Is it constitutional for the legislative branch to subpoena the executive branch?

Question

The forefathers of this great nation designed a system of checks and balances. We recognize those as 3 co-equal branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The courts blocked evidence against Rep. Jefferson (D) because it was supposedly a violation of that separation since the FBI and Department of Justice fall under the executive branch. How then can the legislative branch regularly attack the executive branch with subpoenas?

This sounds more like tiered branches with executive below legislative and judicial...

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/william_j_jefferson/index.html?query=JUSTICE%20DEPARTMENT&field=org&match=exact

I know the framers of the Constitution gave the Congress the ultimate check on executive by overruling vetoes and ability to impeach the President, but that requires much more than a simple committee. How can it be Constitutional for a simple committee with a handful of congressmen/women to attack another branch like this?

The question has nothing to do with the DOJ since they're talking about subpoenas for members of the President's staff, NOT DOJ members. Furthermore, Clinton specifically cited executive privileges when denying subpoenas for some of his staff and secret service members. Personally, I agreed with Clinton that immediate advisors and secret service members should be allowed a confidentiality status to prevent attacks on the executive by the legislative branch.

And about how this is an attack: because the partisan Dems are obviously trying to impune Bush and his administration. Anyone who denies that is either ignorant or a liar. The partisanship is no different than when the Republican Congress attacked Clinton for adultery. Neither were prosecutable crimes. The catch is once Congress gets someone under oath, they can scrutinize each word until they have a perjury case... exactly how Clinton was partially impeached...

Frankly, I don't care how many women with whom Clinton had or didn't have "relations." He had some successes and more failures IMHO, but the Lewinsky "scandal" was a waste of government resources. The current Congress is trying to do the same thing to the current administration, work its way via sworn testimony and perjury charges up to impeaching the President. It's still a waste of government resources.

Focus on Terrorism, the war in Iraq, the open borders, pork-barrel spending, and myriad other issues that are more important than a handful of lawyers getting canned. I wouldn't mind if they took Shakespeare's advice and first, killed all the lawyers.

Answer 1

No, it is not constitutional and the Supreme Court will get it straightened out and then the Congress, the Senate in particular will be exposed for the power-grabbing idiots they are.

Answer 2

Keep in mind way back then they never thought any of what goes on in government today would be. It was a pretty perfect system as designed. It is completely constitutional, has been since forever. To cite examples in recent history; Nixon and Watergate, Reagan and Iran/Contra Affair, Clinton and Monica.

Answer 3

Completely. Congress has specific investigatory and oversight authority, specifically over any federal agencies such as DoJ.

While it's arguable whether Conrgess can subpoena the President or Vice President personally (though it has happened in the past), they can certainly subpoena anyone lower on the food chain, such as aides.

BTW, other than political spinners, what makes you think an investigation into whether the Attorney General acted unethically is an attack on the Executive Branch?

If the DoJ hand't just come out of two other major scandals for unethical conduct and abuse of power, this one probably wouldn't have been such a big deel. But three strikes....
~~~~~

And for anyone who claims there is a legal justification for the Executive Branch to ignore Congressional subpoenas, please post your answer to my question on this issue. So far, nobody has been able to come up with one.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjmfSEXU3D4TLFxa.oBJ0Ansy6IX?qid=20070320164149AAYFvgB

Answer 4

Well republicans thought it was constitutional when they did it to Clinton and his aides. Why isn't it constitutional now? Has the constitution been amended so that Republicans are not allowed to be investigated???

Answer 5

I'm sure you've been feverishly working on this issue since all the Whitewater subpoenas.

Answer 6

Yep, it is 100% constitutional.

Answer 7

GOD help us if ever becomes "illegal"!