Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

the Executive Branch is under no compunction to provide anything to the Legislative Branch.

There has to be a reason for the request, specifically related to their mandate of oversight.

What's the specific reason? Do the documents contain more information regarding the death's of the Agents?

if so...just say so.

And you wonder why obtuse and replies to you oft arise.......being ignorant is one thing because one can rise from ignorance -- playing ignorant just makes you a fool.

Congress is trying to find out about the program, its effectiveness, its pitfalls, its failings and its successes. To do so, it requests documents to get those questions answered. Given the horrible failings of the expanded "gun runner" program that is "Fast and Furious", do you not think they should be investigating?

The entire drama about fast and furious is eerily reminiscent of Iran/Contra - trading weapons and drugs (or weapons to drug lords) in violation of US and International law.
Since the Tower commission was little more than a public wrist-slapping I would rather expect a similar outcome from fast and furious.
Always the underlings to take the heat and say "no, we shielded the President from this".

The divine right of kings and executive privilege are only different wordings for a similar idea; that whoever is in power has the power.
The Queen's Jubilee was a display of contempt writ large while Obama's is the same written in letters so tiny no one can see it but the King himself.
As our leader looks in the mirror and opines "these new clothes look magnificent on me, do they not?"

and for the Record.

A King is Law Maker, Law Enforcer and Law Interpreter. Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

All three branches of the Government would abide singularly within his person, and the King answers to none but God.

this disagreement between the branches, almost suggests that the King is schizophrenic.

that being said...the lower house certainly must explain its request in minute detail.

reply to post by michaelbrux

you like that word, Obtuse, don't you?

Regardless of my personal feelings for that word, or any other word for that matter, I certainly hope others reading your post understand the meaning of the word enough to catch the extremely rich irony of your answer.

Contempt of Congress and Executive Privilege seem to be the two major issues here.

Contempt of Congress implies that the Attorney General is obstructing Justice...or Congress in its mandate to conduct oversight of the Executive branch of the Government and its activities.

The contempt charge is not implied, it is expressly stating that Holder is obstructing justice. Now, obstruction of justice is a crime.

The House Chairman has requested specific documents that will enable it to do its job. Why are they requesting these documents?

The House has to have a reason for requesting these documents...its mandate does not include micro-managing the Executive branch of the government.

Overseeing the Fast and Furious fiasco is hardly "micro-managing the executive branch of the government", merely this aspect of that executive branch. I like to get as hyperbolic as the next guy, but come on!

The only valid reason would be that they have reason to believe a crime has been committed...thus...oversight is inherently an investigation.

According to who? You? Again, you are at this point, willfully ignoring the actual purpose of the House Oversight Committee and making stuff up. For what purpose I don't know. How about this: How much money has been spent on this failed program and why should we keep spending money on it? That not good enough for you?

What crime are they investigating?

Whether I like the word or not, you are undeniably being obtuse. You are mistaken in this assertion that there must be a crime before the House Oversight Committee can investigate.

perhaps I am wrong...but I wouldn't give them a damn thing, not without a good reason.

If there is a damn good reason to keep practicing "gunwalking" then the White House has documentation showing why. If it is a damn good reason to put an end to "gunwalking" that is documented too. Gee, I wonder if the White House is keeping documents away from Congress that show Fast and Furious should stay...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


to obstruct Justice, a crime has to have already occurred for one to obstruct.

what crime has Holder committed?

reply to post by michaelbrux


actually your talking about an Alexander,, or Gauis Ceasr,,or Ghengus Khan,, or Sulliman the Magnif.

i was thinking Magna Carta,, Divine Right of Kings, the actuall Charter,, not ancient, stuff,,
ok just so were all on the same page,, KING wise.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Perhaps it should be investigated.

but, a vote to find the Attorney General of the United States in Contempt of Congress, suggests that a committee within the lower house doesn't consider the Executive branch an equal partner in this investigation, but as an adversary.

Why does Issa feel this way? I want to know as much as you.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Couldn't Obama pardon Holder if he is charged anyway?

Perhaps, but then who would pardon Obama?

Something tells me he has a dog in this fight.

reply to post by BobAthome


I'm talking about the Divine Right of Kings in the correct sense of the phrase and as it is in fact to this very day.

en.wikipedia.org...

above is a link for you to gain understanding.

reply to post by seaside sky



Not sure about Nietzsche at this point. I'm having a hard enough time just keeping up with the back and forth Hegelian dialectic. So much so, I didn't even see your post until now.

(Mod's; I know this isn't directly in regards to Divine Right of Kings and Executive Privilege but please don't delete it as I believe seaside deserved a reply.)

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


the title of the thread says it all. Obama and every other liberal believe in strong centralized governments, same as monarchies. i've heard them say conservatives need to evolve but they still believe in the old system that dominated the world up until the U.S. was formed.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

to obstruct Justice, a crime has to have already occurred for one to obstruct.

what crime has Holder committed?

Obstruction of Justice:

A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.

Boy, I gotta say; I'm sure glad I don't live in the imaginary world of michealbrux where whimsical and arbitrary ideas become the rule of law.

I always enjoy discourse with you micheal, but geeez...

reply to post by michaelbrux


try and keep up with the times

Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an English charter, originally issued in the year 1215 and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been present in the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," still remains on the statute books of England and Wales.

The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties, and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today.

Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.

And incase u didnt get the pertinant Legal Fact,,

Magna Carta
was the first document forced
onto an English King by a group of his subjects,

upon which the Constitution of the United States Evolved into,,,..


history gotta luv it

reply to post by michaelbrux


I'm talking about the Divine Right of Kings in the correct sense of the phrase and as it is in fact to this
very day.

in the correct sense of the phrase,,,,i think that was already decided in the 1200's

this is 2012.
legal precept upon legal precept.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Hey, thanks for that. I know you're busy in a pitched battle here, so do carry on. Excellent debating skills you have, by the way.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


it won't be so imaginary when the contempt vote fails, will it?

while Issa's performance makes for good media...so will the failure of his attempt to find the Attorney General in contempt of Congress.

sure...most don't realize that a committee action is nothing.

but they'll understand when the vote fails when brought to a vote in the House.

reply to post by BobAthome


I understand many here are atheists...but I assure you that the Divine Right of Kings is today as it has always been.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux




Where?

United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth

When?

Now

S&F

reply to post by michaelbrux


Come on brother, don't descend into deflection and start predicting failed contempt votes just to get out of admitting that obstruction of justice is a crime itself and does not have to be predicated by any criminal activity. You can do better than that. I know you can. It won't kill you, for the sake of clarity, to admit you misunderstood the meaning of obstruction of justice, and while you're at it, it wouldn't kill you to admit that the House Oversight Committee does not claim to be a criminal investigation committee.

P.S. The rejection of the divine right doctrine does not require a rejection of God.

Just a quick thought, but isn't Issa being investigated for ethics charges?

Yep just google'd it, he is being hit with ethics violations, wonder if he will be forthcoming with his info, or just hire a bunch of high priced lawyers?