Contempt citations

The voting is Wed. this week or later, right?

And this round of contempt citations is just kabuki theatre since the DoJ and WH have announced the DC US Prosecutor won't prosecute any protected by the executive privilege blanket by Bush.

So, as I understand it, any drama won't happen unless the House votes inherent contempt charges but that won't happen soon if at all - since the first steps seem to be heading to court, which will delay things until the fall or later it seems.

It looks to me that our Constitution on these kind of conflicts is very weak (can we say ineffectual?). We seem stuck in something like 1930's Germany, where once the Chancellor is chosen, he can do pretty much anything they wanted. And Adolph, like Bush, was intent on pushing the limits of his office. To reinforce the comparison, now that Bush has issued a series of executive orders that can't be revealed even to Congress, that we don't know whether Bush actually wants to outdo the German Chancellor on cutting off opposition. I guess we'll know when Conyers disappears.

That's a good question. I'll find out more later, but can't Dems just go straight to inherent citation?

Yes, Conyers/Dems could go direct to inherent contempt. But it looks like they want to lay the foundation by having the DoJ refuse to prosecute first. Step by step seems to be the process.

The inherent contempt thing gets very messy if they vote contempt and send the Sgt. at Arms to the WH - undoubtedly to be refused access. If they don't send the Sgt. at Arms, the citation is just posturing that does nothing substantative.

On the other hand, Congress can't be eager to have a court intervene either because that will lead to appeals and the SCOTUS could conclude (5-4) that Bush's broad claims are legal or can't be litigated by the courts. Both results mean that Congress has permanently lost power unless the courts indicate that Congress could strengthen the law (or choose a different means of prosecuting the contempt - a special counsel for instance), which would mean overriding a Bush veto which is very unlikely.

Basically, if the Congress can't override a veto they are toothless and castrated (a bad combo even for a dog). This is the way a constitutional republic ends up being a autocracy, and we are on the road heading that direction. Lots of speed bumps along the way however.

My guess is that this doesn't get resolved in Bush's term of office. A stalemate. It would take a very unusual President after Bush to sign bills that weaken their office permanently.

I'm very pessimistic on this. I don't see a way to reign-in Bush since that would involve the Senate and House Republicans turning away from Bush, and they have already proved they like being enablers of Executive overreach.

More: The only effective tool the Congress has is the power to NOT appropriate. The President can't veto that. But the President could just spend the money he wants without appropriation, since the Treasurer of the US is a Dept of Treasury official. Bush would undoubtedly claim that power as commander in chief, and only if DOT didn't go along could he be contained. Very unlikely, since Bush could just do a 'Saturday Night Massacre' in Treasury until he got someone to write checks.

By the time we got to this (spending without authorization) we'd be deep in impeachment territory, and as long as the Republicans in the Senate stay loyal and prevent 2/3 votes against Bush, there is no power on earth (except the military - which no one should want involved) to stop an Executive takeover. My take is that the GOP senators will stay loyal in the required amount to back Bush.

This is a nice object lesson on how easy it is for a country to end up with a dictator. Mighty Rome couldn't resist. The modern totalitarian governments all have followed the pattern: Hitler, Stalin, the east-european communist states, China, various south american countries at various time, african countries, islamic theocracies and dictatorships (Egypt, Saudi Arabia). Lots of examples.