Subpoena Showdown
Empty chairs at committee hearings in the firing of U.S. attorneys and the continued fight against executive privilege.
When White House Counsel Harriet Miers failed to show up at a House Judiciary Committee hearing at which she had been subpoenaed to testify about her involvement in the Justice Department's firing of nine U.S. Attorneys the committee answered back with a Monday deadline for White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to turn over subpoenaed documents related to the same matter or face contempt charges.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Ca.) chairs the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, which is responsible for recommending and issuing subpoenas in Congressional oversight matters. She called the administration's claim of executive privilege, "out of order." "Those claims are not legally valid," Sanchez said. "Mrs. Miers is required pursuant to the subpoena to be here now." The subcommittee upheld Sanchez' contempt citation in a 7-5 party line vote. For Miers or Bolten to be officially held in contempt, the full Judiciary committee would have to rule the same way, and then so would a majority of the House in a floor vote.
Congress and the Bush administration are heading toward a courtroom showdown over the White House's refusal to honor subpoenas through its claims of "executive privilege." And if the issue goes to court, it would constitute a dramatic shift from Democrats' previously stated position. During a June 28 conference call with liberal bloggers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cautioned, "on some of these issues, the courts are not friendly to us because they are all in the family," she said. "Especially in the District of Columbia, if we wanted to challenge them in Court on anything, the decision would not be in our favor."
"Now you see the administration asserting executive privilege," Pelosi added. "So the press asked me this morning, 'Does this mean you're going to hold them in contempt next?' I said 'No, we're going to let the process work out' because you have to build the record."
The administration has recently been building that record. On two consecutive days last week, the president's claims of executive privilege stood directly in the path of ongoing Congressional oversight investigations. On Wednesday, before the Senate Judiciary committee, a one-time Bush aide named Sara Taylor dodged a series of questions about her role in the U.S. Attorney scandal, citing the fact that the president had instructed her to honor his executive privilege. The next day, a chair reserved for Miers sat empty in the House Judiciary hearing room.
These haven't been the only times the administration has refused to abide by Congressional subpoenas. In April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled her intent to dodge a subpoena from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.), who is seeking her testimony in his investigation into the manipulation of pre-war intelligence. Rice has contended that her actions and statements in the lead-up to the Iraq war were carried out in her former role as National Security Adviser—an appointed position that does not require Senate consent—and were therefore protected by executive privilege.
But there's one more reason to expect a courtroom clash: effective Constitutional limits have prevented Democrats from accomplishing even the simplest components of the change they promised during the '06 campaign.
On important actions such as climate change legislation and war funding, Bush has either vetoed, or threatened to veto, any serious bills that make it through Congress. At the same time, smaller issues have become victim to a series of parliamentary tactics that some—most recently Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on the "Young Turks" radio show—suggest are intended to block Democrats from accomplishing anything substantial for purely political reasons.
Perhaps because these tactics are technical and obscure (how many citizens know that getting anything out of the Congress these days routinely requires a supermajority of votes in the Senate?), the fallout has been hard on Democrats, who are now widely perceived to have blown their mandate.
And that's just legislating. Their entirely separate call to oversight is a function that should be easier to carry out, if only because issuing subpoenas does not require a supermajority. But the president has signaled that he's willing to use executive privilege as an effective veto over Congress' subpoena power—and therefore their oversight.
While Democrats move towards a courtroom battle, they face a stark choice: If they challenge and lose, they may strengthen the right of executive privilege for years to come. If, on the other hand, they don't go to the courts at all, they may entice future administrations to run roughshod over the oversight prerogative of the legislature. The difference is that the latter option would reinforce the perception that they were brought to power to check the president, but have simply decided not to do so.
Page 1 of 1 
While I agree that this is somewhat of a conundrum for the Democrats, to do nothing would be complete suicide for them as well as for the rest of us. Courage is what is needed here. In times past we had leaders who knew hwo to lead. We must persuade the Democratic party to lead now.
let the firings stand and get on with something important,like the needs of the citizens. this has always BOTHERED me, that so much time and taxpayer money is used on "spilled milk". if i had my way, i'd fire most of the legislators in this country. they worry more about finding dirt on someone else than doing the JOB they were voted or hired to do. i love our country and sure would like to see some common sense happening. here's hoping that GOD will always bless AMERICA..
Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. I understand Pelosi's and Reid's dilema yet to do nothing...first impeach Gonzo for deriliction of duty.
With all due respect to Mr. Beutler, the American public is not as stupid as the pundits say. Perhaps it is wishful thinking from the ranks of the right to perceive that the majority of Americans are apathetic, at least, or ignorant at the most. Be forewarned Mr. neo-con that November 2008 is approaching and then the GOP, the root cause of what ever apathy there has been, and the most unethical bunch of carper baggers to chair Congressional seats and the White House, will be out on their oversized rumps. And it will be the same Americans who voted in November 2006 and a few million more who are absolutely disgusted with the rubber stamp GOP who have been stuffing their pockets with taxpayer dollars, enabling a treacherous President and Vice President to wage war on innocent citizens of a Sovereign nation, violate the very basic rights of human beings, either as POWs or citizens of this and other countries for the last 6 plus years.
Americans realize exactly what the GOP are up to in Congress and in the White House. How couldn't we be, the GOP has been forcing their right wing ideology down our throats consistently, constantly and uniformly for last 6 years and even the most apathetic and ignorant amongst us can't help but be aware.
November 2008 cannot come soon enough!
You didn't mention Congress'inherent power of contempt - its right to hold its own trial and imprison someone they find in contempt. John Conyers has said he is considering that option.
Nuts! I vote to impeach Bush and Chaney and now I'll add Gonzales, who is a frigging embarrassment. In fact, they all are frigging embarrassments.
Mandate: Get rid of the Republicans Fighting them is their mandate but first thing they need to do is to remove Pelosi as speaker.
Pink2yoo.
I must point out that this is not a case of "spilt milk", but rather of currently spilling milk.
The firings of the AG's, and the apparent reasons, are symptomatic of a wider game plan, on the part of this administration, to politicize every department in our government. Republican political appointees, most often without the requisit experience necessary, are being placed into positions superior to career professionals and then dictating policy on the basis of ideology rather than good governance, or even common sense. Examples abound.
The Dem "controlled" Congress is not under control because the Republicans simply refuse to vote.
The impunity is sickening. The founding fathers knew Bush, Cheney and Rove would appear sooner or later. It"s time to lead or get out of the way. IMPEACH! We owe it to the Founding Fathers.
The way to deal with an executive branch which abuses power, obstructs justice, and violates the constitution is crystal clear: Impeachment.
It's not a matter of political strategy, it is the legal obligation of Congress, and the Democrats have no more excuses. Those on the Judiciary Committee (listed below) must at least move the articles of impeachment against Cheney onto the House floor, or they will continue to be mocked by The White House, and written off by the American public as weak and ineffective. Call the numbers below, and urge them to act on House Resolution 333.
Chairman John Conyers, MI, 14th (202) 225-5126
Howard Berman CA, 28th (202) 225-4695
Rick Boucher VA, 9th (202) 225-3861
Jerrold Nadler NY, 8th (202) 225-5635
Robert C. Scott VA, 3rd (202) 225-8351
Melvin L. Watt NC, 12th (202) 225-1510
Zoe Lofgren CA, 16th (202) 225-3072
Sheila Jackson Lee TX, 18th (202) 225-3816
William D. Delahunt MA, 10th (202) 225-3111
Robert Wexler FL, 19th (202) 225-3001
Linda T. Sánchez CA, 39th (202) 225-6676
Steve T. Cohen TN, 9th (202) 225-3265
Luis Gutierrez IL, 4th (202) 225-8203
Brad Sherman CA, 27 (202) 225-5911
Anthony D. Weiner NY, 9th (202) 225-6616
Adam B. Schiff CA, 29th (202) 225-4176
Artur Davis AL, 7th (202) 225-2665
Debbie Wasserman Schultz FL, 20th 202-225-7931
Tammy Baldwin WI, 2nd (202) 225-2906
From the NYTimes opinion page:
'Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed,” he warned. “It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”
When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.
The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.
The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as "the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."'
Our greatest fear is that of our country becoming a Dictatorship forced upon us by a hard-lined leadership that blocks, stonewalls, and threatens to veto what the majority of our citizens want. Is this the kind of Democracy America stands for, brags about and wants to infuse forcefully on other nations?
If there was any doubt, yes, investigate.
But anyone who is capable of honest thought know that this administration has violated the Constitution and interpret laws as applying to Democrat's and not to Republican's.
When are the Congress Critter's going to move to impeach both of these guys? It has to be both, else they will just pardon each other.
Impeach both the president and vice president!!!! That is the only answer to their disregard for the Constitution. Adding Gonzo to the list of impeachable "leaders?" is also called for.
Not surprising that in our current oligarchy things are happening this way.It seems as if we have forgotten that it is the legislative and executive branches who are subject to us, and not the other way around. Isn't there a "quota" of vetoes that Bush has surely surpassed by now? Also if we allow his administration to contemptuously declare "executive privilege," each time one of the other 2 branches tries to use their power to balance his hegemonic, war-crazed zeal, then that sets a dangerous precedent. When are we going to reign in King George??
Use the laws already on the books. Congress should issue warrents for their arrest and jail them until they comply. No court room debates! That would be more than a little stupid. Stop being stupid and cowardly. Jail them!
We all know what Bush-Cheney is doing and rather than just keep pecking away at it Impeachment should be started NOW.
If strong action is not taken Iran will be blasted, we will have martial law, and Cheney will run the country with Bush acting as the dictator. If we all keep piddling we will not be able to stop it. You should be nice to nice people but these are not nice people.
I recently saw Sens. Trent Lott and Diane Feinstein debating this issue on TV and he said, in essence, "Let them go to court." I think the Republicans want a court fight -- it will prolong the battle and, as Speaker Pelosi has said, will not end well for the Democrats. Therefore, I think the only way for Congress to go is to crank up its "inherent contempt" authority and try Meirs immediately. Dragging their feet and allowing this blatant abuse of the system by the Bush administration to go to Republican-friendly courts will only serve to inflate a Constitutional crisis.
Someone needs to let the President know that he was elected, not crowned, and that his power is not absolute. It isn't, is it?
There may be a real danger that this goes beyond a simple stretch for more Executive power. When exiting the 1787 Constitutional Convention, one of the 55 Founders, Benjamin Franklin, was asked, "Do we have a Republic, or a Monarchy?" "He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Every journey begins with one step. Let us all encourage John Conyers to proceed with the contempt process. One at a time. Miers first, then Gonzales.
Neither the Court or the WH can stop that. If they don't show up, try them in absentia.
That will play on CSPAN, and with a large, interested audience.
Yes the Dems must fight for this every way they can. To do nothing is a disgrace and an injustice to all of us who voted for them. They can not let Bush get awy with such abuse of power.
.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.
Our elected Representatives don’t seem concerned about Bush’s lawless rampage, and they definitely aren’t interested in attempting to check his endless empowerment of himself at the expense of our “balance of powers” or Humpty Dumpty constitution, but don’t worry, they’ve got rock solid plans to win the next election . . . forget Impeachment though.
The Problem is: “All the King’s horses and All the King’s men, couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again.”
It sure appears that Humpty has been dumped.
President Bush's Executive Order: Revoking the Right to Dissent?
The Presidential order gives the administration the power to freeze assets of any person or entity considered to be "undermining" efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
Office of the Press Secretary
Tuesday 17 July 2007
Fact sheet: Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act
Americans have been deluged with Bush’s Executive Orders, but this one is truly ominous. How many Americans remember that Hitler stripped Jews of their wealth, property and means of making a living before he began exterminating them? Republicans seem to be following the Nazi blueprint to impose a fascist dictatorship.
The astonishing thing about Bush’s many Executive Orders, is that they are ignored by the Monopoly Media and Democrats. None of his “Signing Statements” or “Executive Orders” have been discussed or explained by anyone. Most of these “Signing Statements” and “Executive Orders” are so disingenuous, complicated and convoluted, it takes a Chinese Lawyer to decypher what they mean.
Who will finally decide the “Decider” has decided way beyond what was his to decide?
I couldn't disagree with pink2yoo--jeri more. The firings suggest a possible interference with on-going criminal investigations in one or more of the districts where the firings took place. If this is true, it is perhaps a more serious Constitutional issue than was Watergate. Investigating this in a congressional committee is the responsible thing to do. A whistle blower may surface still.
I recently spoke (much to my dislike) with someone about this, and she said the senate nor the house has a right to subpoena anyone, and that for Miers not to show up was just fine; not contempt at all, and that the president telling her not to show was ok as well. Now granted, this person follows a study diet of Fox News daily, but is there any hope? And isn't this example illustrative of the effects of mass media on the populace? Personally, I am beginning to become fearful, not only of the damaging effects of our uninformed masses on our democratic processes, but also of the damaging effects of mass media, Fox News especially, on brain function. Can I get an "Amen?"
With all due respect to Mr. Beutler, the American public is not as stupid as the pundits say
Oh yes they are. What country in the world has backed away from democracy so quickly and handed the wealth of the country totheir elites in such a short time. Americans are suckers. Now get back to your tv and catch up on paris hiltons new nipple ring
It's time to consider impeachemt! There is ample evidence that this administration has done everything possible to stack the deck in favor of a uber conservative/ neo con government for years to come.
If the Democrats don't act now we may well loose any vestige of the democracy we have enjoyed thus far. Someone in the congress needs to read their constitution and stand up for this form of government.
clips of the Clinton impeachment are in stark contrast to what we are witnessing now. Some of the same Republican congress persons are seen giving chapter and verse on the horrors of Clinton's indescresions. What we have now is much, much worse and those voices are remarkably silent.
I MUST BE VERY, VERY IGNORENT, BUT ISN'T IT TRUE IF A REGULAR AMERICAN JANE OR JOE REFUSED A SUPOENA YOU CAN BET THE HOUSE THEY WOULD BE SITTING IN JAIL?
