Democrats: Miers immunity claim may be illegitimate
Setting aside the Attorney General firing issue. Do you want a President in the future that has very little oversight from lawmakers? The institution is more important than any political battle. What do you think?
The Hill-Four of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s senior Democrats on Thursday challenged the validity of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers’s claim to “absolute immunity” from congressional subpoena in the U.S. attorneys scandal.
Miers repudiated a subpoena from the House’s judiciary panel last week, citing a legal opinion written by Steven Bradbury, the principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The opinion also suggested that Justice might opt against prosecuting White House officials whom Congress holds in contempt for ignoring subpoenas.
Yes and no!
Yes, as a check on Congress, I do. Keep in mind that Congress has the ability to impeach any President that steps out of line.
The problem is not a President, like this President as some think of him, but in a nation that is split and no longer has the goals, principles and ethics necessary for good government “by the people.” When the people don’t elect good representatives whether it is in Congress or the Presidency, they can’t effectively act as the checks and balance that was intended.
We have every right to be a very conservative nation or a very liberal nation. We have the right to have liberal states and conservatives states but, when we try to compromise everything we do to have a “one-size-fits-all” nation, we lose our ability to have good government.
Just as you saw in the thread on the Constitution, you have different interpretations of what is good. Which ever side prevails, leaves the other side unhappy and feeling like they are being treated unfairly so we “compromise” and end up with both sides unhappy.
What you are seeing in Congress with Miers and the President is an example of a nation that is divided. Both sides are more interested in thwarting the other side than in working toward identifiable goals that “we the people” should have set based on the Constitution. Even the people are now, often demanding the Constitution be changed with Court rulings rather than through amendments. That demand is based on “fairness,” a term that means different things to each person.
So, Democrats will say, “it wasn’t fair” that the Republicans fired the attorneys for political reasons even though they base most of their decisions on political motivations as well. We have a “war” between parties where those parties have placed so much “self-importance” on themselves that they will block any third view, if it doesn’t agree with them rather than examine it for validity because it could “weaken” their party’s battle against the foe, the other party.
That is why I think we are moving to more independents and eventually a new party. Many will join it not because it is 100% or even 75% in line with their views but because “it will teach both major parties a lesson.”
We have seen millions abandon voting and support for the GOP just “to teach them a lesson.” We are seeing some do that with the Democrats too. One day, possibly after the next election, you will see some charismatic person start a new party and voters from both parties will flock to it as well as independents.
Today, in Investors Business Daily, they have a political cartoon of Reid standing on a block that has 14% approval on it, looking up at Bush on a block with 34% approval saying, “I can’t believe how far your approval has fallen.”
Both parties are so focused on each other and the “war” between them, they have forgotten the voters. But, that will change if just one charismatic leader emerges that starts a new party that people can rally around. That is human nature and it only requires a “trigger” for it to happen. I might not be next year or the next but, human nature dictates that when all other choices ignore the people, they will find somebody that doesn’t.
The libertarian and Constitution parties lack the leadership and they also aren’t exactly the best with their national platforms. Neither has a platform that has appeal to a broad base. The party that does emerge, will have a platform that leaves most moral and social issues to the people in each state to decide. It will let liberal states be liberal and conservative states be conservative and moderate states be moderate.
It will probably demand things like a Congress that declares war, instead of limited actions. It may even demand social security and Medicare reforms even though some won’t like the types of reforms they propose nor, may they be the best but, the majority will. That party may even move us closer to socialism in some ways but, it will be popular with the majority and will win.
By the GOP trying to “please” the majority, it has lost a lot of its base and its identity. It has undermined many legislative districts that could have won with conservative candidates but, harmed the “national image” of moderation the GOP has sought for Presidential elections.
Meirs is just one more smoke screen in the “war” of the parties.
When you’ve got a guy like Senator Luger come out against the policy in Iraq, but not vote in favor of ending debate during the filibuster this week…
Where are the principles of these leaders? All Vitter aside…it’s as if they’re just playing a game right now. Get a few headlines pretending to be intelligent and honorable, then turn into a robot once it’s time to put your money where your mouth is.
A move that is otherwise known as “making a Specter out of yourself”.
I think any legal opinion coming from the White House these days is pure garbage. Conversely, perhaps the tinfoil hat crowd is correct and the “centralizers” are winning, and the executive branch is above the law.