First off, I apologize about the articles. I tried to find something less than 50% editorial, but failed, hardcore.
On first pass it sounds to me like something pulled rapidly out of the VP's nether regions. I really know very little about the situation, so is there some big obvious reason (or even a small innocuous one) why this isn't a crock?
EDIT - and now the first link appears to be broken. ABC for teh win.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
In regards to the topic, though, I'm really a bit baffled. I'm admittedly not the most well read person in the world on this subject, but I've pretty much always heard the vice president refered to as part of the executive branch. Really, this should go double for Cheney, who, by all apearances, is definitely one of the more active vice presidents in terms of decision making in the executive branch.
Personally, I kind of liked the idea of cutting all of Cheney's funding besides that for his role as head of the senate. Still, even if they carried through with it, nothing is really solved. So as nice as it is to think about, it isn't exactly a real solution.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He has to be in one of the branches, there is no "spanning the branches" as that idiotic spokeswoman said.
The Constitution discusses him in the context of the presidency, and thus I think it's pretty clear that he's in the Executive Branch. I think, especially given how VPs have acted in the last 20 years or so, that there should be little doubt that he's in the Exec Branch. This is yet another secretive dodge from Cheney, who I think has shown a propensity for being secretive and anti-transparent behavior. I can't wait until that man is out of the White House.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find really disturbing about this is the concept that if Cheney is in the legislative branch then he isn't bound by security policies concerning classified information.
It's a question I'd like to ask of all the legislators harping on this: are they bound by these policies and do they follow them? If not, are there corresponding and equally effective mechanisms in place within the legislative branch? If so, Cheney should be following them based on his argument. Is he?
If the legislative branch does not have as comprehensive a classified information plan as the executive, the whole situation needs to be reevaluated.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The wording of the executive order specifically only applied to parts of the executive branch. In that sense, the rules are different -- the rules being avoided specifically do not apply to legislative offices.
quote:(i) "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.
I haven't found the part referring to the particular reporting required, but it appears this reporting is considered part of the oversight of/within the executive branch; iirc, this order (or major provisions therein) originated in response to Nixon and CIA abuses around that time, and as such was particularly concerned with preventing abuse by executive agencies that would not make much sense in the context of legislative offices (which, unlike executive agencies, rarely generate classified information).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of nothing so much as Clinton trying to get out of admitting to his affair by trying to re-define "is".
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
But really, this can easily be resolved by Bush amending the executive order to explicitly include (or exclude, if he wants) the office of the V.P.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that easy. I agree that he's part of the executive branch, but on the argument that he's part of the legislative branch, I don't think the president can use an executive order against him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This reminds me of nothing so much as Clinton trying to get out of admitting to his affair by trying to re-define "is".
You know, Clinton didn't attempt to redefine "is." While it's perfectly fair to slight him for his legalistic parsing of a common word, the reason he did it was that he was not technically lying under the commonly-accepted definition of the word "is."
Clinton's point was that his lawyer's initial statement -- that "there is absolutely no sex of any manner, shape or form" -- was, since "is" implies the present tense, technically accurate. He was not engaged in sex with Ms. Lewinsky at the time the statement was made, and thus the statement was technically accurate.
Note that the prosecutor observes immediately thereafter that this logic would imply that the statement would still be technically true even if Clinton had been engaged in sex with Ms. Lewinsky mere seconds before or after the statement was made.
Basically, Clinton was attempting to defend his lawyer's previous statement by pointing out its technical accuracy. This is weaselly, but certainly no more weaselly than half the stuff we've heard people say during Congressional hearings lately.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Lisa, but whatever the case, the President can definitely exempt Cheney's office from an executive order. Either he doesn't have the authority to make it apply in the first place (which I think is ludicrous) or he has the authority and he can choose whether or not his orders apply.
And the President's authority in issuing executive orders is not solely restricted to the executive branch. Some orders are given force of law by act of Congress, and I rather suspect orders regarding the treatment, monitoring, creation, and declassification of classified information are part of those (especially as the EO in question references US Code a few times). As such, the President could clarify the order to apply to Cheney's office if he so desired without issue.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is weaselly, but certainly no more weaselly than half the stuff we've heard people say during Congressional hearings lately.
And no more weaselly than the Vice President claiming he's not really in the Executive branch.
I'm sorry, but if we're ranking these things -- what Cheney is doing right now clearly wins the weaselly award. Or are you seriously trying to compare worming your way out of admitting to a sexual affair to worming your way out of adhering to the constitution of the United States? I can't even compare the two.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, Clinton didn't attempt to redefine "is." While it's perfectly fair to slight him for his legalistic parsing of a common word, the reason he did it was that he was not technically lying under the commonly-accepted definition of the word "is."
That is true. He attempted to define it, not redefine it. Unfortunately people often casually mislabel "defining" as "redefining", particularly when they disagree with the person doing the defining. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One additional point: the President's authority is over the executive branch, not over 'the executive branch except the parts that are also in the legislative branch' (if that were even possible). Cheney's office being in the executive branch, as it is under law and custom, makes the president's orders applicable. Period.
I rather like the solution of a few lawmakers; remove Cheney's funding. Well, that might be the bit extreme, but since Cheney refuses to admit who and how many he employs, restricting his funding to the amount required for two staffers might be interesting.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not that easy. I agree that he's part of the executive branch, but on the argument that he's part of the legislative branch, I don't think the president can use an executive order against him.
Cheney's current argument is that the executive order does not apply to him because the executive order applies only to the executive branch.
Now, if, after it's absolutely clarified that the executive order applies to his office, he declares that the President has no authority to create an executive order that binds him, the President can take all kinds of actions: stop sending him classified information, ask Congress to remove the budget for the office, ask Congress to pass a law authorizing the President to apply such orders to the V.P office. I don't expect he would do any such thing, of course.
quote:Addington did not repeat a separate argument that has been previously advanced by Cheney's office: that it is not strictly an executive branch agency but also shares legislative functions because the vice president presides over the Senate. That argument has drawn ridicule in recent days from Democrats and on late-night television.
Addington suggested in his letter that it was not necessary to rehash that dispute. "Given that the executive order treats the Vice President like the President rather than like an 'agency,' " he wrote, "it is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning, based on the law and the legislative functions of the vice presidency. . . ."
The new argument seems to be that the OVP was purposely excluded from the order:
quote:Vice President Cheney's office offered its first public written explanation yesterday for its refusal to comply with an executive order regulating the handling of classified material, arguing that the order makes clear that the vice president is not subject to the oversight system it creates for federal agencies.
In a letter to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Cheney Chief of Staff David S. Addington wrote that the order treats the vice president the same as the president and distinguishes them both from "agencies" subject to the oversight provisions of the executive order.
Seems week given the presence of an express exemption for the OVP from one provision. Beyond that, this particular argument is definitely resolvable by a clarification from the President.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Lisa, but whatever the case, the President can definitely exempt Cheney's office from an executive order. Either he doesn't have the authority to make it apply in the first place (which I think is ludicrous) or he has the authority and he can choose whether or not his orders apply.
And the President's authority in issuing executive orders is not solely restricted to the executive branch. Some orders are given force of law by act of Congress, and I rather suspect orders regarding the treatment, monitoring, creation, and declassification of classified information are part of those (especially as the EO in question references US Code a few times). As such, the President could clarify the order to apply to Cheney's office if he so desired without issue.
What I'm saying is that the three branches are co-equal. The president can't simply issue an executive order requiring members of Congress to do something.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Congress has given him the power to, he can. Congress has given him the power to set the rules regarding classified information.
Furthermore, as I noted, the area of the President's power is expressed positively -- that is, anything executive he can order about (generally speaking). That something is somehow also legislative is irrelevant. It isn't being legislative that exempts some things from his ability to order them, it is being not executive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the info, everyone. Dagonee's point about classified information is one I hadn't considered and is very interesting.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone following the four-part series on Vice-President Cheney at The Washington Post this week? It's positively chilling...Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Executive orders, as I understand it, do not in general rely on the position someone is in. Rather, they rest on controlling instances of the use of power and priviledges that arise from the executive branch.
So, yes, the President could issue executive orders that would be considered binding to members of Congress assuming those orders pertained to powers granted to them by the executive branch, like, for example, access to priviledged information that was under the control of the President. In a similar fashion, the President cannot issue valid orders about the VPs constitutionally defined legislative duties, as they afll ouside the scope of executive branch power.
Now, the wording of this specific EO talks about agencies of the executive branch, which the vice-president is somehow arguing he doesn't fit (after dropping the insane claim that they aren't part of the executive branch), but I've seen some things about the general nature of what the President can and cannot do with EO that really doesn't jibe with my not necessarily correct impression.
---
A separate issue to the extremely dubious legal claims here is the correctness of the action. Is it right, is it desirable, for the office of the Vice-President, especially the current one - which, among many other things, has had the former chief of staff thrown in jail for perjury and obstructing justice in an investigation of what they did with sensitive information - to not have oversight on what they are doing with sensitive information?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:John Oliver, on Cheney claiming the systems of checks and balances do not apply to him: "He is correct. For Dick Cheney exists neither in the executive branch nor the legislative, yet simultaneously in both. He is neither man nor beast, yet has elements of the twain. He is at once everything and nothing, substance without form, shape without motion, time without reason. He is the highlander."
Sometimes I think they pick VP's to be so ridiculous that they draw attention away from what the President is doing.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, the wording of this specific EO talks about agencies of the executive branch, which the vice-president is somehow arguing he doesn't fit (after dropping the insane claim that they aren't part of the executive branch), but I've seen some things about the general nature of what the President can and cannot do with EO that really doesn't jibe with my not necessarily correct impression.
To my reading, they are now claiming that the EO was intended to apply to the V.P. in the same way that it explicitly does not apply to the President. I don't see any support for this position, but it is a distinctly different position than a claim that the President does not have the authority to make the EO apply to the V.P. If this is his honest position, then a clarification by the President would solve it.
I'd really like to see the President amend the EO with a sentence "All provisions herein shall apply to the Vice President and the Office of the Vice President." My second choice would be that he amend it with a sentence "All provisions herein shall not apply to the Vice President and the Office of the Vice President."
The President can do this unilaterally. He knows what he intends the EO to mean. Letting this drag on is stupid. There's enough ambiguity in the law (by necessity) that it shouldn't be tolerated where it's not necessary.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't necessarily agree with this. Taken at a straight-up honest level that assumes the only issues are what's on the surface, I would say that this is stupid. However, I can think of a few plausible scenarios where they are letting this drag on to serve their interests. For example, there's really no downside for them (nearly all the people who get upset by things like this are already against them) and it makes Congress look weak and adds to the general public's scandal fatigue and acceptance of gray-area actions on the part of the administration.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the bright side, it's isn't too distracting to Congress. The Senate is ordering hearings and subpeoning documents relating to Bush's secret warrantless domestic spy program.
Bout time they got to that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I am picking up here is that Vice President Cheney believes he is President Cheney?
"Like with my list of helpers on energy policy and the CIA list of visitors to my office, I do not have to tell you people anything because I am the Presid...er...Vice President and have executive privilege."
You know what the information is that the agency wants to get from Mr. Cheney?
How many documents have you listed as Secret.
Not what are those documents, or what is in them, but just how many.
Spokesmen for Mr. Cheney have stated that he refuses to give them this information (well, began refusing a few years ago after giving it to them for several years) not because he's hiding anything, but because its a matter of principle.
Its a matter of principle that just came up a few years ago.
Its a matter of principle that convinced the Vice President to attempt to abolish the agency asking for the information.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But really, this can easily be resolved by Bush amending the executive order to explicitly include (or exclude, if he wants) the office of the V.P.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: "Like with my list of helpers on energy policy and the CIA list of visitors to my office, I do not have to tell you people anything because I am the Presid...er...Vice President and have executive privilege."
That's right. Didn't Cheney decline to testify regarding upper level meetings with oil company leaders on the grounds of Executive Privilege, or am I misremembering? If yes, isn't this a major change of position for him?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
There is an article in Slate today that does a good job, I think, of making a case for Cheney's impeachment.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I'm slowly getting through those articles you linked, and they're extraordinary. Thanks for sharing them.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Articles of Impeachment have already been introduced by Dennis Kucinich, a couple months ago I believe. I think it'll backfire if it ends up being a witch hunt like the Republicans did to Clinton, but if they actually plan to remove him without a circus trial, then I'm all for it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Articles of Impeachment have already been introduced by Dennis Kucinich, a couple months ago I believe. I think it'll backfire if it ends up being a witch hunt like the Republicans did to Clinton, but if they actually plan to remove him without a circus trial, then I'm all for it.
But with the possible disasterous effect of Cheney's popularity increasing after said circus trial.
Chris: I read your link, it was quite facinating. Now I have to decide if the article was too pesimistic and unforgiving of Cheney or if he is in fact a bad apple to the core.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But with the possible disasterous effect of Cheney's popularity increasing after said circus trial
Precisely. Frankly I don't think it is possible for his popularity to increase at all among Democrats, the worry is that it will energize otherwise apathetic Republicans. The trial would have to be extremely straightforward without venturing into any other realms of Cheney's life like the ridiculous spectacle that was the Clinton trial. We would need to show the country how it's done right, compared to how it was done wrong.
By the time it actually gets moving and the trial is over, he'd probably be out of office anyway, but I could see an easy argument for the precedent being more important than the timing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS--this Legislative Branch thing is dead, since he's since demanded "Executive" privilege so he doesn't have to give the Senate files on how they came up with the Domestic Spying stuff.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
