~~ Ronald Reagan ~~
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Beldar on Cheney’s “Legal Leg”
Read it all. There is much to understand and much you have been misinformed about from the mainstream media. And folks, remember, this is just another attempt by Congressional Democrats to gin up yet another pseudo-scandal. It is a sickness that has enveloped them to the detriment of our country. Anything that comes from the egomaniacs Leaky Leahy, Killer Kennedy, or Schumcky Schumer is suspect on its face.
My ultimate conclusion, then, is that while the language of the order itself may be ambiguous, this full context actually strongly supports Mr. Cheney’s arguments. I think he not only has “a leg to stand on, legally,” but that a court would probably agree that overall, he has the better of this argument.
But of course, as I started off saying, no court will ever be called upon to answer this question. The only judgment that matters is the President’s, and as of today, that’s still George W. Bush.
On The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru asks: “Does he [Cheney] have a leg to stand on, legally? He sure doesn’t seem to.”
When you say “legally,” Mr. Ponnuru, it’s not clear what context you mean, and your question simply can’t be answered without knowing the context.
If your question is, “Could anyone go to court to compel Cheney’s cooperation with the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office in this dispute?” then the answer is a very definite “No.” What’s at issue is an executive order — literally an order from the Chief Executive to his subordinates in the executive branch — and its only compulsive force comes from the President’s ability, at his sole discretion, to punish or ultimately to fire those in the chain of executive command below him who disobey him. The POTUS is presumptively not only the author, but the only relevant ultimate interpreter of executive orders. Whatever the then-President says an executive order means — regardless of what it may or may not actually say, or what it was originally intended to mean — is what the executive order does effectively mean (using the word “effectively” quite literally). So does Mr. Cheney have a leg to stand on in that legal sense? Absolutely, as long as Dubya says so. (And he does.)
If you instead meant (as I suspect), “Is there prior court precedent, or are there statutes or regulations, or principles of legal reasoning and interpretation, that directly answer or even address this question?” then the answer is: “Not exactly, but: Such statutes and regulations and precedents and legal principles as there are actually tend to support Cheney’s position.”
I advise you against taking your legal advice from WaPo writers, Mr. Ponnuru. (Or from CBS News, which published an equally vapid and one-sided analysis that also pretty much, ummm, skipped the actual law stuff.)
You surely knew from the title of this post and its subject matter that this was going to get tedious, didn’t you? Hang tough, and I’ll try to take it one step at a time.
RELATED:
All they want is to continue to raise the spector of Nixon, wrongly of course, when they speak of Bush so they throw up new charges of silly idiotic wrongdoings weekly. Anything to get their showtrials in the news, which the MSM is more then willing to do for them.
Have you noticed that the media almost always side with congressional Democrats in their battles with the executive branch on constitutional matters? This is no different.
The president didn’t cause a constitutional confrontation. The requests by these committees — seeking information that clearly seeks to weaken the president’s power to not only to fire his own employees, but to protect the decision-making process surrounding those decisions — are politically motivated.
Here’s what the White House should do — “a slow bleed.” That’s right, the same strategy employed by the Democrats in the Iraq war should be used against these committees from a legal perspective. In short, the White House should litigate this to the bitter end. It should throw every legal obstacle it can muster in front of these partisan committees. It should appeal all setbacks and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. And hopefully, but the time the matter is resolved, it won’t matter. The administration will be over.
These subpoenas are nothing more than the latest attempt to undermine President Bush in his legitimate exercise of power, which would also weaken the constitutional structure of separation of powers. These committees have no evidence that the U.S. attorneys were fired for the purpose of obstructing any criminal investigations, despite months of hearings and testimony.
(As an aside, I am not saying the courts have a role in deciding this issue — which may be considered a political issue — only that the White House should avail itself of all legal tactics available to fight this congressional power grab.)
Yes, we have noticed.
Posted by Sara
on 06/28/2007 at 03:05 PM in Legal - Politics - Presidential -
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
