

[2shelbys]

I heard something interesting on a local radio show tonight. It was several quotes from September 23, 1999 when Patrick Leahy, who is the main seeker of subpoenas now, was hammering the Republicans about how Congress really had no ability to enforce subpoenas served on the Executive branch and how the White House had the express right to deny them. He also spoke of how there could be no “Contempt of Congress” charge against anyone other than an uncooperative witness in an actual Senate trial. Hmmm…Imagine that, hypocracy from a Democrat. Who would have ever expected that.

 

[system]

Perhaps you can cite some facts on this,

Well, start with Northern Ireland. A great deal of credit must to go to Clinton and Blair for making such progress there. (Hundreds of sources will show that). And the unsung heros George Mitchell (former senator), Canadian general De Chastelain and many others. Despite (or because of ) the Troubles, no president ever went there, not even Kennedy, none until Clinton. Pope JP2 didn’t even go there, although he was very close. Clinton did three trips during his presidency. When an American president flies in, it definitely shows some interest. It was his constant interest, that made the 1998 good friday agreement happen. It would not have happened otherwise. He also visited again after his presidency when they built the Clinton peace center.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1346866.stm

Of course many people played many roles and they’re still hashing out details, but the changes are real and have lasted years. Now, NI was rated a top tourist spot for 2006-2007 and Belfast one of the top 10 cities to visit. So things have changed greatly.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6037525.stm

The US’s vital role in the process dropped like a stone when W took over. (although he finally made a visit)

As for the legacies, here’s a page where a bunch of “experts” at the Brooking’s Institute are going over that, and judging by the date, it was literally his last day as president and inauguration day for W. Jan 9, 2001: (obviously opinion not fact)

Q: I’m Stanley Newman, recently retired from the federal government.

Dr. Haass, in your assessment of foreign policy you didn’t give any credit to the president for the peace in Ireland. In terms of Kosovo and Bosnia, at a point where Europeans and the rest of the world didn’t seem to care, Clinton stopped the killing. You criticized him for not sending ground troops, I would say that if he tried to do that, he would probably have been impeached. There was no political support for that. On Israel, I thought you were very unfair on Israel. I don’t think any president has tried harder to get peace. Had he had a leader of the Palestinians that didn’t live up to the adage that the Palestinians always lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity, we might have peace in the Middle East. Would you care to comment?

MR. HAASS: I should have mentioned Ireland on the positive side, although it’s final resolution is still somewhat in doubt, shall we say, so whether he actually for all of his efforts will have an enduring monument to them is up for grabs. I did mention the Balkans as a list of accomplishments, both Bosnia and Kosovo, although I think he was late to intervene with both. And I do think that extraordinary suffering took place in Kosovo because of our refusal to put ground troops on the table. You say he would have met political resistance, I agree. Last I checked, though, that’s what presidents get paid for, it is to overcome political resistance. That’s a perfect example of not being poll-led, but instead going out and selling the policy you believe is right.

brookings.edu/comm/transcripts/20010109a.htm
It’s not all good, but I would put it side by side with whatever gets said on the first Tuesday of 2009.

 

[jonfan]

Big deal. Clinton fired 93 fed attorneys when he came into office. If anything it shows Bush willingness to work with the oppisition party. It is political and it is the right of the President to do so. If people want this law changed than draft a bill.