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

To: acsrp38
I was trying to make the point that while this particular search was warranted, justified, and laudable, there have been, and possibly will be (hopefully not) Presidents who will use the slightest pretense to "spy" on Congress, and that eventually could really be disastrous.

How is one corrupt tyrant in the White House different than 535 tyrants in Congress? Or some lessor number but still a majority?

There is more than one danger to be guarded against here. That's why I while I applaud this action, I would have condemned it if a search warrant from a Federal Judge had not been obtained. The Judge clearly, by the procedures required to serve the warrant, considered the issues of separation of powers, and the Speech and Debate Clause. He acted correctly, the executive branch acted correctly. The House has its collective nose out of joint, but they are not in the right in this case.

325 posted on 05/28/2006 1:55:48 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies ]


To: El Gato

Well El Gato

At least we are talking about the actual issue and event that occured the seizure of documents from the offices of the Legislative by members of the Executive. Not the legality of the non-arrest of Jefferson or if an Elected Official can be arrested (they can).

"How is one corrupt tyrant in the White House different than 535 tyrants in Congress? Or some lessor number but still a majority?"

Getting the House to act as some sort of collective tyrant I think would be pushing the envelope as they agree on little under the best circumstances and have no immediate enforcement capability unlike the Executive.

I do think we as a nation were dangerously close to having a tyrant in the former Clintoon era. Set aside the Lewinsky affair. We had a Justice Department running roughshod over people all over the place. Actively defending the President and attacking his opponents. Ignoring the law when it suited as in the Elian Gonzalez case and many others. Using the Military overseas to divert attention from events at home and even ordering the Military to side with those in Bosnia who are and were our enemies. Vice Presidents recieving money from Chineese interests thru Buddist Monks. The list is goes on and on. Given this new found power to enter the Legislatures Offices, siezing records as you have alluded to also you do see the potential dangers of abuse. I am not sure the Impeachment would have occcured.

"There is more than one danger to be guarded against here."

I agree. There is no doubt there are elected officials and members of their staff who do not have the best interests of the American people at heart. Perhaps even seek to harm this country.

It is a delicate balance and I am not sure I am comfortable that the Judiciary fouled up and politically driven it is up to the task.

Can we really count on the Judiciary to limit this sort of activity or will we begin seeing it more and more. That is the concern I have. What is the threshold? What is the standard?

Remember it is the Judiciary that works with the Executive, the Justice Department to prosecute.

They are already uncomfortably close.

I see your point with regards to the Judiciary and like Hastert I am not happy about it but at least we are now on the same sheet of music and talking about the same thing. The event that actually occured.


W


327 posted on 05/28/2006 4:17:38 PM PDT by WLR ("fugit impius nemine persequente iustus autem quasi leo confidens absque terrore erit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies ]

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