more remarkable hubris and contempt from the bush administration

White House spokesman Tony Snow, to the press this morning:

The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability.

Uh, Tony? The Constitution disagrees with you. You should tell that to your boss, using really small words.

Not that the Constitution has ever mattered one bit to these people, but still . . .

Comments

[Hiedran]

Wil,

I think Mr. Snow is right about having no compulsion to testify. Dead wrong on oversight, though.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe the President has to appear before Congress to be impeached. Stupid to not show up, maybe, but not under any obligation.

I know Congress doesn't need anyone from the exec. office to override vetoes.

Congress can make activities that the exec. office is pursuing illegal, but of course not retroactively illegal.

So, no obligation to show up in front of Congress, but definitely oversight capabilities.

[CHV]

Hypocrisy, thy name is Snow...

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/tony-snow-executive-privilege/

[CHV]

Ultimately, Wil, Bush is getting rankled on this issue because (IMO) he tends to see his job as being like a CEO-style position (with his cabinet, the board of directors), and Congress a group of mealy-mouthed stockholders to whom he must begrudgingly pay attention to every so often.

And now that the GOP has lost Congress, Bush and Cheney seem startled that they no longer have near-absolute power, and must now pay attention to the constitution instead of treating it as a list of suggestions.

In my book, the Bush administration can't leave office fast enough.

[maycomb]

If it weren't so sad (and infuriating), it'd be funny the way poor ol' Tony's been sputtering and stammering the last couple of days.
Actually, wait. Yeah, it still is funny.

[TomB]

Tony Snow has absolutely the most difficult job in the universe.

Can you imagine trying to explain/justify the actions and inactions of this administration?

[CHV]

TomB: Just bear in mind that the primary job of any presidential press secretary is not to tell the truth, it's to make his/her boss look good.

Facts are secondary (at best).

[Animeraider]

I reasoned out a few days ago that the Shrub Administration is behind the proliferation of large televisions and flat-screens. This is so that people can't actually pick up their televisions and shake them while screaming, "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??????"

[Allen McPheeters]

As usual, context is everything. Those comments were made in the context of the fired US Attorneys. They are appointees of the President, and, although they were appointed "with the advice and consent" of the Senate, the President may fire them at any time and for any reason without input from Congress. This issue was resolved by the (failed) impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868, and confirmed by a Supreme Court ruling (Myers v. United States) in 1926.

[Leo]

Impeachment isn't enough, put the shrub & co. on trial for treason. Also, read John Dean's book "Worse than Watergate" for more backstory on these criminals.

[HeyKidsItsBG]

Wil,

If you missed this DailyKos post, it's really worth a look.

Basically, Congress can issue subpoenas. That's a given. But enforcement of the subpoenas lies with... wait for it... the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a DOJ appointee and employee of the executive branch.

The Kos diarist theorizes that this might be the fight Bush's team has been waiting to pick. In black and white terms, no laws were broken. Therefore, what incentive does the DOJ have to enforce subpoenas? Congress is likely to lose this fight in the courts (as the diarist states, Congress has a constitutional remedy - it's called "impeachment"), and you'll be left with an Executive branch who has some legal standing to continue to believe they are above Congressional oversight.

Assuming, and probably correctly so, that the legislative branch isn't going to bring impeachment charges for whatever reason.

This is not a dumb fight for Bush. They may have planned this, because they have a really good chance of winning.

[Jeff]

Wil,

Not only does the Constitution disagree with Tony Snow, but Tony Snow disagrees with Tony Snow. Check out this article at Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/20/executive_privilege/index.html. About halfway down, there's a priceless quote from Tony Snow about President Clinton's attempt to use executive privilege during the Monica Lewinski scandal. Replace his name with President Bush and you have a pretty good description of what's going on now.

[Max Exter]

Wil,

A frightening thought just occurred to me as I thought about this story. As Vice-President, Dick Cheney is officially responsible for two things; casting the tie breaking vote in the Senate, AND protecting the space-time continuum.

[Athol_Wolverine]

A co-worker at the newspaper I work for suggests the Bush Administration's disregard for Constitutional law is only going to get worse as the next election nears.

He says he can picture the electoral process being thrown out the window and martial law being declared so the Bush Administration can remain in power to continue to fight the "war on terror" for "the good of the American people".

Let's hope he's wrong.

[tjp]

If Bush had his way, there would be no Congress, just himself and ol Dick as King and Queen.
___________________________
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties
as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 3570
___________________________

[Elinnar]

Anytime I read where Bush and his cronies say they don't have to do what they are expected to do, well, let's just say that it raises my hackles even more for I know it's bad news.
They just make themselves look more and more guilty with each passing comment.
Less than 2 years to go!!

[encom]

I always enjoy your blog, even though I don't always agree with the political side of it. I must say, though, that I totally disagree with what you're saying here. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the hubris and contempt part, 'cause I think some of that does exist. I disagree with the view that the Congress oversees what the President does. The commentator above (Allen McPheeters) says it much better than I could. The attorney's are hired and fired by the president. Congress has no say, other than advise and consent, on the matter. Checks and balances exist, but they don't always come into play as is the case here.
At any rate, thanks for letting me get this off my chest and keep up the great work!

[Tara]

Ha. Thanks for the chuckle. using really small words

The more this happens, the more I think I should really go to law school. Constitutional law needs me!!!

Been reading for years. Enjoy your words. Keep it up!

[tesla89]

Mr Snow is correct. The Executive branch is coequal to the legislative branch, as as such, it is not under any constitutional obligation to report to congress on their internal discussions and decision making processes. Congress does not "oversee" the operation of the executive branch of government.

US attorneys are appointed positions under the executive branch and it is in no way improper for the president to replace any or all of them for any reason unless it is done to protect someone from a particular investigation. There is no evidence here that this is the case, and much evidence that it was for exactly that reason that Janet Reno fired all 93 US Attorneys under Bill Clinton, in an effort to protect Dan Rostenkowski who was then under investigation for corruption.

It is entirely acceptable for the president to replace these folks for political reasons because it is a political position.

The congress will lose this fight, and they know it. The only purpose is to further weaken and embarrass the president. That may help a bunch of liberals get their rocks off, but it does not help our country in these times. We would have a much better chance of avoiding further bloodshed in Iraq, with Iran and others if we could just be a little less petty and undermining of our own government.

I'm all for dissent, and we do need it to keep government in check, but the congress is a little too full of itself now. Assuming some sort of mandate from a typical power shift in a mid term election cycle is preposterous. Passing meaningless and unconstitutional bills that have no chance of becoming law just to "make a point" - or more accurately to make a headline, is not only short-sighted, but it is harmful to our country.

[Suzanne]

The president can absolutely remove AGs from their posts at his pleasure - the problem this time is not that he wanted to remove them for political reasons, but that the administration is being asked to explain why they can get away with firing AGs for no other reason than that they failed to follow orders to influence investigations. Once selected, AGs are there to carry out the law, not the president's political bidding. The AGs fired had good performance reviews and were fired because they weren't toeing the Bush line closely enough, which isn't their job.

The administrations's response was to offer a stunningly arrogant "deal", in which top aides were to be questioned in the dark, not under oath, not transcribed. If Congress doesn't submit to these terms, questioning is off the table. What good is a hearing when the witnesses don't even have to take an oqath of truthfulness. Again, stunningly arrogant. This administration has been methodically stripping the public of their civil liberties and is now refusing to allow subpoenaed witnesses take an oath of truth? Complete bullshit, but sadly typical.

[tesla89]

But that is just the point. They don't have to explain themselves to congress. It isn't congress's business. To submit to under oath questioning by congress is improper and a violation of the separation of powers.

There is no evidence that there was anything improper about firing these attorneys. The president is not only within his rights, but is exercising the privileges that come with winning an election.

He is expected to put people in place that will conduct the job in such a way as to reflect the priorities of the administration. There are lots and lots of laws to be enforced, but there is only so much manpower and other resources to do it. The president is fully proper in placing people in these positions that will focus on the priorities that he believes in. Voter fraud, for example, was not getting the attention the administration felt it deserved from a couple of these guys.

But in any regard, these are presidentially appointed positions. He can replace them at any time he wants.

[MCeeP]

wow, it took till the last couple posts to find people who actually looked at the whole issue and didn't just take the out of context remark at face value.

Kudos to tesla89 and the people who don't follow sheep, and actually take the time to understand the situation.

[SteveB in Ohio]

While Congress, indeed, doesn't exercise oversight over the President or his counselors, Congress most certainly does exercise oversight over the remainder of the executive branch.

If Congress wants to hold hearings about the operation of any Federal agency, that's within it's purview. Executive privilege extends to the President and his counselors, when acting in their advisory capacity.

In this case, there is the appearance that these US Attorneys had been replaced, in whole or in part, in order to pervert the course of justice. This affair raises the specter that the President may have improperly interfered with one or more ongoing or pending DOJ probes. Investigating that is well within Congressional authority.

It's interesting to note that whereas conservatives generally abhor the invention of rights & privileges not enumerated in the Constitution, executive privilege, though not found in the Constitution, is an odd exception.

Steve