A Good Day for the Constitution

[k9kxq]

Here's a little bit of what's to come for those who think they are above the law,yes indeed a good day for the Constitution...

THIS IS A COPY OF MY PERSONAL EMAIL THAT I'M SHARING WITH THOSE WHO CARE...

kxq

Dear James,

contribute

New York Times - House Holds Bush Confidants in Contempt

Politico - White House Unloads on House Democrats over Contempt Vote


Yesterday the House of Representatives took several historic steps towards protecting our system of checks and balances. First, by a vote of 223 to 32, the House passed resolutions referring criminal contempt citations for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, as well as authorizing civil actions against them should the Justice Department refuse to prosecute. Second, we did not succumb to the White House political pressure concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Yesterday's contempt vote upheld the simple Constitutional principle that no one is above the law. If an ordinary citizen could not ignore a subpoena without facing severe consequences, the same must hold true for the White House.

As the morning's papers covered this story, many of them recount the Judiciary Committee investigation that began a year ago. They talk of the fired U.S. Attorneys who testified, the thousands of pages of documents produced by the Department of Justice, and of the subpoenas ignored by the White House.

I hope that as you read those stories, you will remember that the path to today's contempt vote did not begin with just a subpoena, or a hearing, or even the firings in December, 2006. Rather, it began with the Bush Administration's politicization of Justice and its refusal to submit to congressional oversight. I commend my 232 colleagues who joined me in voting to hold the Bush White house accountable and who stood up for the rule of law.

I also want to commend the Democratic Leadership for standing up to the White House yesterday and refusing to succumb to political pressure concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Last August we allowed ourselves to be jammed by the Senate and the White House. Yesterday, we stood up in the face of the pressure and let the President know that we intend to do our jobs as legislators and not hastily pass the flawed Senate bill with retroactive legal immunity for the telecommunications firms.

The White House, of course, has complained bitterly about the contempt vote as they have with many oversight actions Congress has taken. I have linked to some articles that show breadth of this bluster.

Much more remains to be done, but this week, we made real progress. With your help, we all made a difference, and the nation and our constitution are stronger for it. Thank you.

Thank you again for your continued support for a better democracy.

Your Friend,

John Conyers, Jr.

[N8UZE]

Then yesterday the House of Representatives took historic steps to subvert the Constitution. There is nothing in it that gives them this power.

The Constitution basically gives the President immunity from prosecution, etc. If Congress wants to do something about the President, the Constitution requires that they start impeachment proceedings. They have no power to subpoena him.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution to prevent the firing of judges. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says the Executive Branch is subject to the oversight of Congress. Whether or not firing the justices was wrong, there is nothing that gives the Congress any authority to do anything about it.

Why do you not condemn the House and Senate that passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? They had to pass it before it was signed into law. It wasn't a solo creation of Bush. First Congress passes an unconstitutional law, won't rescind it but now indirectly hamstrings actions that may be taken under such a law. This is ludicrous. Didn't Congress just recently renew FISA?? The hypocrisy and political pandering is apalling.

[W3MIV]

You seek to subvert partisan politics with reason and law. Neither will suffice to assuage the impassioned mission nor offer balm to the wounded psyches of partisan hacks setting out to punish actions that every prior administration has carried out as a matter of course. The appointments were political prizes, and since the days of Washington and Adams, administrations have handed out commissions, warrants and petty appointments on the basis of simple patronage. It is ironic to see the Democrats attempting to seize the high ground of rigthteous indignation when it was Jackson, the acknowledged crafter of what became the Democrat Party, who was the most assiduous awarder of patronage and even went so far as to give us the cry: "To the victor belong the spoils."

Conyers is a partisan hack, nothing more, nothing less.

Then yesterday the House of Representatives took historic steps to subvert the Constitution. There is nothing in it that gives them this power.

The Constitution basically gives the President immunity from prosecution, etc. If Congress wants to do something about the President, the Constitution requires that they start impeachment proceedings. They have no power to subpoena him.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution to preven the firing of judges. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says the Executive Branch is subject to the oversight of Congress. Whether or not firing the justices was wrong, there is nothing that gives the Congress any authority to do anything about it.

Why do you not condemn the House and Senate that passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? They had to pass it before it was signed into law. It wasn't a solo creation of Bush. First Congress passes an unconstitutional law, won't rescind it but now indirectly hamstrings actions that may be taken under such a law. This is ludicrous. Didn't Congress just recently renew FISA?? The hypocrisy and political pandering is apalling.

[K3XR]

Talk about a good day for the Constitution, the ACLU LIBS will love this story. Let's hope they get millions, better yet own Duke.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331568,00.html

[N8UZE]

Talk about a good day for the Constitution, the ACLU LIBS will love this story. Let's hope they get millions, better yet own Duke.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331568,00.html

This case has to be judged on its own merits. If these people were harassed, etc in the investigation, then they very well may have grounds to claim that they were injured in the course of the investigation even though they would never have been charged. If they were simply questioned (i.e. were you at the party and did you see anything?) but not harrassed, then they won't have a case.

It is way too early to predict how this will go. The news story doesn't have sufficient detail, rightfully so as it could prejudice the case.

[K3XR]

Fun to watch the LIBS sqirm when their PC backfires on them. Of course the case will go to court, if not settled, for all the facts to be heard, which is more than slime LIB professors, prosecutor and the University did when they jumped on the PC bandwagon.

[k9kxq]

This works for me but maybe not for some...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

kxq

[k9kxq]

Fun to watch the LIBS sqirm when their PC backfires on them. Of course the case will go to court, if not settled, for all the facts to be heard, which is more than slime LIB professors, prosecutor and the University did when they jumped on the PC bandwagon.

It's so amusing to watch you foam at the mouth, LIBS this and LIBS that, your mindset is the very thing that's dividing this country...

kxq

[wa6ccw]

Conyers is a partisan hack, nothing more, nothing less.

As IS the person who started this thread.

[k9kxq]

As IS the person who started this thread.

Wrong again ccw! but if the shoe fits you can wear it...

kxq

[wa6ccw]

Wrong again ccw! but if the shoe fits you can wear it...

kxq

Hey, be my guest...

It's your shoe, not mine. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0204.gif

[k9kxq]

Hey, be my guest...

It's your shoe, not mine. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0204.gif

No one in this country has been non partisan since Newt's contract on America, and Little Bush, so I have to admit yes I'm partisan towards many things from this administration and republicans in general... There I said it...

kxq

[ac4r]

This case has to be judged on its own merits. If these people were harassed, etc in the investigation, then they very well may have grounds to claim that they were injured in the course of the investigation even though they would never have been charged. If they were simply questioned (i.e. were you at the party and did you see anything?) but not harrassed, then they won't have a case.

It is way too early to predict how this will go. The news story doesn't have sufficient detail, rightfully so as it could prejudice the case.

A jury will have fun with this one.

[KC9IUX]

The Constitution basically gives the President immunity from prosecution

Only while in office.

[KC9IUX]

This works for me but maybe not for some...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Works for me, just not many in power on either side.

I drive for a living, I find it sickening how many roadside searches I see.

Funny how many I see have "melanin impaired" folks standing by, watching the vehicle ransacked.

[N8UZE]

This works for me but maybe not for some...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

kxq


Works for me too. Unconstitutional laws should be overturned and generally eventually are. But let's look at what it takes to overturn them. The Supreme Court does not and cannot rule on a law when it is passed. That is not within their powers as spelled out by the Constitution. Instead they must wait until a proper case comes before them.

In the recent wiretapping case, the Court could not hear it or rule on it. It did not meet the necessary requirements. None of the plaintiffs had any evidence to indicate that they had been wiretapped. Therefore the government's records are also protected by the Fourth Amendment as this group of plaintiffs had no probable cause. Therefore the Supreme Court must wait until a proper case comes before it.

The only thing that the Congress has the power to do to the President is to impeach him. They have NO, NONE, NADA oversight authority over the President. So let's say they go ahead and start impeachment proceedings.

1) Warrentless wiretapping - well Congress passed the bill authorizing it.
2) Firing justices - totally within any President's authority and no reason required and no Congressional approval required.
3) Other than impeachment, legal action cannot be taken against a sitting President. Such actions MUST be deferred until he is out of office.
4) Congress does not have the authority to order the Justice department to take action against Meirs and Bolton. Nor does Congress have the authority to demand that either civil or criminal charges be brought against them by other bodies. This is unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Either do the Consitutionally correct approach, i.e. try to proceed with an impeachment (although likely to fail), or quit useless activities like the condemnation and get on with the business of the country.

[wa6ccw]

Works for me too. Unconstitutional laws should be overturned and generally eventually are. But let's look at what it takes to overturn them. The Supreme Court does not and cannot rule on a law when it is passed. That is not within their powers as spelled out by the Constitution. Instead they must wait until a proper case comes before them.

In the recent wiretapping case, the Court could not hear it or rule on it. It did not meet the necessary requirements. None of the plaintiffs had any evidence to indicate that they had been wiretapped. Therefore the government's records are also protected by the Fourth Amendment as this group of plaintiffs had no probable cause. Therefore the Supreme Court must wait until a proper case comes before it.

The only thing that the Congress has the power to do to the President is to impeach him. They have NO, NONE, NADA oversight authority over the President. So let's say they go ahead and start impeachment proceedings.

1) Warrentless wiretapping - well Congress passed the bill authorizing it.
2) Firing justices - totally within any President's authority and no reason required and no Congressional approval required.
3) Other than impeachment, legal action cannot be taken against a sitting President. Such actions MUST be deferred until he is out of office.
4) Congress does not have the authority to order the Justice department to take action against Meirs and Bolton. Nor does Congress have the authority to demand that either civil or criminal charges be brought against them by other bodies. This is unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Either do the Consitutionally correct approach, i.e. try to proceed with an impeachment (although likely to fail), or quit useless activities like the condemnation and get on with the business of the country.

Once again, UZE does yeoman's work in explaining the reality of the situation to those emotionally charged individual/s who either fail to understand, or purposely choose not to.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0034.gif to UZE.

[W3MIV]

Either do the Consitutionally correct approach, i.e. try to proceed with an impeachment (although likely to fail), or quit useless activities like the condemnation and get on with the business of the country.

Is there any real difficulty for anyone on these threads, even the die-hard Kool-Aid Kids of the goose-stepping Left, to understand WHY the Congress's approval rating is even lower than Bush's?

The Democrat majority was elected to change the overall failures of the administration -- they have so embroiled themselves in petty vengeance that they have neglected the business of the nation almost entirely in the pursuit of the sorts of partisan policies that only a numbskull can enjoy.