Bush Administration: Congress has no oversight authority

motivez · 03-25-2007, 03:02 PM

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow appeared on the morning talk shows on all the major networks and repeated his talking point that Congress “has no oversight responsibility over the White House.” A sampling of his statements:

There’s another principle, which is Congress doesn’t have the legislative — I mean oversight authority over the White House. [CNN, 3/22/07]

First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn’t have oversight. [MSNBC, 3/22/07]

Congress doesn’t have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House. [Fox, 3/22/07]

But back when he was asked whether the conservative-led 109th Congress should be investigating members of the Executive Branch, he was singing a different tune:

QUESTION: What is the president’s opinion of a request by Republican leaders in the House to launch an investigation of Sandy Berger’s involvement in the removal of classified documents from the National Archives?

SNOW: There were questions last week, about investigations involving Republican members. Members of Congress have their own oversight obligations. They may proceed as they wish. They’re a separate and co-equal branch of government and I’m not going to tell them what they can and can’t do. [Briefing, 10/16/06]

Watch a compilation of Snow’s talking point:

Think Progress » Snow Flashback: ‘I’m Not Going To Tell Congress What They Can And Can’t Do’

Snow to CNN: "There's another principle, which is Congress doesn't have the legislative -- I mean oversight authority over the White House."

Snow to NBC: "Congress doesn't have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House."

Snow to NBC: "First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn't have oversight."

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

Just in case you missed it the first time, Snow repeated himself to make sure the public gets the message: the White House has declared itself, a law unto itself, beholden to no other authority. This goes quite a bit beyond the already massive expansions of "executive privilege" previously claimed by this administration.

Congress has the enumerated authority under the constitution to pass laws, to raise a military, to declare war, and to impeach and remove members of the executive branch. Does the word "oversight" appear? It doesn't, but it's so clearly implied in the powers designated to Congress that there's been really little doubt of this power since 1787. The Supreme Court has agreed with Congress' role in overseeing the White House on any number of occasions. After all, how can Congress have impeachment authority over the executive if any investigation can be stonewalled by an uncooperative administration? The judicial equivalent would be making a defendant the judge at his own trial.

Under the Snow interpretation, the executive could get away with anything. Anything at all. Absolutely anything. Like Tony, I wanted to repeat so you would be sure I meant what I said. A lack of congressional oversight would not just place the White House above the law, but completely beyond it.

Though it may have passed as just another incidence of Snow being trotted forth to distribute the day's right wing talking points, what was said on Friday should not go without notice. This is the single more amazing declaration in an administration that has already produced more extraordinary claims than the fountain at Lourdes.

For the last forty years, there has been only a single Republican administration. That may seem an odd idea. After all, at least a couple of Republicans have been elected over that period -- and a couple more have found their way to the White House through other means. No matter the name on the Oval Office door, the philosophy promoted by the White House has remained. This the Imperial Presidency of Richard M. Nixon, now brought to inglorious summer by the (adopted) son of Crawford. It was under Nixon that the philosophy of a supreme executive was gestated. It was under Nixon that the men who populate the current administration were taught their love for tyranny over justice. From Watergate, to Iran-Contra, to Iraq, Nixon's heirs have worked to chisel away the rule of law. With Snow's blunt declaration of independence, any remaining illusion that the executive branch continues to act as part of the government is removed. If this interpretation holds, if the congress can not exert authority over the executive, then we are a democracy in name only.

In a high school history book, the fall of the Roman Republic is usually dated to the point were Julius Caesar, in defiance of Senate "micromanagement," ordered his legions across the Rubicon to end effective representative oversight. However, at the time, the Romans didn't see it that way. They continued to call themselves a republic for years. Decades. Long after Caesar, they kept up the hollow pretense of a senate, marching in each day to pass laws that the executive of their day did not follow, and direct armies that moved only at the emperor's command.

The Bush administration is waist deep in the Rubicon. The only question now is whether we will drive them back to the bank, or admit that we are only play-acting at democracy.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

And a video compilation, courtesy of ThinkProgress:

YouTube Video

I wanted to post both of those pieces and the video because I believe this is an extremely important turning point in American political history and for the Administration.

Many of us have known for years that this Administration has no respect for the Constitution and they have no problem violating it and abandoning the principles this nation was founded on when it suits their desires for more power.

But now it should be painfully clear even to the last third of the nation (the "backwash", as Colbert puts it) that supporting Bush and his erroneous ideas about what the Presidency is can not be viewed as anything other than against one of cornerstones of our society: checks and balances on power, and being a nation of laws.

I'm honestly dumbfounded right now. Essentially Bush has just told the American people his Administration no longer believes the checks and balances put into place by the founders are the least bit valid, and they can essentially do whatever they want.

It's similar, but far more disturbing than when Cheney tried to claim he wasn't part of the executive because of his position as tie-breaker in the Senate, and not part of the legislative because of his executive duties, and thus beyond reach.

This may be just one thing in a long list of blatant abuses, from illegal wiretapping of American citizens, suspension of Habeus Corpus, politicizing the justice system, denying due process to American citizens, torture, calling those who disagree anti-American.. but I hope everyone will come together and denounce these statements.

RMNIXON · 03-25-2007, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Many of us have known for years that this Administration has no respect for the Constitution and they have no problem violating it and abandoning the principles this nation was founded on when it suits their desires for more power.

But now it should be painfully clear even to the last third of the nation (the "backwash", as Colbert puts it) that supporting Bush and his erroneous ideas about what the Presidency is can not be viewed as anything other than against one of cornerstones of our society: checks and balances on power, and being a nation of laws.

I'm honestly dumbfounded right now. Essentially Bush has just told the American people his Administration no longer believes the checks and balances put into place by the founders are the least bit valid, and they can essentially do whatever they want.

Oh, please. This is now a full blown constitutional crisis and our checks and balances are out the window!

I get the talking points bit. The whitehouse is being defensive, and Tony Snow is doing his best to get there message out. Not his message, their message. That would be his job. Every whitehouse has behaved like this under congressional scrutiny. Nixon would know! But to try and blow this up to the level I see posted here and quoting a clown on Comedy Central to make a point? You need to do better than that to support no repsect for the constitution and that American History business. Just saying it does not make it so no matter how good it feels to ones political prejudices.

Sandy Berger committed a serious crime and was not caught doing what was within the clear legal authority of the whitehouse and the attorney generals office. Is it a mystery to sort out the difference? Same kind of power and authority we give to the police or FBI to Investigate a crime. Not investigate when ever they feel like it or launch fishing expeditions with full legal power for political reasons.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-25-2007, 05:42 PM

They may not HAVE to do it but they have the ABILITY to do it, its spelled out clearly in teh Constitution. I wonder if the administration is playing word games here. They never said the congress doesn't have the ability just that they didn't have the responsibility as if it were a requirement?

Sounds to me like the administration is in a corner. They dont know what to do and they're being idiots...surprised? I'm not

Edit: Nixon you're right in the fact that Berger committed a very serious crime. That doesn't justify comments from this admin IMO.

motivez · 03-25-2007, 05:56 PM

Declaring that Congress has no oversight authority is indeed the beginnings of a constitutional crisis.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-25-2007, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Declaring that Congress has no oversight authority is indeed the beginnings of a constitutional crisis.

This is the biggest problem I have with this admin. They appoint people a few of them screw up and instead of taking responsibility and saying this person screwed up I'm going to take corrective action he sticks by them till hell freezes over, it makes ZERO sense.

motivez · 03-25-2007, 06:00 PM

Exactly, and rather than trying to bring up other issues, it's nice to see someone talking about the current situation.

When someones screws up, it only taints the entire Administration when they stick by them and then refuse to work towards transparency for whatever the situation is.. unfortunately, that seems to be their MO for pretty much everything

6SpeedTA95 · 03-25-2007, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Exactly, and rather than trying to bring up other issues, it's nice to see someone talking about the current situation.

When someones screws up, it only taints the entire Administration when they stick by them and then refuse to work towards transparency for whatever the situation is.. unfortunately, that seems to be their MO for pretty much everything

I agree with you and I'm much more a Bush fan than you. His problem is he makes mistakes just like EVERYONE and instead of owning up to them he passes the buck or comes up with some odd press statement that may not be entirely incorrect due to the very suspicous wording they use. I find it very disappointing quite frankly

thomez · 03-25-2007, 06:14 PM

This isn't news, this is the Unitary Executive principle that Gonzalez etc believes in.

RMNIXON · 03-25-2007, 06:24 PM

That why I am hearing it from this board and nowhere else?

He is the press secretary and I have no doubt he is talking specifics. Word games? Do you think you are hearing all the words? But when you trust a Daily Kos thin slice edit as your primary sourse?

I thought I dropped enough hints in the first post to back sensible people off? I see my advice has no notice? So you go with this........

Q If it's behind closed doors, what's the problem?

MR. SNOW: The thing that we have said all along is, we think that you ought to have the ability for members of Congress to get information in a way that also does not create precedence, and is going to have a chilling effect for presidential advisors to be able to give their full and fair advice to the President of the United States. We think that the compromise we shaped enables us to fulfill that obligation to the President, and to the public in terms of first-rate advice from the White House and the people working in the White House, and at the same time, allows Congress to do what it has to do, which is conduct oversight. There is nothing that says Congress has to have television; it says that Congress does have oversight responsibilities and needs to get at the facts.

Furthermore, the people who are first and foremost in the decision loop here, the folks at the Department of Justice, they aren't going to be out. I mean, they're going to be out, they're going to be testifying, they're offering all their documentation, as well.

Q They get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

__________________________________________________ _______

All Snow is trying to say is that when you have equal branches of government none lords over the other! Not that the congress can't invesitigate! The left-wing bloggers have done a quick cut and paste and are selling it to "never stop and think" internet fools who only hear what they want to hear. It took me minutes to sort this out and my quote is from an attack Bush blog!

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...php&frame=true

RMNIXON · 03-25-2007, 06:30 PM

http://www.answers.com/topic/congressional-oversight

Congressional Oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its standing committee system.

Oversight is an implied rather than an enumerated power under the U.S. Constitution. The government's charter does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or testimony from the executive.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-25-2007, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

That why I am hearing it from this board and nowhere else?

He is the press secretary and I have no doubt he is talking specifics. Word games? Do you think you are hearing all the words? But when you trust a Daily Kos thin slice edit as your primary sourse?

I thought I dropped enough hints in the first post to back sensible people off? I see my advice has no notice? So you go with this........

Q If it's behind closed doors, what's the problem?

MR. SNOW: The thing that we have said all along is, we think that you ought to have the ability for members of Congress to get information in a way that also does not create precedence, and is going to have a chilling effect for presidential advisors to be able to give their full and fair advice to the President of the United States. We think that the compromise we shaped enables us to fulfill that obligation to the President, and to the public in terms of first-rate advice from the White House and the people working in the White House, and at the same time, allows Congress to do what it has to do, which is conduct oversight. There is nothing that says Congress has to have television; it says that Congress does have oversight responsibilities and needs to get at the facts.

Furthermore, the people who are first and foremost in the decision loop here, the folks at the Department of Justice, they aren't going to be out. I mean, they're going to be out, they're going to be testifying, they're offering all their documentation, as well.

Q They get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

__________________________________________________ _______

All Snow is trying to say is that when you have equal branches of government none lords over the other! Not that the congress can't invesitigate! The left-wing bloggers have done a quick cut and paste and are selling it to "never stop and think" internet fools who only hear what they want to hear. It took me minutes to sort this out and my quote is from an attack Bush blog!

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...php&frame=true

I think it is plausible that KOS may have edited the text but do you have a credible link to the information in question?

RMNIXON · 03-25-2007, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think it is plausible that KOS may have edited the text but do you have a credible link to the information in question?

I can't find a credible news sourse who is taking this seriously! It is one blog after another. That was a major clue for me. You are welcome to google, but I will not spend all Sunday chasing rainbows......

Perhaps Tony's choice of words were not the best, but I see a hyperactive misread here. When you read what I posted it is clear he is not telling the Congress to fuck off as suggested, just that they have limits to their powers in this case.

Scrum · 03-25-2007, 09:36 PM

Yeah, Congress can investigate all they want, they just have to do it behind closed doors so they can lie their asses off.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-25-2007, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I can't find a credible news sourse who is taking this seriously! It is one blog after another. That was a major clue for me. You are welcome to google, but I will not spend all Sunday chasing rainbows......

Perhaps Tony's choice of words were not the best, but I see a hyperactive misread here. When you read what I posted it is clear he is not telling the Congress to fuck off as suggested, just that they have limits to their powers in this case.

Yea and the media is known for dismissing lots of significant stories you know that.