President vs Constitution

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The concept of Congressional oversight over the executive branch is a long-established precedent in the United States, a practice that traces back to our British roots. As early as 1792, the House established a special committee to investigate certain executive branch actions, and Madison and four members of the Constitutional Convention voted for the inquiry, indicating they thought this was a core function of the Congress. In a 1927 Supreme Court decision, the Court found that “the power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process [and] that power is broad.” It has often been the Supreme Court that has required presidents who overstep their bounds to comply with Congressional mandates. When Richard Nixon refused to turn over his tapes during the Watergate crisis, the Supreme Court ordered him to do so, leading to his eventual resignation from office.



The Supreme Court has in fact ruled twice on the unitary executive theory, and both times rejected the concept. In Morrison v. Olson, decided in 1988, the Court majority decided that the special counsel statute did not violate the separation of powers. Justice Scalia, alone among the justices, issued a scathing dissent largely along the lines of the theory of the unitary executive. “Morrison shattered the claim that the vesting of ‘the executive power’ in a president under Article II of the Constitution created a hermetic unit free from the checks and balances apart from the community,” MacKenzie wrote in Absolute Power. In 2006, the Supreme Court again issued a stinging rebuke to executive overreach in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case that dealt with the use of military commissions to try terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. As Justice Breyer wrote for the majority, “The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a ‘blank check’ to create military commissions,” and told the Bush Administration that they should seek Congressional approval, which they ultimately received.

This is supposed to be an answer to my question if there was "a law against improper motives? A law against faithlesly discharging his responsibilities?" You haven't cited any such law in your response here.

As far as Congressional oversight goes, Congress has the choice to use it. If Congress doesn't invoke it, presumably it has not considered that the President "acted in an improper or faithless way." And Congress represents the will of the people. It is given the seat of power by the vote of the People. And so, yes, as Barr says, if a current Congress does not invoke its oversight in the way the People wish, they can elect an new Congress that will.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is supposed to be an answer to my question if there was "a law against improper motives? A law against faithlesly discharging his responsibilities?" You haven't cited any such law in your response here.

As far as Congressional oversight goes, Congress has the choice to use it. If Congress doesn't invoke it, presumably it has not considered that the President "acted in an improper or faithless way." And Congress represents the will of the people. It is given the seat of power by the vote of the People. And so, yes, as Barr says, if a current Congress does not invoke its oversight in the way the People wish, they can elect an new Congress that will.

Keep snorting it
Trump is toast
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device