What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Edward

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
91
Points
48
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.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
You don't believe any of those represemtatives represent you anyway, remember? So what difference does it make to you?
 
OP
E

Edward

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
91
Points
48
You don't believe any of those represemtatives represent you anyway, remember? So what difference does it make to you?

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.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,622
Reaction score
12,531
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
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.
 
OP
E

Edward

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
91
Points
48
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.

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.

Also, until the Court of last resort rules against him AND then he refuses, he is NOT in contempt of anything.

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.
 

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
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.

Where again in the Constitution does it mention executive privilege?

Oh, wait. It doesn't.

I thought Conservatives were originalists?

Guess not.
 
OP
E

Edward

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
91
Points
48
Where again in the Constitution does it mention executive privilege?

Oh, wait. It doesn't.

I thought Conservatives were originalists?

Guess not.

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:
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
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:

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.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Where again in the Constitution does it mention executive privilege?

Oh, wait. It doesn't.

I thought Conservatives were originalists?

Guess not.

Nor is judicial review, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 

actsnoblemartin

I love Andrea & April
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
4,039
Reaction score
412
Points
98
Location
La Mesa, CA
I dont understand the rules of executive privalege, or even if it exists, but as a general rule. I think all presidencys should be transparents and as long as national security is not threatened, I dont want any president hiding behind executive privalege because he doesnt want to answer questions. If congress cannot hide from questions, which is my understanding unless im wrong, then neither should the president or vice president. Im not speaking as a conservative, im speaking as an american.

But you can't make that argument if you truly believe in originalism, that's my point.
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
Where again in the Constitution does it mention executive privilege?

Oh, wait. It doesn't.

I thought Conservatives were originalists?

Guess not.


Damn, between Edward and you, this thread was a classic example of total ownage.
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
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.



Unless the Court rules against the President HE DOES have Executive Power in this matter.



No he doesn't.

At best, Bush asserts that executive privledge protect him for recieving private consultation and advice from his counselors and advisors.

The white house has said the the White House and Bush were not involved in the consultatations and meetings pertaining to firing the US Attorneys. They merely signed off on it, after Department of Justice made the decisions.

So, either the White House is lying, and they were involved - or Executive Privledge does not apply in this matter.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
If not one, than not the other. I can go along with that.

I'm surprised that YOU can Kathianne, I can't, and will NEVER subscribe to such cowardice.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I'm surprised that YOU can Kathianne, I can't, and will NEVER subscribe to such cowardice.

Bottom line, judicial review is now in stone, as is executive privilege. They want one, without the other.
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
Nor is judicial review, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The concept of Judicial review can easily, and quite clearly be derived from the Federalist Papers - which inform us of Original Intent behind the constitution by the founders -- and thus applied to Article III:

Federalist Papers No. 78

The Judiciary Department

WE PROCEED now to an examination of the judiciary department of the proposed government.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute"


I'd be curious if you can find any Federalist Paper, or documentation for Original Intent behind the constitution, that demonstrates Executive Priviledge.


;)

Thanks.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
The concept of Judicial review can easily, and quite clearly be derived from the Federalist Papers - which inform us of Original Intent behind the constitution by the founders -- and thus applied to Article III:




I'd be curious if you can find any Federalist Paper, or documentation for Original Intent behind the constitution, that demonstrates Executive Priviledge.


;)

Thanks.
Welcome. Federalist 64 and 70.
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
Welcome. Federalist 64 and 70.


Excellent! So we both agree that the ridiculous assertion of the "strict contructionists" is baloney....than anyone who proclaims: "Well, I don't see it specifically written in the Constitution, so it must be unconstitutional!" is talking out their ass.

For the record, I've never asserted that president's don't have any executive priviledge. It may well be that Bush is drawing it far to broad by denying everything to congress.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Excellent! So we both agree that the ridiculous assertion of the "strict contructionists" is baloney....than anyone who proclaims: "Well, I don't see it specifically written in the Constitution, so it must be unconstitutional!" is talking out their ass.

For the record, I've never asserted that president's don't have any executive priviledge. It may well be that Bush is drawing it far to broad by denying everything to congress.

I've never had a problem with justices that stay within founding documents and British common law. I do have problems with international treaties, much less ruling from IC, etc.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top