NYTimes Editorial Discusses Inherent Contempt

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:30:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In an editorial for tomorrow's paper, the NYTimes Editorial Board writes:

The next question is how Congress will enforce its right to obtain information, and it is on that point that the administration is said to have made its latest disturbing claim. If Congress holds White House officials in contempt, the next step should be that the United States attorney for the District of Columbia brings the matter to a grand jury. But according to a Washington Post report, the administration is saying that its claim of executive privilege means that the United States attorney would be ordered not to go forward with the case.
. . . The White House’s extreme position could lead to a constitutional crisis. If the executive branch refused to follow the law, Congress could use its own inherent contempt powers, in which it would level the charges itself and hold a trial. The much more reasonable route for everyone would be to proceed through the courts.
. . . Congress should use all of the tools at its disposal to pursue its investigations. It is not only a matter of getting to the bottom of some possibly serious government misconduct. It is about preserving the checks and balances that are a vital part of American democracy.

I agree with this editorial. And implicit in the times' last graf is that IF the Bush Administration blocks a judicial remedy, then the Congress must proceed to inherent contempt proceedings. That is also the conclusion I have reached as well.

< Iran-Contra: A History Lesson on Defunding | Worst Excuse of the Day >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

NYTimes Editorial Discusses Inherent Contempt | 5 comments (5 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

As John Dean pointed out ... (none / 0) (#1)
by chemoelectric on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 11:46:13 PM EST

As John Dean pointed out on the Randi Rhodes radio program, if Congress merely were to get together procedures for inherent contempt then the White House would take notice. So I think there should be no waiting and Pelosi et al. ought to be making a lot of noise about how they are preparing to use inherent contempt, and drawing up procedures.

I don't think 'reasonableness' matters the most, because Bush isn't being 'reasonable' but rather a bully, and so it is more important to take forceful control of the situation as soon as possible. Congress ought to try to keep ahead of the bully Bush, noisily commencing the thing that is one step past wherever he is.

Making Bush appear weak, by such methods, may also be the best tool to drive down his approval numbers even more, thanks to the boyish psychology of Bush supporters. The Beltway Gasbags might revolt, but they already are revolting. :) Meanwhile the rest of the US mostly would like to see Congress being combative rather than 'reasonable' towards Bush, I think.

: Yep (none / 0) (#2)
by manys on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 12:41:54 AM EST

That's how this administration does it with the veto, threaten and prepare to use it and the weaklings back down.

has it occured to anyone (none / 0) (#3)
by cpinva on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:25:01 AM EST

but me, that this whole thing is drama carried to farce, but not for the obvious reason? realistically, what the hell does bush or cheney care, about the US Attorney "scandal"? they aren't going to be impeached, and everyone knows it. worst case, the AG gets thrown to the wolves, and maybe a couple of underlings get nailed. so what?

could it be that bush is pushing just as hard as he can, looking to future republican presidents, and trying to raise that "unitary presidency" bar just as high as he can, for their benefit? hmmmmmmmmm, could be. maybe. i sincerely doubt it. frankly, bush's idea of "long-term" is, "what's for dinner tonite?", so i don't think future republicans are on his mental menu.

perhaps, it's his way of showing everyone what cajones' he has; by god, he'll show them he's as tough as the old man was! maybe, probably not. he comes across as so glaze eyed right now, that's a thought process requiring far more coherence than he's capable of.

so what is it then? hey, i thought you'd never ask!

how about a reverse "wag-the-dog" scenario? he comes up with as many ludicrous things as he can, to keep congress occupied, knowing full well he'll lose them, ultimately. but, so what? if they do their job, they'll have kept congress from actually completing any substantive work, for the next 18 months, allowing him to get the heck out of dodge.

no meddling in iraq, no concrete investigations of the numerous questionable activities in this administration. while congress howls, bush moves on, to the next inane constitutional crisis. and congress gets nothing done.

it's damn near perfect. so much so, i doubt bush thought of it. my suspicion is cheney and gonzalez came up with it, and told bush what he was going to do.

just another wild conspiricy theory, brought to you by the fine folks at general mills! lol

: Same ol', same ol'. (none / 0) (#4)
by Gabriel Malor on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:42:07 AM EST

my suspicion is cheney and gonzalez came up with it, and told bush what he was going to do.
Keep guessing.
This is just another example of overexcitable dems claiming that President Bush is doing something new and outrageous, as if he's the first to do it, or somehow pushing the bounds beyond all prior governments. See also "preemptive war" and "international wiretaps" and "questionable pardons."
Yesterday, dems characterized the recent executive order as "a bold new assertion of executive authority." In reality, he's just echoing the conclusions of prior administrations, including Presidents Reagan and Clinton.
Today, in the Washington Post:

But administration officials and other legal scholars, including some Democrats, noted that Justice Department lawyers in the Clinton administration made a similar argument during a controversy with Congress over the nomination of a federal judge.
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."

Inherent contempt... (none / 0) (#5)
by lespool on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:42:10 AM EST

I inherently disagree, as it would take far too long to play nice through the courts. Congress must act immediately, using their inherent contempt powers to stop executive lawlessness. It's not like Americans are in need of immediate gratification here, I think we have waited, patiently long enough.