The Senate Democrats, despite the resignation of the Attorney General, have said they will continue their investigation. It would be interesting to hear what it is they believe they are investigating. Senator Feingold said he was sure a crime had been committed although he had no specifics. Perhaps the Senate Democrats could put their fertile imaginations to work, temporarily laying aside the important task of dreaming up lurid hypothetical dangers for destitute voters, and try to imagine any hypothetical crime that might conceivably have been committed by firing the US attorneys. After all, one of the president's responsibilities, spelled out in the Constitution, is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Since there are laws against vote fraud, for the president to tell US attorneys to prosecute vote fraud, one would think, is merely to carry out his obligation under the Constitution.
2007-09-13 05:41:46 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If the Senate Democrats are upset about this, one must conclude that there are certain laws which they do not want to see “faithfully executed,” a constitutionally curious position to say the least.
The fact is, the Supreme Court has decided that once the Senate has given its advice and consent to the nomination of an executive branch employee, their oversight role is finished. In a decision written by Chief Justice William Howard Taft the Court says of the president's ability to remove his subordinates:
The moment that he loses confidence in the intelligence, ability, judgment, or loyalty of any one of them, he must have the power to remove him without delay. To require him to file charges and submit them to the consideration of the Senate might make impossible that unity and co-ordination in executive administration essential to effective action.
The case is Myers v. United States, 272 US 52, at 134 (1926).
2007-09-13 05:42:09 · update #1
Did this slip past some of the dem responders?
The fact is, the Supreme Court has decided that once the Senate has given its advice and consent to the nomination of an executive branch employee, their oversight role is finished.
2007-09-13 08:31:55 · update #2
You will notice that the Democrats on here are all saying that the President is not doing his job. They are saying that congress is merely doing what it is supposed to do. However, when Clinton came in and fired US attorneys no one said a word. This is because it is legal for the President to fire those whom he hired, if those whom he hired will not do what he tells them to do. Just like any other boss. Congress is not and was not the employer of these attorneys the President was and so was within his rights to fire them.
2007-09-13 05:52:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 9⤋
"taking care that the laws are faithfully executed" means a bipartisan enforcement of the laws, including investigating corruption. You think it was a coincidence that one of the fired attorneys prosecuted Randall Duke Cunningham? Why did every one of the fired attorneys supervisors give them Superior Performance Ratings then fire them over performance?
Republicans have no room to talk about costly investigations into non crimes.
Yes skerry, Tom DeLay did get indicted, apparently before the attorneys were fired.
2007-09-13 12:55:30 · answer #2 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The Gonzales flap:
A hanging looking for a crime.
Once the lynch mob sets about it's business there is little by way of logic, law or good common sense that can keep them from their dreadful task.
2007-09-13 13:25:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The attorneys were fired for investigating voter fraud complaints against Republicans, not democrats. The Senate DOES want the President to do his job.
One of his other jobs is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
2007-09-13 12:53:07 · answer #4 · answered by Beardog 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I am not sure I understand your logic, or attempt at it, but what I get out of your statements is this:
1. Gonzalez broke no laws.
2. It is wrong for congress to investigate whether he broke any laws because you believe he broke no laws.
3. The president can fire anyone he wants.
If I am wrong on those points, please let me know. I will attempt to address them. 1 and 2, obviously, go together to some extent. The question whether Gonzalez broke any law has not been put to rest. He testified under oath several times and his own FBI director contradicted his sworn testimony. That sounds like something to investigate further.
Of course the president has the right to fire anyone he wants EXCEPT for an improper purpose. It is clear that he could not legally fire all hispanics in the justice department. Why can't people understand that he cannot fire individuals in an attempt to influence ongoing investigations and prosecutions? I am not saying that he did that. I am saying that we have a right to know whether or not he did.
2007-09-13 12:52:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Simple....they haven't a clue what is RIGHT and what is WRONG....they just care about themselves....
Hillary taking money from a known Chinese Criminal AGAIN !
And some want her as President...SHE IS A JOKE !
The Dem's made such a big deal about Bush canning a few Judges that didn't see his views...BUT do you remember when Bill ( I didn't inhale" Clinton fired all of the Judges....
I wish there was one Pres. Candidate that truly spoke for the PEOPLE and not their own agenda.....Dem or Rep !
2007-09-13 12:59:51 · answer #6 · answered by idez9 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
So, you're arguing that an employer who finds his employee had committed a crime against him can't charge him with the crime if he just quits. That's a great deal for employees.
2007-09-13 12:48:26 · answer #7 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
They do. It is the President who refuses.
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
2007-09-13 12:53:11 · answer #8 · answered by Webster 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋
There's nothing wrong with a president doing his job, but when he steps over the line of presidential power, which iIbelieve this president has done repeatedly, then its the responsibility of all us, not just the Democrats, to pull him back over that line.
2007-09-13 12:47:41 · answer #9 · answered by Bookworm 4 · 9⤊ 4⤋
Well, maybe because he's a danger to the country?
Or he doesn't know his job and runs rough shod over the constitution?
Or they are opposed to just about everything he stands for?
or all of the above?
Thats called politics
This isn't Nazi Germany
Peace
Jim
.
2007-09-13 12:48:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 4⤋