Replies

"You have not given any historical example that claims that the Constitutional power given to the executive is only valid if Congress approves of it through some imaginary power of oversight that you attribute to them." It's already been ESTABLISHED that Congressional oversight is an implied power. I already explained the common sense implication that allowed Congress this AUTHORITY from the get go. If you don't want to participate in common sense notions and established clauses I can't help you further. All three Branches should fear each other and the people, not just Congress being the bogeyman. If you want to see a Congressional bogeymen look at United States v. Chapman and Jurney v. McCracken.

Your contention that I favor an Imperial Congress is wrong and immature. The Oversight must be proper and not out of political revenge or power. The role of oversight is an important function within checks and balances in order to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. Executive investigation against members of Congress goes likewise or do you think Congress should only police itself?

You said:
“ Your contention that I favor an Imperial Congress is wrong and immature. The Oversight must be proper and not out of political revenge or power. The role of oversight is an important function within checks and balances in order to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. Executive investigation against members of Congress goes likewise or do you think Congress should only police itself? “

_________

Well I think some of your contention that I favor an Imperial Executive and tyrants, etc… is wrong and immature so you got it right back at ya. But in all seriousness I do think that your vision is one of a Imperial Congress.

As I have said where is oversight mentioned in the Constitution?

And who is it that decides what is ‘proper’ oversight? If there is a Congress who just hates the President and/or just wants to play politics and render him impotent then what would stop them from running all over the Executive branch with the power you would give them? He would have to get their approval before exercising his power and of course they could easily make up argument after argument against anything that he would set forth to do.

I believe in the separation and balance of power that is outlined in the Constitution whereas certain power is enumerated to each branch. These are not shared powers but are specific powers to each branch as outlined in the Constitution. Congress has its own power that it can use to check and balance the power of the Executive.

You said:

It’s already been ESTABLISHED that Congressional oversight is an implied power. I already explained the common sense implication that allowed Congress this AUTHORITY from the get go. If you don’t want to participate in common sense notions and established clauses I can’t help you further. All three Branches should fear each other and the people, not just Congress being the bogeyman. If you want to see a Congressional bogeymen look at United States v. Chapman and Jurney v. McCracken.

____________

You should put some sort of separation between my words and yours because I missed this part of your post thinking it was part of what you were quoting from mine.

No it has NOT been established that there is a implied power of oversight in the Constitution. Only in your mind has it been. As I said before the laws and House Rules do not supersede the Constitution and the Supreme Court case you cited backs up my position on this and not yours.