[TheBigIf]

You said:
• It is an implied power and in your somewhat defense not enumerated but has been granted by using various laws, House Rules and the US Constitution itself such as Article I, section 8, clause 18. Also backed up by several USSC rulings saying “”the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” McGrain v. Daugherty
In the founders case, backed up by common sense (Implied) because since Congress is in charge of appropriating funds, enacting laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers etc...Congress would need to know how programs were being administered, by whom, at what cost, whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. Of course common sense is not common which is why we have a collectivist named Obama being named Commander in Chief.

__________________

Since when do laws or House rules grant power that supersedes the Constitution? I disagree that it is implied at all that the Executive has to bow down to Congressional oversight in order to justify using the power granted to it by the Constitution.

As I have already said the Congress and the Court both have powers that can be used to check the power of the Executive. The case you bring up is only verifying what I have already said. If Congress feels that there is an abuse of power then of course they can pursue an investigation and can battle the executive (which will then bring the Court into the picture) in order to curtail the Executive and/or possibly impeach. To do as was done in the case of McGrain vs Daugherty is what I have already said was a part of the checks and balances. In no way does this mean though that the President has to answer to the Congress or that his power has to be approved by Congressional oversight (the power of the Executive is not a shared power). In cases such as these we are seeing the three co-equal branches of government in a power struggle which can lead even to a Constitutional crisis.

[rollo tomasi]

"I disagree that it is implied at all that the Executive has to bow down to Congressional oversight in order to justify using the power granted to it by the Constitution."

Apparently your disagreement is historically impotent since Congress has been using THEIR oversight powers for a loooonnnnggggg time. Take it up with Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison etc... who all partook in common sense powers PROVIDED by the certain Constitutional Clauses such as "necessary and proper" (Read into what Hamilton said).

It is good to know that you think various agencies, laws, and acts of war which are funded and passed by Congress are immune to their prowling eyes. Also ALL the actions of Executive officials running wild and denying Constitutional rights to individuals so much so every lawyer would be in glee with all this work you will be providing to them. A would be tyrant would love your vision of government.

[rollo tomasi]

By the way stop being so convoluted with your argument. In order to find fraud, waste and abuse (Which you claim can happen) first they must actually be in constant watch for any laws, mismanagement of funds, or corruption (OVERSIGHT) found in the other two Branches then investigate their charges, duh!

Guess what, The E Branch has the Justice Dept. and USSC has Judicial review. Holy Moly a well designed “inefficient” government that checks each branch so that men can truly be free. And a bonus provision attached with that as well, division of powers with the States, only bone head voters blind to corruption could screw this gift up.