Posted on 06/26/2008 10:48:22 AM PDT by CutePuppy
President Bush doesn't hesitate to kick Congress around, but Congress just can't bring itself to kick back.
During oral arguments yesterday about whether a federal judge should enforce congressional subpoenas against a belligerent White House, representatives of the judicial and executive branches both noted that Congress hasn't exercised its full constitutional powers.
As Del Quentin Weber writes in The Washington Post, District Court Judge John D. Bates suggested that "the House could take other actions to compel the testimony. For example, the judge said, the House could order [White House Counsel Harriet] Miers's arrest and detention in a cell in the Capitol until she agreed to testify. Such actions were fairly common in the 19th century."
And Susan Crabtree writes for the Hill that Carl Nichols, the principal deputy associate attorney general, "argued that Congress could have decided to withhold Justice Department appropriations or refused to pass judicial nominations."
But the Democratic-controlled Congress, of course, hasn't done either of those things. Members instead chose to solicit help from the judicial branch -- the constitutional equivalent of running to Mommy. And not surprisingly, this didn't make Mommy very happy.
Neil A. Lewis writes in the New York Times that Bates, "who participated in spirited arguments with both sides for nearly three hours, summed up the court's predicament, saying, 'Whether I rule for the executive branch or I rule for the legislative branch, I'm going to disrupt the balance.'
"The case, with its fundamental issues of the separation of powers and the extent to which the executive branch may withhold information, involves efforts by Democrats on the committee to investigate whether the White House exercised improper political influence in the firing of several federal prosecutors.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
As far as I’m concerned this congress hasn’t been kicked around enough.
But the Democratic-controlled Congress, of course, hasn't done either of those things. Members instead chose to solicit help from the judicial branch -- the constitutional equivalent of running to Mommy. And not surprisingly, this didn't make Mommy very happy.
Over at Slate, I write about how important it is that the Judiciary Committee not blow its big chance to get some important information out of Addington. My suggestion -- given how tough a nut Addington will be to crack -- is for committee Democrats not to fire random, glancing shots in five-minute round-robins, but to collectively cede their time to one or two members, ideally former prosecutors, to subject Addington to a sustained and well-planned examination. I even have a few suggested lines on inquiry.
Agreed. It is most feckless Congress in history.
Bush could put the entire Democrat leadership under arrest for treason. That was quite common back in the 19th Century too - seems to me Lincoln did it during the Civil War.
Just sayin’...
Huh???
Are they referring to our RINO, "Wuss-in-Chief" who has steadfastly REFUSED to even defend himself or his policies against scurrilous and personal attacks by the DemoRats in Congress less it demean the "majesty" of the Presidency???
One can only wish this were the case and our esteemed leader actually had a "pair."
Sheesh. Leave it to the Washington (Post) Rag to turn facts upside down.
The first line of his column displays what a complete moron the author is. I am reminded of a quote by William F. Buckley, in which he responded to an equally inane statement with: "I would not insult your intelligence by suggesting that you actually believe the statement you just made."
Either Froomkin actually believes the first line of his column -- in which case he is a complete idiot who hasn't paid attention to any of the discourse between the President and the democrats in congress for the last 8 years -- OR he knows that it is a complete falsehood but wrote it anyway -- in which case he is a bald-faced LIAR.
As far as I’m concerned this congress hasn’t been kicked around enough.
I’d like to have a piece of that action!!!!
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Republican party whose members actually had some testosterone?
I would think that refereeing a dispute between the executive and legislative branches would be one of the more important things the 3rd branch of government should do.
Might be the only time in my life that I buy Pay Per View TV if that happens.
'Fraid so, i.e. he believes it and is, therefore, an idiot. Later in the article he described Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, as "deputy puppet-master"...
And his idea of executive powers (many of which Bill Clinton conceded to Congress and courts by exerting frivolous executive privilege claims in his personal criminal matters) is pre-9/11 :
"President Bush's drive for the greatest expansion in executive power since the Nixon era..."
and
"Yet that hardly means that he has been pushed all the way back to Sept. 10, 2001."
Then he extensively quotes a lawyer for one of Gitmo detainees " via the ACLU ... Frakt's extraordinary closing argument" as a "scathing indictment against the president of the United States".
I'd say this is difficult to come up with on a whim if one doesn't really feel it and believes it. My bet would be on idiot.
... Bates, "who participated in spirited arguments with both sides for nearly three hours, summed up the court's predicament, saying, 'Whether I rule for the executive branch or I rule for the legislative branch, I'm going to disrupt the balance.'
But it seems he ruled like that because he wasn’t sure which side was constitutionally correct — which may be right in this case.
I was thinking more generally that if one side or another IS wrong, the courts are the only way to resolve it — like for example your citation of Clinton and Executive Privilege.
Does Congress really have the power to lock people up in their own jails? Where does that power come from? I hardly see where the judiciary gets the power to lock people up for contempt (where do you appeal when the judiciary takes enforcement action — can the President “pardon” a person being held for contempt?)
I’ve wandered off topic.
Not at all, you just perfectly described the balance of power, push and pull using the powers and tools available to each branch, a tug of war between two branches of government in which one wants to get an advantage not necessarily granted to it by the Constitution, and for very good reasons, by design. In other words, asking judiciary to resolve this issue is a gimmick and a fishing expedition, to give Congress unfair and unconstitutional powers.
If judge chooses not to get involved in what should be a matter of reasoned negotiation between two branches (absent criminality or an illegality on the part of one side which merits judicial intervention, like in case of Clintons) and basically shelves it, then this non-decision decision may just tell the parties to settle these issues some other way.
Then, in each individual case of these assertions of power, each side may have to bring out and prove its case to the public, instead of judiciary. This way, the balance of power stays intact, and the outcome of each confrontation may depend on the strength of the argument and the case, and/or the strength of individuals on each side - barring criminality or dirty tricks (which could be then adjudicated or part of "public" case), it's the way it should stay.
This is exactly what I hope the judge does, unlike what SCOTUS has done in several cases by interfering into CINC role, even when backed up by Congressional legislation, and by usurping the power not given to it by Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.