Skip to comments.Death of congressional oversight?
Posted on 07/24/2007 8:18:15 AM PDT by BGHater
Congress' power to oversee the executive branch for lawlessness or maladministration stands at an abyss.
If it neglects to enact a revised edition of the lapsed Independent Counsel Act of 1978, Congress will have been disarmed by President Bush from knowing what the executive branch is doing. Secret government will flourish. And darkness invites executive machinations to violate the law and to destroy political or personal rivals. Remember President Richard M. Nixon's ill-conceived Huston Plan recommending domestic burglaries, illegal electronic surveillances and mail openings of political radicals.
President Bush has announced his intent to decline criminal contempt prosecutions of any current or former executive branch officials who refuse to testify or produce documents demanded by a congressional committee because of executive privilege. The nonprosecution policy was fashioned to benefit Bush loyalists Karl Rove, Joshua Bolton, Harriet Miers and Sara A. Taylor in stonewalling Congress over the firings of United States attorneys. A statute saddles government prosecutors with a "duty" to bring criminal contempt matters "before the grand jury for its action." But President Bush's unfettered discretion to prosecute or not trumps the statute.
The United States Supreme Court declared in United States v. Nixon (1974) that, "the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion whether to prosecute a case." In United States v. Cox (1965), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court order directing the United States attorney to file an indictment returned by the grand jury.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“Congress’ power to oversee the executive branch”
Does congress have any power to oversee another branch of government? We have three equal branches.
Of course, they can pass regulations and exceptions for the Supreme Court.
Yep. They do excel at hearings.
The POTUS is not required to turn over internal papers to Congress. This is a fishing expedition by Congress, as they try to find some dirt on the POTUS about the firing of Attorneys General. The POTUS can fire them for NO REASON! End-of-story.
BRING BACK THE INDEPENDENT COUNCIL, JUST IN TIME FOR A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT. DO IT DO IT.
Yes, they do excel at hearings. I believe Nancy Pelosi would mud-wrestle a gorilla - naked - in the House if she could get on the news doing it. Nothing like hearings to get your face on TV.
Eeewwwwwww!!!!!! Bad images, bad, bad, bad.....
Yep. They’ll be looking at electronic and paper documents to come up with something to leak to the press and call for more investigations... they are sneaky SOBs.
The funny thing is, the dems vote out the “independent council” when a dem is pres, but want it back immediately when a rep is pres.
THAT was a mental picture I could have done without!
Bruce Fein is correct in his negative assessment of Pres. Bush’s administration and the need for transparency to the responsible areas of Congress. Otherwise, the atmosphere of secrecy and denial of access to information makes the nightmare of the Imperial Presidency seem to be in the offing, whether or not it is in fact.
An Imperial Presidency worries me far less than an Imperious Congress and a Permanent Bureaucracy.
We have three equal branches of government period. Congress has no constitutional right to oversee the executive branch. If a President is secretive and abuses his power. He will not be re-elected, or possibly impeached, or forced to resign as Nixon was. You can not twist the constitution into knots because you don’t trust elected leader. We need to elect leaders we can trust.
The Democrats are on a witch hunt-they are out to destroy the Bush administration and have been since day one. Personnally, I hope Bush tell them to pound sand. I am sick of the endless investigations-wast of money. We have more pressing needs that congress should address.
Are you saying that Hillary Clinton as an “imperial president” doesn’t worry you, or is it just George Bush who doesn’t worry you?
What I am saying is that presidents come and go, but Congress, the bureaucracy, and the courts continue on.
What worries me about Hillary Clinton is what she stands for. She would greatly expand the power and reach of the Federal Government, and further gut the Constitutional ideal of limited government. That so many Americans would vote for her (despite her unattractive personality) is just an indication of how far the country has declined. As a symbol of that decline, Hillary is worrisome indeed.
Clinton's plan to spy on poliical opponents would've been a better example, but I think the author is right to be afraid of the Clinton's.
And an Imperial Presidency by Her Heinous Hillary Clinton terrifies me.