Well, the Senate is talking about issuing subpoenas for Rove and Meyers to testify under oath and in public about this administrations’ abuse of power concerning federal attorneys sacking and replacement without Senate approval of the replacements. Why is this administration so against this? Bush comes out with an excuse of separation of Presidential powers (total B.S.). Does he have a problem with Congressional oversight of what he’s doing? Such oversight is constitutionally mandated after all. Does this mean he doesn’t like the Constitution getting in his way?
2007-03-21 08:01:32 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To Bush the Constitution is just a GD piece of paper he can choose to ignore at will.
Congressional oversight is in the Constitution just because the founding fathers knew people like Bush would try to overstep his bounds. No one is above the law, not Bush, not his aids, not anyone in his administration, NO ONE.
2007-03-21 08:16:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I find the question of jurisdiction to be an interesting one. What people don't seem to understand (which is strange considering that we went through an impeachment less than a decade ago) is that the President is subject to Congressional oversight. Why? Because Congress represents the people. And the President of the United States is answerable to the people.
Therefore, if Congress suspects wrongdoing by any member of the Executive branch of government, it absolutely has the right to call those members to testify under oath about the issue. If nothing has been done wrong, that will certainly come out in the sworn testimony of those members. There is nothing to fear by telling the truth. The fact that the Executive branch resists being compelled to tell the truth is sickening.
2007-03-21 08:19:42 · answer #2 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You don't know the Constitution as well as you think.
First, the firings were totally permissible under law. Attorneys General are part of the Executive Branch of government and serve at the pleasure of the administration. (You're not complaining about Clinton's firings, were you?) The Attorney General is a member of Bush's cabinet.
Second, when the Legislative Branch issues subpoenas to the Executive Branch relating to how the President and his administration deliberates in handling decisions, it can be a serious violation of separation of powers.
Let's turn things around. Should the White House start issuing subpoenas to, say, Schumer's office on his efforts to influence the Libby investigation and trial? Or maybe start a fishing expedition with Pelosi's staff?
2007-03-21 08:20:08 · answer #3 · answered by Apachecat 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's just a delaying tactic. The Congress has identified a possible misuse of executive power and they are well within their rights to subpoena witnesses. Bush can't stop it now considering so many internal communications have already been released.
2007-03-21 08:07:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush doesn't believe in the Constitution (I'd even be surprised if he could pronounce it properly). He likes to claim his Constitutional rights while ignoring everybody else's.
He's probably afraid that the whole thing will come down on top of him. He's probably trying to hide something. Nixon tried the same thing, look what happened to him.
2007-03-21 08:34:40 · answer #5 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush has been ignoring the Consitution since he took office..based on his actions I really believe he thinks he is supreme overlord of America instead of one of the 3 EQUAL branches of government
Apacheca…> If that is true then why was it widley acknowledged that Congress has the authority to find out if the President got a BJ back when Clinton was in office? They have the right to look into anything they see fit according to law. Bush did have the authority to fire them but in the firing it indicates the current admistration is trying to hide information and their refusal to cooperate with Congress is compounding the problem
2007-03-21 08:05:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
what's so humorous, about ignoring a legal subpoena, for a extreme count number number? could you please drop the "My aspect, is extra valuable than your aspect, we only spat on your face" act, for 2 minutes? the count number number at hand, being Solyndra, which there became quite an outstanding form of shady dealings, fee Taxpayers, about 500 Million funds. it truly isn't any longer a laughing count number number. extra extra, at the same time as he got here into place of work, President Obama, stated his administration, could be clear, and yet, right here we are, we haven't from now on began yet another count number number the position quite, The Obama administration, have quite chosen to push aside request. So truthfully, sir, there aren't any winners right here, and only each person American Taxpayers, left because the losers to this political sport you opt for to play.
2016-12-02 11:34:33 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This whole thing might just be one big diversion. It's a damned shame that I feel like I can't trust any of the leadership of either party. But I don't.
2007-03-21 08:07:19 · answer #8 · answered by Where Yat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The senate has no jurisdiction in the matter of their being fired. They may have some say in who their replacements are. So without jurisdiction the subpoenas are worthless.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf
2007-03-21 08:07:30 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I guess hiding the truth is how he's going to "restore honor to the White House."
2007-03-21 08:05:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋