Posted on 07/20/2007 8:52:39 AM PDT by gondramB
Some Senate Democrats say Mr. Bush is just "stonewalling" and insinuate that he must be trying to hide something, as Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) has darkly intoned. But as he well knows, executive privilege traces its lineage to George Washington. In 1796, the House of Representatives demanded all his papers related to the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain. Washington refused, saying that the Constitution barred the House from the making of treaties. Firing U.S. attorneys and any other executive officers, including those requiring Senate approval, rests beyond the constitutional powers of Congress, and totally within those of the presidency. This has been true since the first cabinet departments were established in 1789.
The Supreme Court held in 1959 that, "Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one or the other branches of the Government." In the 1974 Watergate tapes case, the Supreme Court said that the president's right to protect information is strongest when law enforcement, national security or his other constitutional powers are involved. Under that rule, Mr. Leahy has no right to see the president's communications about the firing of federal attorneys, the nomination of John Roberts or Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court or the reduction of Scooter Libby's sentence.
>>That is a great question, and the reason I am very uncomfortable with this strategy.
We must be very careful not to leave the next Dim president with an unassailable Executive branch above all checks and balances.<<
And for that matter, Republicans are human too. Placing one man above the law invites excess, no matter how honorable he may be.
One reason that revolutions like the American Revolution are so rare is that George Washington’s are so rare. Those given absolute power who turn it down for the good of the country exist but you can’t often count on finding one when you really need him.
Since the Justice department was created by congress as was the office of U.S. attorney I would say that does fall in their area. For that matter they could end the justice department and set up a different law enforcement office.
Pardons are clearly a constitutional power of the President - that’s different. Not Congress’ area.
BTW, that George Washington case was resolved without the courts when he gave the documents to the senate.
The Thomas Jefferson case where his vice President was being investigated went to the supreme court and Jefferson lost the privilige argument. “As for Jefferson’s claim that disclosure of the document would imperil public safety, Marshall held that the court, not the president, would be the judge of that. Jefferson complied with Marshall’s order.”
Hardly, it is called separation of powers.
This is another unserious investigation aimed at keeping SCANDAL and REPUBLICAN in the same headline. It’s much like the Libby trial, another witch hunt that will probably go no where. It would be too dangerous for a potential Clinton presidency to lose the right to executive privilege.
“but when their terms are up for renewal, NOT in the middle of their terms.”
.
Like when they were all at the end of their terms during the Human Stains Administration.......
It could, if the Congress is stupid enough to try to do it. Sen. Leahy didn't think it was a problem when x42 fired ALL of the US Attorneys, and rightly so, because it is the prerogative of the President to do so. Somehow since it's President Bush doing it, it must be WRONG, and the Democrats must right that wrong.
The Constitution clearly laid out three branches of government, each with their own responsibilities and privileges. Congress can't do anything about the decisions made within the Executive Branch except try to impeach the President if they don't like what he's doing. If they want to run their approval numbers even FURTHER into the toilet, I say let them do it!
It won't happen for the simple reason that the President has higher approval numbers than Congress. There will be pressure to impeach him, and even some speeches about it, from the moonbats, but the Dem. leadership will never bring it up because they know nothing would ever come of it. They don't have the votes for it.
Since I posted that it has become clear that I was wrong and over-estimated the Democratic response. I’m sure some of that was for the reasons you suggest.
Heck, I kinda hope the Democrats DO try to impeach the President. It will at least keep them busy and less inclined to mess about in OUR business for the next 16 months. It would also distract them, and thus make it harder for them to sabotage the Iraq war efforts.
bump
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.