You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What did Cheney start doing in 2003 that gave him reason to prevent executive branch oversight? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 09:43 PM
Original message
What did Cheney start doing in 2003 that gave him reason to prevent executive branch oversight?
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Fri Jun-22-07 09:43 PM by ProSense
Friday, June 22, 2007

Dick Cheney and the Not-So-Unitary Executive

JB

Vice President Dick Cheney and his consigliere David Addington have long been associated with the doctrine of the "Unitary Executive," the notion that all executive functions are vested in the President of the United States of American and hence that the President has the right to direct all executive officers, who, in turn are required to obey his orders.

All except the Vice-President, apparently.

The New York Times reports that Cheney now takes the position that he is not bound by an executive order requiring all entities within the executive branch to report on how they obtain and use classified information because he is not just another part of the executive branch. The Vice-President's office, he contends, is unique. As President of the Senate, he exercises legislative functions, including the right to cast tie votes in the Senate. (Of course the President also has legislative functions-- he can veto bills-- but that has never stopped him from claiming that he is the chief executive officer.). The Times explains:

For four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has resisted routine oversight of his offices handling of classified information, and when the office in charge of overseeing classification in the executive branch objected, the vice presidents office suggested that the oversight office be shut down, according to documents released today by a Democratic congressman.

For years Cheney and Addington pushed the theory of the unitary Executive in order to avoid anyone looking into what they were doing. Once it became clear that the executive branch wanted to know what they were doing, they decided they were no longer part of the executive branch.

It is by now obvious, if any further proof were necessary, that Cheney and Addington have never been particularly interested in defending constitutional principles. They do not seek to preserve executive power. They seek to preserve their own power. They discarded the canard of the unitary executive as soon as it became inconvenient. (NB: The basic idea of a unitary executive, by contrast, is not spurious; some versions of the theory are quite plausible, just not Cheney and Addington's version. I discuss some of the different conceptions here).

The New York Times article leaves a tantalizing tidbit: Cheney's office complied with requests for data on classified documents in 2001 and 2002. "But starting in 2003, the vice presidents office began refusing to supply the information. In 2004, it blocked an on-site inspection by (the Information Security Oversight Office), routinely carried out across the government and intended to check whether documents were being properly labeled and safely stored."

So the question is this: Why did Cheney change his mind at the end of 2002? What did his office start doing in 2003 that gave him reason to prevent oversight even by other parts of the executive branch?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC