[semimojo]

...and has agreement with the Courts that any oversight privilege he grants to Congress will not be harassing or in any way impede the effective execution of duties under the constitution.

The President doesn’t grant Congress its oversight privileges. They’re inherent in its roles and responsibilities.

The question is how sweeping are they and the answer is up to SCOTUS, not POTUS.

[Mariner]

“They’re inherent in its roles and responsibilities.”

Only through judicial extension.

And that’s certainly what any progressive would have everyone believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight

No mention in the Constitution that Congress has a responsibility to ensure and/or enforce anything. Nor any right to access anything in government. Or anything from the Executive.

The entire concept is in flux all the time because it is extra-constitutional and both Congress and the Executive have de facto agreement to allow the courts to arbitrate.

But the Constitution does not grant the courts this power. Nor is oversight granted to Congress.

Does Congress have oversight authority if an executive declines to comply with their demands, or the demands of the court?

[georgiarat]

The constitution is silent on Congressional oversight. It is considered inherit in that Congress legislates and funds programs. However, the intrusive oversight today was never contemplated by the founders. Remember the founders expected Congress to meet a couple of months and the Executive would handle everything except for their need to make new laws and approve funding. A full time Congress was a fear of the founders especially full-time legislators who had no interests in the daily business affairs of citizens.