Ridge steadfast in refusal to testify

Washington Times ^ | Monday, March 25, 2002 | AP

[JohnHuang2]

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge stood firm yesterday in his refusal to testify before Congress about the White House's anti-terrorism budget, saying his appearance would violate the Constitution's separation of powers.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert defended Mr. Ridge's refusal to appear before the Senate Appropriations Committee, which Democrats control.

[JohnHuang2]

Monday, March 25, 2002

Quote of the Day by Alissa 3/25/02

[Quila]

Just subpoena him and have it done with. If you're acting in any way as part of the federal government, and you have large-scale influence on federal spending, Congress has every right to call you in.

Of course then he tries to distract us from his refusal to let us know what he's doing with our money with another warning of a terrorist attack.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

[Freemyland]

Bump in anticipation of an intelligent separation of powers thread.

[Quila]

The separation of powers angle he's talking about does not seem to have much merit. Is he getting paid by the federal government? Does he have authority within the government? Was he hired by Bush? Yes to those answers clinches it for me. That puts him as part of the exective branch, and that branch is constitutionally accountable to the House for how it spends money.

It seems that he's trying to pull off a Hillary-healthcare-like "I'm not really in a government post, so you can't touch me" kind of thing.

[Freemyland]

Could Congress require the President himself to appear before it and testify?

[Quila]

Could Congress require the President himself to appear before it and testify?

If a federal court can make him testify on a minor civil suit, I don't see why not. However, they are usually respecful enough to do interviews and take depositions in his offices.