Nequals1 @ 51

Can Congress revoke or otherwise limit Bush’s war powers?

They can vote to revoke the war powers granted in 2002. He can veto that, and the veto would probably withstand any attempt to over-ride.

As indicated by JGabriel @ 78, they can do it by simple majority vote, no presidential signature required. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 – the inherent war powers of Congress. If anyone wants to claim such a Congressional ‘undeclaration’ of war is invalid, let them prove it in court. [That’s how the Executive Branch operates these days, with their ‘inherent powers’ and ‘executive privilege,’ and Congress is on far firmer Constitutional ground on this than they are.] In principle, Justice Scalia wouldn’t disagree with such a Congressional vote to ‘undeclare’ the occupation of Iraq, I fancy:

Http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..v=hcmodule

Rep. Sanchez’s carefully-lawyered statement says it all about the privilege claims:

We have not even received a statement from the President himself asserting privilege, even though Chairman Conyers has asked for one. The courts have stated that a personal assertion of executive privilege by the President is legally required for the privilege claim to be valid. For instance, the Schultz case stated that even a statement from a White House counsel that he is authorized to invoke executive privilege is “wholly insufficient to activate a formal claim of executive privilege” and that such a claim must be made by the President as head of the agency, the White House.

[snip]

But the White House has maintained that the President never received any advice on, and was not himself involved in, the U.S. attorney firings. The Presidential communications privilege, even as expanded by the Espy case, simply does not apply here.

Fourth, with respect to our subpoena’s request for documents from Ms. Miers, the courts have required a party raising a claim of privilege to provide a “descriptive, full, and specific itemization of the various documents being claimed as privileged” and “precise and certain reasons for preserving their confidentiality.”

These words are from the Smith v. FTC case and the Black v. Sheraton case.

Here, no such itemized privilege log has been provided by Ms. Miers or her counsel.

[snip]

Why is this important? For several reasons: for one, the evidence obtained thus far raises serious concerns about whether federal laws have been broken in the U.S. attorney matter, including laws prohibiting obstruction of justice, laws like the Hatch Act against retaliating against federal employees for improper political reasons, and laws prohibiting misleading or obstructing Congress. The Courts have made clear that executive privilege is generally overcome when the information sought concerns government misconduct. Indeed, the Court in the Espy case stated that when there is any reason to believe that government misconduct occurred, the deliberative process element of executive privilege disappears altogether.

In addition, obtaining more complete information on what happened in the U.S. Attorney matter may well reveal problems warranting new legislation by Congress. This is a well-recognized ground for authorizing Congress to obtain executive branch information, as the Supreme Court in the case of McLean v. Doherty. Indeed, we have already passed legislation changing the rules for interim appointments of U.S. attorneys as an outgrowth of our investigation so far.

[snip]

As the Supreme Court ruled in the Watkins case 50 years ago, Congress has broad power to investigate the administration of existing laws and to expose corruption, inefficiency, and waste or similar problems within the executive branch. Regardless of whether laws were broken, it is clearly important for Congress and the American people to know, for example, whether any of these U.S. attorneys were fired because they refused to bring vote fraud or other cases that Republicans wanted for partisan reasons, or because they pursued corruption or other cases against Republicans.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=577

P.S. Judge Walton (and his choice of clerks) would enhance the Supreme Court of the United States. Thanks for respecting and defending our Constitution, Judge Walton, laughable ‘unitary/unilateral executive’ theories and claims notwithstanding.

Therefore, one must wonder: why is Bubble Boy (Preznit Toad-Exploder) characteristically so interested in “bottom end”s?

. . . .
HAMMER HAMMER HAMMER THE MSM. Let them know we expect more from them. Their inability to provide accurate information was the driving force for the internet and blogs.

And, list their sponsors, and tell them we ARE boycotting!!!

It’s a HUGE weapon, it’s old school, and it WORKS!!!!!!!!!

I’m real surprised at the blogs, and the progressive’s in general, that they won’t even DISCUSS actual PEOPLE DOING THINGS like boycotts.

I guess, it would mean someone would have to actually not GET that frappicinno low fat skim Paraguayan Goat’s Milk latte mocha java mumbo jumbo elitist crap from Daddy Starbucko’s place . . .

BOYCOTT SPONSORS OF MSM!!!

Geez, is this thing ON?!!!!
TAP TAP TAP!!!!!

Sigh . . . I’ll be here thru the weekend, try the veal, tip the waitresses, yadda yadda . . . ;-)

. . . .

IMO we will not leave Iraq til the Iraqi’s pass the oil legislation.

WAY too optimisitc.

Once the oil PSA’s are signed, we’ll need forces to protect the production.

And believe you me, that production is gonna need a LOT of protection. A LOT of protection. Blackwater can’t do it all I don’t think. I doubt, 100,000 guns will be enuff to do the job. And it takes what, 3-1 support to keep the guns fed and bedded and happy?

We ain’t building the Taj Mahal Of Embassy’s and HUGE bases to leave.

We can’t be in Saudi Arabia, and a few other places (UAE maybe), with military, so, Iraq’s our domain.

We ain’t leavin.

Not without a MAJOR shift in the leadership of this country. And THEY, are all in on the deal.

Harumph.

“Telling the truth is the bedrock of our judicial system and a slap on the wrist will not provide a deterrent,” St. Eve said, turning down emotional appeals from the defense for probation instead of a prison term.

The defendant was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison for lying under oath in a civil lawsuit.

Here’s the link: http://www.suntimes.com/news/m…..12.article

Tony Snow just said that there has been considerable success on security in Iraq. Huh. A quarter of a billion stolen from a private bank and more death and destruction than ever. How does he live with himself?

LH, the Iraqi Chief Of Security, who WORKS in The Green Zone, was KIDNAPPED! RECENTLY!

Could someone spin THAT to the MSM? *G*

Elliott @ 44

IMO, I think proceeding according to regular procedure is the better way, I stand behind Sanchez.

Fair enough, but what do you (and Sanchez) mean by ‘regular procedure’?

If it means pursuing contempt charges via the statutory route, then I’m entirely against that and think it would be completely idiotic on the Dems part. It would just lead to the same situation as in 1982 with Anne Gorsuch, where the DC US Attorney refused to press the charges. And, of course, Fred Fielding was the WH Counsel then too.

If it means pursuing whatever standardized procedures the House has in place for pursuing *inherent* contempt, then I’m fine with that and can wait for that process to complete. Though the inherent contempt procedure hasn’t been used since 1934, which raises the question of what, exactly, regular procedure would now be.

John Dean, on Randi Rhodes yesterday:

1) Sub-committee votes (done, 7-5)
2) Committe now votes. If passed . .
3) House votes. If passed . .

Srgt. @ Arms arrests IMMEDIATELY (likely with Capital Police).

Miers is brought to House Trial! Immediately!

ALL verdicts are binding and unrevokable by WH.

Justice.

Could NEVER happen in Senate, but, in House, only a simple majority is needed to pass!!!

Bring it on!!!

Steve-AR @ 26

I think the Libby commutation and even more so the “Meyers” no show today is very ominous. They now feel that they don’t have to “pretend” to obey the law. This change in attitude may be due to the recent SCOTUS decisions and thinking the courts now won’t stop them or it may due to the clock running out. Who knows.

What ever the reason for the change, we are moving faster toward the cliff. It’s like a serial killer suddenly changing his pattern; for more and worse killing.

Shifting into spree mode?
God help us all.

I concur with you both . . . spooky scary, and happening fast.

Unless Mz. Sanchez’ sub-committee actions today get acted on FAST, and the House DOES order arrest under inherent, and BRINGS her to trial, I fear the worst.

We need a big hit, FAST!!!
A BIG hit, FAST!

We are NOT winning, on ANY items that really phreakin matter . . . .

And the bad guys have two huge weopons to pull:

1) Homeland staged attack
2) Iran attack by air

September looks a LONG ways away.