Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Brad Johnson on October 08, 2019, 05:32:42 PM
-
The White house has sent a letter to Congress essentially telling them to shove their subpoenas up their backside.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-inquiry-white-house-not-comply-pelosi
Short version... White House Counsel's letter states that subpoenas are unbinding and irrelevant because formal impeachment proceedings haven't been voted into existence. No proceedings, no legal basis for issuing subpoenas. As a result, no one from the White House or the current Executive Administration sees any legal obligation to comply.
Shorter version... Shove it, we ain't comin'.
Brad
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a0/6f/e2/a06fe237110e6da70fefe36b99f3c681.gif)
-
Executive privilege gets stretched farther and farther with every administration. I don't expect this one to be any different in that regard.
We saw in the last administration how little it means to be held in contempt of congress. What's the downside to stonewalling?
-
The Obama administration pretty much set the gold standard for telling Congress to bugger off.
They did over things like Fast & Furious gun running, IRS targeting conservative non-profit organizations, Benghazi...
I don't really have too much problem with Trump following Obama's lead over another bullshit impeachment hoax.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z5Bmh-6Wy04/hqdefault.jpg)
-
Executive privilege gets stretched farther and farther with every administration. I don't expect this one to be any different in that regard.
We saw in the last administration how little it means to be held in contempt of congress. What's the downside to stonewalling?
On the other side, the President does not work for Congress. Should Congress have that kind of power over the executive branch?
In the past, it did this by controlling appropriations which is really the main tool they could use if they wanted to. Mandating the executive branch jump when they say how high is something else.
-
On the other side, the President does not work for Congress. Should Congress have that kind of power over the executive branch?
In the past, it did this by controlling appropriations which is really the main tool they could use if they wanted to. Mandating the executive branch jump when they say how high is something else.
There is a balance to be struck, for sure. However I think we're currently out of balance and have been for many years.
This is in the context of declaring war but it also applies to appropriations, executive orders & executive privilege.
those who were elected to make exactly these decisions have, as a class, happily consented to their own impotence. Congress, to borrow a phrase, has become a seraglio of eunuchs, which, terrified of weighing in on matters of life and death, prefers to gripe on TV, to complain on Twitter, and to beseech the executive from the safety of the stump, while doing nothing of any consequence in either direction.
-
Double Post
-
Executive privilege gets stretched farther and farther with every administration. I don't expect this one to be any different in that regard.
We saw in the last administration how little it means to be held in contempt of congress. What's the downside to stonewalling?
One of the many beautiful things about the Trump presidency is the possibility it may allow some Democrats to see the downsides of increasing Presidential power, and Congress's self-imposed fecklessness.
In this particular case, though, the White House and the Congressional GOP should be fighting tooth and nail to defy the foreign occupation that now controls the people's house. If we continue to treat Democratic politicians as loyal Americans, we will keep losing.
-
it may allow some Democrats to see the downsides of increasing Presidential power
:laugh:
When was the last time a "lesson was learned" like that in politics? Hypocrisy doesn't matter. The other side is always worse, no matter what. Everyone thinks every election is life or death (flight 93) now so it doesn't matter what the opposition did or didn't do - if there is an opportunity to use power while you have it then it needs to be taken regardless of how it may play out when the other party is in power.
-
There is a balance to be struck, for sure. However I think we're currently out of balance and have been for many years.
This is in the context of declaring war but it also applies to appropriations, executive orders & executive privilege.
IMO, the out of balance part is due to Congress delegating too much power to bureaucratic agencies and writing vague laws that the executive branch gets to interpret. Executive orders come out of the second part. Also, I was thinking Presidents have always chosen not to enforce certain laws or enforce other more than anyone expected. Congress can change those laws.
I am not sure I agree on the executive privilege part. I don't necessarily think the majority party in Congress should be able to drag anyone they want into Congress to testify especially when they are doing some sort of fake impeachment investigation. They are just playing politics and I think the President should have some leeway there.
The Federal Govt shouldn't be so big and intrusive that we can't wait for the next election to decide things.
-
There is no obligation to follow unwritten rules.
-
:laugh:
When was the last time a "lesson was learned" like that in politics?
A fair point.