Not in the executive branch, eh?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Senate panel says no cash for Cheney. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288865,00.html)

If you're not a part of the branch, why should you get funding designated for the branch? Seems logical enough.

[CoasterMatt]

PWNED!

[Alex]

Sounds fair to me, just reward for rank stupidity.

Though what role congress has in enforcing an executive order controlling the operations of the executive branch I'm not sure I understand.

The whole things still seems silly. All Bush needs to do is pull the executive order out of his filing cabinet, grab the good pen and scribble down at the bottom: "unless I say it is ok not to." Then it all goes away.

[blueerica]

Such a step, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would set a terrible precedent in relations between the executive and legislative branches of government (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288865,00.html#), which have historically let each other set their own budgets.

Not to be on one side or the other (though this did give me a bit of a smile), um... I know it's historical, but maybe that's why the budgets have been so notoriously out of control. Weren't the branches supposed to be adversarial? You know, the whole Judeo-Christian thing?

[innerSpaceman]

adversarial? You know, the whole Judeo-Christian thing?
Huh???

Um, I do not thin that mins what you thin that mins.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The whole things still seems silly. All Bush needs to do is pull the executive order out of his filing cabinet, grab the good pen and scribble down at the bottom: "unless I say it is ok not to." Then it all goes away.

While that might put him currently in compliance, it wouldn't change the fact that he has already refused to comply with an executive order.

[Alex]

Yes, but I still don't see what role Congress has in enforcing executive orders.

The "not part of the executive branch" idea is still really stupid.

[innerSpaceman]

Congress's role is to be a check and balance on the executive by virtue of its hand on the pursestrings.

This may be an odd route not strictly by the book, and it may very well be setting a bad precedent for future relations between those two branches ... but I believe it's broadly what Congress is supposed to do to keep the administration in line.

(And the precedent the executive branch has set and is setting can hardly be worse for future relations with Congress, so who cares what Durbin does at this point??)

[blueerica]

By Judeo-Christian, I'm referring to the Judeo-Christian ethic of "good vs. evil," or rather, "us vs. The Devil," the adversarial, religious underpinnings of our legal system. In essence, I had always thought that the same concept applied toward the different branches of our government in the whole checks and balances thing. I didn't realize that Checks and Balances was more "Oh, sure I'll sign off on your budget."

The Judeo-Christian reference I made is not likely what people think of when talking about law. I spent about a third of the business law class I'm taking a final on tomorrow talking about "in what ways does the Judeo-Christian ethic affect laws and how they're applied" which was more than just the adversarial stuff.

[Alex]

While the branches of government provide checks against each other they are not designed to be adversarial. The goal, after all is to reach a consensus.

The courtroom is adversarial but then the two tables aren't expected, at the end of the trial to come together and agree on which side won.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I kind of like it. As noted above, it's not a great precedent to set, but I also agree that the Executive Branch is setting terrible precedents for just about everything *it* does.

Be interesting to see how this plays out. I have been astounded at the belligerancy of the Pres and Vice lately; refusing to comply with things that are not only historical and necessary, but entirely reasonable. Refusing to allow inspections of classified document storage, refusing to release what documents you're classifying, refusing to tell your overseeing body anything... makes a girl wonder what they're hiding *this* time.

[innerSpaceman]

Not to mention trying to shut down the overseeing body when it tried to oversee.

I really don't think pulling the exec order out of the filing cabinet would work in this instance, as the vice-president's action I just referred to simply added fuel to the fire.

[Morrigoon]

I think the point is, congress is going to either get them to comply, or get them to violate the rules so grossly that they can get an impeachment.

[Alex]

God I hope not. Pursuit of an impeachment at this point in time would be just about the most stupid thing in the world. I'd like to think that Congressional leadership has enough brains to know that.

They just want to embarrass the president (and he deserves it on this one).

[alphabassettgrrl]

Compliance, impeachment (so long as they get Cheney out first), or embarass him- I'll take any of those options.

[Morrigoon]

A full-scale embarrassment might work, so long as that embarrassment is sufficient to force them to curb their activities. Unfortunately they're proving pretty belligerent about things.

[Alex]

Executive orders, except in certain narrow instances, do not have the force of law. The only enforcement power they have is for the president to fire an official who doesn't follow it to his satisfaction.

Bush certainly could not be impeached (well technically he could but there wouldn't be an underlying crime or misdemeanor) for failure to comply with an executive. All executive orders are is a presidential statement on how some part of the executive branch should operate and they have equal effect under the law as if he walked down to someone's office and said "hey, I'd like you to do this."

It's purely bad PR, and congressional Dems are taking advantage of it to make a stink even though it really is an area outside of their involvement. If they really want something done Congress does have a legitimate check on Executive Orders: they pass a law that codifies it or contradicts it. But that isn't going to happen because it isn't about the security review, Congressmen really don't care about that, it is just about the political points.

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, points it is. And????

[Alex]

And nothing. Just explaining why I don't see how impeachment could reasonably come from this particular offense.


Of course, it could always happen unreasonably.

[innerSpaceman]

Heheh, it's happened unreasonably before.

[wendybeth]

You know, I really don't understand why Bush and Chavez don't get along- if they really sat down and talked, they'd see they both have very similar leadership skills.:rolleyes: