Death of congressional oversight?

The Washington Times ^ | 24 July 2007 | Bruce Fein

[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.

[Maeve]

No. President Bush’s Executive Orders and his plan for martial law in the event of a catastrophe must be transparent to those organs lawfully set up to review such material. If it were Clintons pulling these stunts we would be in the streets making so much noise Washington, D.C. would shake to its foundations. What President Bush is doing by Executive Order is unConstitutional and must be stopped.

[pacelvi]

Transparency? What’s that supposed to mean? I see nothing in the Constitution about the Executive being “transparent” or even “responsible” to the Congress.

Screw Congress, it has no right to the information it’s asking for. There is no “Imperial Presidency” only a “Demogogic Congress”.

[Maeve]

Read Bush’s Executive Orders. They are reprehensible violations of the Constitution.

[pacelvi]

You just proved it.. I dont need Congress to read a EO.

[Maeve]

But you can’t read the plan for Martial Law after catastrophe, and neither can the members of Congress. Wouldn’t you like know what the Executive has planned for you?

[bioqubit]

Does anyone remember how so many witnesses from the Clinton Administration simply did not show up at hearings? Why they were not compelled, fined, or jailed is a mystery to this very day.

So, when the Stalinistas in Congress complain about DOJ folks reluctance, I say remember the Clinton boobs.

[pacelvi]

well i hope to God there’s a plan for emergency posture after a catastrophe! jesus christ... do you even know the meaning of the word?

[gunnedah]

I have said all along there is no significant difference in either party of Congress. I see where there is momentum gaining from both parties for a Special Prosecutor for Attorney General Gonzales. Of course I do not know what he has done but I do know there is more concern from Congress over the firing of 8 Lawyers and the Administration keeping Americans on American soil safe than there was when the Government under Clinton and Reno kidnapped Elian Gonzales and when Clinton,The FBI, Reno and the military burned 80 American citizens to death on American soil. Just what is going on in DC and why not kick all of these craps out? There never will be a more corrupt pair than these two and we are worried about protecting Americans and firing Lawyers.