NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/24/9431/02350

Executive Branch Secedes from the Union
by Devilstower
Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:11:28 AM PDT

When Tony Snow made the rounds of talk shows this week, some might have been surprised at his message.

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, beholding 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.

I thought it an interesting article. The parallels with Rome are unflattering... and true.

So what do you think? Does Congress have oversight, or is the White House immune to their democratic tyranny?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/24/9431/02350



I thought it an interesting article. The parallels with Rome are unflattering... and true.

So what do you think? Does Congress have oversight, or is the White House immune to their democratic tyranny?

The system of checks and balances isn't for using to wipe your ass. Congress has oversight, and this is bad. Very very bad.

Who obviously didn't see this coming? Snow is just officially declaring what has been the Bush administration's unspoken policy since the day he stepped foot in office.

Who obviously didn't see this coming? Snow is just officially declaring what has been the Bush administration's unspoken policy since the day he stepped foot in office.

Colour me unsuprised anyway.

Who obviously didn't see this coming? Snow is just officially declaring what has been the Bush administration's unspoken policy since the day he stepped foot in office.

I'm just hoping this has repercussions with his people in Congress. I mean, if you were a Republican, irrespective of your support of Bush, and he basically told you that you had no authority to do your job wouldn't you be a little pissed?

Everyone knows about the system of checks and balances, if Bush is trying this he is in violation of the Constitution. Where did you get this information.

As I recall, Clinton proved to us that the Executive branch trumps the Legislative branch.
Meh. Old news.

Saying that Congress doesn't have oversight doesn't magically make it so. The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. That alone puts him firmly under COngress' regulation.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


:)

As I recall, Clinton proved to us that the Executive branch trumps the Legislative branch.
Meh. Old news.

When?

i like the freudian slip in the first quote

I think it's stupid that this writer says that ONLY Republicans have expanded the power of the presidency. FDR certainly didn't limit the Presidency's powers. Also, checks and balances are utterly useless, since it's ultimately the same government working for its own self-interest.

When?

When the government effectivly ceased to operate because he refused to sign the budget. I think it was 1995, but I could be wrong.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/24/9431/02350



I thought it an interesting article. The parallels with Rome are unflattering... and true.

So what do you think? Does Congress have oversight, or is the White House immune to their democratic tyranny?

The system of checks and balances isn't for using to wipe your ass. Congress has oversight, and this is bad. Very very bad.

I'm just hoping this has repercussions with his people in Congress. I mean, if you were a Republican, irrespective of your support of Bush, and he basically told you that you had no authority to do your job wouldn't you be a little pissed?

Are you kidding? The Republicans in Congress are the reason he thinks he can get away with this shit because they have been letting him do it for years.

When the government effectivly ceased to operate because he refused to sign the budget. I think it was 1995, but I could be wrong.

Well, I wasn't paying attention in 1995, so that'd explain it.

I think it's stupid that this writer says that ONLY Republicans have expanded the power of the presidency.

quote that part for me

Bush is getting way to impressed with himself, he needs to be impeached.

Bush is getting way to impressed with himself, he needs to be impeached.

Seconded.

As I have said before I believe he secretly wants to be Dictator of America

As I have said before I believe he secretly wants to be Dictator of America

Well, he already is a dick. He doesn't have that much farther to go.

As I have said before I believe he secretly wants to be Dictator of America

its not much of a secret. and the effect of his already declared and enacted policies is to make him one.

Well, he already is a dick. He doesn't have that much farther to go.


I'd definately have to agree that he enjoys being a dick, but we shall not allow him to add .....tator to that!

its not much of a secret. and the effect of his already declared and enacted policies is to make him one.


If thats what he has in mind then he needs to be arrested for treason.

For Free Soviets-

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.

For Free Soviets-


I for one will not allow this to happen without a fight

Well, I wasn't paying attention in 1995, so that'd explain it.

Neither was I, but I WAS paying attention in my government class ;)
Yeah, there was basically a big LOLPOLITICSFIGHT between Clinton and some Republicans. The 'pubs wanted budget cuts, Clinton didnt.
The Republicans passed the cuts in congress, but when the budget got to Clinton he let it sit on his desk, so when the next financial year rolled around every federal agency ceased to operate until the Republicans gave in. Took 'em two or three days if I remember.

I'd definately have to agree that he enjoys being a dick, but we shall not allow him to add .....tator to that!

What's taters precious?

Neither was I, but I WAS paying attention in my government class ;)
Yeah, there was basically a big LOLPOLITICSFIGHT between Clinton and some Republicans. The 'pubs wanted budget cuts, Clinton didnt.
The Republicans passed the cuts in congress, but when the budget got to Clinton he let it sit on his desk, so when the next financial year rolled around every federal agency ceased to operate until the Republicans gave in. Took 'em two or three days if I remember.


I my opinion this presidents policies are starting to resemble Hitlers policies in the democractic germany before he formed the 3rd Riech. I have heard it said that it is also resembling Rome as well. This kind of changes in our government are unexceptable!

I think it's stupid that this writer says that ONLY Republicans have expanded the power of the presidency. FDR certainly didn't limit the Presidency's powers. Also, checks and balances are utterly useless, since it's ultimately the same government working for its own self-interest.

Amen.

Neither was I, but I WAS paying attention in my government class ;)
Yeah, there was basically a big LOLPOLITICSFIGHT between Clinton and some Republicans. The 'pubs wanted budget cuts, Clinton didnt.
The Republicans passed the cuts in congress, but when the budget got to Clinton he let it sit on his desk, so when the next financial year rolled around every federal agency ceased to operate until the Republicans gave in. Took 'em two or three days if I remember.

As much of a horrible abuse of power and a dirty trick as that is, it's pretty damn funny.

Not that I approve of it, but still...

For Free Soviets-

Nowhere does that say what you claimed it said.

I my opinion this presidents policies are starting to resemble Hitlers policies in the democractic germany before he formed the 3rd Riech. I have heard it said that it is also resembling Rome as well. This kind of changes in our government are unexceptable!

The US government changes constantly. In a short time Bush will be gone forever, and it will most likely be a democrat in office.
Then we can complain about how ebil demz are raisin' our tax's's and socialisin' our chillin's.

As much of a horrible abuse of power and a dirty trick as that is, it's pretty damn funny.

Not that I approve of it, but still...

Indeed. Clinton won my 'Most Amusing President Award' some time ago. He never showed up to accept it though.

For Free Soviets-

right, but that doesn't say that ONLY republicans have expanded the power of the presidency at all, ever. it says that there has been a single overarching ideology of anti-democratic executive supremacy running through republican politics for the past 40 years (when they are in charge, anyways). this is a trivially true statement.

As I recall, Clinton proved to us that the Executive branch trumps the Legislative branch.
Meh. Old news.
When the government effectivly ceased to operate because he refused to sign the budget. I think it was 1995, but I could be wrong.

um, that's just a standard power of the presidency.

When the government effectivly ceased to operate because he refused to sign the budget. I think it was 1995, but I could be wrong.

Not even remotely the same thing. Clinton refused to sign a budget submitted to him by Congress, which was entirely his right to do. Gingrich bet that Clinton would lose the ensuing PR battle, and he bet wrong. But at no time did Clinton say that Congress didn't have oversight. He simply exercised his share of power. Bush is saying, through Snow, that Congress's opinion on stuff doesn't matter because they don't have any power over the Executive Branch.

Nowhere does that say what you claimed it said.

Er, yeah it does. Or do you seriously think that this guy includes Jimmy Carter as being a Republican?

Gingrich bet that Clinton would lose the ensuing PR battle, and he bet wrong.

If you wanted to wanted to portray it as an abuse of power, you just as easily say it was Gingrich's as Clinton's.

Er, yeah it does. Or do you seriously think that this guy includes Jimmy Carter as being a Republican?

Does it say anywhere that only Republicans have expanded government? No. It's basic English.

If you wanted to wanted to portray it as an abuse of power, you just as easily say it was Gingrich's as Clinton's.

Yeah, but I don't think it was an abuse on either side. I think it was two people playing a game of chicken, and Gingrich lost.

Er, yeah it does. Or do you seriously think that this guy includes Jimmy Carter as being a Republican?

what?

Yeah, but I don't think it was an abuse on either side. I think it was two people playing a game of chicken, and Gingrich lost.

though it was a fine game. doing it with the entire federal gov't (minus ss checks and medicare, right?) is way more awesome than doing it with cars.

Does it say anywhere that only Republicans have expanded government? No. It's basic English.

Well, either he said that only Republicans are the ones who increased government, hence the whole spiel about Republicans and Iran-Contra and Iraq and no mention of Clinton's spying or wars, in which case he's wrong, or he seriously considers Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to be Republicans, in which he's an idiot.

Yeah, but I don't think it was an abuse on either side. I think it was two people playing a game of chicken, and Gingrich lost.

That's because everything slides off of Teflon Billy. :)

Well, either he said that only Republicans are the ones who increased government, hence the whole spiel about Republicans and Iran-Contra and Iraq and no mention of Clinton's spying or wars, in which case he's wrong, or he seriously considers Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to be Republicans, in which he's an idiot.

Or he's talking about just the Republicans, because talking about the Democrats would be completely fucking irrelevant in a discussion about Republican administrations. Are you really that unproficient with basic reading comprehension?

Well, either he said that only Republicans are the ones who increased government, hence the whole spiel about Republicans and Iran-Contra and Iraq and no mention of Clinton's spying or wars, in which case he's wrong, or he seriously considers Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to be Republicans, in which he's an idiot.

It has often been said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president of the 20th century. ;)

Not even remotely the same thing. Clinton refused to sign a budget submitted to him by Congress, which was entirely his right to do. Gingrich bet that Clinton would lose the ensuing PR battle, and he bet wrong. But at no time did Clinton say that Congress didn't have oversight. He simply exercised his share of power. Bush is saying, through Snow, that Congress's opinion on stuff doesn't matter because they don't have any power over the Executive Branch.


Bush is dreaming

Well, either he said that only Republicans are the ones who increased government, hence the whole spiel about Republicans and Iran-Contra and Iraq and no mention of Clinton's spying or wars, in which case he's wrong, or he seriously considers Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to be Republicans, in which he's an idiot.

or, perhaps, he's saying that each of the republican administrations since 1968 have been driven by the same ideology and actually contained a huge percentage of the same individuals.

Or he's talking about just the Republicans, because talking about the Democrats would be completely fucking irrelevant in a discussion about Republican administrations. Are you really that unproficient with basic reading comprehension?

Please stop screeching, it doesn't help you make your point. And the topic is not only about Republican administrations, it's about presidential power. And since there have also been Democratic presidents as well as Republican presidents, it would be relevant to consider what effect they have had on presidential power. Since they, too, have been involved in increasing presidential power, it would be unfair to put all of the blame on Republican presidents. Rather, both should be blamed for putting the presidency in the totalitarian state it is in now.

or, perhaps, he's saying that each of the republican administrations since 1968 have been driven by the same ideology and actually contained a huge percentage of the same individuals.



Well maybe we all need to register as Independent

It has often been said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president of the 20th century. ;)

certainly up there with roosevelt and ike, at the very least

certainly up there with roosevelt and ike, at the very least


Sorry I don't agree, he's the one who signed NAFTA into Law.

And the topic is not only about Republican administrations, it's about presidential power.
Nope. It's about the abuses of the Republican party. The only person who tried to expand it beyond that is you, when you started whining about how a thread on Republicans wasn't discussing the Democrats.

Sorry I don't agree, he's the one who signed NAFTA into Law.

Which is a very Republican sort of thing to do. Clinton took no small amount of flack for that decision--went against the majority of his party in the House. He got that passed with all the Republicans and enough Democratic defectors to make the majority.

Which is a very Republican sort of thing to do. Clinton took no small amount of flack for that decision--went against the majority of his party in the House. He got that passed with all the Republicans and enough Democratic defectors to make the majority.


NAFTA was the biggest mistake ever made in US history in my opinion, nothing about it is good for America, regardless of what Bush says.

Thats why I am against special interest groups having reps in Washington

Nope. It's about the abuses of the Republican party. The only person who tried to expand it beyond that is you, when you started whining about how a thread on Republicans wasn't discussing the Democrats.

The thread title specifically mentions the executive branch. The article repeatedly mentions the growth of the power of the "Imperial Presidency" relative to Congress. It also mentions the Roman Republic, of the growth of power of the executive that overpowers all of the checks and balances that are constructed. It specifically deals with presidential power, otherwise you would have no article. This did not all develop just because of Republicans, and it had started long before Nixon. Quite honestly, I don't see why you're getting all worked up and pissed off about the simple fact that the Republicans aren't the only ones responsible for the presidential monster that we have today.

Edit: You do know I'm not trying to exonerate the Republicans, right?

Comparisons to the fall of democracy in Rome and Germany are a little extreme, but the implication that Congress has no oversight over the executive branch is cause for concern; for those who like their government with checks and balances. (There's plenty of democracies that don't, Canada in a majority government may as well be a four or five year dictatorship.)

The idea of the supreme president has been evolving in the US for some time. I think the grains of it started in WWII and FDR, and really hit the big time once JFK figured out how to use television to his advantage. Afterwards, having a single leader to both galvanize the public (and provide a scapegoat for disgruntlement) was much more possible. The idea that congressmen were just as important became less palatable.

Personally, I think Bush's administration really capitalized on 9/11, and took the 'united congress' for granted. Congress sadly rubber stamped anything the executive did. Now, the very thought of congress acting against the executive is called into question, even though that has been part of congress' role all along.

I don't think you can narrow this down to a republican vs. democrat issue. This is a media-driven age where selling 'the next big leader' is what drives home the political issues to the masses. Sad for a democratic society.

The idea of the supreme president has been evolving in the US for some time. I think the grains of it started in WWII and FDR, and really hit the big time once JFK figured out how to use television to his advantage. Afterwards, having a single leader to both galvanize the public (and provide a scapegoat for disgruntlement) was much more possible. The idea that congressmen were just as important became less palatable.

...

I don't think you can narrow this down to a republican vs. democrat issue. This is a media-driven age where selling 'the next big leader' is what drives home the political issues to the masses. Sad for a democratic society.

I think it started with Andrew Jackson in 1828. Don't forget that he was basically the first "big leader" of the masses, and he completely ignored what the other branches of government had to say. But yeah, I would agree that this is a bipartisan issue.

I'm starting a new religion in which the premise is that we are all involved in an enormous satire that is enjoyed by the Gods.

I think it started with Andrew Jackson in 1828. Don't forget that he was basically the first "big leader" of the masses, and he completely ignored what the other branches of government had to say. But yeah, I would agree that this is a bipartisan issue.

American History's not my strong suit. I can see a definite trend over the post-war years though. I just find it sad that America, the nation that's supposed to be the embodiment of democratic ideals, is leaning away from them. (I know I'm not being entirely fair; obviously there are those in the US who detest this slide towards authortiarianism. I just hope that they are more convincing than media driven president-worship.)

I'm starting a new religion in which the premise is that we are all involved in an enormous satire that is enjoyed by the Gods.

I think the ancient Greeks already did that. The gods even did their own stupid stuff. Time to bring back that old time religion!

Now, where do I find some shiny lighting bolts or whatever Zeus-Worshippers carry around with them?

I think the ancient Greeks already did that. The gods even did their own stupid stuff. Time to bring back that old time religion!

Now, where do I find some shiny lighting bolts or whatever Zeus-Worshippers carry around with them?

Can't do anything around here without the ancient Greeks getting to it first. They are like the Simpsons of civilization.

American History's not my strong suit. I can see a definite trend over the post-war years though. I just find it sad that America, the nation that's supposed to be the embodiment of democratic ideals, is leaning away from them. (I know I'm not being entirely fair; obviously there are those in the US who detest this slide towards authortiarianism. I just hope that they are more convincing than media driven president-worship.)

No, no, I'm not saying you're wrong. There is, indeed a trend over the post war years- war is a perfect opportunity to increase presidential power. And I do despise the authoritarianism, but I see it as more an inevitable consequence than as something we can avoid.

I'm starting a new religion in which the premise is that we are all involved in an enormous satire that is enjoyed by the Gods.

I'll join! :D

No, no, I'm not saying you're wrong. There is, indeed a trend over the post war years- war is a perfect opportunity to increase presidential power. And I do despise the authoritarianism, but I see it as more an inevitable consequence than as something we can avoid.

"War is the health of the state."

No, no, I'm not saying you're wrong. There is, indeed a trend over the post war years- war is a perfect opportunity to increase presidential power. And I do despise the authoritarianism, but I see it as more an inevitable consequence than as something we can avoid.

I see a perfect opportunity to stop the slide towards authoritarianism and embrace the system of checks and balances. Maybe a little democratic reform. We needn't look at ancient Rome and Nazi Germany and say 'it's only a matter of time until we get there...' (And the situations leading up to the downfall of democracy in those nations are drastically different, Rome's in particular.)

(And I didn't think you were disagreeing with me. Just elaborating I guess. *shrugs*)

"War is the health of the state."

No. War is the health of the arms industry, and a source of long-term financial debt.

Who's quote is that anyway? I've been meaning to demonize this person...

No.

If you really believe that, you have a lot to learn about the nature of the state.

Who's quote is that anyway? I've been meaning to demonize this person...

Randolph Bourne.

This administration astonishes me.

The latest example:

When asked/ordered to answer to congress for attempts to use the judicial branch as a tool of the executive, the response: "That would breach the separation between the branches of government."

Unreal.

As I recall, Clinton proved to us that the Executive branch trumps the Legislative branch.
Meh. Old news.

Actually, most people, both pro and anti Clinton, agree that the Executive branch gave up significant authority to the legislature. Not in that he was too weak a person to hold on to it, but that his political philosophy was one that led him to empower the legislature.

Bush's political philosophy is that it's good to act like an arrogant asshole, but to phrase it like that is an attack on this nation because he is not an asshole, he is a ring-shaped valve whose sole function is to emit regulated quantities of waste product.

If you really believe that, you have a lot to learn about the nature of the state.


The concept that war is good for the economy is a fallacy. One could use the same amount of income spent on war on building a city out of lego and you would have the same economic advantages. Government spending to kick-start the economy, war or not, is what is good for the economy in the short-term, but only increases the state's long-term debt and eventual stagnation. You are essentially borrowing money to throw away resources.

Of course, you may be implying that war gives more control to the state over the rights of individuals. Which is of course true. I would not qualify that as making the state 'healthy'. But if that's where that line of thought leads, I see what you're saying.

Of course, you may be implying that war gives more control to the state over the rights of individuals.

Bingo! Give this man a cigar! :D

Bingo! Give this man a cigar! :D

:p

Sorry, I took it as a 'war is good for us' statement. Not an anti-statist statement.

I'll join! :D

You may but I wouldn't be so energetic. It is the serious and reserved who are rewarded in a Universe of Satire.

The concept that war is good for the economy is a fallacy. One could use the same amount of income spent on war on building a city out of lego and you would have the same economic advantages. Government spending to kick-start the economy, war or not, is what is good for the economy in the short-term, but only increases the state's long-term debt and eventual stagnation. You are essentially borrowing money to throw away resources.

That's not what he's implying.

Of course, you may be implying that war gives more control to the state over the rights of individuals. Which is of course true. I would not qualify that as making the state 'healthy'. But if that's where that line of thought leads, I see what you're saying.

This is what he's saying.

Edit: Damn, too late.

You may but I wouldn't be so energetic. It is the serious and reserved who are rewarded in a Universe of Satire.

Ah, sorry.

*calms down*

Did you know President Bush added a signing statement to a bill saying "The president shall make no signing statements"?

:p

Sorry, I took it as a 'war is good for us' statement. Not an anti-statist statement.

No problem. :p

Did you know President Bush added a signing statement to a bill saying "The president shall make no signing statements"?

Did the universe then collapse from the logical contradiction?

Did the universe then collapse from the logical contradiction?

Surprisingly no.

Did the universe then collapse from the logical contradiction?

When will the terrorists stop fucking with us?

When will the terrorists stop fucking with us?

January 20, 2009? :D

Did the universe then collapse from the logical contradiction?

I've explained this before.

I had initially labored under the theory that if one held the views of an American conservative exclusivly due to their stupidity or their vileness of character, then they would collapse the universe around themselves into either a blackhole (due to their density) or straight to hell (due to being so evil that no amount of repentence would make them worthy of salvation within a human lifetime.)

This theory was refined for me when there was a link posted to a Texas news site (hotbed of American conservatism.) On one web page there were stories telling of a new law requiring car theft, a boy who shot his father for having sex with his mother, and a woman who was charged with murdering her husband by shoving wine up his ass.

The universe is collapsing around extreme examples of American conservatism, but it isn't happening all at once. Areas around centers of conservatism are slowly being drawn into an Alice-in-Wonderland type universe in which normal laws of reason and behavior don't apply. That's why conservatives keep spouting the nonsense they do. They are acting in accordance with the logic of an entierly different universe.

January 20, 2009? :D

Hopefully.

The universe is collapsing around extreme examples of American conservatism, but it isn't happening all at once. Areas around centers of conservatism are slowly being drawn into an Alice-in-Wonderland type universe in which normal laws of reason and behavior don't apply. That's why conservatives keep spouting the nonsense they do. They are acting in accordance with the logic of an entierly different universe.

unfortunately this will have some rather bad consequences for the rest of the world as they approach the wingnut singularity.

for example, the idahoes are talking about damming the rivers to stop 'their' water from leaving the state. now normally i wouldn't be overly concerned as the laws of nature and logic and economics would stop them. but now we can't be so sure about that.

This administration astonishes me.

The latest example:

When asked/ordered to answer to congress for attempts to use the judicial branch as a tool of the executive, the response: "That would breach the separation between the branches of government."

Unreal.

Um, the current dispute is over federal prosecutors who, even though they work in the courts, are actually members of the executive branch. That's why the executive can fire federal prosecutors. If they were members of the judicial, they would have to be impeached by congress to get fired. Now, firing federal prosecutors is not uncommon: Clinton fired the lot when he took over. The problem is that these firings were targeted at individuals who were involved with prosecutions of politicians, and only those whose prosecutions and investigations were either uncovering Republican wrongdoing, or making little headway on Democratic targets were fired.

The problem is that, by statute, federal prosecutors are supposed to be apolitical. They are bound to prosecute and investigate where the evidence demands. The White House, by firing these prosecutors, has effectively threatened the remaining prosecutors not to prosecute Republicans, and to target Democrats. It is not a separation of powers issue (until the White House started claiming immunity from oversight) but a fundamentally legal one. Threatening to fire someone who enforces the law without regard to political party undermines the fairness and independence of the law. Quite frankly, it is far beyond an academic scuffle over separation doctrine, this is fundamentally about whether rule of law will still exist in America.

Um, the current dispute is over federal prosecutors who, even though they work in the courts, are actually members of the executive branch. That's why the executive can fire federal prosecutors. If they were members of the judicial, they would have to be impeached by congress to get fired. Now, firing federal prosecutors is not uncommon: Clinton fired the lot when he took over. The problem is that these firings were targeted at individuals who were involved with prosecutions of politicians, and only those whose prosecutions and investigations were either uncovering Republican wrongdoing, or making little headway on Democratic targets were fired.

The problem is that, by statute, federal prosecutors are supposed to be apolitical. They are bound to prosecute and investigate where the evidence demands. The White House, by firing these prosecutors, has effectively threatened the remaining prosecutors not to prosecute Republicans, and to target Democrats. It is not a separation of powers issue (until the White House started claiming immunity from oversight) but a fundamentally legal one. Threatening to fire someone who enforces the law without regard to political party undermines the fairness and independence of the law. Quite frankly, it is far beyond an academic scuffle over separation doctrine, this is fundamentally about whether rule of law will still exist in America.

It willl exist for everyone except the ones who consider themselves the elite, the ruling class. The question is does this undermine the constitution and other pertinent laws? If so the guilty party/s, regardless of who they are should be punished accordingly.

When the government effectivly ceased to operate because he refused to sign the budget. I think it was 1995, but I could be wrong.

I remember that. Not only was my father's pay not coming in but his promotion was also held up for the exact same reason.

On another note, FDR tried to circumvent the Congress with his Supreme Court plan. Luckily Congressional oversight prevented that.

Let us not forget Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. :D

Louisiana Purchase Treaty signing

At the Purchase's centennial fair, one illustrator imagined the treaty signing as above.On April 30, 1803, the Louisiana Purchase Treaty was signed by Robert Livingston, James Monroe, and Barbé Marbois at Paris. Jefferson announced the treaty to the American people on July 4.

The United States Senate ratified the treatywith a vote of twenty-four to seven on October 20; on the following day, it authorized President Jefferson to take possession of the territory and establish a temporary military government. In legislation enacted on October 31, Congress made temporary provisions for local civil government to continue as it had under French and Spanish rule and[b] authorized the President to use military forces to maintain order. Plans were also set forth for a mission to explore and chart the territory, which would become known as the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

France then turned New Orleans over on December 20, 1803. On March 10, 1804, a formal ceremony was conducted in St. Louis to transfer ownership of the territory from France to the United States.

Effective on October 1, 1804, the purchased territory was organized into the Orleans Territory (most of which became the state of Louisiana) and the District of Louisiana, which was temporarily under the control of the governor and judges of the Indiana Territory.

This shows that congress does have power over the whitehouse and the president. This sets a legal president, that should leave Bush without a legal leg to stand on.