Bush pisses on Constitution; Boring Dem revolts.

As I expected would occur, events have outpaced the arguments over impeachment. With the latest development, in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Bush has left Congress with no choice but to rely on those Constitutional powers it possesses which are independent of the judiciary. That leaves very few options---the only ones I know that have teeth are inherent contempt and impeachment. Impeachment or complete constitutional capitulation are the choices now. To arms! and to the phones!

UPDATE: Here are some quotes from the article

"Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege."

...
"But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts."

..
"Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all.
"

To put it another way, the Bush administration brough the atom bomb into the rock/paper/scissors system of checks and balances written into the Constitution.

•  Ludicrously broad invocation of exec priv

  Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

  "That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

  by pawlr on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:28:15 PM PDT

•  We've been waiting for you to join us, we

  knew you would be along sooner or later.

  by Blogvirgin on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:30:35 PM PDT

•  You might want to update the diary with a summary

  of the WaPo article.

  by fou on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:31:35 PM PDT

  •  yes, also recommend more substantive headline

    by pawlr on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:32:33 PM PDT

    •  Do you like the new headline?

      by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:46:08 PM PDT

  •  First thing was to be # 1:)

    I'll update it in a minute.

    by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:35:00 PM PDT

•  whoa

  by Turkana on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:32:29 PM PDT

  •  I suppose you have to disagree with me

    to keep the tradition.

    by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:39:54 PM PDT

    •  heh

      yeah, i should go anti-impeach, now. just surprised to see you do this, after previous discussions. anyway- welcome aboard.

      by Turkana on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:41:44 PM PDT

      •  Well, i'm not surprised by this

        It has looked like events would force the Democrats to choose impeachment to overcome Bush's obstructive use of Executive Priviledge.
        I imagine the next step will be quick inherent contempt charges against Josh Bolten, at which point the DOJ will declare a legal theory that invalidates that process.

        by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:45:15 PM PDT

        •  they will stonewall everything

          including impeachment hearings- which will only hurt them all the more.

          by Turkana on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:46:21 PM PDT

          •  It will hurt them in the polls

            But the constitution is going to take a big HIT. How does the constitution recover?

            Impeachment is the only answer.

            by ChuckInReno on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:56:54 PM PDT

            •  How does the constitution recover?

              It will not unless there is either impeachment or a massive change in control of the Congress in 2008. That change must also bring with it people absolutely dedicated to doing some deep, deep purging of these radical precedents.

              In all honesty I do not see after the fact action doing much more than putting band aids on a badly wounded assault victim. That is why I would so like to see impeachment, though there is going to have to be some "live boy or dead girl" level incident to really capture public attention to that necessity.

              by pelagicray on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:39:47 PM PDT

              •  Change of control of congress doesn't matter

                This president and his wild hubris need to be repudiated by THIS congress.

                He clearly doesn't give a shit anymore about maintaining even the appearance of propriety. His logic is the same as that of Cartman from South Park: I do what I want.

                by dantyrant on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:07:39 AM PDT

      •  Mirror universe switches are not allowed at this

        late stage. We apologize for the Hells we're all about to go through. :P

        by RElland on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:45:16 PM PDT

    •  yeah, you and I have been agreeing more....

      than we've been disagreeing lately.  Interesting.  Something is changing, and I don't think it's either of us.  

      I think the frame or window or whatever you want to call it, is shifting.  

      I think the Regime is getting more extreme with every passing day, to the point where there's a growing convergence on the necessary remedies if we're to prevent something much bigger & much worse.

      by G2geek on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:34:50 PM PDT

      •  well, I like to think that I'm pragmatic

        to some extent, which is the basis for my hesitation. However, when someone starts shooting at you, the pragmatic choice may not be sitting still:)
        Bush is taking an all or nothing gamble now---aiming to establish as a matter of law the principles of the Unitary Executive. You can bet that our next Democratic President is going to be all over Bush for this. I mean, Hillary wouldn't want that kind of power for herself, would she?!

        by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:42:52 PM PDT

•  Enough

  Impeach these dictators now.

  by RElland on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:35:24 PM PDT

•  My sig line says it all n/t

  by litigatormom on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:36:00 PM PDT

•  This deserves wide reading here

  but that will take a better headline and a bit of substance, like, as suggested above, a brief quote from the article.

  But as to the article, I can only say, OMG. Send the Sergeant of Arms after whoever wrote this, for if this isn't inherent contempt, I don't know what would be.

  Of course, that person's identity is covered by executive privilege, so I guess we'll just have to declare the President in inherent contempt--of Congress, of the Constitution, of the American people.

  by Tenn Wisc Dem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:38:00 PM PDT

  •  This is so important.

    I hate to recommend such a lazy, nothing diary though.  They'll probably be a better diary coming soon, which will be worthy of recommendation.

    by 2lucky on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:46:45 PM PDT

    •  There is, and I hope you've reced it.

      I have. It's pretty close to the top right now.

      by Tenn Wisc Dem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:21:43 PM PDT

      •  Yup. Thanks. n/t

        by 2lucky on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:24:09 PM PDT

•  Democrats and Republicans need to quash this

  In the interest of preserving the Congress as a separate branch, the Republicans and Democrats should agree to test this assertion of power.

  If the USA for Washington, DC refuses to prosecute, they could quickly impeach and convict him, with the full effects - i.e., never work for the US Government again in any capacity.

  Then see what the next USA chooses to do.

  Are the Republicans so craven as to not push back?

  by S wapiti on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:39:37 PM PDT

•  Wow, If Even the Boring Dems Favor It,

  it must not be so wild or scary.

  by Gooserock on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:40:24 PM PDT

  •  Well, no offense, but I've been BORED

    to death by all the impeachment diaries.
    So naturally once that happened, I had to join the movement.

    by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:49:58 PM PDT

    •  So technically you're now a zombie

      typing at some keyboard?
      Boy, the neighbors are gonna get seriously pissed about the future smells.
      Won't notice the missing brains though I quess...

      by RElland on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:51:09 PM PDT

      •  I donated them to Turkana

        not that its made any difference. sniff
        You want some?

        by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:56:08 PM PDT

        •  Nah

          Got Donuts?

          by RElland on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:56:37 PM PDT

•  Now all you have to do

  is get 17 GOP senators to agree with you. Good luck. You'll need it.

  by Batfish on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:40:49 PM PDT

  •  yeah

    because head counts proved so vital, during nixon's senate impeachment trial.

    by Turkana on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:43:16 PM PDT

    •  exactly, exactly, exactly

      n/t

      by Pondite on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:59:24 PM PDT

    •  Different party, different time

      Also, actual criminal-type enterprises. At this stage, it all looks a little bit like "excuse me, but you stepping on my Constitution." I think you need evidence of a crime that, if committed by you or I, would get us a jail term. Like breaking into a building and stealing stuff. Or bribing witnesses. That kind of thing is necessary. But I repeat my complete lack of faith in any of the Republicans in the Senate. I don't think they would stand up and vote to impeach their President under ANY circumstances conceivable. ANY circumstances. Apparently you have more faith in them.

      by Batfish on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:54:39 PM PDT

      •  as I mentioned elsewhere

        it's not necessarily a matter of "faith" in them.

        It's their own self interest.  I predict lots (dozens!) of should-be-very-safe incumbent Republicans are going to be (way) down in the polls in April 2008, and they'll know that neither DeLay nor Rove nor Bush nor the Supreme Court is coming to save them.  They'll see their own forced retirement looming, and they'll throw Bush under the bus to save their beloved seat in Congress.

        But that only happens if impeachment is a live option presented by the Democrats.

        by Pondite on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 04:51:30 PM PDT

  •  Unless you live outside the United States

    I would say the same for you. And all of us. What's to stop King George and all his pals from REALLY letting loose on the country if the legislative branch falls completely?

    by RElland on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:43:21 PM PDT

    •  Actually

      What's to stop him now, since the legislative branch either buckles under to him, or just whines when he vetoes them? Bush is King and Emperor in all but name now. The coronation will take place in 2009, after he has declared Martial Law and annulled any elections.

      by Spoc42 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:15:26 AM PDT

  •  Don't need a single senator

    to impeach.

    by LithiumCola on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:43:39 PM PDT

    •  shhhh!

      that's a secret!

      by Turkana on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:44:35 PM PDT

  •  Apparently you don't know

    Impeachment takes place in the House, dear, not the Senate.

    /snarkity

    by Susan Something on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:54:13 PM PDT

    •  Okay, I'll bite...

      Let's say we get Impeachment on the table and we start the hearings.  Yay!  Now we can access all the documents and all the White House staff we want and we FINALLY get to to see the truth just like it happened with Nixon, right?  That's the pro-Impeachment plan as I understand it.

      But wait, hold on a moment, didn't the Unitary Exec just say that his claim of Executive Priveledge trumps everything including any form of Congressional contempt?

      Even Inherent Contempt cannot help in this matter because let's say Congress uses that gun.  Okay, the witness gives in and testifies falsly before Congress or commits any other crime that forces Congress to charge them with something that qualifies as a Crime Against the United States.  Provided it ever gets to the conviction stage...the President pardons and says, "Next."  There're still no docs, no testimony, no smoking gun, no Nixon Tapes, no nothing to convince 17-20 Republican Senators that Bush or Cheney or any other member of the Executive Branch should be removed from office.

      Any confrontation that landed in the lap of the SCOTUS that is even MORE stacked to the Right than the SCOTUS that handed the Presidency to the Shrub will likely rule in favor of any claims made by the Executive.

      We can hope that Justice Kennedy will grow a conscience but he did rule with a majority that made the "one time only" judgement that GWB rightfully one the 2000 election.  The process may be interesting to watch but, really without 67 votes in the Senate there's just nothing that we can do at this point.

      It looks like the country is in check. It looks like Justice Kennedy is in a position to become the White Knight that saves us from defeat. The timing will have to be perfect, though.  Maybe the reversal on hearing the Gitmo(?) case is a good indication that he's ready to take up the mantle, except that the Brown descision was very scary.  

      by MaxUS on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:56:41 PM PDT

      •  Thank you, Max

        Somebody at least has a grip on the realities of the situation. Good job.

        by Batfish on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 01:56:02 PM PDT

•  Holy. Moly.

  David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

  Is this a joke?

  by LithiumCola on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:42:01 PM PDT

  •  No

    It's Bush and Cheney.
    What's to laugh at?

    by RElland on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:44:23 PM PDT

  •  I didn't think it was possible, but

    I am shocked.  

    by 2lucky on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:45:21 PM PDT

    •  I'm not

      It's par for the course for the man who sees nothing wrong with dictatorships as long as he's the dictator.

      by Cali Techie on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:04:15 PM PDT

  •  emanations: you beat me to it...

    Of all the lines in the article, that one was so shocking it nearly made me choke on the food I was eating when I read it.  

    US attorneys are emanations of a president's will.

    That language is absolutely beyond the pale.  These people really are fascists.  Classical fascists.  

    If Congress doesn't get on this like it's a four-alarm fire, they are going to wake up one day and discover there's no more Congress.  

    "Why didn't we do something when we still could?!"  

    by G2geek on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:28:06 PM PDT

    •  No more Congress

      This is proof that people don't learn from history. As a Brit, I remember learning at school about Charles I and the dissolution of Parliament. That inevitably lead to the English Civil War, Lord Protector Cromwell, Puritanism, and all that fun!

      It looks like America is going to go through it all over again. Serves you right, if you can't get your heads out of the sand and start doing something about it!

      by Spoc42 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:22:09 AM PDT

•  Did you see this:

  The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view.

  That view:

  Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

  I think it's safe to say that the WH is saying to Congress "I told you last time: F*** you!"

  They want this before the extremely conservate federal judiciary so that their view of executive privilege is legal precedent.  

  This is what we expected.  If Congress continues with its current pace of sending stern warning letters, that may just do it for me.  

  Bushco doesn't have a modicum of respect for our system of government: they didn't have the common decency to notify Congress that they will prevent the DOJ from enforcing contempt citations: they leaked it to the WAPO?  

  This is truly astonishing.  Add me to the impeachment camp.

  by 2lucky on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:44:31 PM PDT

  •  Might be a trial balloon?

    To see how quickly the Republican Senators roll over and expose their bellies?

    Hmm. 12 hours before they rolled over.  Let's see if we can get it down to 6. -Angler

    by S wapiti on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:54:48 PM PDT

    •  It's craven no matter the intent.

      Besides, they know the soft-underbelly Senators are going to drag out the Iraq war game as close as possible to the 2008 elections: they're party people, as they've made clear.  

      by 2lucky on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:00:18 PM PDT

    •  I don't think it's a trial balloon.

      The interviewed official indicated they've been planning this announcement for weeks.  Meaning: well before all the business with Meirs.

      by LithiumCola on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:03:28 PM PDT

  •  I wish the House could secretly Impeach

    Gonzalez in the dead of night, as payback.

    by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:01:19 PM PDT

    •  That's it!

      Cancel summer break. Time for plays and sneak attacks are done with.
      August sounds like a good month to impeach.

      by RElland on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:19:43 PM PDT

      •  Idea?

        The way to get Congress to stay during August and actually do some work is to compare them to the Iraqi government. Just say:

        "So you're taking August off, are you? I didn't know you were a member of the Iraqi government!"

        That just might get them off their fat duffs and actually doing what they were elected for [well, we can all dream, can't we?]

        by Spoc42 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 02:26:06 AM PDT

•  Ok, so they've decided

  it's out in the open warfare now.

  Rock on

  We need to organize some kind massive faxing and calling campaign (email can be deleted and snail is too slow). Not just one day either, it needs to be a sustained thing.

  We need a simple message to get out to our fellow citizens to let them know what is coming. Bumper sticker material, unfortunately.

  by kml on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:47:11 PM PDT

  •  Protest marches are called for now.

    Wikipedia page here

    I love wikipedia.

    by ChuckInReno on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:02:44 PM PDT

    •  Actually, ridicule is the right first weapon

      The Dems still have to play the press and the public to reach their goal. The problem with massive protest marches is that they don't get covered in the national press---or they barely get covered, with the numbers downplayed. What's important is to draw attention to this overreach by Bush, and I think this theory is very open to ridicule. I mean, what next? Congress needs a hall pass to take a stroll on the 1600 block of Pennsylvania avenue?

      by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:08:45 PM PDT

•  This is it, they're going with it, now.

  Two comments on moments in the article:

  The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

  Read that sentence very carefully.  It doesn't say, "discussing when and how to adopt a stance".  The official apparently said, "recent weeks . . . discussing when and how to disclose the stance".  

  This was the intention, Cheney's intention, all along.  To commit every Nixon crime and make them policy.

  Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

  Not almost.  It surpasses Nixon.  It's breathtaking.  They want to normalize the criminal White House.  Or as Rifkin calls it, in the article, "the Unitary Executive" in which US Attys are "emmenations of the President's will", for one thing.

  We know Cheney wanted to do this all along.  I had assumed he meant to habituate the country into accepting a Nixonian unitary executive.  Maybe he did, at first.  But clearly, now, he will settle for forcing it upon America.

  This is just incredible.

  by LithiumCola on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:01:22 PM PDT

  •  I've Been Calling This All Along

    They've got no choice but to shut opposition out. Except perhaps to shut it down.

    But entirely apart from choice, they've been promising us this since like FDR. Certainly since 1980.

    I keep going back to my ethylene-induced comments after the election: Beware the Gonzales smirk, it means something.

    Once I saw the Kennedy SC voting I concluded they've won. I still think they've won.

    by Gooserock on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:15:54 PM PDT

•  Pony Blow's going to have an orgasm tomorrow

  or do I mean aneurysm.. I"m not sure. Anyway, should be fun to watch.

  by BoringDem on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:10:36 PM PDT

•  Do I understand correctly, that the house does

  the impeaching of the President? If so, don't we have a very strong majority in the House. If we do then I recommend that this diary get posted to every liberal, Independent, and moderate site on the Internet. Also sent to every House member able to make Impeachment happen. It is time to get these idiots out of power before they completely destroy the constitution.  I believe they don't believe we will impeach them but that could very well be our October surprise. This is just a thought and I'm not even sure it is possible.

  by dem for truth on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:08:56 AM PDT

  •  Impeachment alone

    does not "get these idiots out of power."

    Impeachment also does not give Congress any sort of magic wand to overcome these wild claims of executive powers to deny documents and even the appearance of witnesses before Congress. The only answer Congress really has to that during impeachment is to make the claim itself an article of impeachment that is plainly evident and go directly to a vote to impeach.

    Then it is over to the Senate for conviction. Are there enough Senate Republicans who honor their oath to the Constitution over party enough for that? There lies the doubt.

    I am afraid the founder's world of a strong Congress, weak to no political parties, a citizenry that had just taken up arms against a tyrant and a likely executive in the model of a Washington blinded them to some extent. They may have set the hurdle for conviction in the Senate too high. But then they did not view impeachment as the oh so special tool of dread it has become. Some of the discussions they had indicate they expected it to be used rather freely.

    by pelagicray on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:50:53 AM PDT