Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Agreed. The checks and balances are supposed to be in my opinion to check and balance DURING not post. There is sometimes where there is some after the fact, but at least be done during the term of the administration.
|
How can Congress complete the job
during his administration if the (or any future) president cites some nebulous expansion of executive privileges and blocks every attempt to require WH (and other) staff to testify under oath? We're now in a holding patter while several Contempt of Congress charges await judicial action..that probably wont be resolve until after the election. What should Congress do if the federal judiciary rules in its favor?....abandon the hearings or proceed as necessary to take corrective action by proposing new legislation?
Quote:
|
Now part of that is done after the fact via the Judicial branch, in finding law unconstitutional, but I don't see "finding lies" from the executive branch a worthwhile endeavor just so that it can be ruled that Bush was a moron, liar, etc. I think that is making the Judicial branch more "politicized" in doing so.
|
Congressional oversight is not concerned solely with "finding lies" but with finding areas in which the Executive branch may (or may not) have acted lawfully, but violated administrative procedures outside the intent of Congress and in which new laws may be needed
OR where the issue of law is unsettled (ie , warrantless wiretaps, torture).
We have seen several actions by Congress as a result of these oversight hearings:
* FISA reform to prevent any future wiretapping of Americans w/o a warrant. (proposed)
* New laws regarding torture and treatment of non-combatants (proposed/failed)
* FOIA reform legislation as a result of WH directive that denied most FOIA requests(enacted)
* Possible expansion of the Hatch Act as a result of "political acts" that violated administrative rules and procedures (proposed)
* New FBI procedures regarding use of national security letters as a result of WH ignoring intent of Congress by issuing signing statement (pending)
* Greater contracting oversight and control as a result of abuses in Iraq reconstruction contracts(proposed)
* Revisions to Presidential Records Act as a result of WH destruction of e-mails (pending)
I think its fair to say that none of these would likely have occurred if not for the change in leadership of Congress.
Some of these issues (and many others) are still under review pending responses from the WH and the Executive branch to provide documentation of actions by the administration.
This is a proper role for Congress. Should they stop now, w/o those necessary WH docs? The Democratic Congress is making up for six years of the Republicans virtually abrogating this responsibility. I think they deserve more than 1-1/2 years to complete the job if necessary, particularly given the lack of cooperation by the WH and their Republican colleagues during that 1-1/2 years.
IMO, Congress's role as overseer of the Executive Branch (while not clearly delineated in the Constitution) is equally important as the role of enacting legislation and adopting a federal budget.
It is not to punish an administration....it is to make the Executive Branch more open and accountable to the American people.