NYT Hops on the 'Inherent Contempt' Bandwagon!

Boys and girls, when the New York times even utters a word or two that have been used exclusively in the blogospheric domain, that's big news. When they advocate such a route, it's pretty big fucking news.

The editorials on Sunday should not be missed. One eloquently talks about the impending and immoral S-Chip veto by Bush, and the other deals with the continuing failures of FEMA. But this editorial, entitled "Power Without Limits" gets to the heart of the ongoing abuses of power of the administration vis a vis Congress' oversight responsibilities.

The New York Times begins by explaining the radical new theory of the administration claiming that because of executive priviledge, they can simply stop the US Attorney from bringing a contempt of Congress charge to a grand jury.

There is no legal basis for this obstructionism. The Supreme Court has made clear that executive privilege is not simply what the president claims it to be. It must be evaluated case by case by a court, balancing the need for the information against the president’s interest in keeping his decision-making process private. Mark Rozell, an expert on executive privilege at George Mason University, calls the administration’s stance "almost Nixonian in breadth," because of its assertion that "the mere utterance of the phrase executive privilege" means that "no other branch has recourse."

I would say that calling this power grab "Nixonian" is an understatement. So how can the Congress respond in the face of such blatant abuse of power?

...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.

Of course I think everyone would agree that the normal avenue of pursuing contempt charges is preferable, but since Bush has already said that he won't allow it, those dusty old congressional Robert's Rules should get a second look.

By claiming that "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." the New York Times is essentially putting inherent contempt on the table for all the Beltway windbags and losers to digest. I'm sure it would be called "partisan political theater" by the usual suspects (it seems to be the favorite word of Republicans these days) but regardless of what these idiots might say, it is essential that Congress assert its Constitutional responsibility to preserve the foundations of American democracy as the editorial says. If Bush is allowed to get away with this ridiculous notion, he may be expanding dictatorial powers far beyond his presidency. And that is simply a precedent that should not take place.