Let's concentrate on this first one.
So let me get this straight. Your claim is that congress has no power to subpoena anyone in the executive branch? They can operate without any congressional over site?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
List it (you will be the first) and I will address it; but it has to be evidence not what someone thinks, believes, presumes, assumes, was told by someone....real evidence.
I believe I explained (maybe not) there is something call executive privilege (recoginzed by SCOTUS). Just because congress wants it does not mean they get it. Otherwise the executive is simply an obedient servant of congress and not a co-equal branch. If he defies a court ruling to give it to them then you have obstruction not till then.
So what? It's one of those circumstances that need to be considered but here you have the Dems wanting to impose an obstruction of justice claim on the President before this case was looked at by the courts? Why shouldn't that very thing be considered an abuse of power on their part?You may want to brush up on your SCOTUS.
While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist, the Court would also directly reject President Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a monumental United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court.
So you are disagreeing with my comment .....how?While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist,
That is not what I said, sorry if you can't comprehend my statement. I don't know any other way to make it more clear than that. Try reading it again.....So let me get this straight. Your claim is that congress has no power to subpoena anyone in the executive branch? They can operate without any congressional over site?
So you are disagreeing with my comment .....how?
Only after SCOTUS told the admin they had to turn them over. Congress did not get them simply because they demanded them. That is the proper procedure when congress wants to challenge a claim of executive privilege."Just because congress wants it does not mean they get it."
Congress wanted the tapes, and they got them.
Only after SCOTUS told the admin they had to turn them over. Congress did not get them simply because they demanded them. That is the proper procedure
No. This is not the 'proper procedure'. The court ruled that the president was wrong in withholding the documents.
Your crazy ex vandalizes your car, and you catch them doing it.
"You're responsible for paying to fix the damage," you assert.
"Haha, not likely," your ex laughs running away.
You take them to court, and the judge makes them pay.
It was not the court's action that made them liable to fix what they'd done. This is not the 'proper procedure'.
One of the articles drawn up for Nixon's impeachment was that he "failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas."
Then let congress take action thru the courts; if they rule against the president and he refuses to comply: Iron clad impeachment. Unfortunately congress does not want to take the time to do that. For some reason they are in a big hurry.(elections perhaps?)This is the main issue for me. The President's executive privilege just doesn't extend so far as to tell people to ignore authorized subpoenas by Congress.
See previious post.....Regardless of what William Barr or the President says, Trump can't "do anything he pleases" as the president. Otherwise, what would be the point of Congressional oversight?
If your crazy ex refuses to pay the damage the courts impose their will on her,.... not you.
That is for the courts to decide, not congress.The President's executive privilege just doesn't extend so far as to tell people to ignore authorized subpoenas by Congress.
#149Regardless of what William Barr or the President says, Trump can't "do anything he pleases" as the president. Otherwise, what would be the point of Congressional oversight?
It seems like you are taking the position that Congress has no independent authority to issue subpoenas, but must apply for court orders--so I must have misunderstood you.That is for the courts to decide, not congress.
#149
Yes, you misunderstood me. Let me simplify this:It seems like you are taking the position that Congress has no independent authority to issue subpoenas, but must apply for court orders--so I must have misunderstood you.
Well, it's an opinion. That's the trouble with implied powers like oversight--they're hard to delimit. Is there anything in US v. Nixon which would suggest that the courts would have to revisit the question of executive privilege each time an occasion came up?Yes, you misunderstood me. Let me simplify this:
Congress can issue a subpoena. The executive can contest it based on several reasons (usually executive privilege). Congress can then go to the courts and challenge that refusal and the courts, on a case by case basis, will make a ruling. It the ruling is against the executive and the executive refuses to comply with the ruling they are found in contempt of court, obstructing justice, etc which are then impeachable offenses.
If the executive simply had to comply with anything that congress wanted it to do then the executive would not be an independent co-equal branch of government but simply an extension or servant of congress. Make sense?
That is not what I said, sorry if you can't comprehend my statement. I don't know any other way to make it more clear than that. Try reading it again.....
Oh, BTW you are aware that impeachment is a political process but all past impeachments have been based on criminal charges with evidence to substantiate those charges. That is why I say this is being done for political purposes.
That's true in theory however all impeachments that have got past the talking point have had charges based on violations of the law. This may be the first time that does not happen. Doesn't look good for the dems to go simply the political route without having evidence of criminal activity....it will look simply like sour grapes (still) over a 3 year old election. Good luck there.....
This is the main issue for me. The President's executive privilege just doesn't extend so far as to tell people to ignore authorized subpoenas by Congress.
Not sure what was unclear but.....OK.This is why I did not want to waste my time. Your statements are in no way clear to me and instead of bothering to explain them you tell me it is my fault for not understanding you.
It is not an opinion....it is how the Constituion is designed.Well, it's an opinion.
The camel and the tent.....so keep him outside.That's the trouble with implied powers like oversight--they're hard to delimit.
It would not be a bad thing for it to be reviewed constantly....to ensure that all branches remain co-equal.Is there anything in US v. Nixon which would suggest that the courts would have to revisit the question of executive privilege each time an occasion came up?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?