Last Spring, there was an impending Constitutional Showdown over Presidential Executive Privilege and the Congressional Power to Subpoena. Over the U.S. Attorneys standoff, White House Counsel Fred Fielding mentioned "the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency" in a letter offering a compromise to Congress. Democratic members had demanded that Administration officials testify under oath about why eight U.S. attorneys were fired.
With our test on Tuesday, the re-runned post should be helpful in figuring out what the heck the terms mean.
Executive privilege: George Washington invoked it, Dwight Eisenhower named it and Richard Nixon abused it. Now it looms as the nuclear option in George W. Bush's battle with Congress over its investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. So what the heck does it mean, and how much weight will it carry in the current standoff?
Last spring, a subcommittee in the House of Representatives voted to issue subpoenas to several Bush Administration officials in the House investigation about the firings of 8 U.S. attorneys from the Justice Department.
Legislative subpoena power gives members of Congress the ability to interview Americans under oath as part of their investigative powers. But President Bush claims that using this power to question his advisors threatens the quality of advice given to the Chief Exec
utive.Advisors will be less forthright, he argues, if their words might one day appear on the public record.This is one of the issues that makes divided government so intriguing. Whether it was the Congressional investigation into Watergate, Iran-Contra or Bill Clinton’s financial dealings, legislative inquiry of the Executive Branch gets to the heart of separation of powers these days.
The question is, not whether you think Attorney General Gonzales or Karl Rove should (have been) fired, but whether Congress should have the power to call these advisors into a committee hearing and question them under oath. Is the scenario heathy or hurtful to our constitutional structure?
Time.com has a good article on all of this stuff from last March posted here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1601450,00.html
7 comments:
It's always good for Congress to question people if the President seems out of line. It's how we prevent dictatorships.
I think Congress should always question the executive branch but maybe in private and confidential hearings. Then the executive branch isnt embarrassed and congress gets the info they want.
i would say that yes, congress has the right to question officials, and yes, these hearings should be public. if the executive branch has done something embarassing, they deserve to be publicly embarassed. the simple truth is that, if they aren't questioned under oath, they just aren't going to tell the truth. i found it ridiculous that gonzalez was allowed to go before the senate and just say "i dunno" or "i forgot." if you tried pulling that stunt at a murder trial they would electrocute you.
Subpoena's represent a legitimate Congressional power, and Congress ought to be able to use them to oversee the executive branch. But they should be used with caution - only when there are significant accusations of corruption within the administration. The power was not designed to be a political tool.
It can be an easily abused power but when used as a legit investigative function, I think the Congress has every right to question the executive branch. The public deserves to know and Congress can investigate. And we need to know it truthfully and if testifying under oath will get that, then I say, it's healthy.
I agree with all that have stated that subpoenas are legitmitate when checking the executive branch. Without this power, so much information could be upheld, so many crimes and abuses would go unaddressed. Without this power the executive branch has no obligation to remain effective, it's a clear invitation to corrpution. With this power, the idea that even the executive branch is under the law is reinforced thus preventing a dictatorship
Post a Comment