Above the Law...

Look BIR. I am not being difficult or sarcastic. I can not reasonably answer your question until this has been cleared up. Quite honestly I do not currently know the answer to my question so I aslked you thinking you may be more educated on the matter. It was an honest question.

 

Yes, I did. If you notice, I tend to agree with you, but wonder about my question.

Separation of powers, and legitimate authority. If I issue you a subpoena, do you have to comply? You would say no, and rightly so, because I have no authority to issue a subpoena. This is a case where Congress has no authority to issue a subpoena about this matter, it seems to me.

Again, I would ask if the WH can summons Congressional aides to testify about conversations in their bosses office? I don't think so. And I think you agree. The power of oversight does not involve this kind of stuff, so far as I can tell. (Of course, that's not very far.)

Why not? You would ignore my subpoena. Furthermore, it wasn't really ignored. It was talked about beforehand, and after.

I think she should have gone and answered every question with, "That's none of your business."

Way too hot. Having VBS this week. And getting the boat out this afternoon for the first time this year (and the first time for my son who is 16 months old). Gonna take a little spin and see how she runs after a cold winter and a hot summer.

Hope all is well with you ... and cooler there than here.

 

I'm sure you are.

Just as I am still waiting for you to back up your original contention that the actions of the Administration somehow place them "above the law", yet I have clearly shown that they don't.

Would you like to start another thread concerning your question? You evidently want to dodge your own issue in this one.

 

My apologies. Whitewater... I am ashamed of how the GOp handled a number of things during the Clinton admin. More so about Lewinski than anything else. However that has no bearing or comparison to this situation.

 

It is not a question of authority to issue subpoenas, per se. But a question of whom they were issuing it to. They cannot compel a member of another branch to come and testify. Think about it. what would the response be if the judiciary committee issued a subpoena to a Federal court clerk to come and testify about decision making in the court. There would be an uproar. Why is it any difference for the WH? I don't think it is.

 

Pastor Larry and BiR, a weather break:
Over the last week here in TN, we've gotten back to normal with temps in the mid 90s and high humidity. Most of July was below avg. Days in the 80s. Humidity only in the 60% range. You could still see the mountains here in East Tennessee for the lack of haze. Heck, a couple of mornings you could see your breath.

Have you experienced any of this?

 

You have failed miserably to make your case.

You have been defeated by one sentence of a Supreme Court ruling. It was Congress that acted "above the law", if anyone did.

 

Are really thinking this is comparable to the Whitewater Investigation. Do you know how the story broke? Do you know who called for the investigation?

 

Your question was so broad it was difficult to answer. so I made an attempt tomake things regarding your question more clear so I could answer it. But you do not seem to ba able to answer them.

God Bless

 

I guess that response will have to stand as your final proof of the trhth of your original assertion. It is undoubtably the best, since you have offered no other.:thumbs:

 

Just one sentence of a Supreme Court ruling that you have made no effort to refute.

"Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one or the other branches of the Government."

But I'm tired of playing along with your childish games on this. The reason you don't supply any backup for your assertion is that , not only do you not have any, there is none available.

Now you can have what's left of this thread all to yourself. The intellectually dishonest debate tactics you are employing here are not my cup of tea.