Big surprise: Vice President Dick Cheney was a key figure behind the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, the Washington Post reported. Cheney met with Justice Department officials in March 2004 and told them that he disagreed with their legal objections to the program, according to congressional testimony submitted this week by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. The next day, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card were dispatched to the hospital bed of Attorney General John Ashcroft to try to convince him to reauthorize the program; Ashcroft refused.
Comey said that eight Justice Department officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, were prepared to quit if the White House did not back down, which it eventually did. But he said that Cheney’s office later blocked the promotion of a senior Justice Department lawyer because he raised concerns about the program.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on The GOP’s white-bread convention
- lindainks55 on The GOP’s white-bread convention
- Franklin on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- cosmos_originally on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Franklin on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- BlueJay on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Regular on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Franklin on The GOP’s white-bread convention
- Monkeyhawk on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- lindainks55 on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
102 Comments
So what else is new?
Big surprise, the VP talked to the Justice Dept. about their concerns on dropping the wiretapping act. This could have been because of their concern for national safety. And a dept. lawyer wasn’t promoted because he wasn’t promoting the agenda of the boss.
This is prolific in the corp world. Why would the running of the nation be different? The boss sets the agenda and if you aren’t a company man you don’t move up.
Wow, how shocking!! Phillip you need to get out of your office more.
Reads like Democracy in action to me Phillip.
And what is the real story about the Justice Department official whose promotion was blocked?
From the article:”Comey said that Cheney’s office later blocked the promotion of a senior Justice Department lawyer, Patrick Philbin, because of his role in raising concerns about the surveillance.”
Me think that Philbin did protests too much and was not seen as a “team” player. Regardless if Philbin thought he was on the “right side,” if he portrayed his position from that of hostility or divisive turmoil - expect a pink slip.
It appears to me, that the Justice Department won in their appeal to the Vice President.
So where exactly is the problem?
Ksgrm,
Since when did the Office of the Vice President get granted so much power? There’s absolutely nothing in the US Constitution that makes him anything but the successor to the President in the case of death or disability.
So Tom, you would prohibit the exchange of ideas, conversation and proposals between the three parts of our Government?
Nothing is as dangerous to the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as a belief among high-ranking officials that they are above the law and may lie or connive with impunity. Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis sermonized in Olmstead v. United States (1928): “In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it invites everyman to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
Don’t answer that, Tom.
Just WOB
“I really gotta go . . . so walk on bye.”
Capn,
Nothing to answer. There was another attempt by the blank to characterize my opinion as something completely unlike anything it actually is, but there wasn’t an actual question.
Tom: Don’t you even think about answering that. CapnAmerica has spoken.
The VP is part of the executive branch team. As a team member he has the right to present the stand of his team. He didn’t force anyone to do something they didn’t want to do. He presented the prez case. They didn’t agree with him and didn’t back his position. So Tom and Lindalink where was the wrong act here. Phillip is grasping at straws. It’s the old mentality “we have them on the ropes now we will pile on”. Think about it.
What’s up with Cap? Has he taken on a god persona I didn’t know about?
This story is EXTREMELY stale too. Y drag it out now?
Or Ksgm….the administration walks on the Constitution and fires for politically motivated reasons. Both are dispicable. And the fact that you want to defend these acts causes me to think that you don’t honor the Constitution either. What is it with Republicans walking on the foundation of our country?
Ahh, the old ‘Ancient History’ defense. Used when there’s nothing left.
Sorry Phil, to the 28%ers, the demi-gods can do no wrong. Much like the Pharoes of old.
Mike where did he walk on the constitution? Specific example. Easy to say, hard to defend. What foundation did he trample? Are you telling me that demos don’t fire for political reasons? Surely not.
I am wondering Ksgrm if you can read. Warrantless Wiretaps are Unconstitutional!Since you obviously have never read the Constitution I have provided you with a link. Its #4http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv
Why do you think that so many officials were ready to resign over the issue?
tom–I’d like to ask you a question.Should I run it by capn first and then ask you, or should I let capn answer and then you can agree with him? Let me know.I mean let capn let me know.Or something.
It’s funny how a low presidential approval rating is interpreted by libs as meaning; against everthing that Bush stands for. No…, it doesn’t.
Most folks are for some things, against others, but on balance at this time for the majority the negatives outweigh the positives. And most of this is Iraq.
So, if someone calls you a 28% because you support something the president is for, it demonstrates ignorance.
Fleettwood,
Ask me any question you like. But if you’re asking me out on a date, you should run it by my partner first.
Anyhow, if you and Outlander and Ksgrm don’t “get it” that Capn and I were mocking the blank, oh well.
Talking to the justice dept about why they felt it was necessary to keep this provision is not violating the constitution. If you remember a large majority of the American public also wanted to keep it. We were aware that we live in a new world as far as terrorism goes and need different protections.The fact that this conversation took place did not violate the constitution. It is an old story that was brought up to make the left yell again. The first 100 days of the new congress were very unproductive and the co-sponsored immigration bill is going down in smoke so Phillip thought he would throw this in as a smoke screen. It seems to be working.
Outlander,
The only people I refer to as “28%ers” are those who believe Bush can do no wrong, and who believe anyone who questions or criticizes the administration is a “traitor” or “unpatriotic” or “un American”
Tom I really thought that to be the case but I remembered when I did something in humor one day you upbraided me for it so I just figured you had no sense of humor.
Ksgrm,
The Office of the Vice President does not have the Constitutional or statutory authority to direct Cabinet officers in their duties. These powers are reserved to the President, and he can’t delegate them without either changing the Constitution or getting Congress to pass a bill.
What Cheney is doing is abusing the _VERY_ limited power of his office.
Tom you are making a very large assumption that the VP was attempting to ‘direct’ cabinet officers. He delivered a message to them from the prez. They didn’t agree with the prez. The measure was not renewed. Tell me where it says that the VP is not allowed to carry a message to cabinet members.
That would be crazy. When he starts directing them then you might be right. Obviously this wasn’t the case.
Your view is so biased by your hatred of Cheney and Bush that it lacks logic.
I usually respect your opinions even if I don’t agree with them but this one is so far out it lacks any credibility.
Ksgrm,
You’re the one making an assumption: That I somehow “hate” Cheney and Bush.
From where I sit, it looks to me like Cheney is, and has been, abusing the LIMITED power of his office. You have a different opinion. Let’s agree to disagree without attacking each other’s credibility, okay?
Tom I didn’t make any assumptions. Just read the facts of the post. Nothing was said about his directing any cabinet member and this is what you said he did that violated the constitution. You implied that I didn’t know the constitution - even gave me a link to read it. I just read what was written, read nothing into it, found nothing wrong. He did something that you disagreed with. That isn’t a violation. If I mischaracterized your feelings for Bush or Cheney I apologize for that.
“Comey said that Cheney’s office later blocked the promotion of a senior Justice Department lawyer, Patrick Philbin, because of his role in raising concerns about the surveillance.”
Ksgrm,
In my opinion, this crosses a huge line between advising the President and exercising powers _RESERVED TO_ the President.
I stand by my opinion.
The Bush/Cheney/Rice cabal is the only anti-American administration to occupy the White in our history.
And they treat the Constitution like it’s what they say it is: “Nothing but a G-D piece of paper.”
They bend over backwards to protect Israel, and in that process leave us exposed to even greater retaliation.
The Bush/Cheney/Rice cabal is the only anti-American administration to occupy the White House in our history.
And they treat the Constitution like it’s what they say it is: “Nothing but a G-D piece of paper.”
They bend over backwards to protect Israel, and in that process leave us exposed to even greater retaliation.
Tom the point I am trying to make is that the head of a company delegates power to those below him. This article doesn’t make the case that the ‘original’ order came from Cheney’s office. That has to be an assumption on their and your part. This is where prejudices come in.
It looks to me as if Cheney was a messenger for the prez who might have been busy with other things at that time.
“if the White House did not back down, which it eventually did.”
This tells me that he was indeed a messenger of the White House.
I am not one of the 28%ers because there are some major differences I have with Bush right now but that doesn’t make this story right or relevant.
Ksgrm,
The United States government is not a company. It’s a government with powers that are limited to those granted to it in our Constitution. The President _CANNOT_ delegate powers reserved by said Constitution without either amending the Constitution, or by having Congress pass a law.
We can quibble endlessly over whether Cheney is acting as Bush’s errand-boy, but I’m not buying it. Cheney has previously made claims to Presidential power he doesn’t have, such as when he tried to say he has the power, in his own right as VP, to declassify government secrets.
So when Clinton gave Hillary the authority to pull together a ‘committee’ of people whose names were not available to the public, spend government money for these committee meetings, and to devise a health care plan that she tried to shove down the throats of the American people they were trampling on the constitution? She wasn’t elected to any office and had more power than Gore. I’m not sure we want someone in office with this disregard for the constitution. How about you?
By the way Tom you are so out to lunch if you think that the prez has no right to delegate tasks. That is just nutzo thinking. How could one man possibly make every meeting, meet about every decision made or just plain do his job without delegating. Get a grip.
Ksgrm,
I agree that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have been getting in the middle of setting policy for this nation. Without getting into the merits, or lack thereof, of the health care plan she was working on, I think it was completely inappropriate. Presidential spouses don’t have a policy role in government, and shouldn’t be acting like they do.
Ksgrm,
I never said the President can’t delegate. But there are laws about who he can delegate *to.* He has staffers that fill positions that are defined by law, he has Cabinet officers likewise defined. Their relationship to the Office of the President, and to the Congress and its committees, are all spelled out in Federal statute. The Office of the Vice President is _not_ so defined; its powers are those granted it in the Constitution.
Tom could you put his job description down for me. I am having a problem figuring it out. Maybe I am not seeing something you are.
From the linked article, it is not clear what exactly Cheney was doing, or if he was doing whatever it was at the bidding of Bush.
The real story here is that this administration is so secretive - never mind that they work for you and me - they don’t feel any obligation to tell their employers (us) what they are doing. We’re expected to believe that they are acting in secret to keep us safe and we should just shutup about it.
This is a little bit off subject, but not really. Ashcroft opposed the renewal of the NSA spying, he was sick at the time they asked him to approve it and had appointed his assistant, Comey to fill in during his absence.
I have always wondered why or how Ashcroft managed to appoint an investigator as competent as Fitzgerald. Fitz had a reputation as an aggressive and thorough investigator/prosecutor. Ashcroft surely knew this and I have to wonder if his appointment of Fitzgerald was Ashcroft’s way of expressing his discontent with team Bush/Cheney.
“She wasn’t elected to any office and had more power than Gore.”
That is just nonsense. She was asked to form a committee to review national health care options. Presidents have non-governmental employees head committees all the time.
Have you forgotten about the Baker-Hamilton Commission? Most, if not all, of the members were civilians.
Did you forget about Cheney’s Energy Task Force? Kenneth Lay was hardly a government employee.
I do believe that Nancy and Laura also headed civilian policy groups as well.
Who could forget “Just say no!”
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.”
=====================
Article 2, Section 1:
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:”=====================
From the 20th Amendment:
“3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”=====================
And the 25th Amendment, in its entirety:
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967. Note History
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.=====================
Amazing.
The VP and future Attorney General are proven to be involved in pushing an ILLEGAL PROGRAM on a SEPARATE POWER (the Justice Dept./Judicial Branch).
And all the Bush apologists think it’s business as usual.
KSGRM–The big difference in the Hillary situation is that, like Tom said, the President can delegate to some, but delegating is different than forcing/punishing for not agreeing.
Also, the wiretapping program was not yet legal at the time, and the VP was in on the meeting to discuss how to push the DOJ to legalize it though Åshcroft had said he would not because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Ashcroft was in the hospital at the time and James Comey was acting AG when Alberto Gonzales, not yet AG, and Andy Card made Comey take them to see Ashcroft in the hospital to get him to agree to the program while under the influence of medication (according to Comey’s testimony in the recent DOJ hearings).
The question now is whether the VP told them to go to Ashcroft in the hospital…and then apparently he punished another official he disgreed with allowing the adminsitration to do something illegal. But the fact that Gonzales was there in the hospital, TRYING TO PUSH FOR AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM, is part of why the Senate is voting no confidence in him as Attorney General: he’s supposed to UPHOLD the law, not BREAK it.
“Me think that Philbin did protests too much and was not seen as a “team” player. ”
So Republican, you would rather our leaders surround theirselves with YesMen instead of those who voice their concerns?
Couldn’t the case be made that Cheneyw as and is, in fact, the president on the grounds that GW is dead from the neck up?
Unfortunately, BFAH, the Constitution requires that he be dead from the neck DOWN.
No go on that one.
Road trip to the SCOTUS !!
Ah, it would be 5-4 in favor of the brain dead!
:- )) …You’re right, WS
I never said anything about “Yes” men, that was DLSM idea only.
Besides, in a private company if a company auditor comes to me with bad news and gets snickie about it, I can recommend to the HR guys that he never sees another promotion. That’s life.
Oh, republican…Bush and Cheney can do no wrong. We get it.
Cheney was disputing the DOJ contention that the NSA program was illegal. Gonzales and Card tried to get what they wanted - a reauthorization (but really a first time authorization because Bush unilaterally put the program into effect sometime after 09/11) from Ashcroft - he declined because he was ill and had named Comey as his proxie during his illness.
The administration backed down and put the program under FISA where it legally belonged.
Cheney then played hard ball politics with a DOJ lawyer who raised concerns about the legality of the program - i.e. helped deny him a promotion.
There were internal disagreements about moving forward on the program, these got resolved in a constitutionally correct manner.
Is it a crime that Cheney/Bush will grab for all of the power that is allowed to them? - which was this time denied them.
Cheney holding political grudges may not be playing nice, but wouldn’t the DOJ attorney have some variety of civil service recourse on this matter?
Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Rove will do whatever they can get by with, but is this a crime? Was it a politicalization of the DOJ? Definitely could be - I am thinking we need more info to know.
This is a good summary on the NSA surveillance program:
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/nsa_surveillance.pdf
SD, it wasn’t a crime for Cheney to shoot his hunting partner in the face after having a few drinks for lunch, so why would we think that it would be a crime for him to misuse the Department of Justice?
Sarcasm off…………
America is dead, the worthless lazy pukes wouldn’t even pass the Bill of Rights if it were put on the table today. American’s no longer deserve freedom.
How are those Freedomfries these days, Freedomfreak?
Do you fly your Freedomflag high?
Steven,
Not everything that is legal is legitimate or in the best interest of the nation. Would you want to work in a place where reprisal and retribution are commonplace because they’re “legal”? Who WOULD want to work there? How can good talent be attracted and maintained in such an environment?
There was an episode on the old Star Trek where the landing party returned to a universe where the federation was evil and officers moved up through the ranks by assassinating their superiors, and superiors got rid of those below them who they suspected of plotting. Kinda where Washington has headed under this administration’s policies, don’t you think? BTW, for all of the purported religiosity of the Bush White House, I guess they can be following Christ’s directive “do unto others as you would want done to you” if sniping, bullying, and just downright unwholesomeness were the way they got where they are.
“There was an episode on the old Star Trek where the landing party returned to a universe where the federation was evil and officers moved up through the ranks by assassinating their superiors, and superiors got rid of those below them who they suspected of plotting.”
Posted by: BFAH | June 08, 2007 at 11:39 AM
A typical lib response. Life has been reduced to a Star Trek episode. Very valid arguments were made for the wiretapping without the time constraints put on it by FISA. This was the overwhelming concensus of the American people by the way. Check the polls at that time. National Security is a real issue not a hollywood plot.
Cheney, regardless of what Tom or any others think, is a member of the executive team of the Bush administration and as such has the freedom and if ordered to by his boss the responsibility, to talk to the justice dept about security concerns of the prez.
This fishing expedition for Cheney and Rove is ridiculous and need to be looked at it for what it is. Scooter Libby has been sacrificed on the altar of this hatred of these two men already. When will the libs think they have drawn enough blood or will this just keep going on forever and ever.
“Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Rove will do whatever they can get by with, but is this a crime? Was it a politicalization of the DOJ? Definitely could be - I am thinking we need more info to know.”
Posted by: Steven Davis | June 07, 2007 at 08:21 PM
S Davis says they ‘definitely could have done something wrong’. Well Steven, Harry Reid definitely could have done something wrong in his Arizona/Nevada land deal. Abramhoff played strongly in this deal. Should we be investigating this also?
Get a life!
Ksgrm,
You asked me to post the Vice President’s “job description.” Did you take the time to read it? The powers of the Vice President _do_not_exist_ unless certain Constitutional conditions exist regarding the ability of the President to carry out his or her duties. The only power the VP has is to act as the ceremonial President of the Senate, and to break ties there if needed.
Every other staff job, including their areas of policy or responsibility, in the White House is defined in law. Every cabinet post is defined in law. Even the new “War Czar” position has to be confirmed by Congress - the hearings started yesterday.
It’s a sad and dangerous time when political figures, outside our Constitution, can claim powers for themselves that they are expressly not granted. Sad and dangerous that American citizens cheer them on.
ksgrm,
You’ll note that the reference to Star Trek had nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the post. I guess from your comment, however, that wherever it is you work, your peers, subordinates, and bosses had better not turn their backs on you.
Very valid arguments were also made for “liebensraum” and its acquisition by extralegal means by the Nazis…guess the question is “do the ends justify the means?”..I’d say you’re for doing ANYTHING that gets you what you want…you wouldn’t happen to profess being a Christian, would you?
I am making an assumption that some of you guys have actually held jobs in the real world. You would then know that no job description could possibly edescribe everything that position ever could include. That is the point I am making. He was directed by his immediate superior to talk with justice about this provision. He did. Where is the rub.
You don’t seem nearly as concerned that the demos likely prez nominee danced all over the constitution when she assumed the duties of the sec. of health & human welfare right down to appropriating funds to pay for her clandesent meetings.
BF, yes I have actually seen people fired or at least seen their positions fazed out because they didn’t support managements positions. This is called good business management whether we like or not. Trying to work with a team that opposes you on all sides would be like paddling a canoe upstream.
ksgrm,
Ummm, it isn’t called “good business practice” when the person you are punishing has expressed to you the very real possibility that what you are doing is against the law.
In the “real” world you speak of, this would be grounds for that employee “blowing the whistle” on his management./ In fact, he would be ethically and legally bound to do so. Further, retribution in whatever form by the employer would also be illegal.
….just think back to Enron.
It’s much ado about nothing ksgrm. The Justice Department prevailed and the MSM just wants to make something out of nothing.
“Prior to 9-11, and going back all the way to the Church Committee that was the impetus for creating FISA, the tradition has been not to have NSA leads which detect possible terrorist activities here in the US passed on by the NSA to law enforcement for action. That tradition was the beginning of the wall between Intel and Law Enforcement that left our borders wide open to 9-11. It was this tradition that made it possible for the 9-11 terrorists to plan and coordinate freely with their masters back in Europe and the ME without any action from our government. CIA Director (and previous NSA Director) Gen. Michael Hayden and President Bush have both asserted we had some of the highjackers in our sites and we did not monitor their calls overseas to known terrorists because of this tradition regarding the US as a ’safe base’ for our enemies.”
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2534
I challenge you to read the entire article this was taken from. The law wasn’t challenged. The timing was. Goerlick (sp) acting for Clinton had placed a wall between the CIA and FBI. There were serious threats that needed immediate attention - not waiting for the FISA court to rule. The public said go for it - the dems tried to make it a political issue and as Republican said the admin and justices dept prevailed. As for Comey he isn’t as pure white as he would have us believe. It is all political and so is Phillip bringing this up yesterday. Much ado about nothing. Waving Cheney’s name in front of some libs drives them to distraction.
“Waving Cheney’s name in front of some libs drives them to distraction.”
Posted by: ksgrm | June 08, 2007 at 01:45 PM
Very true ksgrm. It’s like feeding time at the ‘gator pit.’ Too bad they tend to be cannibalistic and eat their own in the process.
There is nothing wrong, but if there is, it’s Bill Clinton’s fault.
Republican mantra - developed in 1993 and still the GOP’s Party Anthem.
Yes, i read it. Why should I believe a conservative blog is any less skewed in its reporting than the New York Times? I’m continually amazed by the way in which those I consider the rabid conservatives on this blog have no problem posting links to websites that are clearly of a conservative stance, but have a hissy fit when anything that questions those views is posted.
If you want to get my attention, then attempt to post from a non-biased or less-biased source on any subject…like a peer reviewed journal, the transcripts of a trial or hearing, the text of a law, etc.
Otherwise, don’t make me laugh…
BF I was treating you as if you had a reasonable mind. My mistake. You are debating a story that came out in May. Came to noting.
What this blog did was address the issues, give links to the appropriate stories and present the issues that were really at stake.
By picking one piece of the puzzle out, Cheney, you are misconstruing the entire reason this was an issue.
If the dems lose in ‘08 it will be because of this blind approach to national security. This is a bipartisan issue. You had better recognize that or you and your’s will be on the outside looking in again. Just MOHO.
‘Nuff said.
Sometimes there is a chance of changing the mind of a person who is convinced of an idea; there is no way to change the one who is possessed of an idea.
bushco won’t be in office much longer. Enough people have realized the emperor has no clothes so it will be more difficult for them to continue their foreign policy of fear and the destruction of our constitution.
“no job description could possibly edescribe everything that position ever could include”
Ksgrm,
You continue to either intentionally miss the point, or perhaps you honestly don’t understand, that the Vice President’s powers are LIMITED by the United States Constitution. He may ONLY exercise the powers of the Presidency if the President is dead or disabled, and only under the rules established by the Constitution and its amendments. There is no law Congress can pass, and no Executive Order the President can sign, that can change that. Furthermore, the President cannot delegate power to subordinates unless Congress approves of that delegation, such as through creating Cabinet posts or staff positions.
The government is not a private business that’s free to conduct its internal affairs in any way it wishes. It’s a government, limited by our Constitution.
It used to be that conservatives championed limited government. Now the so-called “conservatives” and their cheerleaders want to redefine the plain language of the Constitution in order to grab power.
I read the articles you posted Tom. I don’t see whether the VP gets bathroom breaks?
Tom, I don’t buy what you’re selling here. You’re saying that the VP powers are listed and limited by the constitution. You mean GW can’t say to old deadeye, “Dick, I want you to go over to justice and tell them boys I need this wiretappin’ bill approved”. Baloney.
What about the energy policy meetings he chaired? I remember that because of all the complaining ever since. I don’t see it listed. How about when he represents the country at a state funeral?
I suppose Tom you never read anything about the F. D. Roosevelt era. Check it out and then complain about abuse of power and suspicious goings on in the White House and the Vice Presidents chambers.
Either you were just born yesterday Tom or you have fallen for the MSM Liberal bias head first.
Don’t have a mind of your own Tom?
Outlander,
Going to funerals, having meetings in the White House and advising the President is one thing. Taking action on policy, and enforcing policy, is quite another. Cheney acts more like an unaccountable co-President than a Vice President who honors our laws.
kgrsm,
I was not treating you as if you had a reasonable mind.
‘Nuff said
“;-)”
Same as Ben’s emoticon and BFAH also has identical degrees.
“I don’t see whether the VP gets bathroom breaks?”
He doesn’t get bathroom breaks - that is why he always has a look on his face like he’s about to bite someone.
The point, IMHO, is not whether Cheney’s actions were legal or not, but whether they were legitimate and ethical.
To put the screws to someone because they have concerns that what you’re up to is illegal is reprehensible.
There are lots of ways to make someone’s working life a living hell by “legally” walking all over them. That does not make the behavior ethical. The practice of discriminating against people who don’t have the same religion, ethnicity, skin color, gender, and political affiliation was so widespread in the mid 20th century that Congress actually outlawed discrimination on these issues…too bad there isn’t a way to protect working stiffs from more subtle and more perverse things…like this.
Republican
You’re an idiot. There are accepted emoticons used by everyone, notto mention that there are a limited number of characters that can be typed in a few seconds and actually look like something.
Further, Ben and I DO NOT have the same degrees.
But, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know…you’re being an idiot, that is…
On the great scale of intelligence, I’d say you come in right below a small soap dish.
You mean you don’t have a PhD in Chemistry and a B.S. in Environmental Science like Dr. Huie?
Would that be a Lye Soap dish or some fresh lard extract from some depleted population of whales?
No..I have a PhD in chemical engineering, and minors in math and physics.
I know it’s hard for a renaissance man like yourself to keep so many big words straight.
“The point, IMHO, is not whether Cheney’s actions were legal or not, but whether they were legitimate and ethical.”Posted by: BFAH | June 08, 2007 at 05:50 PM
Prove your assertions by showing the actual laws that cover your accusations.
Show me the in the laws where it shows ethical violations were committed.
Or you using the typical scapegoating method of Liberal Leftists by not having to prove any of your assertions?
You ever been to the Arkansas River BFAH around River Fest time?
You had no major in your B.S. degree? What about Master’s Degree, where and what for that?
Are there schools that award B.S. degrees without declaring a major?
I have a minor with my B.S. degree, but had to declare a major before I could graduate.
Republican,
If you’re at your keyboard reading posts and feeling stupid, don’t open your mouth and remove all doubts, OK?
If something is legal but unethical there is no law to be broken, except the higher law to which we are all held to account.
Sing with me now, BFAH, walk on by, foolish pride is all he has left, so let him cry, the tears and the sadness we gave him when we said goodbye, and walk on by……..
I need some help with this one - I can’t hit the high notes.
Oh my God, must I spell it out for you…
I went to a public kindergarten and graduated with my kindergarten degree.
I then went through 8 years of grammar school and graduated with my grammar school degree.
I then attended high school for 4 years and got my high school degree.
I then attended a public university on the east coast and got a BS in chemical engineering with minors in math & physics.
I then attended the #1 (at the time) universiy for chemical engineering, located in the midwest, where I obtained a PhD in chemical engineering/materials science.
I have published 21 papers inthe peer reviewed open literature.
I now work for a large public company that employs lots of chemical engineers.
WS, I’m trying
walk on by, walk on by….
AARRRGGGHHH he’s SOOOO flippin’ annoying !!!
MUST…..GET….TO…DOCTOR….AND….GET….SOME….XANAX
“If something is legal but unethical there is no law to be broken, except the higher law to which we are all held to account.” Posted by: BFAH | June 08, 2007 at 06:02 PM
What higher law would that be BFAH? Did you want to bring in the much maligned Ten Commandments into the Vice Presidents office to base your ethics violations on?
Exactly what Higher Laws are you referring?
Perhaps this office could help you out in discovering what is ethical and what is not in the U.S. Government.
United States Office of Government Ethicshttp://www.usoge.gov/home.html
Republican…
Has nothing whatsoever to do with the 10 commandments…by that reasoning only a Christian or Jew or maybe a Muslim have a moral code…
Jefferson, Madison, and a majority of the republic’s founders were deists…no association with Christianity at all. In fact T. Jefferson cut out all of the miraculous and idiotic stuff in his Bible to make it somewhat worth reading.
Listen to the bullshit fly, listen to the bullshit fly…
Republican
Think about what John Adams said,
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Or, consider the fact that Hitler was ELECTED in a parliamentary democracy…through deception and intimidation.
Republics are not inherently moral…they can be used for good or evil. It is the inherent morality of the people that determines the course of a democracy.
BFAH,
Thanks for the information on Jefferson and Madison, but you didn’t answer what “Higher Law” you would apply to Cheney.
I even pointed you to the Government Ethics office so you might research to see exactly what ethical violations that Cheney may have violated.
So tell me BFAH, what ethical laws were violated and from what source do you quote these violations?
Would these “Higher Laws” be prosecutable?
Would you make these assertions of “Higher Law” ethics in a courtroom or before Congress?
How would an Independent Prosecutor set his path using these “Higher Law” ethics to prosecute Cheney?
Help me out here.
Already answered you republican, but I guess the ethical violation alleged was too subtle for you…
when you are in a position of power and you use that power to coerce, intimidate, discriminate against, etc., you have clearly crossed the ethical line, even if thos actions are legal…
Should be clear to you..a god-loving, god-fearing, Christian who has perfect recall of eery fact in the Bible…
Ah, maybe that’s the problem…you know the facts, but not the spirit… c’est la vie.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Ah BFAH, so your holding Cheney to a religious standard in a Public office. Isn’t that illegal under the our Constitutional Amendments.
BTW, I’m very proud that you decided to wear my nic in your last post.
It shows that you have promise.
Republican,
Not everything that’s legal is ethical and not everything that’s ethical is legal…sorry you can’t make that distinction…
If the Congress were to pass an amendment calling for every Muslim to wear a yellow cresent on a piece of clothing, then it would be illegal not to wear the crescent…that does not make the amendment legitimate.
The Constitution once allowed the owning of people as slaves. While it was legal to do so, those with a different sense of morality opposed it, even to the point of breaking the law by assisting slaves to escape.
So, you are not bound by any particular laws save the ones that you personally find in agreement with your ethics. You may go to prison, or be fined. So? That’s how laws get changed.
There is no legal basis for fomenting or participating in a revolution against established authority…that is, unless you win.
Believe me it was an error, and I sorely regret it.
Notice Adams distinguised between morality and religion…one can have a perfectly defined moral code without recourse to any religious teaching..
I would have thought a Renaissance Man like yourself would have read all about it..you know, minor writers like John Stuart Mill, or maybe David Hume…
Ah BFAH, but I do subscribe to the thoughts and wisdom of philosophy. I’m a mixture of Immanuel Kant and Jean Paul Satre’.
However, I admire the most the greatest philosopher in modern history, Groucho Marx.
And to quote the greatest teaching philosopher of all time:
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”:)
that’s good, republican…
Because if you must obey whatever Caesar dictates, then you cannot be opposed to any law on the books…like abortion…
Good luck with that. It explains a lot.
Evidently, you don’t know my position on abortion.
I dislike the deed, but do acknowledge that the Supreme Court has made the decision to remove assignment of individual illegality from it.
I support the rule of law.
On that we can agree..
“Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Rove will do whatever they can get by with, but is this a crime? Was it a politicalization of the DOJ? Definitely could be - I am thinking we need more info to know.”
Posted by: Steven Davis | June 07, 2007 at 08:21 PM
KSGRM:
“S Davis says they ‘definitely could have done something wrong’. Well Steven, Harry Reid definitely could have done something wrong in his Arizona/Nevada land deal. Abramhoff played strongly in this deal. Should we be investigating this also?
“Get a life!”
I guess you did not notice that I said _could_ be, but more info was needed. I thought I was being fair and even handed in describing this story - what was known - what was not.
And from you I get the favorite of fleetwood “get a life”.
Madam,Would you please get a brain! Or short of that, take your frothing at the mouth hatred somewhere else.
yes I have actually seen people fired or at least seen their positions fazed out because they didn’t support managements positions. This is called good business management whether we like or not.Posted by: ksgrm | June 08, 2007 at 01:25 PM
LOL.
>picks jaw off kitchen table<
Hilarious. Where to start. Is this ever a BAD management decision? Or is this just some kind of universal rule?
Eh, let’s cut right to the blatant trolling.
What is that?!? Is this some kinda sneaky way to legitimize the Kay O’Connor theory of women and their votes?
I guess wherever ksgrm acquired a knowledge of “good business management” the HR manager is always called Mr. Bendover.
Good GIRL, ksgrm. That’s a GOOD girl. And remember: always always ALWAYS remember to ask ‘what?’ only after master says ‘fetch.’