Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder - Page 7

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; By: mcp1810 And the Executive is not entitled to decide what Congress is entitled to. Originally Posted by Hopyard Really? In this I might support ...

Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 355
Like Tree259Likes

Thread: Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

  1. #91
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    By: mcp1810
    And the Executive is not entitled to decide what Congress is entitled to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Really?
    In this I might support Hopyard or I might support mcp1810.

    I will ask that "mcp1810" define what is meant in that conclusion.
    Hopyard likes this.
    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.


  2. #92
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,715
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    In this I might support Hopyard or I might support mcp1810.

    I will ask that "mcp1810" define what is meant in that conclusion.
    Just to play extremist for a moment for discussion sake only, last I read our Constitution The Executive has a constitutional duty to report the state of the union from time to time. I see nothing in that document beyond that obligation.

    Of course in reality the law and tradition and SC rulings have added greatly to what each branch
    communicates to the other and under what circumstances. And both sides need to guard their turf
    zealously for the system to work.
    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

  3. #93
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Just to play extremist for a moment for discussion sake only, last I read our Constitution The Executive has a constitutional duty to report the state of the union from time to time. I see nothing in that document beyond that obligation.

    Of course in reality the law and tradition and SC rulings have added greatly to what each branch
    communicates to the other and under what circumstances. And both sides need to guard their turf
    zealously for the system to work.
    That is a close summation. Here is what Article 2 Section 3 has to say on it. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
    So as you can see he has limited authority over Congress, very limited. Even Congress has tried to claim he could not convene or adjourn, but as anyone can see by our Constitution he has that Power.

    That is how Obama tried to pull a fast appointment without the requisite confirmation hearings, he claimed the Congress recessed, appointed who he wished and then when they reported to work the next time, told them that while they were recessed so he made his appointments. They argued that they had not been in recess because they had what is known as a Pro-Forma sessions on the books to keep themselves from really being on recess even though they were. Goes to justify your "they need to guard their turf" comment.
    The Recess Appointment(s) Obama Hasn’t Made - ProPublica

    According to The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; May 8th, 2012 at 04:44 PM. Reason: corrected a misstatement
    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. #94
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,003
    United States v Reynolds et al.
    In a civil action against the United States the Air Force refused to produce documents regarding equipment installed on the plane. The court upheld their refusal but:
    Judicial experience with the privilege which protects military and state secrets has been limited in this country.14 English experience has been more extensive, but still relatively slight compared with other evidentiary privileges.15 Nevertheless, the principles which control the application of the privilege emerge quite clearly from the available precedents. The privilege belongs to the Government and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed16 nor waived17 by a private party. It is not to be lightly invoked.18 There must be formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter,19 after actual personal consideration by that officer.20 The court itself must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege,21 and yet do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.22 The latter requirement is the only one which presents real difficulty. As to it, we find it helpful to draw upon judicial experience in dealing with an analogous privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination.

    The privilege against self-incrimination presented the courts with a similar sort of problem. Too much judicial inquiry into the claim of privilege would force disclosure of the thing the privilege was meant to protect, while a complete abandonment of judicial control would lead to intolerable abuses. Indeed, in the earlier stages of judicial experience with the problem, both extremes were advocated, some saying that the bare assertion by the witness must be taken as conclusive, and others saying that the witness should be required to reveal the matter behind his claim of privilege to the judge for verification.23 Neither extreme prevailed, and a sound formula of compromise was developed. This formula received authoritative expression in this country as early as the Burr trial.24 There are differences in phraseology, but in substance it is agreed that the court must be satisfied from all the evidence and circumstances, and 'from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.' Hoffman v. United States, 1951, 341 U.S. 479, 486487, 71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118.25 If the court is so satisfied, the claim of the privilege will be accepted without requiring further disclosure.
    Regardless of how it is articulated, some like formula of compromise must be applied here. Judicial control over the evidence in a case cannot be abdicated to the caprice of executive officers. Yet we will not go so far as to say that the court may automatically require a complete disclosure to the judge before the claim of privilege will be accepted in any case. It may be possible to satisfy the court, from all the circumstances of the case, that there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged. When this is the case, the occasion for the privilege is appropriate, and the court should not jeopardize the security which the privilege is meant to protect by insisting upon an examination of the evidence, even by the judge alone, in chambers.
    Will get back with more when I can, but right now have to take my youngest to an appointment.

    ETA: There is also Kaiser Aluminum v United States and we can also go into Nixon claiming privilege on his tapes and the Secret Service trying to claim privilege to keep agents from being compelled to testify about Monica Lewinsky.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #95
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,003
    Basically there has to something like national security implications. Privilege can't be claimed just because they don't want to talk about it.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #96
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Basically there has to something like national security implications. Privilege can't be claimed just because they don't want to talk about it.
    There are times when National Security is an issue.. However, when it comes to Congress, there is a right way to bring that argument into play.. Declining to discuss it "While" persons not possessing appropriate clearance are present would be one way to do it without too much argument.. In other-word, stating that you would be glad to answer in a "Closed Session" due to National Security Issues.. But simply trying to say, I will not answer on grounds that it Violates National Security when talking to those who in effect determine what National Security is.. is just plain Bogus!
    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. #97
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,715
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    That is a close summation. Here is what Article 2 Section 3 has to say on it. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    So as you can see he has limited authority over Congress, very limited. Even Congress has tried to claim he could not convene or adjourn, but as anyone can see by our Constitution he has that Power.
    Then that settles it all. Send them home.

    Check mate.
    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. #98
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,715
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    United States v Reynolds et al.
    In a civil action against the United States the Air Force refused to produce documents regarding equipment installed on the plane. The court upheld their refusal but:


    Will get back with more when I can, but right now have to take my youngest to an appointment.

    ETA: There is also Kaiser Aluminum v United States and we can also go into Nixon claiming privilege on his tapes and the Secret Service trying to claim privilege to keep agents from being compelled to testify about Monica Lewinsky.
    Should have finished what you quoted: he court itself must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege,21 and yet do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.22

    The rest of what you put up seems to relate more to the 5th than to EP. Different issue.

    Anyway, now that we see that there is an Executive Power to send them all home, or at least cause them to adjourn, all
    the issues go away; as they will anyway towards the end of July. Death of the issue from natural causes.
    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. #99
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Get real K. Are you seriously proposing that Uncle can't enforce its own laws? And isn't law enforcement rather well implied
    by the right to a jury trial? You know, you can't have a jury trial if you don't have a defendant, and you can't have
    a defendant until you have law enforcement; some these points and counterpoints are beyond useless and silly.
    Hop - having courts to adjudicate the laws is different from having a police force. The Constitution is silent on the mechanism for policing the people, therefore, based on the 10A, such activities are reserved to the states. BTW, most of the federal laws are not supported by the Constitution. We should abide by the Constitution. If you don't like what it says, convince 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states and change it.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  10. #100
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    A simple answer is found in our Constitution under Article 1 Section 8 Powers of Congress Clause 18
    The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


    So, Congress passes the Laws and Congress can oversee the enforcement of the Laws, likewise if either house of Congress wishes to demand anything of any Head of any Department, they have that power under our Constitution.
    The only part of the enforcement mechanism that reports to Congress (other than by budgetary constraints) are the federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS. The FBI, et. al. report to the Prez. and they are not constitutional. There is nothing in I.8. that empowers Comgress to have its own police force. The FF were not big on the forces that were soon the policing, which is why we have the no standing armies clause...
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  11. #101
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,003
    But his authority to adjourn is limited. The president can only adjourn Congress when there is a disagreement as to when to adjourn. It its not absolute authority to dismiss them at his pleasure.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #102
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    One or the other has held their own or asked for investigations into many abuses by the Military and various LEO agencies over the years, to include the Iran/Contra affair(remember Col Ollie North?), Waco and Ruby Ridge.
    Yep, the US congress made a lot of noise, belched and did nothing to rein in the BATF.
    msgt/ret likes this.

  13. #103
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,715
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    The only part of the enforcement mechanism that reports to Congress (other than by budgetary constraints) are the federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS. The FBI, et. al. report to the Prez. and they are not constitutional. There is nothing in I.8. that empowers Comgress to have its own police force. The FF were not big on the forces that were soon the policing, which is why we have the no standing armies clause...
    K, my old pal here, what are you imbibing, or are you SD reincarnate? If the FBI itself is not constitutional as you hypothesize, shall we release Ted Kaczynski because he was caught by an unconstitutional investigation?

    Good grief. I know you know better.
    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

  14. #104
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,715
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    But his authority to adjourn is limited. The president can only adjourn Congress when there is a disagreement as to when to adjourn. It its not absolute authority to dismiss them at his pleasure.
    Well, I'm sure such a disagreement could be quickly arrived at. Fortunately, he doesn't have to dirty his hands.
    They are all heading for the home front to immerse themselves amongst us ordinary folks to whom they will
    tell tall tales about how they contributed to making our life better. Meanwhile, back on topic, its going nowhere, nor should it.
    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. #105
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    The only part of the enforcement mechanism that reports to Congress (other than by budgetary constraints) are the federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS. The FBI, et. al. report to the Prez. and they are not constitutional. There is nothing in I.8. that empowers Comgress to have its own police force. The FF were not big on the forces that were soon the policing, which is why we have the no standing armies clause...
    My intent in posting the Article 1 Section 8 was to show all the powers that Congress has and by posting Clause 18 specifically was to show the enormity of their power. Before I get into Section 8 again, I would ask that you look at Article 1 Section 1
    Section 1 - The Legislature

    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
    Since it seems that you did not read all of Section 8, I will post some of the clauses that most effect this discussion and I will highlight a few words for emphasis.

    Again you can follow along by using this link. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    Clause 1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes
    Clause 3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    Clause 4 To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    Clause 5 To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    Clause 6 To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
    Clause 9 To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
    Clause 10 To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
    Clause 10 To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    Clause 14 To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    Clause 15 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    Clause 16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Clause 17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
    Clause 18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    As you will see I did not post them all. I only posted the majority which require Congress to enact laws or rules and to establish courts as well as methods of disipline.

    Now I will go into Section 9 Which defines the Limits on Congress. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Section 9 - Limits on Congress

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

    No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

    No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

    No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
    As you can see there are not many limits on what Congress can do. If you wish to specifically see what the States can not do under our Constitution you only need to view The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

    Now, with it being Necessary and Proper for Congress to establish a Federal Law Enforcement Arm to enforce the many Laws that Congress shall pass.. Then under the 18th Clause they can do that. I will challenge you to show us where that is not the case.
    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.

Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... 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.