Rove defies subpoena

[Steerpike]

All I know is, there is a thing called a Congressional Subpoena, and in many respects, Congress can and does function like a court.

I mean, what are we left with if the enforcers are all just letting each other off?

I fear our only option is..... ugly.

Here's another wrinkle though - Congress can't enforce its contempt of Congress findings on its own. It has to refer them to the Executive Branch for enforcement. So if the Executive branch doesn't consider them valid...

 

[Steerpike]

Hmmmm....seems congress, in the end, should trump the executive in these kinds of things.

Why?

 

[Charles_Main]

I think we are all well aware Rove has little respect for the law, and even less for Democrats

 

[Charles_Main]

No Branch is meant to trump another, it is about checks and balances, not one branch being all powerful over the others.

 

[Steerpike]

I think we are all well aware Rove has little respect for the law, and even less for Democrats

The problem is, it isn't clear he's bound by law to respond to the Congressional subpoena. That's the interesting Constitutional issue, anyway.

 

[Steerpike]

No Branch is meant to trump another, it is about checks and balances, not one branch being all powerful over the others.

Right. But Taco was arguing for the legislative to trump the executive. That's why I asked "why?"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course he won't front up - he has too much to hide. Someone with a clear conscience would be waiting at the door, eager to clear his name from scurrilous allegations.

Want an example of how well congress functions on this front? During the Iran Contra hearings the Congress spent months before hand questioning the people, all except One certain Marine Lt Col.

AT the supposed impartial hearings the questions and answers had already been checked and triple checked so the Congressional members knew what to ask of whom to paint any picture they wanted.

Then They got to that Col. He refused to tell them shit ahead of time. And when it came time to question him, they were shown for the boobs they were. He completely destroyed the hearings and made asses of those strutting preening " Independent" Congressional blow hards.

You do of course remember the opening statement outside Congress By Inouhue? They were gonna have IMPARTIAL hearings and PROVE that Reagan was guilty. And he did not see the irony in his statement.

 

[Taco]

If no branch can hold any other branch to account? WHO DOES?
I mean, one cop can arrest another cop is a law is broken.... shouldn't each be accountable to the other?

How else is the cycle of corruption dented?

 

[Charles_Main]

Nobody said they should not be able to hold another branch to account. I said they should not trump another branch. They should share power. No one branch should be more powerful than the other.

IMO opinion and reading of the constitution anyways.

 

[Steerpike]

If no branch can hold any other branch to account? WHO DOES?
I mean, one cop can arrest another cop is a law is broken.... shouldn't each be accountable to the other?

How else is the cycle of corruption dented?

They are each accountable to the other in certain ways defined by the Constitution, but none of them have the power to just exercise whatever power they want over another branch any time they feel like it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They are each accountable to the other in certain ways defined by the Constitution, but none of them have the power to just exercise whatever power they want over another branch any time they feel like it.

Exactly. Funny how the Liberals miss that point in a rush to prejudge people they don't like.

 

[Taco]

No, not whatever power they want...but making Rove come in and tell the truth about some stuff...seems pretty mundane to me. If THAT can't even be compelled, what's the use?

I think I have about lost faith in the process. The people, need to get angry, and get creative.

 

[Steerpike]

No, not whatever power they want...but making Rove come in and tell the truth about some stuff...seems pretty mundane to me. If THAT can't even be compelled, what's the use?

I think I have about lost faith in the process. The people, need to get angry, and get creative.

Then should the Executive also be able to compel legislators to come in and explain themselves?

 

[Diuretic]

I love the lefty assumption that if you have nothing to hide, you should be happy to be dragged before the wolves. It's like the witch trial mentality. Strap them to a weighted chair and sink them beneath the water....if they're innocent, they'll be happy to submit!

Lefty assumption? Really?

 

[manu1959]

Sounds like waterboarding. bush would be proud.

simulated drowning......it is like pretend sex.....you know....

 

[Diuretic]

They are each accountable to the other in certain ways defined by the Constitution, but none of them have the power to just exercise whatever power they want over another branch any time they feel like it.

Wouldn't the third branch, the judiciary, have a say?

 

[Steerpike]

Wouldn't the third branch, the judiciary, have a say?

Yeah...but what they'd say might be hard to predict. Historically, the Courts might look at something like this as a political question, which means they duck the issue. The courts won't decide something that is left to the discretion of one of the other two co-equal branches, for the very reason that each branch of government is supposed to be equal.

This isn't exactly a political question, I don't think. But I wonder if they'd treat it the same way. Congress basically invented the subpoena power early on in its history. The courts have been ok with it, and so has the Executive. It's when you try to extend it against other one of the other branches that the issue arises.

If you think of the branches as co-equal, there is really no reason the executive should have to tell Congress any more about their internal dealings than Congress has to tell the Executive. It's an interesting dilemma.

Here's an even more interesting question: suppose Congress finds contempt, takes it to court, and the court agrees. Suppose the Executive still says "screw you guys." The Court has no independent means of enforcing its order. Lincoln openly defied the Supreme Court and they couldn't do anything about it.

That's another reason the Court is reluctant to adjudicate this sort of thing. If they make a ruling and the other branch ignores it, there is a line of thought that says they lose some power in the process (or at least perceived power). So often the Court will stay out of it rather than risk a constitutional crisis and possible loss of power they enjoy at the sufferance of the other two branches.

There is, for example, nothing in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court gets to make the final decision on what is Constitutional. They get to do it largely because the other two branches let them, and have for a long time (since at least Marbury).

 

[Taco]

ALL politicians should be made to explain themselves.

Of course, the main problem is that the Dems wimped out on impeachment hearings. Now you have crooks caring for crooks.

There is no way to fix this via the system. The system, is defunct.

Time to get creative........

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ALL politicians should be made to explain themselves.

Of course, the main problem is that the Dems wimped out on impeachment hearings. Now you have crooks caring for crooks.

There is no way to fix this via the system. The system, is defunct.

Time to get creative........

They did not have a case. But hey you call it what you want.

 

[Diuretic]

Yeah...but what they'd say might be hard to predict. Historically, the Courts might look at something like this as a political question, which means they duck the issue. The courts won't decide something that is left to the discretion of one of the other two co-equal branches, for the very reason that each branch of government is supposed to be equal.

This isn't exactly a political question, I don't think. But I wonder if they'd treat it the same way. Congress basically invented the subpoena power early on in its history. The courts have been ok with it, and so has the Executive. It's when you try to extend it against other one of the other branches that the issue arises.

If you think of the branches as co-equal, there is really no reason the executive should have to tell Congress any more about their internal dealings than Congress has to tell the Executive. It's an interesting dilemma.

Here's an even more interesting question: suppose Congress finds contempt, takes it to court, and the court agrees. Suppose the Executive still says "screw you guys." The Court has no independent means of enforcing its order. Lincoln openly defied the Supreme Court and they couldn't do anything about it.

That's another reason the Court is reluctant to adjudicate this sort of thing. If they make a ruling and the other branch ignores it, there is a line of thought that says they lose some power in the process (or at least perceived power). So often the Court will stay out of it rather than risk a constitutional crisis and possible loss of power they enjoy at the sufferance of the other two branches.

There is, for example, nothing in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court gets to make the final decision on what is Constitutional. They get to do it largely because the other two branches let them, and have for a long time (since at least Marbury).

And that explains it all for me - thank you.