July 30, 2008

Congressional Dems: Some Branches Are More Equal Than Others

Hatched by Dafydd

For months now, Democratic congressional leaders, such as Rep. John Conyers (D-MI, 100%) and Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT, 95%), have declared Karl Rove to be in contempt of Congress. Now, had they accused him of having contempt for Congress, they might have a case; but if that is the standard, they will have to refer 82.7% of adult Americans to the U.S. Attorney (USA) for prosecution.

Apart from the laughability of Congress demanding that a USA appointed by President George W. Bush prosecute the chief advisor to George W. Bush, merely because Mr. Rove tweaked the Democrats' beards (Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Haight-Ashbury, shaves hers off), there is actually a serious question here. According to our constitution, our government comprises three branches: the Legislature (Congress), the Executive (President of the United States), and the Judiciary (Supreme Court and all inferior federal courts).

As the Founders designed it, all branches are created equal. But since the 2006 elections, the Democrats -- mimicking the pigs in the George Orwell book Animal Farm (which bears just as striking a similarity to the Democratic Party as to the Communist Party) -- have appended the clause, "but some are more equal than others." Viz.:

The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines, 20 to 14, to cite Mr. Rove for defying its subpoena to testify in an inquiry into improper political meddling in the department.

“Mr. Rove has left us no option,” said Representative John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the committee. Mr. Conyers expressed regret that the committee had been forced to use its subpoena power.

“Today’s vote was an important statement by this Committee that no person -- not even Karl Rove -- is above the law,” Mr. Conyers said.

But there is no "law" that says the president's most private counselors can be hauled into an open congressional hearing and forced to spill every bit of advice or counsel they gave the Chief Executive... anymore than la Casa Blanca can order the Secret Service to put the bag on John Conyers' top congressional aide, drag him into the antechamber off the Oval Office, and interrogate him, under oath, on what advice he has given his boss on, say, impeachment hearings.

If the legislative branch could do that to the others, backed by the power to throw people into jail if they don't testify when and how Congress wants to hear it -- perhaps even if they don't offer up the very testimony that Congress needs to make its political case -- then that branch would be the supreme branch, and the other two would simply be subordinate to it.

That, of course, is just how the Democrats see things... today. But a few short years ago, when they were in the White House and the GOP controlled both chambers on Capitol Hill, they had a very different idea: They believed that the Executive should be supreme, and the Legislature and Judiciary subservient. President Bill Clinton repeatedly invoked "executive privilege" to shield his administration and especially himself from congressional scrutiny.

The unbroken thread that connects these two positions is that Democrats believe they, as a party, should always command all power in the United States, while their "enemies" (the Republicans) should be utterly impotent. By contrast, Republicans have consistently argued that no branch should be superior to the others; that the Founders were right to make the branches coequal... and they should stay that way.

The elite media reckons this demonstrates moral parity between the two parties: Hey, some folks believe the Founders were right; some believe today's politicians should completely rewrite the Constitution to lock themselves permanently into power and nullify all future elections... it's he said, she said!

Perhaps the way Conyers and Leahy are acting is part of the Obamic "change" that Democrats, at least, can believe in; but I cannot imagine that Barack H. Obama would still believe in the supremacy of Congress if the worst happened, and he were actually elected president.

If that happens, the Fourth of July might start in January in the nation's capital.

As postscript, it's also striking how loony the Left sounds lately. For example, here is one of the questions that most vexes Conyers, and which he is dying to put to Rove under oath:

As part of its inquiry, the committee headed by Mr. Conyers wants to question Mr. Rove about his knowledge, if any, of the decision to prosecute former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat, who was convicted of bribery two years ago. Several Democrats have asserted that the charges were trumped up and politically motivated....

Mr. Rove has repeatedly stated -- tho7ugh [sic -- I th1nk] not before Congress and not under oath -- that he had no involvement in the Siegelman case, but Mr. Conyers said he is not convinced. “The questions about his role in the Siegelman case only continue to mount,” he said.

By saying questions "continue to mount," I assume he means that he, personally, keeps asking them -- perhaps in slightly different ways, so he can legitimately say they're distinct. Thus, "So, Rove, how did you manage to plant that evidence in Siegelman's home? And on another point, what method did you use to introduce fake evidence into the domicile in which Siegelman lived?"

If they managed to wrestle Rove into the chair in the hearing room and strapped him down, I have no doubt they would also interrogate him intently on who he hired to bring down the World Trade Centers via controlled demolition, and whether he was on the grassy knoll in Dallas or was the man with the umbrella.

I suppose the Democrats really don't know what jackasses they make of themselves virtually every time someone mistakenly gives them a chairmanship; I think they call it Gavel Fever. But the donkey party itself will be our secret weapon come November.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 30, 2008, at the time of 9:17 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3161


The following hissed in response by: kimsch

I thought I heard Harry Reid once say something about the branches of government and the context was that the House and the Senate were two separate branches...

I also keep hearing about how the Dems will gain seats in both houses. That they'll have a 60 vote majority in the senate and gain 20-30 seats in the house. This keeps being said, over and over again. But with Congress' abysmally low approval ratings and Nancy's "I'm going to save the Earth!" philosophy, I am doubting that "inevitability" more and more.

The above hissed in response by: kimsch [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 30, 2008 10:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

Have no doubt that Democrats believe it. They are, of course, entitled to rule over us peons, by birthright and by virtue. They are reinforced in this belief by the MSM, and don't believe the electon went against them even after all the votes are counted. When in the minority, they act as if they were the majority.

It's also wishful thinking, and an attempt at self-fulfilling prophecy. All of this is the natural result of the mental disease known as liberalism, and understandable in that light. What just baffles the dickens out of me is why REPUBLICANS believe this nonsense! When the RNC and conservative pundits start talking about "trying to keep from losing too many seats" as its goal for the election, rather than outright, smashing victory, it gets a bit disheartening.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 30, 2008 11:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

So...Siegelman was convicted. Which means he was probably guilty. Which means there must have been boat loads of evidence and witnesses to convict a sitting governor.

The controversy arose when a Republican lawyer, claimed she heard that Rove was going to neutralize Siegelman. She heard someone else (not Rove) make this claim on a conference call. She has changed her story several times since.

Dems. seem to think that whenever a Republican run justice department convicts a Dem. it is automatically political persecution. When the politician concivted is a Republican it is always justice being served. Just ask Ted Stevens.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 31, 2008 9:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: narciso79

He's probably still within his right, after all we are not talking any kind of criminal
investigation. It would be amusing to see Rove, "run rings around the Congress".

The above hissed in response by: narciso79 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 31, 2008 9:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: David M

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 07/31/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The above hissed in response by: David M [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 31, 2008 11:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: John J. Coupal

While it seems likely that Karl Rove has contempt for Congress, it's much more likely that he has contempt for recent Congresses, under Republican as well as Democrat control.

Of course, if Rove advised Bush not to veto anything coming from current Republican Congresses, then Rove himself is deserving of the people's contempt.

The above hissed in response by: John J. Coupal [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 31, 2008 5:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles


Dandy Don's corruption conviction is the result of a wide ranging investigation centered in the US Attorney's office for the Northern District of Alabama, Birmingham Division (involving the overturned conviction of a Tuscaloosa, AL physician who was over the Alabama Fire College for a period of time as well as a bidder on Medicaid contracts, the conviction of the CEO of HealthSouth Corp, as well as continuing investigations related to the Fire College and the Community College system here, and allegations of corruption with the lottery proposition) that began while Dandy Don was the sitting governor, but Bob Riley, R, Ashland and the former 3rd District CongressCritter, was the governor when Dandy Don was convicted (who is now in his second term).

Dandy Don lost to Bob Riley in a very close election that was turned by a recount in Baldwin County where a voting machine malfunctioned. Dandy Don hasn't been the same since ;) .

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 1, 2008 9:52 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved