Another New Precedent from Bushy.

[SoonerCoug]

I was talking to an amateur historian friend of mine, and he was telling me that Bush ordering Harriett Miers not to appear before congress in response to a congressional subpoena is a "first in American history."

According to this friend of mine, plenty of people have appeared before congress and claimed executive privilege, etc. But never in US history has someone not shown up with absolutely no explanation. For example, out of respect for the congress, a person would make an appearance and inform the congress publicly that he or she would not speak and explain the reasons why. In the case of Harriett, her attorney simply informed the subcommittee that she would not appear.

[SoonerCoug]

[il Padrino Ute]

Dems should be happy. Lots of precedence from this administration to use to their own advantage too.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Dems should be happy. Lots of precedence from this administration to use to their own advantage too.

I think it's a felony not to appear, though...unless you can claim executive privilege. I guess she could make that claim, but she hasn't.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I was talking to an amateur historian friend of mine, and he was telling me that Bush ordering Harriett Miers not to appear before congress in response to a congressional subpoena is a "first in American history."

According to this friend of mine, plenty of people have appeared before congress and claimed executive privilege, etc. But never in US history has someone not shown up with absolutely no explanation. For example, out of respect for the congress, a person would make an appearance and inform the congress publicly that he or she would not speak and explain the reasons why. In the case of Harriett, her attorney simply informed the subcommittee that she would not appear.

I think there have been several firsts in American history over the last 6 years, on both sides.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think there have been several firsts in American history over the last 6 years, on both sides.

I agree.

I just wonder how "checks and balances" can exist in this political environment.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I think it's a felony not to appear, though...unless you can claim executive privilege. I guess she could make that claim, but she hasn't.

Agreed.

I'll be glad when this administration is finally out of there - and I'm more conservative than most here. Then again, Bush is closer to a fascist than a conservative.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You say that as if it is a good thing.

One day, we will all look back with regret at the things we allowed our president to get away with in this administration.

No, I don't necessarily look at it that way. At least, not all of it.

One thing is for sure: it's not all Bush.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

One thing is for sure: it's not all Bush.

I agree. It's his underlings too.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I find it very disturbing to see Republicans working so hard to undermine the checks and balances of our government.

The judiciary is excoriated by Republicans for being "activist" (read "not in agreement with Republicans"). If you ask Mormons in Utah about the judiciary, you are quite likely going to hear something very negative. Most of the negativity stems from political propaganda by their party rather than a legitimate shift to "activism" by the judiciary. The end result is that one of the three pillars of our government is being vehemently attacked with the intent of weakening that branch of government (not surprisingly, congressional leaders speak the loudest, since they gain the most by a weakened judiciary).

The executive is doing whatever he can to weaken Congress' oversight of the executive branch. Bush is also happy to ignore the judiciary and precedent.

Our government is finely balanced. Any disturbance in the equilibrium of the three branches generally leads to very bad results.

Not that I disagree with you, because you are correct; however, I wouldn't say the Dems cutting off funding to Cheney (which I agree with) isn't really keeping in the spirit of checks and balances either. Nor is not wanting to wait for the report from Iraq to decide what to do with any funding.