Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings

reply to post by michaelbrux

abhorrent it may be. ineffective it may be. but Contempt of Congress implies that a crime was committed by the Attorney General and by extension, the President.

The Attorney General is withholding information. If national security is involved then redact those parts that do involve national security and hand over the data. Holder refuses to do so and now, given Obama's invocation of executive privilege, you bet your ass it extends to the President as well.

what crime is the House Oversight Committee investigating? Do the documents they seek provide evidence of this crime.

You are being disingenuous each time you make reference to crime or ask "what crime is" being investigated. In the House Oversight Committee's own words:

We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent. And second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights.

Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. We will work tirelessly, in partnership with citizen-watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

What "crimes" do they claim to investigate?

Nixon actually committed a crime and attempted to cover it up...

I am not clear what your point is here. Are you suggesting that executive privilege can be invoked for any reason outside of criminal activity?

Are you suggesting an implied power can be expressly expanded as far as the limits of criminality?

How about they seek the documents to get a better understanding on what should be done with "gunwalking" schemes. God forbid Congress actually act responsibly, right? In fact, let's just call any responsible actions by Congress partisan "power plays".

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


lets say National Security is the issue...how so?

just let it out...i want to know the answer as much as you do.

from what I'm hearing, Issa wants the documents first and then he'll find a crime.

this position isn't going to fly.

...Congress is not more powerful than the White House....balance of power, right?

the position of this House Committee, at present, is not much different than a cop coming to someone's house and requesting access to see if they're doing something they shouldn't be; without having any reason for the request other than that they've heard some things.

Originally posted by CB328

Of course, George Bush invoked it too,

Yeah, practically his whole presidency, yet it's only wrong when Obama does it, like everything else apparently.

So those of us that became members during President Obama's administration shouldn't question, debate, discuss the issue? We should let off because "where were you then!"?

Such a silly premise you are trying at here.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I appreciate the discussion of utilitarianism, both ancient and modern, but another appropriate way to look at it is through Kant's categorical imperative. Ask if the action would be right if hypothetically made a universal law- would it be right if others acted in this way ? The answer in this instance is certainly not.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

lets say National Security is the issue...how so?

Try rereading what JP wrote. He was saying if there are National Security implications than redact them. The implication wasn't that this is a National Security issue.

from what I'm hearing, Issa wants the documents first and then he'll find a crime.

His focus is on a communique from early February I believe and that is the time that the Justice Department has claimed they did everything in their power to reign in 'Fast and Furious', but they aren't giving that communique up. Considering that there is no evidence that the Justice Department was actually trying to reign in the program.

If they truly were doing everything in their power to fix the situation, than why hide these communications?

Originally posted by seaside sky
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I appreciate the discussion of utilitarianism, both ancient and modern, but another appropriate way to look at it is through Kant's categorical imperative. Ask if the action would be right if hypothetically made a universal law- would it be right if others acted in this way ? The answer in this instance is certainly not.

I can't stand Kant! Law is not made. It exists and we either recognize it or we don't. I'm also not much of a fan of hypothetical scenarios. That said, I agree with yours and appreciate your input.

On a side note: I think Kant's Critique of Pure Reason almost singlehandedly brought an end to the Age of Reason, and his tedious tome took nearly a thousand pages to make the point: Forget happiness do your moral duty. I would suggest that happiness is your moral duty.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Executive Privilege
is a power not expressly granted by the Constitution for the United States of America.

"executive privilege is the power
claimed, by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch
to resist certain subpoenas"

And it is only too be used as a resist,, not a block,
In other words it allows the Chief Exec too get his # together. But not as a block. to the legislative and judicial branches of government.


claimed, by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch,,
the claiming would be the invocking of Divine Right.


White House Spokesman: Executive Privilege Is 'Entirely About Principle' ,,yes the Principal that if time is short, run to God.

Yeah, practically his whole presidency, yet it's only wrong when Obama does it, like everything else apparently.

Clinton used it more than any other president look it up.

Today's assertion of executive privilege is the first time President Obama has invoked it. By comparison, President George W. Bush invoked executive privilege six times while in office; President Bill Clinton used it 14 times; President George H.W. Bush used it once; and President Ronald Reagan used it three times, according to the Associated Press.

www.reuters.com...

reply to post by michaelbrux


I am not sure, after I posted the House Committee's web page, that you keep insisting on framing their goal as an investigation of a crime. Are you being purposely obtuse, or just posting too soon to actually read what I am taking the time to link?

Originally posted by CB328

Of course, George Bush invoked it too,

Yeah, practically his whole presidency, yet it's only wrong when Obama does it, like everything else apparently.

This argument you and others want to make is a dangerous fallacy. Even though you quote me - without attributing that quote to me - you still want to make this some sort of argument that two wrongs make a right. With the advocacy of that kind of lawlessness, why even have a government?

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

lets say National Security is the issue...how so?

just let it out...i want to know the answer as much as you do.

from what I'm hearing, Issa wants the documents first and then he'll find a crime.

this position isn't going to fly.

...Congress is not more powerful than the White House....balance of power, right?

the position of this House Committee, at present, is not much different than a cop coming to someone's house and requesting access to see if they're doing something they shouldn't be; without having any reason for the request other than that they've heard some things.

edit on 21-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)

I think a dead Agent is a powerful Congressional *warrant* in this instance. Now, more than ever, I want to know what's in those documents that now, Obama is refusing to turn over. Don't tell me that Issa has 7,000 plus documents in hand and he's not happy. Have you seen them. Half the pages are almost all black from redactions. The hiding of information started when those documents were turned over.

Des

The reason obama cannot supply a real birth certificate is because he does not belong to the slave class. The birth certificate was created as a promissory note on property, people.

As a sovereign being, you are not required to hold a birth certificate but to disclose this fact would only open the flood gates for the slaves to take personal responsibility which cannot happen or the entire house falls.

Also to note as discussed earlier in this thread, Richard Nixon was able to basically get out of it because 'he' was in fact and privately a sovereign being. Many interesting mysteries surround his birth as does obamas.

In essence they are above the law because they create the law.

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Originally posted by CB328

Of course, George Bush invoked it too,

Yeah, practically his whole presidency, yet it's only wrong when Obama does it, like everything else apparently.

There is good reason for invoking EP as regards to certain issues or conversations - but it doesn't stretch to covering up crimes.

F&F was an attempt at gun control by nefarious means - there never was anything set up to track those guns once they crossed the border - Obama had stated to a gun control audience that he was working on the problem 'under the radar' meaning F&F - and the documents that Holder is witholding will lead straight to Obama.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Kant was a horribly dull writer, wasn't he ? Pure torture, and I suffered as much as you did.

But the concept behind the categorical imperative was a good appeal to both common virtue and making the important distinction between the action and the actor. He wasn't of course the first to point any of that out, but he did do a decent job of framing and defending the principle.

I actually enjoy the hypothetical. Not that I don't care for pragmatism, too, but I find the flights into the hypothetical and abstract to be useful in perspective. Principles have meaning beyond the particular instances and the immediate utility of the results.

I do enjoy reading this thread, and thank you for starting it. Are you going to run the Obama action past Nietsche ? I hope you do- that would get into some interesting territory.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


you like that word, Obtuse, don't you?

Contempt of Congress and Executive Privilege seem to be the two major issues here.

Contempt of Congress implies that the Attorney General is obstructing Justice...or Congress in its mandate to conduct oversight of the Executive branch of the Government and its activities.

The House Chairman has requested specific documents that will enable it to do its job. Why are they requesting these documents?

The House has to have a reason for requesting these documents...its mandate does not include micro-managing the Executive branch of the government.

The only valid reason would be that they have reason to believe a crime has been committed...thus...oversight is inherently an investigation.

What crime are they investigating?

Is Issa suggesting that Fast and Furious is responsible for the deaths of those two federal agents and that the documents contain the evidence needed to prove the accusation?

is so, then say this in the most unambiguous manner possible.

if this committee is expecting to get the documents out of some belief that they have an inherent right to executive activities, I think they are wrong.

perhaps I am wrong...but I wouldn't give them a damn thing, not without a good reason.

reply to post by Destinyone


the dead agents...you are right.

do the documents contain information that will shed light upon this event?

if not...the documents are irrelevant.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Destinyone

 

the dead agents...you are right.

do the documents contain information that will shed light upon this event?

if not...the documents are irrelevant.

And you know differently that they don't...please tell. The dead Agent is the crux of this investigation. You want to make it not so, but that's the way it is.

Des

Originally posted by michaelbrux
you like that word, Obtuse, don't you?

And he used it damn correctly give your questions below...but I digress, JPZ can handle his own.

Contempt of Congress implies that the Attorney General is obstructing Justice...or Congress in its mandate to conduct oversight of the Executive branch of the Government and its activities.

No, contempt of Congress implies that someone, who was subpoenaed to provide documents failed to do so. It isn't a "justice" issue yet. That is what the committee is trying to get to the bottom of.

The House Chairman has requested specific documents that will enable it to do its job. Why are they requesting these documents?

See my earlier post. The Justice Department stated that in early February they did everything in their power to reign in the program, but are refusing to show those internal communications on that day in which they said they started to do so. And around and around it has gone since then.

The House has to have a reason for requesting these documents...its mandate does not include micro-managing the Executive branch of the government.

Yes....a botched Executive Department program that A: is linked to the death of an agent B: walked weapons into Mexico without even informing the Mexican government it might happen. But you are so damn caught up on this "what crime" bit.....

reply to post by ownbestenemy


the Executive Branch is under no compunction to provide anything to the Legislative Branch.

There has to be a reason for the request, specifically related to their mandate of oversight.

What's the specific reason? Do the documents contain more information regarding the death's of the Agents?

if so...just say so.

To have gone this far...surely something is happening.

However...I don't believe in good people...I want to know what both the House Committee wants AND what the White House is hiding.

I'm not interested in one sided 'victories'...I want both, all, sides to come completely clean.

What is really happening?

hello MODS,,,the THREAD IS,,,Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings,,
can u kindly delete ALL posts not pertaining too the thread title"Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings"