The Washington Post, Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A01:
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
The reaction on the Left was swift.  Shawn Mullen at the misnamed Moderate Voice called it “the latest chapter in an ongoing constitutional crisis involving a rogue president…” At Newshoggers, Pres. Bush was “destroying the Constitution for fun.”  Josh Marshall headlined the “Rogue Presidency,”which had someone at Stickyville asking for the mercy of death.  A tiny-brained monster long thought extinct decided to go all Keith Ellisonand compare it to the Reichstag fire of 1933. At TalkLeft, the Big Tent Democrat called the view “extreme” and an example of the “lawlessness” of the Bush Administration. And no collection of hyperventilation would be complete without Ellers McEllerson, who crams the”constitutional crisis,” “lawlessness,” and — especially bizarrely — “a direct assault on prosecutorial independence” into his typically overwrought and overwritten “prose.”
What a difference a day (Saturday, the lowest circulation day for most papers) — and a non-front page placement — makes.
The Washington Post, Saturday, July 21, 2007; Page A03:
The Bush administration’s vow this week to block contempt charges from Congress could prove to be a successful strategy for protecting White House documents about the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys, Democratic legal scholars and legislative aides said yesterday.
The experts cautioned that complaints by Democratic lawmakers about the administration’s legal stance are undercut by a Justice Department legal opinion issued during the Clinton administration. It contended, as the Bush administration did this week, that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases in which a president has invoked executive privilege to withhold documents or testimony.
***
Walter E. Dellinger III, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department then, wrote in a 1995 legal opinion that “the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege.”
That conclusion echoed a broader legal opinion issued 11 years earlier by then-Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson, who headed the OLC during the first term of the Reagan administration.
Dellinger and several other legal experts from the Clinton era said yesterday that the Bush administration is fundamentally correct in its assertion that lawmakers cannot force the Justice Department to pursue a course that undermines a president’s prerogative, including his power to protect information through executive privilege. (Emphases added.)
A bold new assertion of executive authority? Not so much.
Somehow, all of blogs linked above missed the sound of the other shoe dropping. Of course, they didn’t blog their OUTRAGE! when it was the Clinton Administration making the claim, either.
I note that the Internet’s best-selling sock-puppeteer reached a new low here. For someone who claims that the Current Occupant runs roughshod over the law and the constitutional separation of powers, it is more than a little odd to be arguing that the Legislative Branch should have the power to force employees and appointees of the Executive Branch to prosecute the Executive, and at the same time be speaking of the Executive “assaulting” the “independence” of Executive Branch employees and appointees.
But, but, but…
It’s Bush, y’see! Isn’t that enough to qualify for impeachment nowadays?
I mean, we’ve got these papers already drawn up and now we’ve got nowhere to file them.
“Of course, they didn’t blog their OUTRAGE! when it was the Clinton Administration making the claim, either.”
I don’t blame them. Most of my web outrage in ’96 was directed at connection failures with my 14.4K dial up connection.
Regarding your main point, separation of powers seems to be a weak spot with the left (or the MSM – same thing). I often wonder what their Constitution has to say about it. Can the Politburo actually thwart the will of the Supreme Leader?
Stickyville
Why, exactly, are we “Stickyville”…?
Somehow, all of blogs linked above missed the sound of the other shoe dropping. Of course, they didn’t blog their OUTRAGE! when it was the Clinton Administration making the claim, either.
I can’t speak for any of the other bloggers on your list, but “Stickyville” didn’t exist back then.
Btw, if you were a regular reader of “Stickyville,” you’d probably know that there are few of us there who are keen to defend Clinton.
You know, I was going to try to engage Melissa in a calm and detailed discussion of the case, but after reading the “impreachment more important” thingy at her link, with all the paranoid claptrap about martial law, horrible (and vague and largely hypothetical) abuses of police powers that are nothing like the innovations they seem to think, ad nauseum….
…well, we all know how that would turn out.
On the other hand, if you think I’m wrong, Melissa, let us know why this case is anything but an official relying upon established precedent.
Hey, isn’t Wilson McSockpuppet a Constitutional Law expert with a bestselling book, and a meteoric rise, yadda, yadda? You’d think he’d know this stuff. Or maybe he’s just completely full of crap and only holds sway over the ignorant.
t: tears cases
Seriously, Melissa. If the GOP were going to pick a dictator for life they would pick someone with a better ticker than Darth Cheney.
Preemptive impeachment. Because we have to!
Brilliant. Nearing 7 years in to the Bush administration, where the fuck are the
concentrationreeducation camps? This is no way to run an imperial dictatorship.[…] isn’t allowed to touch anyone related to the 9 attorneys fired) turns out to be borrowed from Bill Clinton. Of course, everyone who went hysterical over it the other day will never admit that. Posted by […]
Were you expecting something other than Hysteria on this?
I’d point out to these mental giants that asking a Democrat/moonbat/leftist/pathological liar about constitutionality is akin to asking a Socialist about free markets.
Oh. I’m sorry, was that too much overlap?
[checks TODAY’s blognews…]
For example, to wit, here you go: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/liberals_re_writing_the_constitution_re_defining_rights/
OUTRAGE!
This isn’t the first time that something “unprecedented” by the Bush administration turns out to be a Clinton administration precedent.
From Joshua Marshall’s post: “Huge new claim of executive privilege from the White House is about to be reported in the Post.”
And yet these types of folks still like to pretend that the MSM isn’t their best friend. The MSM launches some story, the liberal blogs eat it up, sometimes having been prepped beforehand (or involved in actually making the story), and that’s just the way it works. Propaganda 101.
JHoward – funny how the people who spent the previous admin claiming that the Constitution was a “living document” that needed to be “interpreted” are suddenly pretending to be originalists.
In other words, pull the other one!
Given that socialism is merely envy and theft by another name, Merovign, when you add in the Left’s chronic constitutional-opportunism, it’s easy to see leftism as that mental disorder more and more see it as. The Lie appears to be the core of all of leftism.
To that point, today Instapundit links this little bit of freakiness. Lies turn some
peopleleftists on: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/penelope-trunk/it-doesnt-matter-that-jo_b_56985.htmlCATO still has a link to the “Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton” video around somewhere. I think they did a book, too.
I seem to recall his AG and SG making some pretty muscular claims about the prerogatives of the Executive Branch in their day.
Not to engage in tu quoque, but much of what passes for unprecedented in Bush’s official acts really isn’t. It goes to the credibility of Bush’s existential opponents that they’re often so inconsistent. I don’t love the guy but there are plenty of honest bases for criticism to be found.
You know, I was going to try to engage Melissa in a calm and detailed discussion of the case, but after reading the “impreachment more important†thingy at her link…well, we all know how that would turn out.
Really? You know how a discussion with me would turn out based on something someone else wrote? Amazing.
Melissa… hi.
So, in your own words could you tell us how you feel about impeachment of Bush/ Cheney and your ideas on the administrations claims of executive privilege?
Thus the “on the other hand,” Melissa. But please, do carry on as expected.
To expand on that thought, you (Melissa) chose that link to represent yourself. If the ideas don’t represent you, don’t choose that link to represent yourself.
I found a link to this http://tinyurl.com/28gq42 over at Shakesville, if you are in the mood for some mainstream, world-class bullshit.
Interesting sub-text, B. Moe:
Democrats—we’re the cerebral ones, but we’ll put up w/ the rest of you mo-rons.
In reality, I’m very doubtful many Democrats (i.e., members of the Democratic Party) believe this. But the opinion-makers, academics, and theorists who “guide” the Democratic Party?
That’s a different kettle of fish, entirely….
The Democrats are totally emotionally driven, have been as long as I can remember. I think that is one reason they are almost always aligned with the major media. Emotions sell news, also.
Here’s the link to Melissa’s post at Stickyville explaining that her co-blogger was both wrong and hysterical about the non-bold, old assertion of executive authority.
Or, as they aren’t keen to defend Clinton, here’s the link to the post pointing out that Clinton’s claim was wrong and explaining why.
I love watching the current idiots in congress set up the next president. It doesn’t matter who the next president is, all of the silly investigations and false claims by the dhimmi’s in congress will come back to bite them in the a**, and bite them hard. The silly stand against firing worthless procesutor will show up when the next democrat takes office and tries to replace anyone appointed by President Bush. They only have to refuse to leave the job and cite the current congress as a valid reason. It should be quite interesting to see the democrats do backflips and deny that’s what they tried to do.
This is the very beginning of the linked article:
Consider this hypothetical:
A Democratic president is forced to take action after terrorists attack New York and Washington. It’s clear that the terrorists’ sponsors are based in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But within 18 months, this Democrat decides to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack.
What the fuck is hypothetical about that? WTC 95, Clinton invades Yugoslavia.
uh, B Moe, I think you mean OKC? WTC was 93.
Ooops, I meant the WTC, just got the date wrong.
CW:some prolific posters have better memories than others ;)
“Btw, if you were a regular reader of “Stickyville,†you’d probably know that there are few of us there who are keen to defend Clinton.”
Well, duh. Once the guy’s out-of-power, you can always admit he was a failure in the face of legitimate criticism. But when he was in office and held the keys to the Democrat shortbus, it was “Vast right wing conspiracy/ only a blowjob/ can’t force them to testify/ bomb Saddam to hell and save us from his WMDs, Bubba!”
Lockstep, always. Like the NAZIS did!
‘Cause I know Jeff loves himself some good meta-narrative:
Patterico
SB: weakness Gresham
Henry VI?