Bill to limit executive privlige introduced

[bigrebnc1775]

Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.

Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that started in the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!

Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!

Not another one. Holder lied under oath obama used executive privilege when he should not have. Equals cover up.

As a self proclaimed "Constitutional Watchdog", you should Know and Understand there is no validity to your claim that "equals cover up". But then that is beside the point, which is precisely that the op failed to do due diligence before posting a fallacious connection between two disparate subjects being egged on by a piece from a questionable and less than objective source. If Holder lied, he should be put in the public pillory, but that is yet to be adjudicated, is it not?

Being a "Constitutional Watchdog", perhaps you could cite the Article, Section and Clause, from our Constitution, as amended, that would allow a sitting President along with the power of the Executive to order "warrantless wiretaps" on US citizens or otherwise, either Bush AND/OR Obama who continues the practice, OR allow a Congressional committee to hold an AG in contempt for doing his duty OR that gives that same committee leave to violate the separation of powers implicit in that same Contract With the People. Can you make those citations?

I look forward to reading your rationale to support your argument, or to your admission of making an error given the late hour with a lapse of reasoned concentration. However, I suspect nothing less than obfuscation, deflection and perhaps a little ad hominem directed my way. But hey, surprise me and stand on principle rather than resorting to dogma.

BTW, I'm nothing like any of "those".

I site Nixon vs. U.S. executive privilege is not absolute. The Court made it clear that the President could not withhold evidence from an ongoing criminal prosecution of another person simply because he was the President.

Read more: United States v. Nixon (1974) United States v. Nixon (1974)

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I guess you didn't read the link.

Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.

Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that started in the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!

Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!

I don't do enemies.

There is actually a link between claiming national security and executive privilege, just because you don't see it right away does not mean it isn't there. The various administrations have used national security to justify not responding to lawsuits. Obama has actually used it to hide things that were done under Bush, and there is a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT ACT that cannot be challenged in court because everyone refuses to discuss it. In theory, executive privilege only covers national security and direct communications involving the president. Since everyone denies that Obama was involved in Fast and Furious the only possible justification for withholding the information is national security. Limiting national security claims in court by giving judges options other than dismissing the case will actually limit executive privilege.

No enemies? Great...that means we might be able to have a rational discussion...that would be a refreshing change!

If what you claim is true, explain to me how the Bush exercise of "National Security" regarding unlawful warrantless wiretaps equates in the slightest to the 11 House hearings conducted by three committees regarding a stupid and ill conceived gun running program and the resulting executive privilege invoked by the President to protect intra-Executive communications protected by the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution. Not a gottcha question, at all, I assure you.

But keep in mind this was NOT a lawsuit, but rather an overreach demand by a committee of the Legislative branch put upon the Executive branch outside of the purported reasoning for the Issa hearings. I cannot see any overriding interest as set forth in Article I of the Constitution for that demand. If you can provide the Section(s) and Clause(s) that permits that type of breach of the separation of powers or the judicial precedents of the doctrine itself that would support your position. I would really like to read your legal reasoning.

I really don't want to get into the "conspiracy" theories of Bush, Obama and PATRIOT you mentioned. I'll leave that to the lunatic fringe in the two tribal factions.

 

[buckeye45_73]

This law sucks and should not be passed. I think Obama was stupid for using EP and it will bite him in the ass, but I'm not a reactionarey like these clowns. Same bunch that wanted to end the electoral college, because a democrat lost...waaaaaaaah

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

bigrebnc1775,

You're kidding, right? Darrell Issa does not have the same power and authority Archibald Cox had back in the day. Issa's House Judicial committee hearing was NOT A FREAKIN' criminal investigation. There are no pending criminal charges, but Issa&Co are trying to change that for purely political reasons of their faction.

Now being the "Constitutional Watchdog" you claim to be, I would have thought you'd have made some stab at Article I Congressional powers of some sort or some far out Article III argument. But you went the way I figured...deflection with a try at baffling with BS!

The reason I have been a confirmed conservative Independent since Aug 1974 was because of Nixon; he resigned from office and I resigned as a Republican on the same day. Ain't nothing you can inform me of about that cabal of conspirators or the era.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.

Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that started in the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!

Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!

I don't do enemies.

There is actually a link between claiming national security and executive privilege, just because you don't see it right away does not mean it isn't there. The various administrations have used national security to justify not responding to lawsuits. Obama has actually used it to hide things that were done under Bush, and there is a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT ACT that cannot be challenged in court because everyone refuses to discuss it. In theory, executive privilege only covers national security and direct communications involving the president. Since everyone denies that Obama was involved in Fast and Furious the only possible justification for withholding the information is national security. Limiting national security claims in court by giving judges options other than dismissing the case will actually limit executive privilege.

No enemies? Great...that means we might be able to have a rational discussion...that would be a refreshing change!

If what you claim is true, explain to me how the Bush exercise of "National Security" regarding unlawful warrantless wiretaps equates in the slightest to the 11 House hearings conducted by three committees regarding a stupid and ill conceived gun running program and the resulting executive privilege invoked by the President to protect intra-Executive communications protected by the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution. Not a gottcha question, at all, I assure you.

But keep in mind this was NOT a lawsuit, but rather an overreach demand by a committee of the Legislative branch put upon the Executive branch outside of the purported reasoning for the Issa hearings. I cannot see any overriding interest as set forth in Article I of the Constitution for that demand. If you can provide the Section(s) and Clause(s) that permits that type of breach of the separation of powers or the judicial precedents of the doctrine itself that would support your position. I would really like to read your legal reasoning.

I really don't want to get into the "conspiracy" theories of Bush, Obama and PATRIOT you mentioned. I'll leave that to the lunatic fringe in the two tribal factions.

First rule of rational conversations, don't ask irrational questions. I never equated Bush using national security to justify breaking the law with an investigation into Fast and Furious. I would, if we were actually discussing this rationally, point out that Obama has also justified warrantless wiretapping in court, and has actually made arguments that claim more authority for the program than Bush ever claimed.

The criminal NSA eavesdropping program - Washington, D.C. - Salon.com

As for intra agency communications, they are not protected by the constitution just because Obama says they are. There are clear limits on executive privilege that were spelled out by the Supreme Court in Espy. At this point in time I cannot see how any of them actually apply unless Obama is admitting direct involvement in the deliberative process that went into retracting the DOJ claim that Fast and Furious did not involve deliberately allowing guns to be shopped to Mexico.

Obama’s Claim of Executive Privilege: It’s Frivolous | Power Line

Frankly, I find that absurd, which leads me to wonder what it is they are trying to hide.


As for the authority of Congress to investigate whatever it wants, the court has basically ruled that Congress has the authority to investigate anything as long as the investigation is related to its authority to legislate, even if there is no legislation planned. Article 2 Section 8 clearly covers that.

 

[Luissa]

So much for the claim that only right wingers think Obama is wrong to use executive privilege to cover up Fast and Furious.

Obama and his successors in the White House would be banned from using false claims of national security to conceal “embarrassing or unlawful conduct” by the government, under new legislation proposed by lawmakers on both sides of the House. The proposed State Secrets Protection Act, H.R. 5956, introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), would be the first law to rein in the president’s “state secrets privilege,” a nearly limitless power to kill litigation by claiming a lawsuit would expose national security information to the benefit of America’s enemies. First recognized by the US Supreme Court in a McCarthy-era lawsuit in 1953, the privilege (.pdf) has been increasingly and successfully invoked in the post-9/11 era to shield the government and its agents from court scrutiny in cases involving rendition, torture, warrantless wiretapping, and the lethal targeting of U.S. citizens.
“The ongoing argument that the state secrets privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case is a disconcerting trend in the protection of civil liberties for our nation,” Nadler said of the bill, unveiled last week. ”This important bill recognizes that protecting sensitive information is an important responsibility for any administration and requires that courts protect legitimate state secrets while preventing the premature and sweeping dismissal of entire cases.”
Also signing on to the legislation is Tom Petri (R-Wisconsin), John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan), and Zoe Lofgren (D-California).

Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

Your thread title is a little misleading?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So much for the claim that only right wingers think Obama is wrong to use executive privilege to cover up Fast and Furious.

Obama and his successors in the White House would be banned from using false claims of national security to conceal “embarrassing or unlawful conduct” by the government, under new legislation proposed by lawmakers on both sides of the House. The proposed State Secrets Protection Act, H.R. 5956, introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), would be the first law to rein in the president’s “state secrets privilege,” a nearly limitless power to kill litigation by claiming a lawsuit would expose national security information to the benefit of America’s enemies. First recognized by the US Supreme Court in a McCarthy-era lawsuit in 1953, the privilege (.pdf) has been increasingly and successfully invoked in the post-9/11 era to shield the government and its agents from court scrutiny in cases involving rendition, torture, warrantless wiretapping, and the lethal targeting of U.S. citizens.
“The ongoing argument that the state secrets privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case is a disconcerting trend in the protection of civil liberties for our nation,” Nadler said of the bill, unveiled last week. ”This important bill recognizes that protecting sensitive information is an important responsibility for any administration and requires that courts protect legitimate state secrets while preventing the premature and sweeping dismissal of entire cases.”
Also signing on to the legislation is Tom Petri (R-Wisconsin), John Conyers Jr. (D-Michigan), and Zoe Lofgren (D-California).

Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

Your thread title is a little misleading?

My thread title, and my post.

On the other hand, it does show who actually reads around here.

 

[Luissa]

So much for the claim that only right wingers think Obama is wrong to use executive privilege to cover up Fast and Furious.

Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

Your thread title is a little misleading?

My thread title, and my post.

On the other hand, it does show who actually reads around here.

Is that why you posted it? To test it, or are you part of the group that doesn't read around here?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc1775,

You're kidding, right? Darrell Issa does not have the same power and authority Archibald Cox had back in the day. Issa's House Judicial committee hearing was NOT A FREAKIN' criminal investigation. There are no pending criminal charges, but Issa&Co are trying to change that for purely political reasons of their faction.

Now being the "Constitutional Watchdog" you claim to be, I would have thought you'd have made some stab at Article I Congressional powers of some sort or some far out Article III argument. But you went the way I figured...deflection with a try at baffling with BS!

The reason I have been a confirmed conservative Independent since Aug 1974 was because of Nixon; he resigned from office and I resigned as a Republican on the same day. Ain't nothing you can inform me of about that cabal of conspirators or the era.

You're kidding, right? Darrell Issa does not have the same power and authority Archibald Cox had back in the day. Issa's House Judicial committee hearing was NOT A FREAKIN' criminal investigation. There are no pending criminal charges, but Issa&Co are trying to change that for purely political reasons of their faction.

You're joking right? Your deflection back to bush was revealing nothing knew, been there seen that, Don't be butt hurt if I don't allow you to play the blame game bush did it bullshit.

Now being the "Constitutional Watchdog" you claim to be, I would have thought you'd have made some stab at Article I Congressional powers of some sort or some far out Article III argument. But you went the way I figured...deflection with a try at baffling with BS!

Executive privilege is not absolute it is limited to the executive branch not to all government So we have a cover up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nothing here about Fast and Furious:

Quantum Windbag is full of hot air, again.

So much for the claim that only right wingers think Obama is wrong to use executive privilege to cover up Fast and Furious.

Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

Much-Abused ‘State Secrets Privilege’ Under Fire in Congress
Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

“The ongoing argument that the state secrets privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case is a disconcerting trend in the protection of civil liberties for our nation,” Nadler said of the bill, unveiled last week.

---

Bill Would Limit Judges on State Secrets
Bill Would Limit Judges on State Secrets | Threat Level | Wired.com

Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation that might make it more difficult for federal judges to scuttle lawsuits in which the government claims state secrets might be exposed.

looked again.



still

nothing


here


about


fast and furious

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nothing here about Fast and Furious:

Quantum Windbag is full of hot air, again.

So much for the claim that only right wingers think Obama is wrong to use executive privilege to cover up Fast and Furious.

Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

Much-Abused ‘State Secrets Privilege’ Under Fire in Congress
Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

“The ongoing argument that the state secrets privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case is a disconcerting trend in the protection of civil liberties for our nation,” Nadler said of the bill, unveiled last week.

---

Bill Would Limit Judges on State Secrets
Bill Would Limit Judges on State Secrets | Threat Level | Wired.com

Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation that might make it more difficult for federal judges to scuttle lawsuits in which the government claims state secrets might be exposed.

looked again.



still

nothing


here


about


fast and furious

Vote on Thursday in full house, after that it's in the courts.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are already limitations. This regime has just decided to ignore them. The proposed law is merely a law that says a president has to follow the law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nothing here about Fast and Furious:

Quantum Windbag is full of hot air, again.



Much-Abused ‘State Secrets Privilege’ Under Fire in Congress
Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

“The ongoing argument that the state secrets privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case is a disconcerting trend in the protection of civil liberties for our nation,” Nadler said of the bill, unveiled last week.

---

Bill Would Limit Judges on State Secrets
Bill Would Limit Judges on State Secrets | Threat Level | Wired.com

Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation that might make it more difficult for federal judges to scuttle lawsuits in which the government claims state secrets might be exposed.

looked again.



still

nothing


here


about


fast and furious

Vote on Thursday in full house, after that it's in the courts.

The Senate?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

looked again.



still

nothing


here


about


fast and furious

Vote on Thursday in full house, after that it's in the courts.

The Senate?

Nope doesn't go to the senate

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are already limitations. This regime has just decided to ignore them. The proposed law is merely a law that says a president has to follow the law.

Whats the saying?
Laws were created to keep an honest man enslaved and a politician to break?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Quantum Windbag,

"First rule of rational conversations, don't ask irrational questions. I never equated Bush using national security to justify breaking the law with an investigation into Fast and Furious. I would, if we were actually discussing this rationally, point out that Obama has also justified warrantless wiretapping in court, and has actually made arguments that claim more authority for the program than Bush ever claimed."

If you didn't equate the two, why did you conflate the two? No need to answer because it is clearly a partisan thang to undermine the current administration initially, and the beat goes on with the Salon article...SCHEEEESH!

You seem to be trying to back away from your false premise initiating this thread, so I will just let it go having made the point. Do not make the false assumption that I am defending the president in any wise! That would be a fools errand. I don't do partisan.

"As for intra agency communications, they are not protected by the constitution just because Obama says they are. There are clear limits on executive privilege that were spelled out by the Supreme Court in Espy. At this point in time I cannot see how any of them actually apply unless Obama is admitting direct involvement in the deliberative process that went into retracting the DOJ claim that Fast and Furious did not involve deliberately allowing guns to be shopped to Mexico."

You are correct that the Judiciary has laid out limits to the exercise of Executive Privilege. But you might want to read up on the matter and find out what those limits are. However, you won't find Espy anywhere in the records of SCOTUS as you claim. It is at 121 F.3d 729, 326 U.S.App.D.C. 276. Notice that is the DC Circuit Appeals Court. Read it and edify thyself. At this point you can't see because you have not come to a more complete knowledge of certain fundamental facts germane to a somewhat complex set of circumstances WITH AN OPEN MIND!

I care little for the practice of binding together a poster's opinion with that of a political pundit/hack/parasite. If you have a point you wish to make, or there is relevant evidence in the article, state it clearly yourself rather than resorting to the infernal dependence of another's unverifiable opinion that carries the legal weight of a gnat.

"Frankly, I find that absurd, which leads me to wonder what it is they are trying to hide."

What is absurd is the circular and/or dead end reasoning of some who seem to be uninterested in objective fact based reasoning.

"As for the authority of Congress to investigate whatever it wants, the court has basically ruled that Congress has the authority to investigate anything as long as the investigation is related to its authority to legislate, even if there is no legislation planned. Article 2 Section 8 clearly covers that."

Your closing paragraph put the vision of Congress with the powers of the Grand Inquisition in my mind. I think you need to do a little reading on the subject. BTW, Article II Section 8 does not exist, and that Article pertains to the Executive. If you were referring to the enumerated powers of the Legislative, that would be Article I, Section 8. So if you meant the latter, point to the Clause of those 18 that empowers Congress to do as you claim!

Going on a trip so it will be a few days before I get back to this board.

 

[Inthemiddle]

A half-measure at best going after judges rather than directly outlining the limits to privilege, but maybe just this once they can get republicans to vote against executive privilege.

1) The bill has nothing to do with Executive Privilege.

2) They aren't going after judges. They are doing exactly as you suggest, legislating limits to the State Secrets Privilege.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And why on earth would Congress think they could limit Executive privilege if it's used correctly?

Any bill would be deemed unconstitutional, not that the President would sign it to begin with. So unless 2/3s of the House and Senate approved it wouldnt be an issue anyway.

And even if it somehow became law, a president could simply ignore it, as Congress indeed has no authority to limit the Constitutional powers of another Branch of government. Congress would still need compelling evidence to provide a Federal judge to have the claim of privilege invalidated.

Partisan idiocy, on both sides of the aisle.

The bill has nothing to do with Executive Privilege, which finds its basis in constitutional law. This is about the State Secret Privilege, which is an evidentiary matter, which originates from British common law.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There is actually a link between claiming national security and executive privilege, just because you don't see it right away does not mean it isn't there. The various administrations have used national security to justify not responding to lawsuits. Obama has actually used it to hide things that were done under Bush, and there is a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT ACT that cannot be challenged in court because everyone refuses to discuss it. In theory, executive privilege only covers national security and direct communications involving the president. Since everyone denies that Obama was involved in Fast and Furious the only possible justification for withholding the information is national security. Limiting national security claims in court by giving judges options other than dismissing the case will actually limit executive privilege.

No, Executive Privilege and the State Secret Privilege are two entirely different things. Executive Privilege is about allowing the President to receive unfettered advice from his advisers, without said advice having to be filtered through the public arena of political acceptability. When EP applies, it applies without regard to national security, and applies in regards interactions between the Legislative and Executive branches. The State Secret Privilege is about protecting national security interests regarding evidence introduced in a court of law. It is not limited to the President, but is applicable for the entire government, and is invoked in proceedings of the Judicial branch. Congress, and individuals who work in/for Congress, can invoke the State Secret Privilege. However, they cannot invoke Executive Privilege.

 

[Inthemiddle]

This law sucks and should not be passed. I think Obama was stupid for using EP and it will bite him in the ass, but I'm not a reactionarey like these clowns.

This bill has nothing to do with Executive Privilege.