Democrat Rep: ‘You Don’t Have a Right to Know’ What’s Going on in Your Government

Here's another classic for the books.

Eleanor Holmes Norton proclaims that a House Committee has no right to know what's going on in our government !!

No right because we have a "separation-of-powers government" !!

I think She had a "Nancy Pelosi" moment.

Unless .... this is true ?

She is a Washington DC Congressional Delegate with no voting powers in Congress other than serving on House Committees.

On Friday, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting congressional representative for the District of Columbia, defended the Obama Administration angrily as she declared that Americans have no right to know what goes on in their government.

“You don’t have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,” Norton claimed during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.

Allow me to make this clear: A Democrat representative told the House Oversight Committee that they have no right to scrutinize government. The committee, as the name would suggest, is responsible for overseeing the federal government as a check against abuses of power.

Democrat Rep: ‘You Don’t Have a Right to Know’ What’s Going on in Your Government

7-25-2014 You Don't Have A Right to Know Everything In a Separation of Powers Government
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

At least she can't vote on anything.............

I'm sure she would say the same thing of a Republican Administration.

Right????

Democrat Rep: ‘You Don’t Have a Right to Know’ What’s Going on in Your Government

So much for that 'Most open and transparent administration in American history'.

Hear that people ?

You don't have the 'right' to know!!

Achtung !

Zieg Heil !

a reply to: xuenchen

Between her, Sheila Jackson, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the mad hatter crew I have a new idea. Instead of building a fence across just the border let's also build one around Washington DC. Then we can just throw food and blankets over to them and protect the sane people.

At what point did the government stop being the servants of the people? And just who taught her what separation of powers was supposed to mean. I'd love to hear her take on co-equal branches of government.

I understand entirely the concept that some things are need to know and not everyone needs to know, but I don't think that's what she's talking about. I think she genuinely believes that one branch has no right to question another.

a reply to: xuenchen

"Eleanor Holmes Norton proclaims that a House Committee has no right to know what's going on in our government !!"

“You don’t have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend."

Rep. Norton was inarticulate and somewhat clumsy in her statement. But what she said and what you claim she said are distinctly different. Do I really need to point that out?

a reply to: Diderot

Yes.

Please.

That's the point.

Allow me to make this clear: A Democrat representative told the House Oversight Committee that they have no right to scrutinize government. The committee, as the name would suggest, is responsible for overseeing the federal government as a check against abuses of power.

What Norton seems to have confused is that it is the very principle of scrutiny that defines a government that is equipped with a separation of powers. Each branch of government checks the power of the other branches of government.

If you have no right to know what government is doing.

Then how can you 'check' it's power ?

She is talking totalitarianism.

As usual people start going off without watching the whole video and not knowing what she was talking about. The typical TP video doesn't show everything. Here is the whole video and the part where she starts talking is at 43:29.


Also whether the people like it or not she is right. The reason it was set up that way is so one branch of the government cannot gain a unfair advantage on the other branches.

originally posted by: ketsuko
At what point did the government stop being the servants of the people?

That would have been March 4, 1897, when the Barons of Industry worked together to elect "their" candidate. Every since then, it's been the same ole story.

a reply to: xuenchen

Dear Mr. X, So you agree that
"Rep. Norton was inarticulate and somewhat clumsy in her statement. But what she said and what you claim she said are distinctly different."
So it seems that we both agree.

Allow me to translate.


"We know better than you, you unwashed morons!"


Translation, complete.

(small bow)
Thank you.

I'm pretty sure that's she's speaking about executive privilege. Not really a partisan issue.. oh I'm sorry, EVERYTHING is an issue of partisanship and it's certainly not this:

‘You Don’t Have a Right to Know’ What’s Going on in Your Government

Defined here:

executive privilege n. a claim by the President or another high official of the executive branch that he/she need not answer a request (including a subpena issued by a court or Congress) for confidential government or personal communications, on the ground that such revelations would hamper effective governmental operations and decision-making. The rationale is that such a demand would violate the principle of separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

From the OP's Tea Party source (always the drama queens):

To add insult to injury, the Democrats have continually fought to defend the president’s violations, abuses and secrecy with a hubris not seen in government since the days of King Louis XVI.

Executive privilege was invoked on multiple occasions by Bush, Clinton, etc. In fact, the earliest precedence was set by none other than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: xuenchen

Dear Mr. X, So you agree that
"Rep. Norton was inarticulate and somewhat clumsy in her statement. But what she said and what you claim she said are distinctly different."
So it seems that we both agree.

Tisk Tisk.

Putting words in other peoples' mouths isn't fair.

You need to answer your own question don't you.

C'mon, you can do it if you try.

a reply to: xuenchen

Tisk Tisk.

Putting words in other peoples' mouths isn't fair.

Isn't that exactly what you did with the misleading title though?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

Tisk Tisk.

Putting words in other peoples' mouths isn't fair.

Isn't that exactly what you did with the misleading title though?

Not "My" Title is it.

Tisk Tisk.

a reply to: buster2010

What were they discussing anyway ?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Executive privilege was invoked on multiple occasions by Bush, Clinton, etc.

Maybe so but the sheer arrogance of this particular president and his blindly following supporters should be enough for anyone who can reason independently. Fact is this administration (and followers) flat doesn't give a damn about anything except their personal progressive agenda.

Former Democratic strategist James Carville sounded a little exasperated Thursday when he admitted President Obama “doesn’t really care” what the American people think about his presidency.
James Carville: Obama ‘Doesn’t Really Care’ What The American People Think

a reply to: xuenchen

Hello again xuenchen, The sole question that I have presented, is whether I need to point out the difference between what she said and what you claim she said. She said "You don't have a right to know everything" to a House Oversight Committee, and you distort that into a claim that the committee has no right to know what is going on in government!
Maybe you meant that she said that you and I have no right to know. I know that your grasp of the English language is not so flawed as to be oblivious to the difference.

a reply to: Bassago

So you agree that the Tea Party source in the OP is extremely misleading?

EDIT:

I'm not defending Obama or his administration, I'm just pointing out that this is an example of propaganda using an out of context sound bite to manufacture the perception of a slight against the public.