Cheney would refuse a subpoena by Congress

DOC

Off Topic Moderator
Cheney would refuse a subpoena by Congress

Cheney yesterday in an interview with ABC plainly said that if he was subpoenaed he would not go because the Executive branch is immune basically. Um, that is just not right, things like this anger me and I don't anger easily, it is plain disrespect for congress and the courts. Here is the video I found, I don't know why this has not become a bigger story yet.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/05/cheney-testify/
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
I'm not sure about the details, he may be right.

There's no doubt that this Administration shows contempt for Congressional oversight though.
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
I believe this is often referred to as a "Mexican standoff."

Impeach me if you dare! I will kill you all with force choke!!!
 

Athelstan

Diabloii.Net Member
Ultimately, whenever executive powers are implicated, its the Supreme Court, not Congress, who gets the last word. There are limitations to what Congress can order an executive officer to do or not to do.
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Ultimately, whenever executive powers are implicated, its the Supreme Court, not Congress, who gets the last word. There are limitations to what Congress can order an executive officer to do or not to do.
Be sure and tell that to Lincoln when you get to the pearly gates ...



 

Bortaz

Banned
Cheney yesterday in an interview with ABC plainly said that if he was subpoenaed he would not go because the Executive branch is immune basically. Um, that is just not right, things like this anger me and I don't anger easily, it is plain disrespect for congress and the courts. Here is the video I found, I don't know why this has not become a bigger story yet.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/05/cheney-testify/
Are you angry that the process is in place to allow him to avoid questioning, or at the fact that he would use this process?



 

LonghornRob

Diabloii.Net Member
Well he shot a guy in the face and got out of it scot free, so why not laugh in the face of a subpoena?
 

Module88

Diabloii.Net Member
Well he shot a guy in the face and got out of it scot free, so why not laugh in the face of a subpoena?
It was an accident and his friend hardly pressed charges. Not that that would have done much in my mind. What kind of charge would it have been? Involuntary...?



 

DOC

Off Topic Moderator
Are you angry that the process is in place to allow him to avoid questioning, or at the fact that he would use this process?
The process. Frankly, I don't care who the president is, when the powers of the executive branch have been so greatly extended that they refuse an order or precedent I find something wrong. Its not that Cheney is refusing, its that if he can, what is to stop anyone else from doing so in the future.

As to llad, same thing as above sort of applies, I am not saying impeach bush, frankly, that would be one of the worst things to do, but he is not above the law and if called to question the people should answer.



 

Freet

Diabloii.Net Member
The process. Frankly, I don't care who the president is, when the powers of the executive branch have been so greatly extended that they refuse an order or precedent I find something wrong. Its not that Cheney is refusing, its that if he can, what is to stop anyone else from doing so in the future.
I agree but I also would like to see Cheney do the right thing and not hide behind such 'protection'.

As to llad, same thing as above sort of applies, I am not saying impeach bush, frankly, that would be one of the worst things to do, but he is not above the law and if called to question the people should answer.
I disagree. I think impeaching Bush would be an excellent idea.

*Waits for the front door to get busted down.*



 

PFS

Diabloii.Net Member
Well he shot a guy in the face and got out of it scot free, so why not laugh in the face of a subpoena?
Be fair - the guy who he shot in the face did not try to press charges.

I thought the impeachment thing was supposed to get about issues with charging the executive.

Not sure how executive cronies are covered by this though...



 

Athelstan

Diabloii.Net Member
The process. Frankly, I don't care who the president is, when the powers of the executive branch have been so greatly extended that they refuse an order or precedent I find something wrong. Its not that Cheney is refusing, its that if he can, what is to stop anyone else from doing so in the future.
As much as we might dislike our executive branch or the decisions they have made (God knows I do), we still have to realize the executive branch is a vital component to our constitutional structure. Congress doesn't have carte blanche over the executive branch, just like it doesn't have complete control over the judiciary. Congress has the power to override an executive veto, and it has the power the initiate impeachment proceedings, but there is no fundamental right to subpoena other members of the American political system. The Supreme Court is the only body that can interpret the Constitution, and it would be up to them to decide whether Cheney needs to get his fat *** into the Capitol Building.



 

DOC

Off Topic Moderator
As much as we might dislike our executive branch or the decisions they have made (God knows I do), we still have to realize the executive branch is a vital component to our constitutional structure. Congress doesn't have carte blanche over the executive branch, just like it doesn't have complete control over the judiciary. Congress has the power to override an executive veto, and it has the power the initiate impeachment proceedings, but there is no fundamental right to subpoena other members of the American political system. The Supreme Court is the only body that can interpret the Constitution, and it would be up to them to decide whether Cheney needs to get his fat *** into the Capitol Building.
The court has, in Nixon V United states the court ruled that a member of the executive branch cannot hide behind executive protection when subpoenaed. It forced him to turn over evidence to congress and then he resigned. And Congress does have the power of oversight, which is why they would call him into question.



 
Whether or not anybody thinks this is right, it's the way our founding fathers created the government. They were afraid of a congress being able to forcibly remove somebody from the executive branch by means other than impeachment.

Those men were brilliant in how they split things up. They had to be, they fought amongst themselves so often.
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
What court proceeding would necessitate a Cheney subpoena?

It could also be "plain disrespect" for the judicial system if Congress inists on the court's ability to force the president/vice president to testify.

Recall from United States v. Nixon that President Nixon sought to use the executive privilege to keep his recordings from entering the court room. That is substantially different than forcing someone to testify. The tapes Nixon sought to protect weren't any sort of self-testimony, they were evidence relevant to the case.
 

Athelstan

Diabloii.Net Member
What court proceeding would necessitate a Cheney subpoena?

It could also be "plain disrespect" for the judicial system if Congress inists on the court's ability to force the president/vice president to testify.

Recall from United States v. Nixon that President Nixon sought to use the executive privilege to keep his recordings from entering the court room. That is substantially different than forcing someone to testify. The tapes Nixon sought to protect weren't any sort of self-testimony, they were evidence relevant to the case.
Yeah, I was pretty sure someone would mention United States v. Nixon, but as Aero stated, there is a big difference between saying executive privilege doesn't allow you to thwart the normal discovery process and saying Congress has the right to force a member of the executive to appear before Congress any time it wants. Also, Congress doesn't get to determine whether a prior judicial decision applies, the Court does.



 
Top