PDA

View Full Version : Stupid Crooks: Vice presidency part of legislature, Cheney says


Taco John
06-21-2007, 06:40 PM
...or at least they think that the American people are stupid... Which they're probably right, because I'm sure someone here will defend these crooks.


Vice presidency part of legislature, Cheney says
His office claims it need not comply with an executive order on protecting data because it is not an "entity within the executive branch."

By Julia Malone, Cox News Service

Last update: June 21, 2007 – 7:25 PM

WASHINGTON - Dick Cheney, who has wielded extraordinary executive power as he transformed the image of the vice presidency, is asserting that his office is not actually part of the executive branch.
In a simmering dispute with the National Archives that heated up Thursday, Cheney has long maintained that he does not have to comply with an executive order on safeguarding classified information because, in fact, his office is part of the legislature.

Cheney, whose single constitutional duty is to serve as president of the Senate, holds that the vice president's office is not an "entity within the executive branch" and therefore not subject to annual reporting or periodic on-site inspections under the 1995 executive order.

Under the order, executive branch offices are required to give the Information Security Oversight Office -- the division of the National Archives set up to enforce safeguards for classified information in executive agencies -- data on how much material is classified and declassified.

Cheney's office provided the information in 2001 and 2002, then stopped.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, in a letter posted on the Internet Thursday, told Cheney that it was "irresponsible" to reject security oversight.

"Your office may have the worst record in the executive branch for safeguarding classified information," the California Democrat wrote. He cited the office's role in the CIA leak scandal.

Waxman said he had learned that Cheney's office, in a move that "could be construed as retaliation," had tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office but that effort had not been successful.

Constitutional experts were startled at the notion that the vice presidency might not be in the executive branch.

"The vice president is saying he doesn't have to follow the orders of the president," said Garrett Epps, a law professor at the University of Oregon. "That's a very interesting proposition." He said the lines have not been drawn that clearly: "The vice president spans, in some ways, the branches of government."

As vice president, Cheney receives his paycheck from the U.S. Senate, which also pays the salaries of much of his staff. However, he also sits in on Cabinet meetings and has an office at the White House.

Cheney's lawyers have used his role as adviser to the president to fend off a lawsuit seeking the names of energy executives who advised him on an energy task force.

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1261266.html

the Talking Can
06-21-2007, 08:12 PM
guilty creeps...

they're really ruining government....disrespect for every Law....

Taco John
06-21-2007, 08:16 PM
I just want to know what they're so desperate to hide that they'd be so blatant in their shenanigans.

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2007, 08:29 PM
FTR, I agree this is very lame. Constitutionally speaking though, it's an interesting point. The only Constitutional references to the VP, besides succession/determining Presidential disability in the 25th Amendment....are in Article 1 (the Legislature):

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_3_4-5.html

Article 1, Section 3: Clause 4 and 5

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

It's pretty pathetic, but the Courts will probably have to sort it out....for sure. It's certainly reasonable to say, it would appear they must have something to hide. It's just plain bizzare. :shake:

Taco John
06-21-2007, 09:49 PM
This one is getting worse. Thankfully, an impeachment bill has already been introduced. Hopefully, we can expedite this...


Cheney Attempted To Abolish Agency That Tried To Oversee Him

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: June 22, 2007
For four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has resisted routine oversight of his office’s handling of classified information, and when the National Archives unit that monitors classification in the executive branch objected, the vice president’s office suggested abolishing the oversight unit, according to documents released yesterday by a Democratic congressman.

The Information Security Oversight Office, a unit of the National Archives, appealed the issue to the Justice Department, which has not yet ruled on the matter.

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, disclosed Mr. Cheney’s effort to shut down the oversight office. Mr. Waxman, who has had a leading role in the stepped-up efforts by Democrats to investigate the Bush administration, outlined the matter in an eight-page letter sent Thursday to the vice president and posted, along with other documentation, on the committee’s Web site.

Officials at the National Archives and the Justice Department confirmed the basic chronology of events outlined in Mr. Waxman’s letter.

The letter said that after repeatedly refusing to comply with a routine annual request from the archives for data on his staff’s classification of internal documents, the vice president’s office in 2004 blocked an on-site inspection of records that other agencies of the executive branch regularly go through.

The National Archives is an executive branch department headed by a presidential appointee, and it is assigned to collect the data on classified documents under a presidential executive order. Its Information Security Oversight Office is the division that oversees classification and declassification.

“I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy,” Mr. Waxman said in an interview. “But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he’s not part of the executive branch, so he doesn’t have to comply.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney, Megan McGinn, said, “We’re confident that we’re conducting the office properly under the law.” She declined to elaborate.

Other officials familiar with Mr. Cheney’s view said that he and his legal adviser, David S. Addington, did not believe that the executive order applied to the vice president’s office because it had a legislative status in the Constitution as well as an executive one. Other White House offices, including the National Security Council, routinely comply with the oversight requirements, according to Mr. Waxman’s office and outside experts.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said last night, “The White House complies with the executive order, including the National Security Council.”

The dispute is far from the first to pit Mr. Cheney and Mr. Addington against outsiders seeking information, usually members of Congress or advocacy groups. Their position is generally based on strong assertions of presidential power and the importance of confidentiality, which Mr. Cheney has often argued was eroded by post-Watergate laws and the prying press.

Mr. Waxman asserted in his letter and the interview that Mr. Cheney’s office should take the efforts of the National Archives especially seriously because it has had problems protecting secrets.

He noted that I. Lewis Libby Jr., the vice president’s former chief of staff, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury and the F.B.I. during an investigation of the leak of classified information, the status of Valerie Wilson, the wife of a Bush administration critic, as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

Mr. Waxman added that in May 2006 a former aide in Mr. Cheney’s office, Leandro Aragoncillo, pleaded guilty to passing classified information to plotters trying to overthrow the president of the Philippines.

“Your office may have the worst record in the executive branch for safeguarding classified information,” Mr. Waxman wrote to Mr. Cheney.

In the tradition of Washington’s semantic dust-ups, this one might be described as a fight over what an “entity” is. The executive order, last updated in 2003 and currently under revision, states that it applies to any “entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.”

J. William Leonard, director of the oversight office, has argued in a series of letters to Mr. Addington that the vice president’s office is indeed such an entity. Mr. Leonard noted that previous vice presidents had complied with the request for data on documents classified and declassified, and that Mr. Cheney did so in 2001 and 2002.

But starting in 2003, the vice president’s office began refusing to supply the information. In 2004, it blocked an on-site inspection by Mr. Leonard’s office that was routinely carried out across the government to check whether documents were being properly labeled and safely stored.

Mr. Addington did not reply in writing to Mr. Leonard’s letters, according to officials familiar with their exchanges. But Mr. Addington stated in conversations that the vice president’s office was not an “entity within the executive branch” because, under the Constitution, the vice president also plays a role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate, able to cast a vote in the event of a tie.

Mr. Waxman rejected that argument.

“He doesn’t have classified information because of his legislative function,” Mr. Waxman said of Mr. Cheney. “It’s because of his executive function.”

Mr. Cheney’s general resistance to complying with the oversight request was first reported last year by The Chicago Tribune.

In January, Mr. Leonard wrote to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales asking that he resolve the question. Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman, said last night, “This matter is currently under review in the department.”

Whatever the ultimate ruling, according to Mr. Waxman’s letter, the vice president’s office has already carried out “possible retaliation” against the oversight office.

As part of an interagency review of Executive Order 12958, Mr. Cheney’s office proposed eliminating appeals to the attorney general — precisely the avenue Mr. Leonard was taking. According to Mr. Waxman’s investigation, the vice president’s staff also proposed abolishing the Information Security Oversight Office.

The interagency group revising the executive order has rejected those proposals, Mr. Waxman said. Ms. McGinn, Mr. Cheney’s spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Mr. Cheney’s penchant for secrecy has long been a striking feature of the Bush administration, beginning with his fight to keep confidential the identities of the energy industry officials who advised his task force on national energy policy in 2001. Mr. Cheney took that dispute to the Supreme Court and won.

Steven Aftergood, who tracks government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists and last year filed a complaint with the oversight office about Mr. Cheney’s noncompliance, said, “This illustrates just how far the vice president will go to evade external oversight.”

But David B. Rivkin, a Washington lawyer who served in Justice Department and White House posts in earlier Republican administrations, said Mr. Cheney had a valid point about the unusual status of the office he holds.

“The office of the vice president really is unique,” Mr. Rivkin said. “It’s not an agency. It’s an extension of the vice president himself.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/washington/22cheney.html?pagewanted=1&hp

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 11:16 PM
Interesting office. Seems to be a bit of both. But impeachment proceedings?Haven't heard anything. That'd be good if it prevents him from getting us to nuke Iran.

I read something about two weeks ago where it was speculated due to leaks that he just might go ahead and commit criminal insubordination to the president because there is a division in the WH right now over Iran. Bush and Condi have sided with the realists in state and don't want to strike Iran at all, but Cheney and his group, the AEI/PNAC/NC-Likud bunch disagree...so he's gonna try to set Bush up into a corner ( Gulf of Tonkin type of thingy) so that he has no choice. Pretty nasty. Man no wonder he has so many heart attacks. ( or maybe it's his medications?). This man and his crowd just have to go.

Anyhow, I hear Condi/State crowd so far are winning the argument. *Breathes sigh of relief.*

Ugly Duck
06-21-2007, 11:34 PM
Didn't Cheney claim executive priveledge when he didn't wanna tell who was in on the writing of the WH energy policy?

Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

Taco John
06-21-2007, 11:42 PM
But impeachment proceedings?Haven't heard anything.



There are currently 8 co-sponsors to the Cheney Impeachment bill. (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_dave_lin_070614_cheney_impeachment_w.htm)

We'll see how these numbers are affected with these latest shenanigans.

Logical
06-21-2007, 11:45 PM
Interesting office. Seems to be a bit of both. But impeachment proceedings?Haven't heard anything. That'd be good if it prevents him from getting us to nuke Iran.

I read something about two weeks ago where it was speculated due to leaks that he just might go ahead and commit criminal insubordination to the president because there is a division in the WH right now over Iran. Bush and Condi have sided with the realists in state and don't want to strike Iran at all, but Cheney and his group, the AEI/PNAC/NC-Likud bunch disagree...so he's gonna try to set Bush up into a corner ( Gulf of Tonkin type of thingy) so that he has no choice. Pretty nasty. Man no wonder he has so many heart attacks. ( or maybe it's his medications?). This man and his crowd just have to go.

Anyhow, I hear Condi/State crowd so far are winning the argument. *Breathes sigh of relief.*

Now I know we are in trouble when we are depending on Condi to be the coolest head.

dirk digler
06-22-2007, 07:22 AM
You know I think Bush has been a poor President but I personally like the guy but I think Cheney is really the person in charge here. I personally hate Cheney and I hope something really bad happens to him.

BTW Mr. Cheney, USA.gov disagrees with you faggot!

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml

Federal Executive Branch:

Executive Office of the President
* The President
* The Vice President
* The White House Home Page
* Offices within the Executive Office of the President
* The President's Cabinet

And yes Ugly Duck is right he was claiming Executive Privilege when they want his records and visits but since he claims he is not part of the Executive branch so goes his privilege.

Mr. Kotter
06-22-2007, 07:36 AM
You know I think Bush has been a poor President but I personally like the guy but I think Cheney is really the person in charge here. I personally hate Cheney and I hope something really bad happens to him.

BTW Mr. Cheney, USA.gov disagrees with you pillowbiter!

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml

Federal Executive Branch:

Executive Office of the President
* The President
* The Vice President
* The White House Home Page
* Offices within the Executive Office of the President
* The President's Cabinet

And yes Ugly Duck is right he was claiming Executive Privilege when they want his records and visits but since he claims he is not part of the Executive branch so goes his privilege.

It's a very "grey" area to be sure--matters concerning the VP always have been. As much as I think the guy is a schister, wishing "something really bad" for him....seems out-of-character for you, man (unless you don't mean it on a personal level.)

Like I said, if "push comes to shove" the Courts will probably be called upon to sort it out. Either way, the guy comes off looking like a crook, that's for sure. It's reminiscent of Nixon.

It's like I've said about some of the left's claims of civil liberties "abuses." If you got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. He and his ilk will try to hide behind the "this establishes bad precedent for future administrations" bull crap. But it didn't work for Nixon, it didn't work for Clinton, and hopefully the Courts will "fix" this crap too, if it comes to that.

Taco John
06-22-2007, 08:20 AM
It's a very "grey" area to be sure--matters concerning the VP always have been.


Come on! It is *not* a grey area.

He's elected alongside the executive, and is the next in line. I can't believe you're actually entertaining this moronic argument of Cheney's.

jAZ
06-22-2007, 08:35 AM
Jesus F-cking A-hole.

:shake:

We have a rogue VP. I can't think of a more valid impeachment candidate in a 100 years. Cheney is worse than Nixon.

Mr. Kotter
06-22-2007, 09:01 AM
Come on! It is *not* a grey area.

He's elected alongside the executive, and is the next in line. I can't believe you're actually entertaining this moronic argument of Cheney's.

Look, I've made it clear I don't AGREE with his take.

However, the Consitutional law on the topic is, at best, sparse. Given the Constitutional role of the VP, he can make a case--regardless of how stupid we may believe it to be. That's all I'm saying.

BucEyedPea
06-22-2007, 09:03 AM
Why does it have to be one or the other?
That to me is two valued logic.
Seems to me this office is both.

Now which is more, I've never examined.

stevieray
06-22-2007, 09:06 AM
Look, I've made it clear I don't AGREE with his take.

However, the Consitutional law on the topic is, at best, sparse. Given the Constitutional role of the VP, he can make a case--regardless of how stupid we may believe it to be. That's all I'm saying.

you didn't get the memo? it states explicably that assumption of guilt is all that is needed to be judge trial and jury for posters who have years invested in trying to make something stick.

dirk digler
06-22-2007, 09:09 AM
It's a very "grey" area to be sure--matters concerning the VP always have been. As much as I think the guy is a schister, wishing "something really bad" for him....seems out-of-character for you, man (unless you don't mean it on a personal level.)

Like I said, if "push comes to shove" the Courts will probably be called upon to sort it out. Either way, the guy comes off looking like a crook, that's for sure. It's reminiscent of Nixon.

It's like I've said about some of the left's claims of civil liberties "abuses." If you got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. He and his ilk will try to hide behind the "this establishes bad precedent for future administrations" bull crap. But it didn't work for Nixon, it didn't work for Clinton, and hopefully the Courts will "fix" this crap too, if it comes to that.

I ****ing despise Cheney.

If I was the next POTUS the minute I became President I would detain him as a terrorist, ship him off to a foreign CIA gulag torture the shit out of him and if he lived through that I would hang his ass.

The problem is he wants it both ways he wants "executive privilege" but he doesn't want to be part of the executive branch.

BucEyedPea
06-22-2007, 09:19 AM
Article 1.3.4

The Vice President shall serve as the presiding officer over the Senate.

Per my book here I use it expounds:

The position of the Vice President is unique in that he is the only officer of the federal govt whose duties span both the legislative and executive branches. However, he does not have the power in the Senate that the Speaker has in the House:

1) He is not a member of the Senate

2) He is not chosen to preside over the Senate

3) He may belong to the minority party that's in the Senate

4) He cannot take part in any debate

5) He cannot vote except to break a tie.

Now per Article 1.3.5 if the VP is not available to preside over the Senate they can chose one to serve pro tempore.

Originally, VPs were those who had run for prez but did not make it...so it was looked on as a 2nd rate assignment.

" I am Vice President. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything."— John Admas when he was VP LOL!


My thoughts:
Seems to me, VP has very little power Constitutionally. But not Dick Cheney.
If the courts got involved, seems to be easy to decide against him. At least there would be a formal rebuke to prevent this from happening again. I think it's been a bad precedent...like a Velvet Coup in a sense. But Impeachment also keeps the president and other high officers under scrutiny. Either method would do what's needed.

BucEyedPea
06-22-2007, 09:29 AM
Guess I favor impeachment over the courts...as the reps would at least represent the people more.

And per this:

Article 1.3.7

...removal from office and declaring that the individual disqualifed from holding any office of honor, trust or profit under the authority of the US in the future.

It was too long to write...google it you want the whole thing
Any crimes he can be tried for in the courts. There is no other punishment but removal. That's not too harsh....and gets him out of putting us into another horrifc war in the ME.

the Talking Can
06-22-2007, 09:40 AM
you didn't get the memo? it states explicably that assumption of guilt is all that is needed to be judge trial and jury for posters who have years invested in trying to make something stick.

thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to the thread


anyways, the real point is that he's trying to hide/destroy information that belongs to the government (i.e. "us")...

NARA is legally empowered to retain and preserve a variety of governmental records....this is OUR history, literally...and when we look back in 20 years there will be huge gaps where all the destroyed emails, lost documents, etc. were....

and the motivations behind this kind of petty behavior are ultimately un-democratic...there has been a constant assault by this administration on the right of the public to access and retain the government record...it reeks of contempt for our Government, and by extension for our citizens...

i'm so ****ing tired of this behavior from our elected executive...why do we accept this? why do we allow them to destroy, distort, and hide the business of our government?

and then of course there is the obvious point that people hide things because they are guilty....people lie because they are guilty...

Logical
06-22-2007, 09:49 AM
thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to the thread


anyways, the real point is that he's trying to hide/destroy information that belongs to the government (i.e. "us")...

NARA is legally empowered to retain and preserve a variety of governmental records....this is OUR history, literally...and when we look back in 20 years there will be huge gaps where all the destroyed emails, lost documents, etc. were....

and the motivations behind this kind of petty behavior are ultimately un-democratic...there has been a constant assault by this administration on the right of the public to access and retain the government record...it reeks of contempt for our Government, and by extension for our citizens...

i'm so ****ing tired of this behavior from our elected executive...why do we accept this? why do we allow them to destroy, distort, and hide the business of our government?

and then of course there is the obvious point that people hide things because they are guilty....people lie because they are guilty...
This is where the same courts the conservatives villify assist the administration at hiding things by not acting or acting too slowly.

stevieray
06-22-2007, 09:52 AM
thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to the thread


anyways, the real point is that he's trying to hide/destroy information that belongs to the government (i.e. "us")...



.

"guilty creeps"..how profound...

quit your damn whining...it's been the mantra of the left in this forum for years, the liberals want to judge others motives and character, yet can't handle being called out on their own.

My favorite part is your assumption of guilt then spills over to the country's citizens and elected officials, pretending that the law isn't being upheld. If this is true, maybe the Democratic congress is just too stupid to make it happen. We already know their approval rating is lower than the President's.

BucEyedPea
06-22-2007, 09:52 AM
...and then of course there is the obvious point that people hide things because they are guilty....people lie because they are guilty...
This part I don't buy completely. Witnesses lie in court cases too. Doesn't mean they did it. They might want to protect someone. Or they may have another secret, something else they did they're ashamed of or just embarrased about and don't want known whereby telling the truth about another issue just may expose it. It doesn't always infer that they are guilty of what is being alleged.

This not to say I think you're wrong about Cheney.

the Talking Can
06-22-2007, 10:23 AM
This part I don't buy completely. Witnesses lie in court cases too. Doesn't mean they did it. They might want to protect someone. Or they may have another secret, something else they did they're ashamed of or just embarrased about and don't want known whereby telling the truth about another issue just may expose it. It doesn't always infer that they are guilty of what is being alleged.

This not to say I think you're wrong about Cheney.

right, but the point is they are hiding something...

and I'm more concerned about the integrity of the historical record than I am Cheney's particular infidelities...they don't have the right to run thier offices as if they were royalty and not public servants...that information is important and belongs to us...

Cave Johnson
06-22-2007, 11:50 AM
Approximately size of Dick Cheney's balls....

patteeu
06-23-2007, 10:53 AM
No one can say that Dick Cheney doesn't think outside the box.

Nonetheless, this seems like a foolish argument to try to make regardless of it's merits. It's bound to be a political loser.

The argument itself doesn't seem any more far fetched than arguments of liberals that the Geneva Conventions should protect illegal enemy combatants or that gay marriage is a constitutional right. Admittedly though, it doesn't seem any less far fetched either.