Nah B…that ain’t happening.

If you haven’t caught the news, here it is:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The Executive branch of the United States is claiming that the Justice Department isn’t allowed to investigate them. I understand rules of executive privilege, but this is the most broad reach of such a power in the history of our country.

Normally, the White House tries to block testimony to Congress by claiming executive privilege. Okay, fine. Then the Congress can hold those subpoenaed in “contempt of congress” for not showing up. This then leads to a Justice Department investigation which hashes out which side has the stronger case.

But not this time.

This Administration believes they are not subject to the rule of law. It may seem cliché , but the Bush Administration is claiming to be “above the law”: the Justice Dept. is not allowed to investigate them.

This is a turning point for me. I now believe we should begin impeachment hearings.

I’ve been against it for many different reasons, but no more. I can’t fathom not confronting this issue head on. They have just publicly stated that they are not beholden to the rule of law. We must provide some sort of check to this insane notion that the President is our King.

8 Responses to “Nah B…that ain’t happening.”

  1. beetlejuice 21. Jul, 2007 at 12:28 am #

    Clinton fire 93 attorneys,but, no uproar. That seems like a double standard.

    http://newsbusters.org/node/11396

  2. Warm Jet 21. Jul, 2007 at 8:04 pm #

    Bill Clinton is not in office anymore so let’s talk about now!

  3. beetlejuice 22. Jul, 2007 at 1:36 am #

    If he’s breaking the law, he should be prosecuted. Is he “really” breaking the law though?

    By the way, the rule of law concerning the firing of U.S. Attorneys is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 541, which states:

    (a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
    (b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

    (c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.

    Update: To be clear, the president has the authority to remove a U.S. Attorney — per § 541 and Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) –

  4. ian 22. Jul, 2007 at 6:18 am #

    i can’t believe you’re repeating 3 month old talking points.

  5. Vince 25. Jul, 2007 at 1:51 am #

    Back to the point, this is not unusual. Congress did the same thing during the Regan administration when they wanted an EPA official to testify. The congress was close to the point of filing contempt charges when the administration gave in. Regan did state that we would not allow justice to prosecute.

    There is another way. The Congress may file contempt like charges–I’m not sure what the exact term is–and have the sergeant at arm arrest the official. That maneuver hasn’t been used in 100 years.

    Vince

  6. ian 25. Jul, 2007 at 5:15 pm #

    yeah, Regan and I think Nixon (with Fred Fielding also involved and John Roberts as his assistant!) both moved to block contempt of congress charges.

    The House is moving this morning to vote on Contempt of Congress charges. It’s more of a symbolic vote. It’s necessary in order to show this patter of neglect of the law by the Bush Admin, but it won’t carry much wait. I don’t expect Bush to back down.

    The Congress should next move to “Inherent Contempt” of Congress charges. I think this what you were referring to Vince. It was last used in the Senate in 1934 when the Senate held a week long trial investigating the US Postmaster….at least that’s what wikipedia said.

    I think Congress needs to move to this step because we must put a check on this Administration. And this might be the only way (if every) they will back down. Bush understands threats. It’s the only thing he will respond to.

    This is also why I feel Congress should at least begin talking about the possible impeachment charges.

  7. Vince 25. Jul, 2007 at 9:36 pm #

    I think I would be hilarious if the sergeant at arms led Bolton out on a perp walk. I would fly to DC just to see it live.

    vk

  8. AnferTuto 28. Jul, 2007 at 1:13 pm #

    Hola faretaste
    mekodinosad

Leave a Reply