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.
The idea of granting supboena power to President Obama's oil spill inquiry commission has overwhelming support in the Congress. Just last week, the House voted 420 to 1 to do just that. The lone Republican to object was Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). But just yesterday, when Senate Democrats tried to make it official by unanimous consent, they hit a brick wall in the form of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC).
DeMint objected, likely delaying the subpoena power for weeks. But he did so not because of his own objections, but was acting on behalf of "members of the Republican conference."
"They voted against giving subpoena power yesterday...to the President's commission to look into the Gulf of Mexico situation," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at her weekly press conference this morning. "How much more of a friend of Big Oil can you be."
Stuart Varney: I know you’re also concerned of the people who are on that commission. Because as you can see – we’re scrolling it up on the screen right now – most of them are environmentalist. I don’t believe there is a driller up or a serious oil person on that commission. But, again, to return to your point about executive power, overreach maybe. Again, doesn’t this rise to the level of such a disaster, that maybe the federal government really has to just get in there and do it?
Ron Paul: Well, that’s generally the case in this city; whenever there is a crisis, it’s always so great that you have everybody rise to such a level, that you can put aside the Constitution. This is a time when you should be particularly protective of the Constitution, whether it’s 9/11 or whatever. Just look at what we did after 9/11 with the PATRIOT Act and other things. I think we go to fast. Sometimes we even go to war because it rises to a certain level. We went to war against Iraq and Afghanistan without a declaration of war, because people say, “It’s an emergency, weapons of mass destruction”. So we should be very cautious. We can work this through, but to reject our rules and reject the process I think is a very dangerous precedent to set.
Of course the same people who cried foul over Bush doing it are now going be all for Obamas "commission" staffed up with ideologues to further an agenda and thus completely trampling the process (and the constitution).
Of course the same people who cried foul over Bush doing it are now going be all for Obamas "commission" staffed up with ideologues to further an agenda and thus completely trampling the process (and the constitution).
They're on a witch hunt..they want blood and want it now.
They want to parade someone in front of the cameras and put all the blame on them. Knee jerk reactions rather than clear, level headed thinking.
The first thing out of DC for any wrongdoing is "let's form a committee and invite everyone to sit on the hotseat while we supposedly grill them and make them look like the bad guy".
They did it with the bankers, the auto CEO's, heck..even the baseball players. And then.....nothing but back to BAU.
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.
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.
