Can the President Ignore Congress? by Alan B. Morrison
A new lawsuit with the potential to redefine the relationship between the branches of government.
Post Date Thursday, June 25, 2008
In the final days of the Supreme Court's term, it is not surprising that other lawsuits are not receiving much attention. However, this past Monday, there was a hearing before District Judge John Bates in a case that could have more far-reaching consequences than any on the Supreme Court's current docket: U.S. House of Representatives v. Harriett Miers.
The dispute arises out of claims that the Administration brought partisan politics into decisions about enforcing the criminal laws. One set of allegations is that, in an effort to aid Republican candidates prior to the 2006 election, members of the president's party wanted Democrats targeted for criminal charges--such as alleged voter fraud in the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election--and they wanted those charges brought fast--as in their attempt to secure quick indictments of New Mexico Democrats that would have helped a Republican seeking re-election to Congress. The second set alleges that nine United States Attorneys were asked to resign because they had not been sufficiently compliant with the Administration's desire to use the criminal law for political purposes. In an effort to gather the necessary facts, the House Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for documents relating to these matters and, in the case of Miers, her testimony as well.
In most cases in which the Administration disagrees with requests for information from Congress, the parties work out their differences, but they were unable to do so here. Both witnesses were directed by the White House not to appear, based on a blanket assertion that executive privilege applied to every question that might be asked and to every document that might be produced. The House of Representatives then requested that the United States Attorney seek criminal contempt charges against Miers and Bolten, as federal law provides, but the Attorney General, to no one's surprise, said no. The House then raised the stakes by voting to authorize the Judiciary Committee to bring suit to enforce the two subpoenas.
Amidst the various legal arguments, there is one main difference between the parties. The Administration contends that the courts have no business refereeing these kinds of disputes between Congress and the president and that Congress should negotiate with the Executive Branch over its requests for testimony and documents, and if it cannot reach accord, it has available other means, discussed further below, to apply pressure to obtain what it wants. The Judiciary Committee, on the other hand, argues that it is the job of the courts to resolve legal issues involving competing constitutional claims--in this case, the scope of executive privilege versus Congress's need for information to enable it to legislate wisely--and that peaceful resolution in the courts is better than going to war with the President. Although this case involves Congress going to court, the principle would also seem to apply when it is the president who wishes to prevent a witness from testifying before Congress--for example, a disgruntled former White House staffer--and he seeks a court order forbidding the testimony on grounds that to answer the questions would violate a privilege held by the president.
more...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=9c6a8506-76ae-427e-975e-d8d8a11af2c5
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
