Let's be clear--the contempt vote against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers is the fault of the Bush administration, despite the public temper tantrum shown by House Minority Leader John Boehner before the vote. Boehner used the "the Congress has more important business" argument, the same one that fell on Boehner's deaf ears during the Clinton impeachment vote. We reap what we sow, yes?
But here we are. The House voted 223-32 to refer contempt charges to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, although he falls under the supervision of the attorney general, who falls under the supervision of the president--you see where this is going. So did the House Democratic leaders. They argued that this vote gives them a clear path to the US Courts, with the House paying for representation against the US Government, represented by the solicitor general. The NBC drama The West Wing was hardly this good!
Since there is not a lot about what happens next in these cases, our media is digging up the last executive branch official who faced a contempt of Congress charge. She is Anne Buford Gorsuch, who was the EPA administrator for President Reagan in 1982 (actually Interior Secretary James Watt was the last to face contempt charges, but the Reagan administration stepped in at the last minute before the vote could take place.). In 1982, the House voted contempt charges, and the matter was referred to the US attorney for the District of Columbia, but before he could begin the investigation the Reagan administration worked out a deal that allowed some Committee members to review the contested documents in secret, with no staff and no ability to take notes.
That is not instructive to the case today. In 1982, the Reagan administration protected the privilege. They felt that Congress could not demand whenever it wanted to see executive branch communications and documents. To preserve the privilege, they worked out a compromise with the House and all was right with the World. But what is the Bush administration trying to protect? The privilege? Nope. They are trying to protect their hides--communication that showed officials in the White House ordered nine attorneys to be fired for political reasons--something they claimed to not be the case. How do you compromise in that situation? Thus a pickle that the administration now has to deal with--and unfortunately for them, without the assistance of the congressional Republicans who helped hold the nose of the administration when it acted in a way that contradicted the Constitution and the office of the presidency. The congressional Republicans get reminded of that everytime the House holds a hearing--particularly the House Judiciary Committee. It begins with a statement that "we require you (the witness) to take the oath to conform to the practice of this committee." When the Republicans held control of Congress, they allowed executive branch witnesses or appointees to testify without taking the oath. Can you imagine how many in the White House think wistfully of those days?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Bush-Related Activity
President Bush issued what we call a rhetorical signing statement today when he signed HR 5140, the economic stimulus bill that is designed to get the country's economy moving (here is the CRS Summary). The bill is paradoxical and ridiculous for any variety of reasons--ie conservatives who loathe big government wasting our money is sending almost all Americans anywhere between $300-600/individual under the illusion that we will all immediately run down to Best Buy or call up "Mayfall Construction" to build that extra wing on our homes, which would essentially give this country and its economic situation a healthy jumpstart--think of the shock paddles used on people whose heart either has quit pumping or is out of rhythm. In reality what will happen, given the pessimistic outlook of the economy that confronts us every day when we read our newspapers or watch the news, is folks will either bank the money or, more likely, will use it to pay down our credit card bills. Thus this is an enormous boon for the banking and credit industries and not much help to the rest of us. Any ideal how much this is going to cost just to administer the program? Why not use it pay down the government debt? Or use the bipartisan occasion to rein in the outrageous interest rates that credit card companies place in the small print, punishing even faithful users who pay the balance off each month? But I digress. The president, realizing the potential for blowback when the money does not stimulate the economy and things get worst, made sure that he emphasized just how much the Democrats in Congress were on board with this thing. His second paragraph reads:
And if that is not enough, there are the grinning leaders from both parties and chambers of Congress.
But back to the point of the signing statement. This is a classic rhetorical signing ceremony/statement. The president takes the time to thank all the members who worked hard on getting this measure to his desk, what the measure will do for the country, and how important his administration was in getting this measure signed into law.
Second, the Senate Judiciary Committee today held a hearing on S. 2533, the "State Secrets Protection Act" that the Senate is considering. As you know, the State Secrets privilege allows the president to declare certain information a state secret and that protects the information from any outside eyes--including the courts. Unlike when the president asserts a national security claim to censor certain information, a judge gets to be the final arbiter on whether a national security exists. Not so for the state secret, which by itself is troubling. What is even more troubling is the precedent on which it sits--In the U.S. v Reynolds (1953) decision, the Supreme Court allowed for such a right to exist. Nearly 50 years later we find, by accident, that the original claim was used to cover up government culpability in an accident. And in light of that fact, the courts still allow the president to make such a claim with no oversight. As Lou Fisher argued in his testimony at today's hearing, continuing to assert utmost deference to the executive branch "undermines the principle of judicial independence, the essential safeguard of checks and balances, and the right of private litigants to have a fair hearing in court." The new bill would give the courts the right to make a determination--like they do with prior restraint claims--whether the information is legitimate to make such a claim. So far the administration has not issued a veto threat to the bill, but during an October 2007 press briefing with Press Secretary Dana Perino, a reporter asked her about the history of the privilege and about those who criticize this administration for asserting it more than any other, she answered:
In sum, she doesn't know about the history of the claim, but if you want to question why the administration has used it as much as it has, it is because of the terrorists. And I suppose that if this bill actually gets a realistic shot at passing both chambers of Congress, the administration will lead the debate (along with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and the American Spectator, not to mention the conservatives on the campaign trail) that those who support the bill are giving aid and comfort to our enemy.
Anyone wanna bet?
You know, a lot of folks in America probably were saying that it's impossible for those of us in Washington to find common ground, to reach compromise on important issues. I didn't feel that way; I know the leaders didn't feel that way. And as a result, we have come together on a single mission -- and that is to put the people's interests first. And I really do welcome the members of Congress and I thank you for your hard work.
And if that is not enough, there are the grinning leaders from both parties and chambers of Congress.
But back to the point of the signing statement. This is a classic rhetorical signing ceremony/statement. The president takes the time to thank all the members who worked hard on getting this measure to his desk, what the measure will do for the country, and how important his administration was in getting this measure signed into law.
Second, the Senate Judiciary Committee today held a hearing on S. 2533, the "State Secrets Protection Act" that the Senate is considering. As you know, the State Secrets privilege allows the president to declare certain information a state secret and that protects the information from any outside eyes--including the courts. Unlike when the president asserts a national security claim to censor certain information, a judge gets to be the final arbiter on whether a national security exists. Not so for the state secret, which by itself is troubling. What is even more troubling is the precedent on which it sits--In the U.S. v Reynolds (1953) decision, the Supreme Court allowed for such a right to exist. Nearly 50 years later we find, by accident, that the original claim was used to cover up government culpability in an accident. And in light of that fact, the courts still allow the president to make such a claim with no oversight. As Lou Fisher argued in his testimony at today's hearing, continuing to assert utmost deference to the executive branch "undermines the principle of judicial independence, the essential safeguard of checks and balances, and the right of private litigants to have a fair hearing in court." The new bill would give the courts the right to make a determination--like they do with prior restraint claims--whether the information is legitimate to make such a claim. So far the administration has not issued a veto threat to the bill, but during an October 2007 press briefing with Press Secretary Dana Perino, a reporter asked her about the history of the privilege and about those who criticize this administration for asserting it more than any other, she answered:
In sum, she doesn't know about the history of the claim, but if you want to question why the administration has used it as much as it has, it is because of the terrorists. And I suppose that if this bill actually gets a realistic shot at passing both chambers of Congress, the administration will lead the debate (along with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and the American Spectator, not to mention the conservatives on the campaign trail) that those who support the bill are giving aid and comfort to our enemy.
Anyone wanna bet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)