Cheney to disregard Congressional subpoenas

[kurth]

Q You've talked a lot about the consequences of the Democrats taking over Congress in the last week. Nancy Pelosi said this: "We win," speaking of the Democrats, "we get subpoena power." If you're subpoenaed by the Democrats, would you go?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I have no idea that I'm going to be subpoenaed. And, obviously, we'd sit down and look at it at the time. But probably not, in the sense that the President and the Vice President are constitutional officers and don't appear before the Congress.

Q So that's just your view of executive power; you're not going to go up and testify?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think that's been a tradition. I can't think of the last time a President did appear before the Congress or a Vice President.

Q Gerald Ford, I think.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/2006110...

[bluestateguy]

1. Then he will be found in contempt of Congress

and that is a criminal offense.

Congress will have to call his bluff.

[Tellurian]

8. Paging, Henry Hyde, paging Mr. Hyde...

(recording)


"NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES"

Henry Hyde's clarion call to house members/managers demanding an affirmative vote to Impeach President Clinton.

[Toots]

12. Yes but you are forgetting who is now making the Law

"Unitary Executive".

[Tellurian]

18. Hmmm...

just a quick read.. summary..there hasn't been a final determination made as to how
much power is effectively vested in the executive branch. Decision still in flux. I would
imagine determination to be made on a case by case basis. Of course, "abuse of power" would
be the high side of the Constitutional argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

[magellan]

23. Not true, sorry to say

I found this out when I said much the same thing on another thread last night. Congress can subpoena the President and VP, but in effect it has no power to force them to appear because of the separation of powers. Of course it looks bad if they're subpoenaed and refuse to appear, but they can do so without fear of being prosecuted.

The SCOTUS has never ruled on this matter because it's very touchy either way.

It appears the only way to subpoena them and then issue a warrant if they fail to appear is to do it after they leave office, when they no longer have executive immunity.

[babylonsister]

2. Good. Try it, Cheney. Doesn't this mean someone can go in there

w/cuffs and lock his ass up? What makes him immune from our laws? Nothing!

[Double T]

3. Why do OUR 'constitutional officers' ignore the laws of the land.......

and the rights of others????

[acmejack]

4. It's good to be King!

The Dick answers to no one.

[CrispyQ]

5. Above the law. -nt

[liberal N proud]

6. Just shows his disregard for the Constitution of the United States

The arrogance of these people is astounding

[Hosnon]

7. It's an interesting situation. I can definitely see a Constitutional issue that needs to

be analyzed.

[indepat]

9. With such defiance, it's a shame the House could not impeach the VP

and the Senate convict.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Wasn't Clinton subpoenaed by Congress?

I seem to remember him being forced to testify about the Lewinsky "scandal."

[Kagemusha]

13. No such event

He was deposed in a civil suit the supreme court, in its wisdom or lack thereof, decided to let proceed on the basis that it would not be a heavy distraction to the government to have it go forward while Clinton was still in office.

They sure called that one, huh?

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Ah, I sit corrected. Thanks. n/t

[Blackhatjack]

11. Anyone else find it ironic that Cheney is publicly 'out in front' on issues not yet engaged...

... he won't testify if subpoenoed by Congress. He believes the public corruption law needs to be weakened.

Me thinks Cheney is reacting to what he 'knows' is about to break against him.

Time for the Constitution to take down another corrupt official.

[stop the bleeding]

19. not surprised at all

Cheney knows there is a cold wind blowing - getting out in front of scandals is what rethug's do in their sleep.



for others Google: Cheney, Halliburton, SEC, Nigeria - look for dates in November/2006

then look for David A. Smith

[Tellurian]

20. No, I don't believe that at all..

Cheney, no doubt, has a well thought out strategy in place and knows exactly what he's talking about.
Most likely, part of the plan involves getting rid of any written/printed evidence. Thus the Shredder truck was called to his home for a monumental amount of shredding to be done.

No, rest assured, he is fully prepared to go toe to toe with anyone threatening his lifestyle. But fate always steps in and throws a wrench in the best made plans. It happens all the time.

As far as we're concerned, Justice for all their misdeeds will come, albeit not tomorrow or the next day; but it will come. I have faith karma is waiting for him around the next corner.

[Cass]

14. So very arrogant. They think who the hell they are.

What would happen if he blows off a Congressional subpoena?

[Kagemusha]

16. Nothing.

Besides that blunt, cynical answer, the fact is, there's a good case that you have to impeach a president (and presumably, a vice-president) and convict him in the Senate to remove him from office before proceeding with a felony case that would otherwise interfere with the presidential succession process.

Since I don't see Cheney as likely to be impeached - a bare Senate majority for the Democrats wouldn't cut it after all, and no way Lieb would vote for it - I stand by "nothing".

[Dhalgren]

17. In the past when there was a dispute between the Executive

branch and the Congress, it would go to the courts to decide. How that would go might be guessed at, but not "known" until it is done...

[Tellurian]

21. But there is..

some latitude between charges being brought and the Impeachment itself, that fuzzy gray area, where rules can be created to formulate a cure. For instance, if charges are brought, there isn't a rule preventing them from being sidelined while under investigation. The formal Impeachment may not be possible because of the fragmented Constitution, but a Special Prosecutor may be able to get a TRO restraining them from continuing to function in their capacity until a decision can be made
as to the next step, and that could be an indefinite amount of time. I would think.

[Kagemusha]

22. A restraining order? On the Presidency itself?

The rules aren't different just because it's a vice-president, it's just that the duties HE has to fulfill are basically limited to tiebreaking in the Senate (don't laugh, it might become a regular problem next Congress). The judicial branch can't just wave a magic wand and say, you can't report to work tomorrow. They couldn't do it to Al Gore any more than they can do it to Dick Cheney; they couldn't do it to President Clinton any more than they can do it to President George W. Bush. Why? Because it's a presumption of guilt reached by a court without due process being completed. It's NOT going to fly.

Officials elected in federal elections - meaning the President and Vice-President - aren't supposed to be tossed out except by other politicians, namely Congress through impeachment, to prevent the governance of the entire country from being held hostage to judges. That's the American system; it is not a fuzzy gray area. It is a black void that absorbs all attempts to interfere with the system set up by the Founders.

It's impeachment or bust.

[Tellurian]

24. Just wondering..

If you've had the chance to read this or realize the rules have been changed somewhat.

And yes, the gray area has been expanded.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/29/the...

[Kagemusha]

25. The gray area is expanded for people not running the executive branch

For the executive branch, the only rules that apply are in the Constitution, that is, impeachment, UNTIL they are removed from office. THEN the power of the executive branch can be inflicted upon them, the same as anyone else. Until then, it can't, and it won't.

It is not a close call.

[Tellurian]

26. I'll have to take your word for it..

I briefly previewed the Unitary executive Theory today, but not enough to integrate the concepts into
Constitutional Law as yet. The consumption of time is priceless. I do have an unknown precedent that would apply to the voting machines though, something I accomplished in 97'.

Another time-

[Kagemusha]

27. You're thinking too hard. You don't need unitary exec theory for this

You only need separation of powers. It's sufficient to shield the president or vice-president from the restraining orders you envision. Unless you're going to try and convince me that the president would attempt to send his own vice-president to Gitmo, I don't see the relevance of unitary executive theory here. You're talking about the judiciary committing prior restraint on a constitutionally elected national leader. There's nothing in American jurisprudence or constitutional theory that permits such a thing.

Further strengthening of the executive doesn't do anything to strengthen the judiciary's powers to restrain the executive.

[Tellurian]

28. What are your feelings

About the T Roosevelt Administration? Do you feel he acted in the country's best interest by broadinging his executive power at his own discretion?

And FYI

The unitary executive theory is a controversial theory of Constitutional interpretation that addresses aspects of the separation of powers. The theory argues that the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch is limited.

[Kagemusha]

31. I think, regardless of my FEELINGS...

that the courts would have been committing an act of rebellion against the United States of America were they to have attempted to unilaterally place President T Roosevelt under arrest or place a restraining order on him with the aim of preventing him from accomplishing his lawful duties as the elected head of the executive branch.

Besides that, just speaking from the POV of reality, not constitutional law theory in isolation, unitary executive theory is less about preventing the divestment of power, than the accumulation of it to begin with, in the name of preventing the divestment of power. It's like invading a country for self-defense. It's not what it's described as for PR purposes. It's grabbing power in the name of preventing those OTHER branches from grabbing power, or seizing power improperly so that they can't keep ill-gotten power.

Here's the bottom line. If Roosevelt assembled too much power, it was not the place of the Supreme Court to issue an injunction against the entirety of the presidency. The sole remedy to actually bring a President down was, is, and shall continue to be, impeachment. It's impeachment or bust.

My FEELINGS have not one tiny bit to do with it. And neither, quite frankly, do yours or anyone else's. Not for this. A lot of other things, yes. But not for this.

[MGD]

29. we can have him arrested in 2 years if we play our cards right.

although there's no historical precedent for that in this country.

[AtomicKitten]

30. he's an arrogant son of a bitch

it could happen ...