BREAKING - Bush defies congressional subpoenas - Claims EXECUTIVEPRIVELEGE, of course

[Docky Wocky]

phenry sez:

"My guess is that docky was singing a very different tune when the
republican congress issued more then 14400 subpoenas during the Clinton
years.

Docky is the typical neo-con , party before country.

Pathetic. Don't pretend to be an American..."
____________________________________
Just like a lib. "You guess?"

Given to overstatement much? Or, does it just "feel" good?

Since you know so much, please show everyone how many of those 14,400
subpoenas were issued in my name?

Or you could just admit you don't know squat about me, or the Constitution.

 

[mbluetiger7]

On Jun 28, 11:37 pm, "Docky Wocky" <mrch...@lst.net> wrote:
> phenry sez:
>
> "My guess is that docky was singing a very different tune when the
> republican congress issued more then 14400 subpoenas during the Clinton
> years.
>
> Docky is the typical neo-con , party before country.
>
> Pathetic. Don't pretend to be an American..."
> ____________________________________
> Just like a lib. "You guess?"
>
> Given to overstatement much? Or, does it just "feel" good?
>
> Since you know so much, please show everyone how many of those 14,400
> subpoenas were issued in my name?
>
> Or you could just admit you don't know squat about me, or the Constitution.

You guys missing something. The constitution no longer exists. on the
last page of the homeland security presidental directives 51 it states
the constitution is REVOKED. So now bushie and his boyfriend chenny
are no longer bonded by thein bushs' word "The goddam piece of paper"

 

[Stop The War]

"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message news:BeTgi.3833$RZ1.1190@trnddc05...
> The Constitution mentions three independent branches of government. Or are
> you going to deny that simple fact?
>
> You can't get much simpler than that - and the key word remains
> "independent," even if comrades Conyers and Leahy don't see it that way.

The word "independent" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The
first three articles of the U.S. Constitution define The Legislative Branch,
The Executive Branch, and The Judicial Branch, but the U.S. Constitution
does not say these branches of government are "independent" of each other.

James Madison wrote that the three branches "should not be so far
separated as to have no constitutional control over each other."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution>

Checks and Balances; Checks of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial
on the other two branches of government. An excellent summary list here.
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/United_States_Government/The_Three_Branches>

Your approval of dictatorship and endorsment of government sponsored murder
is noted.

 

[Docky Wocky]

bleepy sez:

"Load of bullshit, Mr. Wocky. Most liberals do not subscribe to this
notion..."
______________________________
Bullshit, Bleepy. Let's be realistic.

You have shown, on occasion, that you can be realistic.

The congresscritters behind this are wannabee Supreme Soviet types. History
just passed them by, so they gotta show everyone what losers they are by
staging Wizard of Oz-like shows of the judicial powers of congresscritter
committees with powerful sounding names. It is all smoke and mirrors. And it
ain't going anywhere. Who has ever been afraid of the House Judicial
Committee?

Look at the problem: (a) weasel extremist liberal congresscritters, of
legislative branch, issue congresscritter-type subpoenas for (b) officials
of the executive branch - without even hearing how (c) judicial branch feels
about attempted usurpation of power by legislative branch over executive
branch, ignoring judicial branch in the process.

So here we have no-saving-graces chairperson of supreme sovie...er!...US
congressional committee determined to show the rube's how powerful he thinks
he is by attempting to force the executive branch officials to kau t

 

[Perseid]

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> Spat the Words

> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1
>
> White House Asserts Executive Privilege
> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern
> By TERENCE HUNT
> AP White House Correspondent
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, 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.

The sheepish looks on bush and cheney's faces today were telling.
They know they're breaking the law and their entire strategy depends
on no one ever getting access to those documents.

Just exactly where will those classified documents be after they
leave office.. Crawdad, Texas? Cheney's swiss bank vault ?

 

[David Hartung]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-
> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> Deliri wrote:
>>
>>
>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE SUBPOENA,
>>> WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A
>>> COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?
>> Congress has no such authority.
>>
>
>
> Facts one, Hartung zero.
>
> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United
> States Congress or one of its committees. Following the refusal of a
> witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled
> to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. Following
> a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the
> Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the
> chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then
> subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment
> for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release
> from the contempt citation.)"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I stand corrected.

 

[Kurt Lochner]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> Mitchell Holman explained the obvious to:
> >
> >David Hartung <dhart1ng@comcast.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Deliri wrote:
> >>>
> >>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE SUBPOENA,
> >>> WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A
> >>> COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?
> >>
> >>Congress has no such authority.
> >
> > Facts one, Hartung zero.
> >
> > "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United
> > States Congress or one of its committees. Following the refusal of a
> > witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled
> > to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. Following
> > a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the
> > Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the
> > chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then
> > subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment
> > for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release
> > from the contempt citation.)"
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
>
>I stand corrected.

Good on you, you finally admitted that you were wrong..

--Hopefully that will set an example to the other reich-wingers..

 

[Docky Wocky]

Wikipedia - thats one of those bigm fat legal tomes, ain't it?

Bush merely stated besides having a good deal of contempt for congress,
that in the coming shoot out with congress, he would try to have his troops
not kill too many of them - after, of course, wiping out the ringleaders.

 

[Biscuits and Books]

"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news22883tm73ghd2fum1kbuao78087ramcct@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:44:50 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.
>>
>
> The actual legal principle in question is "sovereign immunity"
> established in Common Law long before the Constitution.

No such principle applies when Congress investigates criminal acts.

 

[David Johnston]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:29:26 GMT, "Biscuits and Books"
<Cheney_did_Barney@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
>news22883tm73ghd2fum1kbuao78087ramcct@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:44:50 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>> MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.
>>>
>>
>> The actual legal principle in question is "sovereign immunity"
>> established in Common Law long before the Constitution.
>
>No such principle applies when Congress investigates criminal acts.

You're right. I was wrong.

 

[Blackwater]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power
>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the
>> congress a double-dose of authority.
>
>As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been nullified.

No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
hides of Halliburtons board too.

But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
particular barrier may indeed be breeched. If so,
the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional
authority and overrule the executive branch.

In short, the system is working exactly the way it
is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,
or even a simple majority, of malcontents to
short-circuit the authority of the executive or
judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special
"territory" and that authority can only be
usurped in the most extreme circumstances.

 

[David Johnston]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power
>>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the
>>> congress a double-dose of authority.
>>
>>As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been nullified.
>
> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
> hides of Halliburtons board too.
>
> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.

By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to Bush
he'll be gone anyway.

If so,
> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional
> authority and overrule the executive branch.
>
> In short, the system is working exactly the way it
> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,
> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to
> short-circuit the authority of the executive or
> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special
> "territory" and that authority can only be
> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.

Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can nullify that
power by use of vetos and signing statements as long as he has 41
votes in the Senate.

 

[Sid9]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power
>>>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the
>>>> congress a double-dose of authority.
>>>
>>> As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been nullified.
>>
>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
>> hides of Halliburtons board too.
>>
>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.
>
> By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to Bush
> he'll be gone anyway.
>
> If so,
>> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional
>> authority and overrule the executive branch.
>>
>> In short, the system is working exactly the way it
>> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,
>> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to
>> short-circuit the authority of the executive or
>> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special
>> "territory" and that authority can only be
>> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.
>
> Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can nullify that
> power by use of vetos and signing statements as long as he has 41
> votes in the Senate.


"Signing statements" are not law.....

Signing statements may violate
the intent of congress.....

No executive has that power...

If he didn't like a law he needed to veto it.

 

[Guy]

"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:4lta835efpd8tft9jbe4lldn5hirk70t13@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power
>>>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the
>>>> congress a double-dose of authority.
>>>
>>>As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been nullified.
>>
>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
>> hides of Halliburtons board too.
>>
>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.
>
> By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to Bush
> he'll be gone anyway.

Along with a great number of the Republican senators who waited too long to
distance themselves.


>
> If so,
>> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional
>> authority and overrule the executive branch.
>>
>> In short, the system is working exactly the way it
>> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,
>> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to
>> short-circuit the authority of the executive or
>> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special
>> "territory" and that authority can only be
>> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.
>
> Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can nullify that
> power by use of vetos and signing statements as long as he has 41
> votes in the Senate.

 

[Biscuits and Books]

"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:4lta835efpd8tft9jbe4lldn5hirk70t13@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power
>>>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the
>>>> congress a double-dose of authority.
>>>
>>>As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been nullified.
>>
>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
>> hides of Halliburtons board too.
>>
>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.
>
> By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to Bush
> he'll be gone anyway.

That's OK, we'll have enough votes to remove five Supreme Court clowns who
lied their way to the Senate onto the Court.

 

[Biscuits and Books]

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:S1ghi.11791$Qz4.9307@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> "Signing statements" are not law.....
>
> Signing statements may violate
> the intent of congress.....
>
> No executive has that power...
>
> If he didn't like a law he needed to veto it.

By signing the law and stating he won't obey it, he thinks he gets it both
ways. When he was governor of TX he vetoed the patients' bill of rights
(the one he took credit for supporting in the 2000 debates, and no one had
the balls to call him on the lie). The following session of the TX
legislature passed it by a veto-proof margin, so rather than veto it and
have his veto overridden (spoiled frat-boys hate that kind of thing) he let
it become law without his signature. He never supported it but he took
credit for it.

 

[justalib]

On Jun 28, 11:52 am, "Tom Mason" <t...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Let's see if you feel the same way next time there's a Democratic president.
>
> "Docky Wocky" <mrch...@lst.net> wrote in message
>
> news:BeTgi.3833$RZ1.1190@trnddc05...
>
>
>
> > The Constitution mentions three independent branches of government. Or are
> > you going to deny that simple fact?
>
> > You can't get much simpler than that - and the key word remains
> > "independent," even if comrades Conyers and Leahy don't see it that way.
>
> > If one branch has to kiss ass every time another branch sends out some
> > paper
> > demand, there is no independence, and the branch receiving the paper and
> > paying any attention to it is, then, and forever, at the beck and call of
> > the branch issuing the paper. That means it ain't "independent," Sancho.
>
> > Of course, for the most part, the liberal Democratics congresscritters,
> > who
> > will now act indignant, didn't do it that way in the Supreme Soviet, so
> > they
> > think everybody else should cower and bow and scrape every time they
> > figure
> > they are the supreme power and want to make someone jump.
>
> > Actually, according to the Supreme Soviet model most liberals ascribe to,
> > it
> > is now perfectly permissible for Bush to send around some of his boys with
> > the "Either/Or" notes on the silver trays and the nice chrome plated
> > revolver with a single bullet, or the dude with the .45 drawn and
> > pointedly
> > pointed.
>
> > I am sure they will then sign the card stating that there are,"Definitely
> > 3
> > independent branches of government," in spite of their typically defective
> > liberal thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh you can bet I will !!! I don't want anybody in the white house or
in my government for that matter who thinks they are above the law !!
Dem , Rebub Or Indi

 

[Harry Jackass]

Didnt BJ Clinton do the same thing numerous times?















"justalib" <sdkendra@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1183164999.788489.299000@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 28, 11:52 am, "Tom Mason" <t...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> Let's see if you feel the same way next time there's a Democratic
>> president.
>>
>> "Docky Wocky" <mrch...@lst.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:BeTgi.3833$RZ1.1190@trnddc05...
>>
>>
>>
>> > The Constitution mentions three independent branches of government. Or
>> > are
>> > you going to deny that simple fact?
>>
>> > You can't get much simpler than that - and the key word remains
>> > "independent," even if comrades Conyers and Leahy don't see it that
>> > way.
>>
>> > If one branch has to kiss ass every time another branch sends out some
>> > paper
>> > demand, there is no independence, and the branch receiving the paper
>> > and
>> > paying any attention to it is, then, and forever, at the beck and call
>> > of
>> > the branch issuing the paper. That means it ain't "independent,"
>> > Sancho.
>>
>> > Of course, for the most part, the liberal Democratics congresscritters,
>> > who
>> > will now act indignant, didn't do it that way in the Supreme Soviet, so
>> > they
>> > think everybody else should cower and bow and scrape every time they
>> > figure
>> > they are the supreme power and want to make someone jump.
>>
>> > Actually, according to the Supreme Soviet model most liberals ascribe
>> > to,
>> > it
>> > is now perfectly permissible for Bush to send around some of his boys
>> > with
>> > the "Either/Or" notes on the silver trays and the nice chrome plated
>> > revolver with a single bullet, or the dude with the .45 drawn and
>> > pointedly
>> > pointed.
>>
>> > I am sure they will then sign the card stating that there
>> > are,"Definitely
>> > 3
>> > independent branches of government," in spite of their typically
>> > defective
>> > liberal thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh you can bet I will !!! I don't want anybody in the white house or
> in my government for that matter who thinks they are above the law !!
> Dem , Rebub Or Indi
>

 

[Flash Bazbo]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:46:47 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
wrote:

>Wikipedia - thats one of those bigm fat legal tomes, ain't it?
>
>Bush merely stated besides having a good deal of contempt for congress,
>that in the coming shoot out with congress, he would try to have his troops
>not kill too many of them - after, of course, wiping out the ringleaders.

I'd laugh at this but bit it seems uncomfortably prescient.

 

[Blackwater]

David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power
>>>> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the
>>>> congress a double-dose of authority.
>>>
>>>As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been nullified.
>>
>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
>> hides of Halliburtons board too.
>>
>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.
>
>By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to Bush
>he'll be gone anyway.

At this point, yes. That's the way the ball bounces. If things
had gone horribly wrong in Iraq much sooner then we may have
seen a different scenerio. But, they didn't. The situation
evoloved slowly and potential solutions always seemed
tantalizingly close. If we got Hussein, things would be
solved. If we had elections, things would be solved. If
we could get this or that insurgent or al-Qaida leader,
things would be solved. If we could get the new govt in
session, things would be solved. If we could only 'surge'
enough troops into Baghdad, things would be solved - and
so on and so forth. That's been the most annoying aspect
of this campaign, that the big fix always seems ALMOST
within reach. The level of resistance is never THAT great,
just ever so slightly above the threshold of chaos. It
SEEMS do-able. It SEEMS hopeful.

So, partisanship prevailed. Wouldn't it be embarassing to
betray "your" president only to see him win the fight ?
You'd be spit upon by your own party and look the fool
to everyone else. The Dems might welcome a 'traitor' that
was vindicated, but even they'd reject one who was
proven wrong.


>>If so,
>> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional
>> authority and overrule the executive branch.
>>
>> In short, the system is working exactly the way it
>> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,
>> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to
>> short-circuit the authority of the executive or
>> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special
>> "territory" and that authority can only be
>> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.
>
>Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can nullify that
>power by use of vetos and signing statements as long as he has 41
>votes in the Senate.

Congress has more powers than that, as does the executive branch.
A president is more than a bill-signing machine attached to a
random number generator and congress is more than a gaggle of
pen-waving lawyers.

There's an intricate weave of powers described in the constitution.
It was written by VERY clever men who'd had a lot of time to think
about how to construct the "perfect" government - and had many BAD
governments to use as reference material. Other powers and
protocols evolved over time too. These also respected the
"territory" of each branch, or they'd never have become law.

Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power over
the BUDGET. Sans partisanship, they could have starved the war
to death in no time flat and there's nothing the executive
could have done about it beyond propaganda tricks, making its
death as painful as possible.