Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 37 times
Topic started on 21-6-2012 @ 06:57 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Divine Right of Kings is a doctrine that established royalty and political legitimacy of king - particularly in the West - that asserts that a monarch is not subject to any earthly authority and derives his political and royal power from God directly.

Executive Privilege is a power not expressly granted by the Constitution for the United States of America and only impliedly so if that privilege clearly demonstrates the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

The Separation of Powers doctrine applied in the Constitution for the United State of America is done so to keep each branch of government distinct and separate providing natural checks and balances preventing any one branch from becoming more powerful than the others, and to prevent collusion between the three branches that would have the effect of usurping the Constitutional mandates set forth for these branches.

White House Spokesman: Executive Privilege Is 'Entirely About Principle'

Sigh.


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 07:09 PM by Destinyone
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


King Obama has spoken...loud and clear in these last few days. I really do fear for what's left of our ragged Constitution.

Queen Pelosi is making her move too...


Des







edit on 21-6-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 07:16 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Destinyone


Of course, George Bush invoked it too, and the Supreme Court validated the process in United States v. Nixon. The question should always be, anytime it is invoked, is it being invoked to further the goal of separation of powers, or is it being invoked in the same way kings use executive privilege?


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 07:34 PM by crankyoldman
JPZ, as always astute. The issue of course is we have LONG move past the idea of rules being applicable to all. We are now back in the world of "it is so because I say it is so, what are you going to do about it?" The litmus test for political acts and just about everything else - to use a tired phrase is, "what's the downside?" We've gone back to the point where a policeman can kill whomever he/she wishes as long as he utters the phrase, "my life was threatened" and that's it, case closed. The President can do as he wishes because there is no recourse for the rest of us - take him to court? The is no recourse, none, as court is for the privileged and as you know, the laws the operate by mean what they say they mean.

Back in college I had an ethics professor - yes one needs to "teach" ethics apparently. He had taught at Harvard. He said the ethics of Harvard were simple "if it isn't against the law then it's fine." That was the course. We no know their "laws" are just vague suggestions anyway. The core frustration from this political move is, "we have to play by the rules, what about them?"

They do play by rules, their own. In the end this is the game they play, odd rules to be sure, but a game none the less. Would the world be any different if the documents were handed over? Why not hand over redacted documents and claim national security? Its a game, each chess move is about their game with winners and losers being judged by how long they can play before being tossed out. Isn't the fast and furious thing just iran contra? How many others happened without attention, this one is like a drug dealer loosing every 10th load, it's built into the business model.


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 07:40 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RealSpoke


If executive privilege is being used to claim authority above the law, then it is claiming special privilege indeed, and yes, Obama could just simply pardon Holder were he charged.


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 07:47 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by crankyoldman


You tap into a very important aspect that has become so diluted, so complexly treated that few even understand the principles of ethics, let alone understand what is ethical and what is not. Today, we have "ethicists" as if they were the priest class sect of ethics, and here in lies the real problem when it comes to ethics. From "ethicists" come "animal ethicists" or "political ethicists", "family ethicists" and on and on and on as if ethics is a malleable concept that changes from circumstance to circumstance.

It is an educated guess, but my guess is that Obama is well versed in The Prince by Machiavelli and fully embraces the odious concept that the end justify the means. The reality is, as it has always been, that whatever the end, that end was obtained by the means that got it there.

In terms of ethics simplified, it is simply said by Aristotle. The greatest good to the greatest amount. That is ethics in its simplest form. The complexity of ethics comes with determining what the greatest good is and how to ensure the greatest amount (preferably all) can get this greatest good.

The beauty of the rule of law is its equality. All are equal under the law, whether it be plumbers or presidents. Presidents are no more above the law than outlaws are.


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 07:49 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by pirhanna




As for the OP. Where were you when Bush was doing the same thing?


Where were you when I replied to Des? Unfortunately for you, there are members in this site that take the time to read each post and so by the time they get to yours imagine what they'll be thinking of you...


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 08:16 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by pirhanna


1.) From where I sit the time stamp on my post to Destiny reads 7:16 pm. The time stamp on your post reads 7:47 pm. It took you 31 minutes to make a snide remark to one poster and whine about George Bush to me? Seriously? That's the story you want to stick with?

2.) I have consistently argued that all law is simple, true, universal and absolute. Given its simplicity there is no need to "speak above" anyone. You should know the law as well as anyone, but you continually decline to share this knowledge.

3.) What annoys you is that I don't hold the same political beliefs you do, of which you now want to call "selective application of the law".

4.) Why don't you explain to everyone reading this thread who it is I "claim to be"? Oh, that's right, you're just upset because I've written a timely thread on a timely subject that currently involves the immediate President of the United States of whom you fawn over. Never mind that you could never find a single post of mine in this site where I ever fawn over George Bush, and indeed the only President I even remotely liked was Regan of whom I am long on record in this site as referring to he as "the vaunted Ronald Regan". Evidence of that exists here, here, where I dismiss the notion that Ronald Regan singlehandedly brought down the Soviet Union, here again where I do the same thing, and here where I take Regan to task for only paying lip service to small government while expanding it all the while!

Those are just a few examples of me taking to task political persons from the opposite side of the political isle of which you hail, but this matters not to you and you will not now, nor will you ever give me credit for that and will continue to complain that I take the political persons you advocate to task and then pretend I only do it to them.

5.) Apparently you believe the only members who take the time to read each post are "Republican shills" which say's a whole lot about what you think of you and your shills.


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 08:18 PM by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RealSpoke


If executive privilege is being used to claim authority above the law, then it is claiming special privilege indeed, and yes, Obama could just simply pardon Holder were he charged.




Save the pardon process is an enumerated power of the Executive -- unless one is impeached. My guess if Holder were to actually be charged, than impeachment proceedings would start (but I don't think Congress has the fortitude to go forward with actually reducing Government power brokers).


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 08:42 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by michaelbrux


The whole dubious process of "gunwalking", a strategy that dates back to at least 2006 before Obama was even elected has never, not once brought a large scale gun smuggler to justice. The highly questionable strategy led to losing track of at least 2000 guns that ultimately wound up being connected to later violent crimes! Consider this:
Justice can't point to a single instance of a major boss the operation took down. But as one might imagine, the ATF was unable to keep track of all of the guns. In fact, the agency managed to lose track of some 2,000 guns. Those weapons were later connected to various violent crimes. Most notably, two were found at the scene after a Border Patrol agent named Brian Terry was killed in a firefight on December 10, 2010 with suspected illegal immigrants in Arizona (it's unclear whether one of the guns fired the bullet that killed him). Reports following that murder revealed that the guns had been part of a tracking operation.


Congress is more than just "legislatures" and much of the oversight of the executive office lies with Congress. To pretend this is not true is sad.

Fast and Furious, this "gunwalking" scheme was abhorrent when it began and remains abhorrent and it needs to be stopped. You can call it a "power play put down by the executive office" which was no doubt just another "power play", and no doubt politics at the expense of We the People, including Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 08:43 PM by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by michaelbrux
Simply requesting documents he doesn't have any inherent right to, so that he can continue his Oscar Award Nomination worthy performance of outrage by picking nits against the Democratic administration, is not going to yield any fruit.


While I believe there are some underlying issues regarding partisan politics at play -- in which I support; someone has to watch what the others are doing and support it when it is the other way around -- are you implying that Congress has no power to check the Executive or a department within?

Legislators don't have any right to the documents...until they can show that the contents of the documents will provide evidence that a specific crime was committed by the Attorney General. the accusation has to be made FIRST, before the the documents are produced. Not produce the documents so they can look for a crime.


Even the progressive Woodrow Wilson believed in internal oversight. He stated that "the only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration." They are investigating a botched Department of Justice program. That is enough to bring in Congressional oversight.

Further, House Committee rules say this regarding subpoena powers:

(e)(1) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or a subcommittee in the conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority being present.



This is a power play by Republican House members...and its been put down, by the Executive Branch.


I don't disagree that it was a power play move, but I would rather they happen, to ensure delegated Officers of the United States of America are acting in accordance of law.


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 08:57 PM by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


abhorrent it may be. ineffective it may be. but Contempt of Congress implies that a crime was committed by the Attorney General and by extension, the President.

what crime is the House Oversight Committee investigating? Do the documents they seek provide evidence of this crime.

Nixon actually committed a crime and attempted to cover it up...

What crime has been committed that is being covered up and is recorded in the documents they seek?

or do they seek the documents to discover a possible crime?

I think the latter.


reply posted on 21-6-2012 @ 09:05 PM by michaelbrux
reply to post by ownbestenemy


Nixon broke into the DNC Headquarters and he possessed the evidence of this...from what I understand of this event.

What specific crime was committed is what I want to know.

Yes...the Legislature has a responsibility to serve as a check to the Executive branch...

No...the Legislature cannot expect the Executive branch to come clean upon request.

just for the sake of compromise in my position and to suggest they are all hiding something, I'd say Executive Privilege in this situation is much like the Constitutional protection against self incrimination. The Obama administration is possibly invoking the 5th Amendment...

Issa needs to make a specific accusation against the administration and make a reasonable argument that the documents in question contain evidence that his accusation is correct.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



A Really Sad Picture That I Saw Today, Left Me Speechless
  Posted 12 days ago with 148 member flags
Fact Check: First Lady\'s False Fairy Tale of Struggle
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags
Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
  Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags
Stephen King\'s Message
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags
Paul Ryan Exposes Elite Agenda, "Shut Up" Says Banker
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags