here's some analysis from my favourite blogger: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/21/house-subcommittee-authorizes-subpoenas-for-white-house-staff/
I would disagree, the democrats were given a small majority in the election by the middle of the rode voter, and this was to do the business of the people, and move on beyond the partisanship, not to carry out a get even for the Impeachment of Clinton, and if they keep going down this road the numbers will shift in the next election, it is the middle that decides who has the power, not the partisans, and I have no trouble admitting that I am a partisan conservative, but in so saying I don't approve of how many of the things that face this country have been handled by the President, and that being said none are perfect, and war is move and counter move, never static.
"move on beyond the partisanship"? why would they? it's their opportunity to get the major MSM networks to cover and disseminate some fringe Bush-bashing and Rove conspiracies call me a cynic, but i think the Democrat leaders are hysterical, immature and vindictive, and this is entirely expected of them
I'm very curious about this issue. Why can't the people just answer the subpoenas, then take the fifth amendment to every single question that's asked of them? ..including "What's your name?" Baron Max
Both of you are delusional, a characteristic of modern conservatism, apparently. This has been one of the most secretive and politically vindictive administrations in modern times, they have done so many unconstitutional and unethical things, one doesn't know where to start. This congress is only persuing it's job of oversight, something that's part of our system and has been missing for 6 years.
If they've done something unconstitutional, why haven't they all been charged with crimes and arrested? Baron Max
....and ongoing and ongoing and ongoing and ongoing and ongoing and ........................... Baron Max
spidergoat, you are delusional, there is the principle of separation of powers, a constitutionally vindicated one, part of the rules laid down by our Founding Fathers, and affirmed by the Courts for over 200 years, Congress has no more business in how the Executive Branch is run internally then the Executive has in the internal operations of the legislative branch, if there is illegalities going on it falls under the Judicial Branch purview, and these U.S. Attorneys are part of the Executive Branch, and as such serve at the pleasure of the President, it has always been so, and it is expressed as such in the Constitution in the separation of powers clause. Read the Constitution, the only authority on the subject.
If this was a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, wouldn't it? Roam, If the Executive branch overextends it's powers by abusing it's ability to appoint judges, then that's not constitutional. Firing judges when they don't make decisions you like isn't separation of powers.
spidergoat What are you babbling about? it is in the power of the President to appoint Judges, Supreme Court and all Federal positions? How can you over extend a right that exist in, and is outlined in the constitution, and pray tell, a example of when the President overextended this right? and how does this bear on the situation with the U.S. Attorneys?
Clinton did it when he was elected .....and no one said a fuckin' thing about it, did they? Why? See? This is plain and simply vengeful politics, that's all. The Demo's going after the Repubs because they think that they now have the power. Baron Max
You are obviously clueless about the whole senario. 1) they weren't judges, they were US ttourneys 2) this president has used his political influence and personal (and subjective) political oppinion to appoint us officers (Judges and Attourneys alike) in the same manner as any other president (have you even bothered to compare the appointment and fireing stats with past presidents-- there is that really neeto thingy called "the internet" on which you can do all kinds of nifty research, this place called google makes it really, super-duper easy) 3) as federal officers under the executive branch, they serve (constitutionally) at the pleasure of the President 4) Bush has not and cannot fire any judge which is legally appointed for life, I invite you to demonstrate any evidence of such activity ('cause if he WERE gonna' do that, I'm sure he'd start with that pesky bitch Ruth Bater Ginsberg all the way at the top!) 5) every president since the dawn of the existence of the US ttourney has fired them at will for BOTH political and non-political reasons 6) Clinton, the Democratic wunderkid, fired 92 of them during his first term First-- figure out what you're talking about. Then-- write on the subject. ~String
Key word is think, thinking and knowing are two different things. However I admit, the narritive is going in the Democrats favor, this is the worst possible PR for Republicans.
TimeTraveler, I don't know about that, remember it is the 40% in the middle that decide were to power goes in the election, and in the last election the read that I got was the middle wanted Washington to get back to the peoples business, and stop this tit for tat partisan get nothing done fight, and the Democrat don't have a big enough of a majority to continue this with out endangering their power, and being hit with a massive rejection of the party, I have the Idea that with what they are doing in continuing this attack on the president, and their cut and run strategy, there is going to be a massive swing in the next election away from the democrats, they aren't doing the peoples business.
This is not even about the election. The question is, does the President have unitary excutive power or not? If the President is the unitary executive, what can congress do? What power does congress have exactly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory