Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol @ "contempt of Congress". Isn't that like pinching a prostitute on the butt?
Nothing short of impeachment will do anything to get Holder to come along and I doubt the Senate would go along with that. However, the House can bring it off, if they can get past the Speaker, Boehner and his RINO actions. In watching Boehner try to stop Issa from this investigation I have determined that Boehner is nothing less than one of the worst RINOs in Congress.
Issa can continue to keep this thing in front of the public and it may cost some votes for Obama in the end. It is so obvious what is going on that maybe some left leaning people can come to see what is going on.
Has anyone noticed on this thread that in January Issa threatened contempt charges and nothing has happened yet other than more threats. I wonder how much Boehner has to do with this.
That would seem to be a serious separation of powers issue, but hey that hasn't stopped the "Constitutionalists" before.
I see that you must think that separation of powers is more important than Checks and Balances. Can you explain how that is? Oh yeah, left leaners don't care about Checks and Balances when their people are involved. Actually what you suggest is much more anti-constitutional than what the real truth is.
I see that you must think that separation of powers is more important than Checks and Balances. Can you explain how that is? Oh yeah, left leaners don't care about Checks and Balances when their people are involved. Actually what you suggest is much more anti-constitutional than what the real truth is.
Separation of powers is basically another way of saying checks and balances. If you allow congress to run wild over the executive and judicial branches there are no checks and balances. The need for some executive privilege has been recognized by the Supreme Court for quite some time.
Basically this goes back to 1796 when George Washington refused to provide the house with treaty documents.
Separation of powers is basically another way of saying checks and balances. If you allow congress to run wild over the executive and judicial branches there are no checks and balances. The need for some executive privilege has been recognized by the Supreme Court for quite some time.
Basically this goes back to 1796 when George Washington refused to provide the house with treaty documents.
Was your example anything like what Holder is doing now? I know about both cases enough to know that the answer is no. I think that Executive Privilege extends to the Executive but not to all his employees. He is elected and Holder was appointed.
Calling all libs. One of your favorite deflectors has announced to me that he is through writing here, just reading occasionally. I think he ran away because he knew I had "taken" him. I will surely miss old Casper but this isn't the first time.
Was your example anything like what Holder is doing now? I know about both cases enough to know that the answer is no. I think that Executive Privilege extends to the Executive but not to all his employees. He is elected and Holder was appointed.
It absolutely extends to employees. During the Eisenhower administration when the anti-communist hearings were occurring, Eisenhower forbid DOD officials from testifying, or giving statements to Congress under the belief that a communist witch-hunt could undermine the military.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.