I've heard a lot of Republicans saying over the course of the past few days that Congress has no authority to make any member of the Executive Branch testify under oath. Yet less than a decade ago, a Congress did just that - with the highest-ranking member of the Executive Branch. They further say that a sitting President cannot be made to testify unless a crime has been committed. Yet our legal system sets forth that no person is guilty until proven guilty in a court of law; therefore, Bill Clinton (who, by the way, was ACQUITTED of the charges brought against him) was innocent at the time he had to testify under oath.
Why don't Republicans understand this, since they were the architects of that fiasco fewer than ten years ago???
2007-03-21 14:02:10 · 8 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Inconvenient Truth. Or is it convenient truth. It applies only when they want it to otherwise they have short memories.
2007-03-21 14:08:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
YOU are confused.
"Mr. Rove is an adviser to the President of the United States. (Executive Branch). The Congress (Legislative Branch) cannot compel him to testify about the inner workings of the Executive Branch or the advice he gave to the president.
If you believe Congress can compel testimony, then you must believe the Congress could subpoena members of the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) and question them as to how court decisions are reached.
Executive Privilege --- is the power held by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch that allows them to resist certain search warrants and other encroachments. As presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued, the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch will be permitted to operate within limits free to some degree from the control or supervision of the other. The Supreme Court re-affirmed this in the case United States v. Nixon."
2007-03-21 14:07:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
In addition to some of the other answers, a subpoena from Congress is different than a subpoena from a grand jury.
Congress has been allowed (by an earlier Supreme Court decision) subpoena power in order to fulfill its legislative role. Meddling with internal Executive Branch decisions has nothing to do with legislation. Therefore the President is well within the authority granted by the concept of "Separation of Powers" embodied in the Constitution, to refuse such illegal subpoenas.
2007-03-21 14:34:51 · answer #3 · answered by ML 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're simply wrong. The Congress set up this stupid special prosecutor law that went crazy. Congress had no choice but to act on their recommendations. The Senate said, wait a second this is not what we expected, and acquitted Clinton.
2007-03-21 14:09:14 · answer #4 · answered by Matt 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Republicans do understand the power of Congress, I am sure it is getting harder for the Democrats to understand the real power of Congress, they are so use to writing their own laws for themselves , as they go along.
2007-03-21 14:10:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
you are partly right...the republicans should have gone for Bubbas throat, but didn't for a variety of reasons, one of which is the office of President and the respect it should hold...don't be confused though, Clinton lied his butt off (surprised?) and is in reality guilty....DNA off a blue dress anyone?
2007-03-21 14:10:14 · answer #6 · answered by gary l 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do respect your opinion, but I have , what I believe to be a far more important, and pertinent question,. . . . . . .Why even bother to hold investigations into something that everyone agrees was LEGAL ?? Hmmmm ?!?!?
2007-03-21 14:07:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
People like you.
2007-03-21 14:46:58 · answer #8 · answered by 1st Buzie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋