Too much controvery on this board

[travelover]

There has been too much controversy recently, so I'm not going to comment on this recent development.

On Thursday, a Democratic-led congressional committee reported that since 2003, Mr. Cheney had exempted his office from an executive order renewed that year by President George W. Bush regarding federal procedures for dealing with national security information.


Mr. Cheney not only rejected a request to adhere to the procedures but also sought to the eliminate the office at the National Archives that made the request, said Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who chairs the House of Representatives Government and Reform Committee.



globeandmail.com: Democrats attack Cheney for secrecy

 

[REWahoo]

There has been too much controversy recently, so I'm not going to comment on this recent development.

If you are truly concerned about too much controversy, I would think the proper thing to do would be not to post this tripe. Sounds a lot like trolling to me.

 

[dex]

If you are truly concerned about too much controversy, I would think the proper thing to do would be not to post this tripe. Sounds a lot like trolling to me.

agree

 

[travelover]

Sorry, I was trying to be tongue in cheek. No offense intended.

 

[ladelfina]

Problem is.. it is not "tripe". It's a real constitutional crisis (or could become one). If Cheney says he's not part of the Executive.. does that mean Bush is not his boss? He claims not -- he doesn't have to follow Presidential Directives! Does that mean "executive privilege" extends to him or not (if you conceive of such a concept)? How could he claim such privileges if he's not part of the executive!? This is not minor.

Cheney takes the role of VP into a realm not even claimed by the President himself.. that of absolute autonomy with zero accountability.

 

[dumpster56]

See I did not give any political response. Are you proud of me ?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I guess about 320 million school textbooks are going to need to be changed...

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/orgchart05.pdf

 

[REWahoo]

Problem is.. it is not "tripe". It's a real constitutional crisis (or could become one).

My "tripe" comment was not related to the accuracy/inaccuracy/content of the posted statement. It was directed towards starting a political thread sure to stir the passions of those who feel strongly one way or the other while complaining about board controversy.

Looks like I missed the sarcasm just as you missed the point of my response.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Uh oh, you're gonna owe justin some money...

 

[REWahoo]

Uh oh, you're gonna owe justin some money...

I'll pay him his 50 cents in installments...two cents worth at at time!

 

[2B]

It is interesting from a constitutional standpoint. The whole "requirement" comes from an executive order signed by Bush II and he has come out in agreement that Cheney doesn't need to comply. Bush II could simply write a "clarification" to his order and the whole thing goes away.

The office of VP is established separately from the office of president. When amended, the change from "second in the electoral count" to the party ticket, there wasn't any real change in the constitutional duties -- wait for the Pres to die and preside over the Senate.

The "original intent" was that the VP would preside over the Senate as a full time job and be a champion for the body. John Adams did that as the first VP since he had a big part in writing the Constitution. However, Thomas Jefferson who also had a part in writing the Constitution never lifted a finger in the Senate and devoted his entire time as VP towards undermining President John Adams. He did an excellent job of it.

I personally think it's a stupid mess to stir up but it does not have an obvious answer. It is worthy of the Supreme Court to decide if it is allowed to go that far.

As far as "too much controversy" on this forum is concerned I don't mind discussion but I can't stand insulting or patronizing responses. I have come to enjoy the "ignore" option. I don't have many on the list but I feel good when I've added someone.

Of course, no one is probably reading this since I'm probably on the system's "defalt ignore list."

 

[Rustic23]

It will be interesting to follow this thread to see if there are any political/constitutional scholars out there that choose to comment. The VP is an elected official. He can not be fired or replaced by the President. Yet he is a member of the Executive branch. He is President of the Senate and votes in ties. So how much automamy does he have?

 

[Martha]

Problem is.. it is not "tripe". It's a real constitutional crisis (or could become one). If Cheney says he's not part of the Executive.. does that mean Bush is not his boss? He claims not -- he doesn't have to follow Presidential Directives! Does that mean "executive privilege" extends to him or not (if you conceive of such a concept)? How could he claim such privileges if he's not part of the executive!? This is not minor.

Cheney takes the role of VP into a realm not even claimed by the President himself.. that of absolute autonomy with zero accountability.

Oh to be in Constitutional Law class right now, what fun it would be. Cheney's office doesn't actually claim not to be part of the executive, but says it is not solely an executive office as it has legislative functions as well, given that the VP serves as president of the Senate. That argument is extremely weak, especially because the issue deals with executive functions of the VP's office. The arbitrator of disputes under the President's EO is the Justice Department, which is ignoring the issue.

The President could simply change the EO to exempt the VP. Why doesn't he? Or, if he does want the VP to be covered by the order, why doesn't he say so or put pressure on the Justice Department to resolve the dispute? Or maybe the President just thinks this is all minor BS that he shouldn't have to be bothered with. Or he doesn't know what to do with the VP and doesn't want to create any impression of a problem.

I question what authority Senator Waxman has in demanding answers from Cheney on this issue. This isn't a legislative vs executive dispute. This is an excutive office vs. executive dispute.

This situation interesting to me as it gives the dispute a flavor of a dispute between the VP and President. The President can't fire the VP if the VP doesn't behave. The VP office is an elected office. The President can only go get court orders or recommend impeachment. Interesting stuff.

 

[travelover]

I posted this originally because I am always suspicious when an elected official wants to eliminate scrutiny. To me this is not a political or partisan issue, though I feared it would quickly turn into a right vs left squabble.

 

[2B]

I question what authority Senator Waxman has in demanding answers from Cheney on this issue. This isn't a legislative vs executive dispute. This is an excutive office vs. executive dispute.

This situation interesting to me as it gives the dispute a flavor of a dispute between the VP and President. The President can't fire the VP if the VP doesn't behave. The VP office is an elected office. The President can only go get court orders or recommend impeachment. Interesting stuff.

This is a great perspective. That's why you're attorney general of the ER forum.

I beleive the VP was supposed to have a meaningful role in the Senate in the minds of the original framers but that totally fell apart after Jefferson.

The office of the VP was probably best described by John Nance "Cactus Jack" Garner, first/second term VP of FDR, when asked what he thought of the being VP he replied as "not worth a bucket of warm piss."

If FDR hadn't decided to break the 2 term tradition, Garner would probably have been elected president. Since FDR decided he was the "king," there was a parting of the ways as Garner became upset at this break in tradition and in cutting him out of his chance to be president. That has really been the lure of the office since our country made the VP a "ticket" position.

 

[ladelfina]

With the VP, perhaps the history is hazy.. but apparently Bush himself considers his own office exempt from this classified info. directive as well... though nothing explicitly states that.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/23/bush-claims-hes-not-part-of-the-executive-branch/


Interesting parry by Emanuel (emph. mine):

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation – the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/23/132229/743

 

[2B]

With the VP, perhaps the history is hazy.. but apparently Bush himself considers his own office exempt from this classified info. directive as well... though nothing explicitly states that.

Think Progress » Bush claims he’s not part of the executive branch.


Interesting parry by Emanuel (emph. mine):

Daily Kos: Emanuel Ups the Ante

I wouldn't say the VP history is hazy but less well known. There are constitutional issues that can be raised for the power of any branch of our government. Sometimes the people or institution just goes along and other times the issue gets thrown into Federal Court with the Supreme Court the final word (usually but not always).

The dems now control congress but by a slim margin. Since taking over, there have been non-stop investigations and assualts on repubs in congress and on the entire executive branch. Some of the attacks are deserved but I think they are going too far in most of their attacks. The threat to cut funding for the VP is something that can come back at them when the times change.

I think it's almost a given that a dem will be in the White House in 2008. That assumes they don't self-destruct with another suicide candidate like Kerry. Bush II was so disliked that Kerry still almost won. The dems will also probably keep control of both houses of congress. They will then have 2 years to show they can lead the country. In 2010 they will face the inevitable mid-term election and almost certainly lose many seats. They may even lose both halves of congress and then they have given the repubs the recent historical justification to repeat the current process on them.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments.

Niiiiice...

 

[ladelfina]

Yeah.. since Bush apparently considers himself and his office also inexplicably exempt --despite no words to that effect in the EO-- maybe the Dems can threaten to w/hold funding for the Office of the President as well!!

Emanuel admits it is a 'stunt'.. but it's a logical one given the circumstances. One way or another this has to get cleared up.

Aside from all the classified stuff Bush lets him manage anyway.. Cheney has also been "stealing people's mail" w/in the WH for years.

At the White House, Bellinger sent Rice a blunt -- and, he thought, private -- legal warning. The Cheney-Rumsfeld position would place the president indisputably in breach of international law and would undermine cooperation from allied governments. Faxes had been pouring in at the State Department since the order for military commissions was signed, with even British authorities warning that they could not hand over suspects if the U.S. government withdrew from accepted legal norms.

One lawyer in his office said that Bellinger was chagrined to learn, indirectly, that Cheney had read the confidential memo and "was concerned" about his advice. Thus Bellinger discovered an unannounced standing order: Documents prepared for the national security adviser, another White House official said, were "routed outside the formal process" to Cheney, too.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/

Colin Powell found out about the detainee order on the tee-vee. Rice had no idea, either. Ashcroft was "astonished". Cheney holds all the cards, or at least knows where all the bodies are buried; Bush is just a figurehead, but I think we've known that since day 1.

 

[kcowan]

One thing the current administration is demonstrating is that the checks and balances in the design of government may be inadequate.

 

[chinaco]

One thing the current administration is demonstrating is that the checks and balances in the design of government may be inadequate.

Perhaps a better statement is: The current administration is inadequate!

Early on, I felt that the press was a bit unfair with GWB... all that crap about his military shenanigans and comments about him not being the brightest bulb in the pack... I am beginning to think I was wrong.

As far as Cheney is concerned... he is the VP that is not visible. I imagine him as the puppet master working the GWB strings.

 

[dumpster56]

Perhaps a better statement is: The current administration is inadequate!

Early on, I felt that the press was a bit unfair with GWB... all that crap about his military shenanigans and comments about him not being the brightest bulb in the pack... I am beginning to think I was wrong.


We all knew guys like Bush in college, the rich @sshole who had all the breaks, did as little as possible to get by, was given opportunities the rest of us did not have or quite frankly want.

That said, I saw thru this guy way back. Remember the savings and loan scandals of the 80s?? Bush was right there. He was anionted the republican nomination for texas gov then the same for the republican party as president.

Sorry the american people deserve this lightweight, they had the chance to remove him in 04, they didn't.

 

[travelover]

For me this whole issue is not whether you like the current administration, but whether the changing executive powers endanger a continued democracy. Look to any country without transparency and you will see the political opposition jailed, corruption and no outside capital investment.

Bush and Cheney may have the best intentions, but what happens when the next Nixon or Clinton or (your satanic choice here) is elected?

 

[dumpster56]

For me this whole issue is not whether you like the current administration, but whether the changing executive powers endanger a continued democracy. Look to any country without transparency and you will see the political opposition jailed, corruption and no outside capital investment.

Bush and Cheney may have the best intentions, but what happens when the next Nixon or Clinton or (your satanic choice here) is elected?

Agreed, however the american people deserve the people they elect.

 

[2B]

One thing the current administration is demonstrating is that the checks and balances in the design of government may be inadequate.

As a Canadian your comment lacks credibility for the USA although I accept the fact that every and all decisions made in the USA don't agree with your opininion -- as far as the next USA election is concerned.

I've observed the relative actions of parlimentary vs. separate executive branches and I believe that there is an overall benefit in having a separate, strong head of state (not including QE-II) distinct from the legislative branch. It brings stronger checks and balances to the total system. The US Congress acts independently and frequently put bills before the Prez that get vetoed. They have much more power to investigate and challenge than would ever happen under a parlimentary form of government where, by default, the head of state was the head of the party in power.

The repubs and dems in the USA in Congress have a vested interested in doing what it takes for them, personally, to get re-elected that they will change sides in a vote or an issue. In the parlimentary form of government, the X's vote with the X's and Y's with the Y's. If enough X's cross the line, the government falls and it's back to the ballot box. It becomes little more than hearburn of the week, ala Italy.