Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

This is a discussion on Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Game over Obama closed the door on it. But then what did you expect?...

Page 11 of 24 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 350
Like Tree250Likes

Thread: Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

  1. #151
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,094
    Game over Obama closed the door on it. But then what did you expect?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #152
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    Doesnt' that already happen? I'm not sure how EP even applies there anyway. I think it is safe to say that none of us here are authorities on exactly when EP can be implimented, especially since the people who use it or are blocked by it can't agree, and the judges try to stay out of it.

    I think we will just have to wait and see what happens.
    I know that many Presidents have claimed what they have come to call "Executive Privilege" I would ask that somebody show me where in our Constitution our President was given such authority or ability. And when you can't .. I would ask that you show where Congress gave the President such authority other than under USC 50 War and National Defense to determine certain information classified and restricted from public dissemination. USC : Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE | LII / Legal Information Institute This of course does not keep it from Congress's eyes or from the eyes of those with a real-time need to view them.. just away from Public eyes.

    Here is a link to Article 2 of our Constitution if you think you can find EP in there anywhere. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  4. #153
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    I know that many Presidents have claimed what they have come to call "Executive Privilege" I would ask that somebody show me where in our Constitution our President was given such authority or ability. And when you can't .. I would ask that you show where Congress gave the President such authority other than under USC 50 War and National Defense to determine certain information classified and restricted from public dissemination. USC : Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE | LII / Legal Information Institute This of course does not keep it from Congress's eyes or from the eyes of those with a real-time need to view them.. just away from Public eyes.

    Here is a link to Article 2 of our Constitution if you think you can find EP in there anywhere. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    This issue came up at least as early as the first Jefferson term in the early 1800s. Federalists
    who controlled Congress wanted papers Jefferson didn't want to turn over. Jefferson was
    the "strict constructionist" of his day; but asserted a privilege. The Federalists wouldn't accept that.
    A negotiated agreement was arrived at in which Congress got part of what it wanted.

    But turn this on its head. If there is no Executive Privilege, there must also be no Congressional Privilege,
    and then what is to prevent The Executive from
    demanding and even seizing every private paper possessed by The Speaker of the House or by any
    other Congress person?

    The system of Separation of Powers only works when there is mutual respect for the boundaries
    implied by Separation of Powers. Similarly, neither Congress nor The Executive march into the halls
    of the Supreme Court to demand records of their deliberations. The system can not work without
    the boundaries being respected.

    WHere are the boundaries? Two hundred plus years of practice and judicial rulings have defined them.

    Our "constitution," that is our makeup as a nation and a government, is more then the very few words
    we call our Constitution. It includes all of our laws, our traditions, our case law.

    And our case law as well as quite a bit of history (real events, precedent), does allow for
    Executive Privilege, so there isn't much point to arguing that such doesn't exist.

    Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority in US v. Nixon noted: "Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Supreme Court opinion at FindLaw)
    Sig 210 likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #154
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    There is one bright guy on Issa's committee; US Rep Gowdy. I watched Gowdy being interviewed on CNN 360 yesterday. The interview:

    Rep. Gowdy: Obama's use of executive privilege absurd Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs
    I am glad to hear how he said, he does not see where just because one person does something that it is automatically right for others to do the same thing. Executive Privilege is a fairly new concept over-all. I can't remember if it was Eizenhower who first used it or whom.. but I do know that the President who claimed it most in recent history was Clinton. Something like 14 times and that ultimately led to impeachment hearings. It has been challenged in Court as being non-existant (which I support), with mixed results depending on why the President invoked it to begin with.

    I seem to recall that Nixon tried to use it to cover-up his complicity in Watergate and that backfired on him.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  6. #155
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    But turn this on its head. If there is no Executive Privilege, there must also be no Congressional Privilege
    Ah but our Constitution grants Congress privilege over being arrested and tried for other than capital offenses while "In Session" You may read that for yourself at The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
    Now, this does not grant them the type of privilege that the President is claiming as if you were to look at Section 5 above it, you will see that Congress establishes their own rules of conduct and is supposed to punish its own members with concurrence by 2/3rds vote.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  7. #156
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    I am glad to hear how he said, he does not see where just because one person does something that it is automatically right for others to do the same thing. Executive Privilege is a fairly new concept over-all. I can't
    Not so actually. Jefferson and Congress almost had it out but reached a negotiated settlement. So, the concept
    is pretty dang old.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #157
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Ah but our Constitution grants Congress privilege over being arrested and tried for other than capital offenses while "In Session" You may read that for yourself at The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Yes, but that is not the same as a privilege to keep their papers or their deliberations from The Executive.
    At first, The Senate used to meet in secret.

    Yes, Congress has a (now*) limited immunity from arrest, but there is an implicit privilege that The Executive
    won't march into the office of The House Speaker and go through Congressional document.

    Now, this does not grant them the type of privilege that the President is claiming as if you were to look at Section 5 above it, you will see that Congress establishes their own rules of conduct and is supposed to punish its own members with concurrence by 2/3rds vote.
    Which has no bearing on whether or not and how the other branches might
    interfere.

    IN the end the only thing that keeps it working is mutual respect for the boundary lines, not
    brinksmanship and constitutional crises.

    * I put the word "now" in there because as we all know Congressmen are arrested, tried and convicted, and not uncommonly. Nor are they immune from traffic tickets, DWI charges and other similar matters. The immunity they have is the broad immunity; a Prez can't lawfully arrest the unholy lot of them while Congress is in session.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #158
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    This issue came up at least as early as the first Jefferson term in the early 1800s. Federalists who controlled Congress wanted papers Jefferson didn't want to turn over. Jefferson was the "strict constructionist" of his day; but asserted a privilege. The Federalists wouldn't accept that.
    A negotiated agreement was arrived at in which Congress got part of what it wanted.
    As I found no direct cite in your post, I will request that you provide such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority in US v. Nixon noted: "Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Supreme Court opinion at FindLaw)
    Again, You failed to provide a link to the citation, so I went to look for it to confirm what was being said by whom and will have to disagree with your conclusion of whom was saying what and why. Yes, there is such a statement in Justice Burgers written opinion, however if you will look more closely at it, he is paraphrasing part of the argument by President Nixons counsel. Let's look at the whole statement. Anyone wishing to follow along with me may do so at. United States v. Nixon - 418 U.S. 683 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

    In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process. [Footnote 15] Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; [Footnote 16] the protection of the confidentiality of
    Page 418 U. S. 706
    Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.
    The second ground asserted by the President's counsel in support of the claim of absolute privilege rests on the doctrine of separation of powers. Here it is argued that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 295 U. S. 629-630 (1935); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 103 U. S. 190-191 (1881), insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications.

    However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.
    Well before we even get to the background information that the decision was based upon, we find BLUF (Bottom line up front) as is common in SCOTUS decisions, so please refer to #3 and 4 under Held: (right below the syllabus) where it says:
    3. From this Court's examination of the material submitted by the Special Prosecutor in support of his motion for the subpoena, much of which is under seal, it is clear that the District Court's denial of the motion to quash comported with Rule 17(c), and that the Special Prosecutor has made a sufficient showing to justify a subpoena for production before trial. Pp. 418 U. S. 697-702.

    4. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e.g., 5 U. S. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 211. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of Page 418 U. S. 685
    Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. Pp. 418 U. S. 703-707.
    Again, we come back to a reference to such EP being valid for the Protection of Classified information under what would be USC Title 50 War and National Defense that I spoke of earlier.

    You should be able to see now that what you read was not the Courts opinion but simply background noise that the SCOTUS had to filter out. (Said a different way.. BS that the SCOTUS had to suffer through)

    If Obama continues to act against Congress it could be to his detriment.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  10. #159
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    As I found no direct cite in your post, I will request that you provide such.


    If Obama continues to act against Congress it could be to his detriment.
    Nice try, but you are misreading the import of the last few words of the opinion. This phrase is in there
    for a reason---"producing material for a criminal trial." Where is the criminal trial?

    They are claiming a judicial right to material from The Executive for the purposes of reaching
    a judicial decision. I don't see that literally in our constitution either, btw, for discussion sake.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #160
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,628
    mutual respect
    The President has it for his muslim buddies, but not much else that I can see.

    Which is exactly the issue at hand.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  12. #161
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,746
    This should be easy now.
    In his testimony on February 2nd Holder stated under oath that they were not going to hide behind any privilege.

    Why was Roger Clemens in D.C. recently? Ooh yeah they were trying to prove he lied to Congress!

    Looks like a slam dunk to me.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #162
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,436
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    The President has it for his muslim buddies, but not much else that I can see.

    Which is exactly the issue at hand.
    I don't have much love for Obama, but I think this goes a little too far. He is actively assassinating plenty of the muslim extremists on a regular basis. The legality of that is also questionable, but that is another topic.
    Hopyard and Sig 210 like this.
    Walk softly ...

  14. #163
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    This should be easy now.
    In his testimony on February 2nd Holder stated under oath that they were not going to hide behind any privilege.

    Why was Roger Clemens in D.C. recently? Ooh yeah they were trying to prove he lied to Congress!

    Looks like a slam dunk to me.
    And failed. What you are suggesting is a far cry from perjury, much as you would like it to appear as such.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #164
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    34,595
    Stay on topic to Fast & Furious. No general political comments or Obama bashing just for the heckovit.

    You WILL get this thread closed down!

    Too late now since people have already commented on it but, if a post violates forum rules with general unrelated politics...REPORT IT! Do not respond or reply to it.

    How do you report a post??? You Ask...

    Click on the little ! inside of the small triangle icon - found down at the lower left of the bottom bar of every forum post.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  16. #165
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    If Congress and the DOJ can waste all the time and money they did investigating Baseball players use of steroids....it seems to me that a FULL investigation can be done on this failed government program that cost not only money, but cost life......AMERICAN life. If they can waste time and money on the bogus "witch hunt" of Valire Plann incident....then they can do a independent counsel to find out who knew what and when they knew it on this gun scam. If they can put Scooter Libby in prison for a innocent mis speak to Congress, then Holder can be held responsible for lying to Congress and find out who in the Administration was leaking government secrets to the New York Times. Time to hold them responsible for the crap they are pulling.
    CIBMike likes this.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

Page 11 of 24 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

amending u-4 for a complaint where rep is not mentioned
,
complaint seek law license of eric holder unabridged complaint
,

congressperson for concealed carry

,
eric holder 2nd amendment
,
eric holder to be pardon by executor order
,

fast and furious david voth testifing house issa plead the fifth

,
issa page 418
,
rep issa
,
rep. issa skeletons in closet
,
skeletons in rep issa's closet
,
why this is going nowhere with eric holder
,
wiretaps and grand jury transcripts and holder
Click on a term to search for related topics.