NYT OpEd: "Let the Investigations Begin"

[pacalo]

OpEd Contributor: Stanley Brand, a former general counsel to the House of Representatives under Speaker Tip O’Neill, teaches constitutional law at Penn State Dickinson School of Law.

THE Democrats’ victory has stoked the fire beneath an already brewing debate within the party regarding the need for investigations of the executive branch during the Bush administration’s two remaining years. Some Democratic members of Congress are reluctant to pursue investigations into war profiteering, detainee interrogation or other controversial issues, fearing that such scrutiny of the administration will make Democrats appear petty and partisan and cost them electoral support in 2008.

A vigorous examination of the administration’s conduct, however, is not only the appropriate action as a matter of constitutional prerogative, it is the politically necessary response to voters’ overwhelming rejection of the current Congress’s failure to assert itself in this area.

Nothing is better established in constitutional history and jurisprudence than Congress’s power to investigate the executive. Centuries of precedents in Parliament, colonial legislatures and United States law endorse it. In 1742, William Pitt the Elder summarized the powers of Parliament: “We are called the grand inquest of the nation, and as such it is our duty to inquire into every step of public management, either at home or abroad, in order to see that nothing has been done amiss.”

(...)

By performing their constitutional obligations, the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate will surely do right by the Constitution and the country. But they will also no doubt do very well for themselves.

Read more here

[Eurobabe]

1. Those newly elected need to LISTEN to their constituents

before they go making comments like Impeachment is OFF THE TABLE. I will be writing emails to my reps and senators.

[indepat]

6. Those newly-elected and those returning need grasp what their oaths of office

require, fulfill their constitutional duties, utilize their constitutional prerogatives to the fullest and thereby restore the balance of power by assuring the Congress is a separate, but equal main branch of government, not a lock-stepping rubber-stamp for the executive branch. If the decider gets pissed, tough. :patriot:

[Fovea]

2. Between the gain in seats in former red districts

and the results of exit polling on the subjects of Iraq and general corruption, It is difficult to say that the 06 election is not a mandate for investigation, even perhaps, for impeachments. When I see Democrats calling for taking impeachment off the table, I wonder if they do not comprehend the mandate implied in these results, or they comprehend, but do not respect it?

I suspect they now respect the massive ass chewing they are getting, however.

[Az_lefty]

3. These investigations have got to happen...

whether we impeach or not should be based on this, not politics.

[niallmac]

4. Look, I may be wishy washy about impeachment now but

who are the "... Democratic members of Congress ... reluctant to pursue investigations into war profiteering, detainee interrogation or other controversial issues, fearing that such scrutiny of the administration will make Democrats appear petty and partisan and cost them electoral support in 2008. ????"

I can get as frothing spastic about investigations as the best of them. Did NYT pull this out of their collective asses? Who (aside from Carville)
wants to pass on investigations into the Bush mafia?

Yeah yeah I know, the NYT Op Ed supports oversight but who is it in this party that does not?
Names please.

[aquart]

5. Any member of the DLC?

[smoogatz]

8. Lieberman would lead that particular rat-pack

Along with several so-called "New Democrats" in the House. They share the corporate-driven interests of the Bush WH, so why would they vote to investigate themselves?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

10. Lieberman is no longer a member of the democratic party

Period. He's an independent asshole.

[nicknameless]

7. Translation: NYT is in favor of fascism ... but only up to a point.

They waited until the groundswell of outrage was undeniable and undefeatable. ... THEN they became against bushco's criminality.

:eyes:

[smoogatz]

9. Saw this in today's NYT--loved it. Props to the Times

for letting it see the light of day. Let the investigations begin, indeed. K&R!

[FernBell]

11. k&r