Bush And Congress Are Heading for Courtroom Clash On 'Executive Privilege'

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/stories/57491

Bush and Congress Are Heading for Courtroom Clash on 'Executive Privilege'
By Brian Beutler, Media Consortium. Posted July 21, 2007.

- snip -

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) chairs the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, which is responsible for recommending and issuing subpoenas in Congressional oversight matters. She called the administration's claim of executive privilege, and the absence of his adviser, "out of order." "Those claims are not legally valid," Sanchez said. "Mrs. Miers is required pursuant to the subpoena to be here now." The subcommittee upheld Sanchez' contempt citation in a 7-5 party line vote. For Miers to be officially held in contempt, the full Judiciary committee would have to rule the same way, and then so would a majority of the House in a floor vote.

If the issue goes to court, it would constitute a dramatic shift from Democrats' previously stated position. During a June 28 conference call with liberal bloggers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cautioned, "on some of these issues, the courts are not friendly to us because they are all in the family. You know, the Courts, especially in the District of Columbia, if we wanted to challenge them in Court on anything, the decision would not be in our favor. Now you see the administration asserting executive privilege," Pelosi added. "So the press asked me this morning, 'Does this mean you're going to hold them in contempt next?' I said 'No, we're going to let the process work out' because you have to build the record."

The administration has recently been building that record. On two consecutive days last week, the president's claims of executive privilege stood directly in the path of ongoing Congressional oversight investigations. On Wednesday, before the Senate Judiciary committee, a one-time Bush aide named Sara Taylor dodged a series of questions about her role in the U.S. Attorney scandal, citing the fact that the president had instructed her to honor his executive privilege. The next day, a chair reserved for Miers sat empty in the House Judiciary hearing room.

These haven't been the only times the administration has refused to abide by Congressional subpoenas. In April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled her intent to dodge a subpoena from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), who is seeking her testimony in his investigation into the manipulation of pre-war intelligence. Rice has contended that her actions and statements in the lead-up to the Iraq war were carried out in her former role as National Security Adviser -- an appointed position that does not require Senate consent -- and were therefore protected by executive privilege.

But there's one more reason to expect a courtroom clash: effective Constitutional limits have prevented Democrats from accomplishing even the simplest components of the change they promised during the '06 campaign.

MORE

[EST]

1. The sooner the better.

[radfringe]

2. what has me a bit concerned

will the courts be hearing the case based on an objective interpretation of the laws, or will Cheney tell them how to decide

IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS - IT'S THE SOLUTION

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. Here we go with the meme that it has to go to court. It doesn't. Inherent Contempt. nt

[ThomWV]

4. And how, pray tell, will it get into court? Bush Forbade The Prosecutor From Going To Grand Jury.

According to a Washingington Post article Bush has blocked the route to the Court, so where does that leave us? By the way, the (Page A-1) WP article gave no names of who made the claim, did not say when it was made, did not say where it was made, and gave no copy of any document making the point. Very odd.

[Bitwit1234]

5. The white house's recent statement about bush telling the AG not to honor

the contempt citation....inherent contempt does not have to be executed by the Justice Department...It only shows that the white house is dumb as crap when it comes to the provisions of the Constitution.

In inherent contempt....the committee or the whole house votes on it. If it is passed the HOuse sends the Sgt-in-Arms to pick up the person. They are then brought before the house to have the person answer the questions, if they don't they hold a trial. If the house is not in session by the time the Sgt-in-Arms gets to pick the person up they must stay in jail til congress resumes. There is no way bush or the white house has the standing to do away with inherent contempt.

The next contempt is statutory contempt which is given to the AG to execute.

The reason stated for the fact that the house stopped issuing inhering contempt is, when our country first started there were so many cases they spent most of the time carrying out the trials. They then went to statutory contempt to speed up the processes in the house. Up until about the 1900's they were still filing inherent contempt regularly.