Dems, Pelosi: What Separation of Powers?
That’s the underlying message of this Pelosi statement on their vote of Contempt of Congress charges against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers:
“The contempt proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee today are part of a broader effort by House Democrats to restore our nation’s fundamental system of checks and balances.
“The Constitution gives the Congress a crucial role in overseeing the Executive Branch in order to protect the American people against overreaching, incompetence, and corruption. I am hopeful that today’s vote will help the Administration see the light and release the information to which the Judiciary Committee is entitled.
“For the last six years, under Republican leadership, Congress failed to conduct its proper oversight role, resulting in fiascos such as the mismanagement of our Iraq policy, widespread corruption by contractors such as Halliburton, and the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.
“Congress will act to preserve and protect our criminal justice system and to ensure appropriate Congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people.”
Ms. Pelosi’s willful ignorance of the Constitution is breathtaking. The Constitution gives Congress oversight responsibilities and subpoena powers on cabinet members. It doesn’t give them the same responsibilities and powers of members of a president’s personal staff unless they can show beforehand that a crime has been committed. Clearly, that isn’t the case here.
Should Ms. Pelosi and her cronies pursue this, the Supreme Court will shoot their case down. In addition to the House overstepping its constitutional bounds, it appears as though Senate Democrats are following suit:
Leahy also said he was issuing a subpoena for J. Scott Jennings, a White House political aide. The deadline for him and Rove to comply was set as Aug. 2.
“For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail,” the Vermont lawmaker said. “They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents.”
Patrick Leahy knows that he’ll get shot down the minute the Supreme Court hears the part about Karl Rove. Because Rove is the president’s assistant Chief of Staff and not subject to congressional confirmation hearings, and because Leahy can’t prove that Rove has committed a crime of any sort, the Supreme Court will rule that their subpoena isn’t constitutional.
This isn’t surprising considering how Democrats’ affinity for ignoring the Constitution. The most recent case in point is John Murtha’s persistently ignoring the Haditha Marines’ most basic rights to a fair trial, their presumption of innocence and their due process rights.
It’s noteworthy that House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers’ didn’t think twice about impeaching President Bush without a shred of evidence that President Bush had committed any high crimes or misdemeanors.
Consider the constitutional crisis we might well find ourselves in if Democrats keep their majority in Congress following the 2008 elections. That’s a frightening thought if ever there was one.
UPDATE: The Justice Department has told the House Judiciary Committee that they wouldn’t enforce their subpoena:
White House counsel Fred Fielding has said Miers, Bolten and other top presidential aides are immune from congressional subpoenas. The Justice Department told the committee that any House-passed contempt citation that might be forwarded to the U.S. attorney for grand jury consideration would not be allowed to proceed.
The Republican former chairman of the House committee, James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, suggested that the Democrats go to court to challenge the White House stand.
It’s great seeing the Justice Department standing their ground. It’s long past time that the Bush administration played hardball with these liberals.
“If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn’t even have to bother to show up, where privilege can be asserted on the thinnest basis and in the broadest possible manner, then we have already lost,” Conyers, (D-MI), said before the vote. “We won’t be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other.”
It’s time that Rep. Conyers quit with with the histrionics. He knows that there’s a clear delineation between cabinet officials and the President’s personal staff. I’m certain that that’s part of ConLaw 101. I can’t imagine a scenario where anyone to the right of Joe Lieberman would take him seriously. Much like Russ Feingold, he’s a joke and a tool of the extreme left.
Technorati Tags: Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy, John Murtha, Impeachment, Congressional Subpoenas, Karl Rove, Constitution, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
July 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am
House inches toward constitutional showdown…
The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to cite two White House aides — White House Chief of …
July 26th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
It is always interesting to see how conservatives spin the crumbling of our Republic. It’s not the presnit who’s lack of Constitutional knowledge that is “breathtaking;” it’s Madame Speaker. It’s not that there are shenanigans in the White House; it’s that the various oversight committees are taking their roles seriously (for the first time in 6 years). And of course, it’s not that the American people have awakened to these plain and obvious misdeeds, obfuscations and violations of the law (not to mention the War); it’s the “liberal” media’s fault for having the audacity to report the crimes and truth.
We are living in Alice’s Wonderland, where everything is the opposite of reality.
We are indeed headed for a Constitutional crisis, and the time has come for Bush and cabal to go. Why would they want to put the country through so much, only to end up weaker, poorer, and unprepared for the ugly reality awaiting us? The intelligence community is screaming (is it over-the-top to say their hair is on fire?) about the coming attacks, and all Bush can do is continue lying to the American people about Al Queda. The Department of Justice is falling apart before our eyes, and Gonzo, caught perjuring himself in front of Congress, continues to play political games. More and more republicans are being indicted on serious crimes. And obstructionist republicans in Congress won’t get their fat asses out of the way and let our real leaders get anything done.
And wingnuts like you stand on the sidelines and cheer them on. How sad. How tragic. How will you explain your un-American, anti-freedom actions to your children and grandchildren… oh wait, they’ll be too busy trying to dig their way out of the mess we’ve made, from destroying the economy, the environment, and the Middle East to our way of life. Maybe they won’t notice how you made excuses for these crooks and liars.
It has taken a long time, but the end is near. Sixty-five percent of the American people see through the nightmare of the Bush years, and that number will only grow as we descend into chaos, corruption, and scandal after scandal.
I pray that the country survives.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: The Constitution, National Security, President Bush, Pelosi, Corruption, Investigations, John Murtha, John Conyers, Scandals, Rove, Liberalism, Subversives, Judicial Activism, Election 2008 | [...]
July 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Rocky Rocky Rocky! Of course we’ll survive. We got through the first 8 years of the Clintons didnt we?
July 26th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Obviously Pelosi wouldn’t know what the Constitution says about the separation of powers ’cause she thinks she has the Constitutional right to run the war (or any war as far as that goes) from the Speaker’s desk. If she has the reading comprehension of a third grader she should know better. Or is it that she is “Alice-in-Wonderland”ing all constitutional power in the Speaker’s chair? Hmmm? At least as long as that chair is occupied by a contemptible person like her who wishes to run a despotic regime of her own?
And as for Leaky Leahy, I wonder if more people got hurt or killed by Gonzales’ incompetence in running his department, or from the flow of leaks from Leahy’s office concerning the war?
July 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Lets not forget, no childen and their parents have died a fiery death trying to mind their own business in their own church compound under Attorney General Gonzales, or lost their grandchild to that wonderful island nation Cuba by force of arms, yet Janet Reno gets the senior statesman treatment.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I’m a little confused, where in the constitution does it stay that congress has subpoena powers over the cabinet, the constitution gives congress advise and consent to cabinet positions and impeachment over the president and the supreme court. but that is is.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Ron K. - You’re right on man!
Rocky: I’d suggest that you visit Hot.air, michellemalkin.com,
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/, http://www.lgf.com, http://ace.mu.nu to read articles about “Scott Thomas” aka “Scott Thomas Beauchamp” a wannabee writer soldier in Iraq who has lied his way into the MSM.
You are pathetic and deluded.
July 27th, 2007 at 1:29 am
You fux don’t get it! You all rather stump for your political “integrity” and “preserve” what is left of your minuscule, stubborn right-wing agenda rather than to open your eyes! The Republican party AND especially this shit administration will never get any power (whatsoever) for at LEAST 40+ years. This is only the beginning of the end. MARK MY WORDS…2008 will be the END of the archaic conservative movement. YOU ARE NOT THE AMERICAN MAJORITY! Racism, greediness, fascism and stupidity is soooo passe’ and 20th century. Make way, sore losers.
I hope you’ll all have some sort of pride left after history will determine that you voted for and blindly supported the worst catastrophe in U.S. history. Live it up while you can. Bats.
July 27th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Where in the Constitution does it say that she doesn’t have subpoena power? Bruce Fein a constitutional lawyer stated the this White House has broken Constitutional Law. Burce Fein was President Nixon and President Ford’s constitutional lawyer.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:05 am
For all the fiery rhetoric, Rocky wasn’t able to point to a legal precedent that says Ms. Pelosi has the right to subpoena members of the President’s personal staff.
In fact, if Rocky had a memory beyond the last election, he’d recall that President Bush made Condi Rice available for questioning when she was still the NSA director.
Prior court rulings have said that the President’s personal staff are off limits unless there is evidence of a crime having been committed.
Furthermore, it’s obvious that the Constitution doesn’t mean anything to Pelosi & Co. If they cared what it said, Murtha wouldn’t have prematurely played judge, jury & executioner to the Haditha Marines.
If the Constitution meant anything, John Conyers couldn’t consider impeachment of President Bush & Dennis Kucinich couldn’t consider impeaching Vice President Cheney.
July 27th, 2007 at 7:02 am
eatabaggodix: racism, like keeping the poor, “non-white” on the new plantation with tax dollars that aren’t sufficient for enough of anything, to keep them from earning any sense of responsibility?
greed, like telling everyone else they have to cut back so the likes of algore and Mr. Edwards can enjoy their mansions and fly personal jets all over the world?
fascism, like the incredible constraints put on free speech because it isn’t “politically correct”? (see “fairness doctrine”)
stupidity, like 1) using the incredibly infantile language you use and 2) assuming that if we (the United States) would just bring all our troops home from everywhere the Islamofacists would leave us alone?
Yes, you certainly have some good, solid points there. Unfortunately, they don’t make a lick of sense. Kinda like nearly anything a moonbat believes.
You might try looking at reality or, in the alternative, going back to any of the brainless, thoughtless and hateful lib blogs.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Patty said “Where in the Constitution does it say that she doesn’t have subpoena power?” the constitution says what powers each branch of government has. You can’t make it up as you go along. If thats the case how can the president be in violation of the constitution if the branches of government can make it up as they go along.
July 27th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
The power to subpoena is not the power to prosecute, Congress may subpoena witnesses to hearings for the purpose of informing themselves of facts with which to write legislation. They are not a court.
Presidents have histroically ignored, fought,stonewalled and resisted such coercion. We need look no further than the last Democratic administration fo examples.
July 27th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Only after a protracted argument about ground rules, including whether or not she’d be udner oath and give testimony in public. And although she eventually did testify, it was standard Bush cabal fare: “I don’t recall,” “I’m not sure,” and “I’ll have to get back to you.” And, oh yeah, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside the United States” did not constitute warning. I guess she was waiting for “15 Saudis and 4 other Arabic terrorists to fly jets into WTC, Pentagon on 9/11/02 between 8:00 and 9:00 am” to decide there was warning.
Activist judges! But I digress. Of course, that’s the way it works. Congress can subpoena anyone they want, particularly in matters of national interest, and it is up to the courts to decide. I guess Conyers and Leahy have their work cut for them — to convince this SCOTUS that the crooks in the WH should be brought to bare for their high crimes and misdemeanors.
Of course, the likelihood that it will get to that stage, given the (thankfully) limited time left in the Bush failure and the political brain trust running the WH.
No, but the power to prosecute, by the Congress, is in fact written into the Constitution (see: Impeachment). In this instance, the Congress could use some of the presnit’s creative application of the law, and sue in civil court for relief, and/or, there is precedent for the Congress acting as a court and trying matters.
Carlos, where are you now? TA’s statement is so pre-9/11. Aren’t we all supposed to just get past everything that happened prior to the last election cycle?
Actually, it was Reagan’s assertion of executive privilege in keeping the head of the EPA from having to testify in 1984 that is the most recent example of a President totally stonewalling Congress. The word I heard used by a legal scholar to describe Bush’s similar assertion was “astonishing.”
What will probably happen is a grand compromise, and there will be some testimony under continued claims that neither Rove, Meirs nor Bolton have to testify. That’s okay; drip, drip, drip.
You mean like billorally dot com (kill Senator Clinton!) and michhelemallkin dot com (most blacks just want a free ride)?
July 28th, 2007 at 7:19 am
I like the way you libs like to itemize your comebacks, comment for comment. You must have been up half the night working on that. Oh and those cute little malaprops like presnit, how quaint.
I know what impeachment is Rocky, I’ve also read the constitution. Impeachment is not prosecution either, its tantamount to an indictment by a grand jury. The process is quasi prosecution for the removal of office. Not the sending to prison.
By the way whose public approval rating is higher, the President or Congress?
You might want to check that out.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Actually, Rocky, I was thinking more in terms of Kos, Huffington, etc., whose daily parades of garbage promoting “free speech” (when in fact it is designed very specifically to stifle free speech) frequently and specifically name the wish for the deaths (or at the very least severe physical harm) of our “leaders”, our military and, mostly, nearly anyone who doesn’t toe the Marxist/Globalist/global warming line.
I just love you liberal freedom lovers.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Half the night? Hardly. Maybe half an hour.
Bush’s approval: 29% to 34%
Congress’ approval: 24% to 37%
But even more revealing, when asked about the approval of and by party affiliation:
Democrats: 46%, trending upward
Republicans: 34%, trending downward
So what does that say? Maybe the country sees through the line of republican bs in attempting to blame the Democrats, and understands that it is obstructionist republicans stopping the Congress from doing the peoples’ work.
When Malkin and O’Reilly call liberal blogs names, and use comments made by users against them, as is the case just this past week, it is, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out, the pot calling the kettle black. I have personally read hate comments on various conservative blogs, including this one, that are as inflammatory as anything on any liberal blog.
In truth, conservatives are afraid of the internet and blogs, as this recent attack shows, and as they should be. The one thing I’ve seen in my lifetime watching politics is that it always seems to be the conservatives who get bitten on the butt by technology. Think tape recording everything going on in your office; think using external servers to avoid having embarrassing and possibly illegal emails part of the public record. In the end, they don’t seem to understand that all systems can be hacked, and nothing sent through cyberspace is lost. Just as the recordings surfaced, so will the emails.
And this explains why the republican candidates are now refusing to participate in the YouTube debates, having seen open possibilities to expose them for who they are, as in the Democrats’ debate. Mittens was quoted saying he felt it would be beneath his position having to answer a question from a snowman. Rudy concurred. Only the desperate McCain campaign has pledged to attend.
Hope I haven’t jumped around too much. I always try to write at an appropriate reading level, ’cause I want you all to take something away from what I have to say.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
OK, I guess I have to concead you have a 2 to 5% increase this week of Democrats over Republicans, and some kind of a technological advantage, you lost me there, I dont know what that has to do with it, but OK, Ill accept that too.
So, yeah, sure I guess your good to go there Rocky. Impeach Bush, get Mitch McConnel and the Senate to go along with it in the Senate and then of course, Dick Cheney can run things for a while. Sounds like a plan to me.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
July 31st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Let’s focus on the “real threats”.
78-year-old grannies flying out of SeaTac.
Border agents doing their jobs in spite of a prez who cowtows to Mexico.
Judges who remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse, but allow a state school to install a “muslims only” foot-washing room.
The ACLU, who panic over the thought that a city has a cross (historic imagery) on its seal, but doesn’t see anything wrong with a madrassa in NYC.
The list is becoming endless, those “real threats”. Funny, though, it seems like every “real threat” to the American way of life has some measure of responsibility attached to it, while all the measures to remove those “real threats” are designed to either remove responsibility from people or remove some portion of the Bill of Rights from a segment of society. Guess which segment?
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Phentemine….
Phentemine….