Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gorelick's Appointment to the 9/11 Commission... Unconstitutional?
4-17-04 | Jonathan M. Stein

Posted on 04/17/2004 8:30:24 PM PDT by jmstein7

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: fourdeuce82d; Travis McGee; El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton
BUMP!


With Buckley v. Valeo in mind, we need to go through this legislation with a fine-toothed comb and find ANYTHING that appears to be "executive" in nature.

Specifically, we need to find anything the appears to be an "enforecement" power in the language or anything that allows the committee the power to seek judicial remedies/relief.

Anything that encroaches on the president's constitutional grant to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" will work.

I'm looking at the subpoena clauses in the legislation -- that seems to give the Commission the ability to seek judicial relief.

Let me know if you find anything.
41 posted on 04/18/2004 8:04:17 AM PDT by jmstein7 (Real Men Don't Need Chunks of Government Metal on Their Chests to be Heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Guess it depends on if Commission members are considered 'Officers of the United States'. Something tells me that the Framers didn't anticipate the formation of fact-finding Commissions, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
42 posted on 04/18/2004 8:08:49 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy (Veni Vidi Velcro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
I think this is where you're going wrong, jm.

"A Commission passed into law by congress and signed by the President is executive per se. It just is."

43 posted on 04/18/2004 8:16:14 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy (Veni Vidi Velcro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy
Agreed. That is why we need to look at the language of the legislation to see what they are actually authorized to do. To reiterate:

With Buckley v. Valeo in mind, we need to go through this legislation with a fine-toothed comb and find ANYTHING that appears to be "executive" in nature.

Specifically, we need to find anything the appears to be an "enforecement" power in the language or anything that allows the committee the power to seek judicial remedies/relief.

Anything that encroaches on the president's constitutional grant to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" will work.

I'm looking at the subpoena clauses in the legislation -- that seems to give the Commission the ability to seek judicial relief.

Let me know if you find anything.
44 posted on 04/18/2004 8:19:47 AM PDT by jmstein7 (Real Men Don't Need Chunks of Government Metal on Their Chests to be Heroes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
AFAIK Congressional Commissions always have subpoena power (as does Congress itself). The unusual part of this situation may be that the Prez had any input at all into the composition.
45 posted on 04/18/2004 8:40:00 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy (Veni Vidi Velcro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: righton granny
Gorelick is, I would bet, pumping for a cosy spot in Lurch's employ.

From an article in today's NYT:

Mr. Ashcroft's challenge to Ms. Gorelick could prove a badge of honor for her should John Kerry win election, since she is on the list of people mentioned as a possible attorney general in a Kerry administration.

Link: Evaluating the 9/11 Hearings' Winners and Losers [Barf Alert]

46 posted on 04/18/2004 11:21:56 AM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Free! Read my inspirational historical romance novels: http://Writing.Com/authors/vdavisson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Sorry, but these individuals have not been appointed as "Constitutional Officers" (unfortunately).
47 posted on 04/18/2004 1:02:09 PM PDT by XHogPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7; All
Look, the whole thing misses the important points:

1. She's not going to resign;
2. The Republicans on the commission don't have the stones to publicly call upon her to do so;
3. Neither do a majority of Republican legislators;
4. The media will raise NO cry for it, either;
5. The commission will not question ANYONE who truly is culpable for the negligence leading to Black Tuesday;
6. Nor will they admit that the true person responsible for the attack itself, UBL, is actually the most culpable.

The entire enterprise is a farce, a work. The fact that no one in a position of power to do something about it makes all other points essentially moot.

48 posted on 04/18/2004 1:08:15 PM PDT by Long Cut ("Fightin's commenced, Ike, now get to fightin' or get outta the way!"...Wyatt Earp, in Tombstone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson