White House Subpoenas, and a Constitutional Showdown

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23640

White House Subpoenas, and a Constitutional Showdown
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-06-14 14:06. Congress

By Matt Renner, www.truthout.org

Subpoenas issued Wednesday by Congress for testimony from former White House officials could lead to a constitutional crisis over the right of executive privilege.

Experts in constitutional law believe that the Bush administration will not comply with the Congressional subpoenas and will force a showdown. If individuals do not comply with the subpoenas, a vote can be taken to hold them in contempt of Congress. The issue would then be sent to the Washington, DC Circuit Court, where the US attorney for the District of Colombia could prosecute the case before a grand jury.

According to Stanley Brand, former counsel for the US House of Representatives, "It is doubtful that Jeffrey Taylor, the current US attorney for the District of Colombia would enforce Congressional subpoenas." Taylor participated in drafting the Patriot Act and served as counselor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales prior to his installation as an interim US attorney for the District.

Brand has been here before; he faced Fred Fielding, then-counsel to President Reagan, in a very similar fight. In 1983, Brand represented the House of Representatives in an attempt to enforce a Congressional subpoena issued to the Reagan administration. Instead of convening a grand jury to prosecute the case, the US attorney sued the House of Representatives claiming that the action taken by the House was unconstitutional. The case against the House was thrown out of court and, in the face of mounting political pressure, the Reagan administration eventually turned over the subpoenaed documents to Congress.

In Brand's opinion, the law compels federal prosecutors to convene a grand jury trial to rule on the contempt-of-Congress charge. "The law says that the US attorney for the District 'shall present the case to a grand jury.' The US attorney will claim that this undermines his discretion as a prosecutor, but his discretion does not give him the right to deep-six a case because the president does not like it."

more...

[loudsue]

1. K & R This is likely going to get pretty nasty before it's all over.

The republicans would be NOTHING if gonzo/rove/bush hadn't been able to stack the courts with rightwingers, and if they didn't own the media and the voting machines.

If the American public KNEW how badly our government has been hijacked, there would be a major revolution afoot.

:kick:

[Bandit]

2. Only the Decider will rule from now 'til eternity

This is Bush* Amerika we now live in. Law and Order do not apply..The US Constitution is only "that damn piece of paper" and IMO Democrats have rolled over every step of the way beginning with Bush* disregarding the Presidential Papers Act in 2001. Democrats had not one word to say about it..

[GeorgeGist]

3. Who would SCOTUS ...

deep-six this time, The Constitution or Bush? Is there really any hope for a Seven-year itch?