It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cheney's Office Implies It Has Executive Privilege of its Own

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:11 PM

Cheney's Office Implies It Has Executive Privilege of its Own

Weeks after claiming that it was not a part of the executive branch, the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney appears to be readying an independent assertion of executive privilege.

The move emerged in an exchange of letters with the Senate Judiciary Committee, which granted an extension for the White House to comply with a subpoena on documents related to President George W. Bush's domestic spying program.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:11 PM
Cheney just can't make up his mind, one day his office isn't part of the Executive Branch, the next day it is and he is going to claim "executive privilege"!

(Can the Vice President claim executive privilege? I thought only the President could.)

I guess it's just about what is best for him that day!

Does he even realize how idiotic he makes himself look when he does these things?...... I guess not!
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 18/7/07 by Keyhole]

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:39 AM
Let's see...

US Constitution, Article 1, (Fourth Statement in) Section 3:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

So if the Constitution says that the VP is President of the Senate (Legislative Branch); But the Office of VP is only mentioned twice in the whole of Article 2, which describes the Executive Branch:

US Constitution, Article 2, First Statement in 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...


US Constitution, Article 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

...But Cheney uses the funds & legal protections under the Executive Branch...Except doing so leaves him vulnerable to Constitutional sanctions from both the Legislative AND the Judicial Branches...
...And there's nowhere else that the VP is mentioned in the Constitution or any but the 12th Amendment (describing the choosing of & Order of Succession for President & VP)...

Then shouldn't it be officially decided exactly whether it's Congress or whether it's the Executive should have "jusrisdiction of" the Office of VP? I ask this only in terms of actually defining the "Seperation of Powers" & "Constitutional Checks & Balances," of course.

Considering that the only Constitutional Duty delgated to the VP is that of President of the Senate, it seems to me that the VP should be under only the "jusrisdiction of" Congress (or perhaps the Senate specifically)...Which would imply that VP Office has no claim to "Executive Privledge" of any kind (not that I think Bush has any Constitutional claim to his either).

When comparing Duty & Desire, Cheney's playing a dangerous game of "fence-sitting"...Especially since he's doing it for the sole purpose of buying time until the next elections.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

[edit on 19-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 07:02 AM
Cheney himself can claim no executive privilege. His office in the White House, which is run by the executive, may be able to.

The more I think about it, it is highly inappropriate for a member of the legislative branch to have an office in the White House. Is the Queen going to start doing cartwheels in the House of Commons? Not so much.

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:03 AM
If I was president?
Id get 30 armed swat offices, and raid the office. Because I represent the people, and the people are suspicious of his dealings, while navigating the

How are you people allowing 1 man, to manipulate your laws, that were devised in the 1700's, using words to get around all your safe guards? For Christ sake, you’re the people, and he's killing your men while raping your treasures, and making a mockery of your nations heritage!

It’s so blatant, the people demand answers, yet he refuses to divulge....

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:45 PM
According to this article, Cheney has or almost claimed Executive Privilege during the Energy Task Force fiasco.

Cheney's Not in the Executive Branch? Sounds Good to Me!

By now you've heard about Dick Cheney's fascinating new legal argument that he's not in the executive branch, so he doesn't have to comply with executive secrecy rules. I'm not always Rahm Emanuel's biggest fan, but his plan to cut executive-branch funding for the VP's office is a very sensible response. On the other hand, let's not be hasty about this. After all, if Cheney's not in the Executive Branch he can't claim executive privilege.

"If he believes his legal case," Mr. Emanuel wrote in an email, "his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch." But imagine how much light we can shed into the dark corners of Mr. Cheney's office if his argument holds.

Surely you remember that infamous energy task force, the one where Mr. Cheney let his oil industry pals and their lobbyists come in and literally write their own rules? Cheney argued that the public had no right to information about the workings of that task force - because of executive privilege.

Whether he actually claimed executive privilege or or just scared them away by saying he would claim executive privilege, I'm not sure.

Mr. Emanuel, I respect your smarts and your chutzpah for coming up with this strategy. If for any reason it doesn't work out, however, here's your silver lining: A Vice President who's not in the Executive Branch can't withhold information from legislators under the separation of powers doctrine.

In fact, here's an even better idea: Since he says he's fundamentally a member of the Senate, why not bring him up on Senatorial ethics charges? Let the investigations commence!

So, if he's not in the Executive Branch and he's a part of the Senate, it should be easier to investigate what he's doing.

[edit on 19/7/07 by Keyhole]

top topics

log in