Not in the executive branch, eh? - Page 2

alphabassettgrrl · 07-11-2007, 09:38 AM

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 · 07-11-2007, 09:57 AM

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 · 07-11-2007, 10:27 AM

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 · 07-11-2007, 10:34 AM

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 · 07-11-2007, 01:49 PM

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

Morrigoon · 07-11-2007, 01:51 PM

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 · 07-11-2007, 02:43 PM

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 · 07-11-2007, 03:12 PM

Yep, points it is. And????

Alex · 07-11-2007, 04:36 PM

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 · 07-11-2007, 04:41 PM

Heheh, it's happened unreasonably before.

07-11-2007, 09:38 AM	#11
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	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. __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes

07-11-2007, 09:57 AM	#12
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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.
	Submit to Quotes

07-11-2007, 10:27 AM	#13
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	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. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

07-11-2007, 10:34 AM	#14
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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).
	Submit to Quotes

07-11-2007, 01:49 PM	#15
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	Compliance, impeachment (so long as they get Cheney out first), or embarass him- I'll take any of those options. __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes

07-11-2007, 01:51 PM	#16
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	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. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

07-11-2007, 02:43 PM	#17
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

07-11-2007, 03:12 PM	#18
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yep, points it is. And????
	Submit to Quotes

07-11-2007, 04:36 PM	#19
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

07-11-2007, 04:41 PM	#20
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Heheh, it's happened unreasonably before.
	Submit to Quotes