What Bush might mean by Constitutional Showdown
Josh isn't taking Bush's threat of a constitutional showdown with Congress very seriously. And I understand his point.
But it occurs to me that Bush is the type more than willing to play chicken with Congress, and here's how he'd do it.
He claims executive privelege and the issue goes to the Supreme Court. If the court rules in his favor, it ends there. If not, Bush STILL REFUSES TO COMPLY.
The fact is neither Congress or the Court have any way of enforcing the supboenas, and Bush will claim that he reserves the right to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling in matters that interfere with his Constitutional powers -- just like he's done with signing statements.
This then leaves the Dems with no choice but to drop the matter or impeach, and if we impeach Bush, we then get Cheney for President. Plus it's a huge distraction from everything else.
Now you might wonder why Bush would take such extreme action.
There's only one answer to that question: What will be revealed by the subpoenas will destroy his Presidency anyway.
So what does he have to lose really?
He might also take it because he genuinely thinks it's the right thing to do. I wrote here about the doctrine of coordinate construction, which has adherents in the Administration, and holds, baldly stated, that each branch has an independent obligation to interpret the constitution; constitutional issues are only settled, on this view, when the branches are in agreement. In all honesty, I don't think that George has read the law journals and thought through the legal implications, but you could see how a shiny new theory that gives him everything he wants might be attractive.
March 21, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two responses.
First, any interpretation of the Constitution that grants one branch unlimited power (or power only limited by its own discretion) to violate other parts of the Constitution, is nothing but a bald-faced power grab and that's what the Dems should call it.
But second, if he's operating by that theory, and using it as an excuse to interpret his powers as broadly as possible, then Congress is within its rights to operate by the theory as well and interpret its own powers as broadly as possible, meaning that Congress can interpret the power to impeach to mean that they can impeach the President merely for refusing to abide by a lawful subpoena. Since each branch can interpret what constitutes a lawful subpoena on its own, and Congress is in fact the body to given the power to declare laws, it is well within its rights to decide on its own that the subpoena is lawful.
And since the power to impeach is given to Congress alone, Congress doesn't need the consensus of the other branches to proceed.
March 21, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that, too, is true and Rice herself - though she had just told reporters that she didn't "use e-mail for business" - did indeed e-mail Richard Clarke, this suggests a selective use of e-mail for business that, to be sure, is also suspicious.
I think you miss the awesome power of this new constitutional theory.
The point is that each branch makes its own decisions, so that Congress could do that, and the President could simply refuse to comply on the basis of his own interpretation. This divides the powers of government neatly into two categories: "Did Not/Sez Who" and "Did Too/Sez Me."
March 21, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Supreme Court has ruled and it is case law.
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 47 S.Ct. 319, 71 L.Ed. 580 (1927),
March 21, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
McGrain v. Daugherty link
March 21, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your linked case refers only to private citizens, not to pubilc officials.
March 21, 2007 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Harriet Miers a public official? Is Carl Rove? Kyle Sampson?
The Supreme Court, recognized the implicit power of either House of Congress to hold a witness in a congressional investigation in contempt for a refusal to honor its summons or to respond to its questions.
No branch or person is above the Law. How else could corruption be uncovered within the Executive Branch, if no one had the right to investigate.
The Executive branch, cannot impede an investigation, into improper influence, obstruction of Justice, If upon investigation it is discovered that the main reason Lam was replaced is because Jerry Lewis was going to be caught up along with Cunningham. Impeding prosecution.
Justice for all, does not mean selective targeting of the political opposition, that is arbitrary and capricious. It is described as an abuse of power.
It was never the will of We the People to give this much power, to the Executive Branch, to appoint prosecutors, who can drag citizens before a Grand Jury, but they exempt themselves from such scrutiny.
Watergate proved that the Executive Branch, can be involved in Criminal activities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell On February 21, 1975, United States Attorney General John Mitchell, was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury
This is why the Congress needs to investigate, this purge. Was it an attempt to impede or obstruct justice against discovering corruption at the Highest level of government. Government Contracts?, (the peoples money) with substantial monetary gains for the participants?
The People have the right to know how the public money is spent. That takes oversight, and no one, not even the President or his friends, are entiled to enrich themselves at the peoples expense. Congress is the lawful body to determine this.
If Rove and Miers and whoever wants to refuse to answer the questions, then charge them with contempt, incarcerating them like Susan McDougal who spent 18 months in prison including 7 weeks in solitary confinement for civil contempt of court. after McDougal refused to answer three questions.
March 22, 2007 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simple solution - impeach and convict both Bush and Cheney. Nancy Pelosi becomes President!!
Tom
March 21, 2007 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink