George W. Bush is in Contempt of Congress. Should he be prosecuted?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Edward, Jun 28, 2007.

  1. Edward
    Offline

    Edward Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,051
    Thanks Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +90
    According to an AP article, President Bush, "moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors."

    I just wanted to say thank you to Georgie and his wife Laurie who hail from some town called Crawford in a state where I have never been for telling my representatives that he and his friends in the White House do not have to answer to members of Congress or to the people they represent. I am so grateful that he can make decisions without consulting Congress and then when Congress exercises its oversight authority he simply refuses to respond to their legally binding subpoenas based on some bogus claim of executive privelige. The reason I state that his claim is bogus is that the original intent of executive privelige was to allow the President the ability to refuse to produce documents that would result in harm to the American people. The documents requested by Congress do not fit this definition. The right of the American people to know what their government is doing trumps the right of the Bush administration to protect itself or the President from public scrutiny. The claim, made by White House counsel Fred Fielding, that "for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch" is simply ludicrous. This claim contradicts the fundamental right of the people to conduct the affairs of our government. Without knowledge, our representatives, cannot act in our behalf. Being required to produce documents to our representatives does not in any way inhibit honest, upright, moral people from having honest, upright and moral deliberations nor does it prevent the President from receiving candid and unfettered advice. They can talk all they want, discuss whatever and have nothing to fear from public scruitiny if they didn't do anything wrong.

    It is clear to me that the Bush administration thinks it is above the law and does not have to respond to the legally binding subpoenas of Congress because in his words it's "my government" instead of ours. Congress not only can but must assert its right to look at these documents in behalf of those whom they represent. The Courts have ruled that Congress has this power of subpoena and can hold those who refuse to adhere to Congressional subpoenas in contempt of Congress. Refusing a subpoena is grounds for contempt of Congres, and if Bush continues to conduct himself in this manner he could be impeached and or prosecuted for his actions. Normally, Congress understands that the President would like to exercise some discretion in what he reveals to Congress but they do and can exercise their constitutional and statutory authority to subpoena documents from the Executive Branch and refusal to honor those subpoenas is considered "contempt of Congress" under the law and it is a crime. There is solution short of prosecuting George Bush for contempt of Congress and that is for the President to stop thinking of himself as above the law and turn over the documents to our representatives and if he didn't do anything wrong and neither did anyone else in his administration than he has nothing to fear and everyone will be happy but I suspect Bush is using "executive privelige" which was intended to protect the American people to protect himself and those around him from the public eye.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    You don't believe any of those represemtatives represent you anyway, remember? So what difference does it make to you?
     
  3. Edward
    Offline

    Edward Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,051
    Thanks Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +90
    It makes every difference to me, because even if I am not represented by a member of Congress I can still know what they know because it's becomes a part of the public sphere and if members of Congress cannot know it then I definately cannot know it and that is an infringement of my rights. It would be impossible for me to walk into the White House, open the cabinents there and start to read the documents produced by the Executive Branch. What does this mean? It means that I will use whatever reasonable method to obtain access to that information. So, even if members of Congress do not represent me it is in my interest that they can review those documents. This is distinction you do not make and it is a distinction between representation and public knowledge. Just because the jackasses in our Congress do not represent me does not mean that I do not want the information in question and since the only method I can obtain access to information that I have a basic human right to access is for those who do not represent me to obtain that information than yes I do care that I have access to that information and if I must use members of Congress who do not represent me to obtain that information than yes I will do whatever it takes to protect myself and my rights. This is a concept you do not understand. Because I am not represented by this system of government I must use everything it has to protect myself, even if it means I must twist it, turn it, and warp it to fit into a shape where my rights are protected.

    Lack of representation has driven me to do what is necessary including voting in the elections of a system of government based on tryanny because if I do not the fucking assholes like you (nothing personal), Georgie and his slut of a wife (nothing personal) woul be able to rule over me without me being represented and that means something to me. It means my freedom, my liberty and my rights. So, again, yes it means something to me that those who do not represent me have access to this information because I intend to use those bastards to achieve my own ends. :bowdown:

    Simply put, even though there isn't a member in Congress who represents me I do represent myself as a private individual and when I as a private individual do not have access to the information of those who govern over me than I cannot take those measures I feel necessary to protect my rights so it is incumbent on me to use whatever resources I can to achieve those ends. If I lived in a monarchy I would be doing the exact same thing which is taking advantage of the evil system of government I lived under to protect myself. Yes, I would kiss the ass of the King, and then walk into his chamber when the bastard wasn't looking and rifle through his papers but since that isn't necessary here and I don't have to kiss Georgie's ass to get access to these documents I will instead use Congress to do it. :clap2: But, if George Bush was in fact King and there was no other way to get access to those documents I would start kissing his ass to get access to those documents and to read them because that is my fundamental right. One that isn't granted or bestowed by the Constitution, or by any law but by God himself. It is a right that is inherent to each of us which was violated when the Constitution was drafted and ratified but when it comes down to it there isn't a single person who would not do what is necessary and use whatever resources they can even in any form of government to achieve the goal of protecting their rights. This is what I am doing when I vote to deprive you of representation in the hope that I may get the person I want elected and therefore to succeed at having at least some control over the affairs of my government, but lacking that I must do what I must to protect my rights. So, if that means kissing Leahy's ass then I will do so.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    Each Branch has seperate powers, Unless the Court rules against the President HE DOES have Executive Power in this matter. But then if you actually understood the Constitution you would understand that.

    Also, until the Court of last resort rules against him AND then he refuses, he is NOT in contempt of anything.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Edward
    Offline

    Edward Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,051
    Thanks Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +90
    First, the horseshit you were taught in school about separation of powers is nonsense. Second, the Constitution does not grant the President the power of "executive privelige." This so-called right is a construed right but of course conservatives only object to "interepreting the Constitution" when it doesn't serve their own purposes. When was it construed? The answer to that is 1792. It was not extended to protect the President from having to undergo public scrutiny nor did it allow him to ignore Congressional subpoena's at will instead it allowed him to refuse to hand over documents that were harmful to the American people. There was no mention in the Constitution, or in any act of Congress or the legislature which gives the President the authority to refuse to honor the subpoena's of Congress which means that he does not have that right. Third, simply stating that the President has the "executive power in this matter" doesn't make it so. The Courst have ruled that Congress does have the right to issue subpoena's to the Executive Branch and that Congress has the authority to charge them with contempt of Congress for refusing. The President is trying to extend the privelige of "executive privelige" to an executive and absolute right which it is not.

    So let me see if I understand you right? The President can break any law he wants and not have to answer for it until the "Court of last resort rules against him." The fact is that the court you speak of has ruled in this matter and if we were to operate on the basis of precedence here then we would have to acknowledge that Congress does in fact have the authority to hold the President in contempt. Second, Congress does not need to go to the Supreme Court to hold the President accountable, they can hold him in contempt, censure him, or even impeach him. I suggest you read the Constitution, and the laws in question before making idiotic statements that you have no support for. So, simply stated the Court of last resort may end up being Congress and not the Supreme Court when they impeach his ass.
     
  6. JeffWartman
    Offline

    JeffWartman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,309
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    Ratings:
    +101
    Where again in the Constitution does it mention executive privilege?

    Oh, wait. It doesn't.

    I thought Conservatives were originalists?

    Guess not.
     
  7. Edward
    Offline

    Edward Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,051
    Thanks Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +90
    No, no, no. It is when the Kings have spoken that they are originalists (i.e., the Constitution says X, and since it says X therefore it can mean nothing else and nothing that isn't in the Constitution can be added except when they the Kings decide that it can be such as in the case of the King's executive privelige). :clap2: Let us all :bowdown: before the kings and give our cute little kitten :eusa_dance: while singing, "the Bushites have elected their friend Georgie President and he doesn't have to release any documents since he has executive privelige or in other words us good little bitches don't have the right to know what is going on in their government or better yet in Georgie's own words his government."

    I'm sorry! I just couldn't help myself taking a pot shot at the elected King of the United Kingdom of America and his behavior towards are Parliment. :clap2:
     
  8. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    If enough people in congress think that Bush has abused his authority and position, they can impeach him. If the public thinks that too many congressional Republicans are giving Bush a “free pass” then the public can vote Republicans out of office. The USA will not turn into a monarchy – though some people might think that we are moving close to it. A president, republican or democrat, can only go so far before congress and/or the public pulls back on his chain.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Nor is judicial review, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
     
  10. JeffWartman
    Offline

    JeffWartman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,309
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    Ratings:
    +101
    But you can't make that argument if you truly believe in originalism, that's my point.
     

Share This Page