The House Judiciary Committee voted to cite (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-contempt-of-congress,1,3043838.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines) White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and President Bush's former legal counsel, Harriet Miers, for contempt of Congress.

WHAT'S NEXT: The House can now vote on whether to approve the contempt citation. It takes only one chamber of Congress to approve a contempt of Congress citation.

If approved by the Democratic-controlled House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. then can turn the matter over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeff Taylor, for prosecution.

LOOKING AHEAD: Taylor, who was appointed by Bush, is supposed to "bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," according to the law.

But the Bush administration, which controls the Justice Department, has made clear it would not let a contempt citation be prosecuted because the information and documents sought are protected by executive privilege.

Taking bets now, who's going to win? The Washington Post reports the odds are in Bush's favor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002277.html?hpid=moreheadlines):


The experts cautioned that complaints by Democratic lawmakers about the administration's legal stance are undercut by a Justice Department legal opinion issued during the Clinton administration. It contended, as the Bush administration did this week, that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases in which a president has invoked executive privilege to withhold documents or testimony.

Ain't it ironic, the Dems pursuit of contempt charges may hinge on a Clinton Justice Dept. opinion that isn't in their favor? Seriously now, doesn't this congress have anything better to do than "get Bush" and win elections? Was that the "mandate" from the voters they keep speaking of?

Steve this is another of those pointless exercise that the Democrats appear to prefer over actual governance.But this is taking it up a notch because the only outcome I see from this is a Constitutional crisis.

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can hold someone in contempt for not testifying? It's not in the Constitution. It is an implied power of Congress, just like executive privilege is an implied power of the presidency.

Since 1975, 10 Cabinet level or senior executive officials have been cited for contempt for failure to produce subpoenaed documents. The 10 officials are Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Commerce Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton in 1975; Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano, Jr. in 1978; Energy Secretary Charles Duncan in 1980; Energy Secretary James B. Edwards in 1981; Interior Secretary James Watt in 1982; EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, known as Anne Gorsuch Burford after a 1983 marriage, and Attorney General William French Smith in 1983; White House Counsel John M. Quinn in 1996; and Attorney General Janet Reno in 1998.

The White House and Congress came to negotiated agreements in each case before criminal proceedings could begin. But this doesn't appear to be happening this time ;nor do I think that either side wants SCOTUS to intervene.

So they issue the contempt and hand it off to AG Gonzalez to execute . Then what ? Do they really think he will give it to a grand jury ? They have NO AUTHORITY on their own without a court order;and the Justice Dept .has to order it .So then what ? The Dems will argue that the law says : "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

The House voted 259-105 in 1982 for a contempt citation against EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch .The Reagan Justice Department refused to prosecute the case. The Justice Department also sued the House of Representatives, saying its attempt to force Gorsuch to turn over documents interfered with the executive branch. The court threw the case out and urged negotiation between the executive and the legislative branches. The Justice Department did not appeal the ruling, and the Reagan administration eventually agreed to turn over the documents. Again it fell short of being a Constitutional crisis.

The Dems.could threaten to march the House Sergeant at Arms to the White House to arrest Miers and Bolten (sorta their own version of a rendition program) setting up a potential stand off between law enforcement agencies?

Former Chairman James Sensenbrenner says the Dems can't win this fight .He suggests instead that Congress should
"direct the general counsel to the clerk of the House of Representatives to file a civil suit."
This would take it out of the Constitutional crisis territory and would be the basis for a resolution.

Hello Steve:

I'll bet on the country over the imperial president. Oversight IS the job of congress - or do you think it's just kissing a$$?

excon

PS> A civil suit?? The country in crisis and you think congress should file a CIVIL SUIT?? You guys are really waaaaay out there.

Hello Steve:

I'll bet on the country over the imperial president. Oversight IS the job of congress - or do you think it's just kissing a$$?

No, excon, its not. Read the Constitution. The job of Congress is to LEGISLATE, not to perform oversite of the President. If they don't like what the president is doing, they can cut funding for whatever they don't like. That is the check-and-balance system that is in place via the Constitution. They also have the power to override a veto as part of their authority. But they are NOT an Executive oversite body, and trying to take that power is a violation of separation of powers.

Please tell me where you got the idea that Congress has oversite authority over the Executive Branch. For a strict Constitutionalist, as you have claimed to be, that statement is pretty "out there".


PS> A civil suit?? The country in crisis and you think congress should file a CIVIL SUIT?? You guys are really waaaaay out there.

No, I don't think that Congress should file a civil suit. I think they should drop the matter since they have no authority over it. There is no "crisis"... there is merely heated disagreement between parties. But the contempt ruling in question will create a Constitutional Crisis.

Elliot

Why is a civil suit way out there and staging a dog and pony show that could lead to a Constitutional crisis not way out there ?


BTW for your reference ;Sensenbrenner's comment is based upon U.S. v. Nixon .

Why is a civil suit way out there and staging a dog and pony show that could lead to a Constitutional crisis not way out there ?Hello tom:

You got it backwards. It's the president who is fomenting a Constitutional crisis.

excon

Bush has nothing but comtempt for congress and the people of the US. In my opinion he doesn't care what happens to the US or its people, he is a lame duck in office.

Bush has nothing but comtempt for congress and the people of the US. In my opinion he doesn't care what happens to the US or its people, he is a lame duck in office.

So... Bush didn't actually do anything wrong. You just don't like him because he has "contempt for Congress and the people of the US."

Hate to tell you this, Mr. Yet, but even if you are correct, which I doubt, there is nothing illegal about that, and contempt charges against him or his administration are out of order.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

When conducting investigations of the executive branch, congressional committees and Members of Congress generally receive the information required for legislative needs. If agencies fail to cooperate or the President invokes executive privilege, Congress can turn to a number of legislative powers that are likely to compel compliance. The two techniques are the issuance of subpoenas and the holding of executive officials in contempt.

The Supreme Court has described the congressional power of inquiry as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” The issuance of a subpoena pursuant to an authorized investigation is “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.”

Although the congressional power to investigate is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, the framers understood that legislatures must oversee the executive branch. Under British precedents lawmakers were expected to hold administrators accountable. James Wilson, one of the framers and later a Justice on the Supreme Court, expected the House to “form the grand inquest of the state. They will diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things.”

At the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, George Mason emphasized the congress “are not only Legislators, but they possess inquisitorial powers. The must meet frequently to inspect the conduct of the public offices”.

Being a Constitutionalist, I referred to the Constitution for my answer, and whaddya know – there it was.

excon

Taking bets now, who's gonna win? The Washington Post reports the odds are in Bush's favor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002277.html?hpid=moreheadlines):



Ain't it ironic, the Dems pursuit of contempt charges may hinge on a Clinton Justice Dept. opinion that isn't in their favor? Seriously now, doesn't this congress have anything better to do than "get Bush" and win elections? Was that the "mandate" from the voters they keep speaking of?
It depends on the importance of the asserted interest in getting the answers. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).

Hello again, El:

When conducting investigations of the executive branch, congressional committees and Members of Congress generally receive the information required for legislative needs. If agencies fail to cooperate or the President invokes executive privilege, Congress can turn to a number of legislative powers that are likely to compel compliance. The two techniques are the issuance of subpoenas and the holding of executive officials in contempt.

But they don't have the Constitutional authority to run those investigations in the first place.


The Supreme Court has described the congressional power of inquiry as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” The issuance of a subpoena pursuant to an authorized investigation is “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.”

Inquiry, NOT investigation. There is a difference. They can ask for information, but they cannot INVESTIGATE against the Executive Branch's will. And the SCOTUS has upheld Executive privilege in the past on any number of occaisions for just that reason. The Executive Branch must be able to make decisions without having to wory about the threat of being investigated by Congress every two minutes.


Although the congressional power to investigate is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, the framers understood that legislatures must oversee the executive branch. Under British precedents lawmakers were expected to hold administrators accountable. James Wilson, one of the framers and later a Justice on the Supreme Court, expected the House to “form the grand inquest of the state. They will diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things.”

Actually, the framers saw nothing of the sort. That is why they created the separation of powers. Furthermore, citing foreign law or precedent proves nothing. This is the USA, not Britain. Finally, the quote from Madison states only that the legislature has the ability to define the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts, which IS within its authority. It says NOTHING about oversite of the Executive Branch, nor was that Madison's intent.


At the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, George Mason emphasized the congress “are not only Legislators, but they possess inquisitorial powers. The must meet frequently to inspect the conduct of the public offices”.

Yes, within the legislative branch, they have full inquisitorial powers. And they can ASK for an investigation of the Executive Branch. But they don't have the authority to FORCE such an investigation by the Department of Justice.


Being a Constitutionalist, I referred to the Constitution for my answer, and whaddya know – there it was.

Actually, not it wasn't, and you even cited that fact. "Although the congressional power to investigate is not expressly provided for in the Constitution... " No such Constitutional authority exists. It was made up by Congress to increase the power of Congress. It is not a Constitutionally authorized power.

What was the source for your quote? Because it is simply wrong on the facts, and misinterprets some pretty clear statements by the framers and the Supreme Court.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

My source is the Congressional Research Service, which is a part of the Library of Congress. They produced a handy report on the subject @ http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31836.pdf

These were their conclusions:

Committee subpoenas and contempt citations have been effective instruments for gaining access to executive branch documents that are initially withheld. The pressure that builds from these two techniques generally results in the Administration offering new accommodations to satisfy legislative needs. Although both branches at times seek assistance from the courts, the general message from federal judges is that an agreement hammered out between the two branches is better than a directive handed down by a court.

The executive-legislative conflicts described in this report offer several lessons about access to information. Congress has as much right to agency documents for oversight purposes as it does for legislation. Executive claims of “deliberative process,” “enforcement sensitive,” “ongoing investigation,” or “foreign policy considerations” have not been, in themselves, adequate grounds for keeping documents from Congress. On the issue of withholding information from Congress, there are often sharp differences within an Administration, especially between the Justice Department and the agencies.

Further, these case studies show that statutory language that authorizes withholding information from the public is not a legitimate reason for withholding information from Congress. Sharing sensitive information with congressional committees is not the same as sharing information with the public. Courts assume that congressional committees will exercise their powers responsibly. Legislative committees have demonstrated that they have reliable procedures for protecting confidentiality. Finally, congressional capacity to subpoena agency documents from private organizations is not an adequate substitute for receiving them directly from the agency.

excon

But they don't have the Constitutional authority to run those investigations in the first place.



Inquiry, NOT investigation. There is a difference. They can ask for information, but they cannot INVESTIGATE against the Executive Branch's will. And the SCOTUS has upheld Executive privilege in the past on any number of occaisions for just that reason. The Executive Branch must be able to make decisions without having to wory about the threat of being investigated by Congress every two minutes.



Actually, the framers saw nothing of the sort. That is why they created the separation of powers. Furthermore, citing foreign law or precedent proves nothing. This is the USA, not Britian. Finally, the quote from Madison states only that the legislature has the ability to define the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts, which IS within its authority. It says NOTHING about oversite of the Executive Branch, nor was that Madison's intent.



Yes, within the legislative branch, they have full inquisitorial powers. And they can ASK for an investigation of the Executive Branch. But they don't have the authority to FORCE such an investigation by the Department of Justice.



Actually, not it wasn't, and you even cited that fact. "Although the congressional power to investigate is not expressly provided for in the Constitution..." No such Constitutional authority exists. It was made up by Congress to increase the power of Congress. It is not a Constitutionally authorized power.

What was the source for your quote? Because it is simply wrong on the facts, and misinterprets some pretty clear statements by the framers and the Supreme Court.

Elliot
Nixon was impeached for, among other things, refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.. . There is a very clear principle, dating back to the 1700s- the President and his appointees are not above the law. The courts have no legitimate place in a dispute between the executive and the legislature over the formers accountability to the latter. The legislature has its own means, impeachment…

You hit on the key early, "negotiated agreements." The Dems aren't interested in any negotiated agreement, and I don't believe this really has anything to do with oversight. They want Bush, period.

Of course .What Conyers is trying to do is set up a basis for an impeachment charge . He claims he needs 3 more votes in favor before he introduces the resolution. That will get the heat off his back from the lunes like Cindy Sheehad. He will not have to worry about having them arrested anymore .

Sheehan arrested in impeachment protest (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2927369)

Of course .What Conyers is trying to do is set up a basis for an impeachment charge . He claims he needs 3 more votes in favor before he introduces the resolution. That will get the heat off his back from the lunes like Cindy Sheehad. He will not have to worry about having them arrested anymore .

Sheehan arrested in impeachment protest (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2927369)
You’re absolutely correct... The courts have no legitimate place in a dispute between the executive and the legislature over the formers accountability to the latter. The legislature has its own means, impeachment…:)

When conducting investigations of the executive branch, congressional committees and Members of Congress generally receive the information required for legislative needs.

The Supreme Court has described the congressional power of inquiry as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.”

The issuance of a subpoena pursuant to an authorized investigation is “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.”

And you omitted this part right after the Mason quote:


Charles Pinckney submitted a list of congressional prerogatives, including: “Each House shall be Judge of its own privileges, and shall have authority to punish by imprisonment every person violating the same.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with legislative functions, it is entirely political as there was nothing to investigate. They should have looked up the code and said yep, the president has the right to fire them (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00000541----000-.html). Trust me, US code really doesn't get any clearer than that one.

Of course .What Conyers is trying to do is set up a basis for an impeachment charge . He claims he needs 3 more votes in favor before he introduces the resolution. That will get the heat off his back from the lunes like Cindy Sheehad. He will not have to worry about having them arrested anymore .

Wasn't she supposed to have announced her candidacy (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22126269-401,00.html) on Tuesday?

She really knows how to rally her base... Attack 2 of the staunchest anti-war Dems. Pelosi and Conyers . Lol These people are crazy. Even if they began impeachment proceeding President Bush and Cheney will be able to run out the clock. They think they are going to win in 2008 by saying "no we didn't do anything but we sure were a burr in the saddle for Bush " .

So this is what a Democratically controlled congress is doing?

Wasting taxpayor money and political grandstanding.

Whatever happened to more important issues like :
Poverty
Healthcare
Energy independence
Illegal immigration
WINNING against terrorists
etc...



Grace and Peace

So this is what a Democratically controlled congress is doing?

Wasting taxpayor money and political grandstanding.

Whatever happened to more important issues like :
poverty
healthcare
energy independence
illegal immigration
WINNING against terrorists
etc...



Grace and PeaceOk, I'll bite, what is the current admin doing on poverty
Healthcare
Energy independence

And they are wasting taxpayers money at an alarming rate. Of course they can print more, it's not their kids that will have to pay the debt.

It's time for a clean sweep of congress, the house and a president, congressman, representative that will listen to the people, do what best for the people here, and stop trying to police the world.

Elected people that will obey the constitution, help limitate, proverty, health care issues, etc.

Of course .What Conyers is trying to do is set up a basis for an impeachment charge .

Re: Your ratings comments. Absolutely, Gonzales stepped in it instead of citing the president's authority to fire US attorneys - and the Dems are now pushing for perjury charges (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_co/congress_gonzales_18). He may be cooked in that case, but what gets me is how the firings became an issue. The beef was over interim appointments, both houses passed legislation to address that, and the President signed it into law. There was nothing in the legislation to strike the president's right to fire US attorneys from code.

Specter acknowledged Bush's right to fire US attorneys "for no reason at all," but said he can't fire them for "a bad reason." Schumer demanded "clear and consistent reasons for each firing." Which is required by law?

"Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President." Period, end of story.

That Bush has made numerous offers they've rejected, Feinstein got her "Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act" signed into law and they all at least acknowledge his right to fire the attorneys - just shows their interest lies elsewhere. Tony Snow gets it:


Q You said the Democrats seem to want confrontation --

MR. SNOW: Seem?

Q Well, I'm paraphrasing, obviously. They say the same thing about the White House, of course.

MR. SNOW: But wait a minute. I cannot let them get away with that. We have talked about -- we've talked about a whole series of things where we have reached out and we have had a series of escalating proffers in terms of making people and information available. You simply cannot say that that is stubbornness on the part of the White House when we have made available all these documents, when we've made the people available, and the Congress itself has said, nope, we're just going to push this story to confrontation.

I think that the attitudes and approaches are significantly different. Proceed.

Q Well, that leads me to this question: How much negotiation went on, and do you think it was in good faith?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it was absolutely in good faith on our part. I mean, Fred Fielding went up --

Q On their part.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I'm not going to characterize on their part. But I'll tell you what has happened is that there has been no demonstration that they've been willing to say -- to take up the offer, to get access to all the facts.

Here's the interesting thing. Suppose you do get these people in and we're writing on crayon or we're taking the notes and we're doing whatever we can to record every syllable that has been given in testimony, and somebody finds something that looks like a smoking gun -- well, what does Congress do? They go in and ask for more. That's perfectly possible. The kind of offer we have made does not serve as an endpoint, it serves as an opportunity for Congress to do a full investigation and if they have other questions, to ask us whether, in fact, we have other items that might come to bear on this.

We have made it possible for them to proceed down the road to gather information and to try to assess the situation, and they've just basically rebuffed it.

John.

Q With so many contempt possibilities out there now in the House and in the Senate, where there's actually bipartisan discussion of contempt citations --

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q -- don't you feel like you're kind of rolling the dice on what is, as you say, an important constitutional principle?

MR. SNOW: You don't roll a dice on a constitutional principle, you stand by it. And you do it for the sake of the institution. Keep in mind, again, the first assertion of executive privilege in this White House was on behalf of the Clinton administration. This is an administration that believes it is important to maintain that kind of confidentiality. Normally, if you lose it you lose the ability to recruit the kind of people you need, to bring folks in who are going to be able to give their best advice and counsel to a President. And let me repeat, if you did the same thing to Congress, they would consider that completely crippling; and if you did it in the court system, it would be even more crippling because it would profoundly compromise their independence.

So I will repeat, it is not rolling the dice, and in fact, is an acknowledgment that no matter how much political heat people may want to try to generate, or how many colorful statements they may have to make, this is about preserving the institution so it can work effectively and, in fact, have checks against the other branches of government so that they remain separate and co-equal.

Q Can I follow up? If the Senate Judiciary Committee decides to do a contempt proceeding on its own, what they call I think, inherent contempt, would the White House participate? Would you have lawyers --

MR. SNOW: We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm not going to get into procedures. Let's just see what goes on. We still hope, because the House is not going to have a full vote on contempt at least until next week, we still hope cooler heads may prevail and people will think, okay, we'll take up an offer, we'll look at what you've got. I mean, that would make sense. That would show that, in fact, the real purpose here is not to try to create a big public furor, but to get at the facts and find out whether there was anything wrong in the President doing what Presidents may do, which is to fire people who serve at their privilege.

She really knows how to rally her base....... Attack 2 of the staunchest anti-war Dems. Pelosi and Conyers . lol These people are crazy.

That's an understatement :D