Sun editorial:

Responding to subpoenas

Judge issues sound ruling to compel White House aides to appear before Congress

Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2008 | 2:06 a.m.

The U.S. Constitution assigns powers to the executive branch of the federal government that are separate from those granted to the legislative and judicial branches. The separation of powers allows for a system of checks and balances so that no one branch becomes too powerful and rises above the law.

But that is what the Bush administration in effect has done by refusing to abide by subpoenas that would compel current and former White House aides to testify before Congress about the mysterious firings in 2006 of Nevada’s Daniel Bogden and eight other U.S. attorneys.

Fortunately a federal judge last week ruled that the subpoenas must be honored. That means White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, former Bush legal counsel Harriet Miers and former top adviser Karl Rove must appear before Congress. The judge rejected the administration’s argument that it had immunity from congressional subpoenas, saying there was no legal basis for that position.

No one is above the law, including current and former members of the executive branch. The Bush administration, though, refuses to believe that. It has been attempting since the president took office in 2001 to expand the powers of the executive branch by weakening legislative authority.

It should surprise no one that Bush and his cronies have fought the subpoenas; it merely reinforces their reputation as an arrogant administration with no grasp of accountability. Almost literally from the time Bush took office in 2001, his hatchet man, Vice President Dick Cheney, was conducting secret meetings with oil company executives to shape energy policy.

If it were up to the administration, it would conduct all of its affairs in secret. It practically does already.

President Bush has shown repeatedly that he has contempt for accountability and conducts business with the most secrecy we have seen in the White House since Richard Nixon. Thank goodness a judge saw through that charade and demanded that the administration follow the law.

Comments
Print
E-mail
Share
- Facebook
- Fark
- Digg
- Reddit
- Stumble
Tweet

Discussion: comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

No trusted comments have been posted.

By Future2012

Aug. 5, 2008

5:41 a.m.

Flag

When will Congress allow the public to see all of their internal meeting notes and communications and lobbist meeting notes and communications. Congress demand an open adminstration, why not an open Congress. There is no accountabilty of Congress' secret actions behind closed doors.

We could then find out why Congress is even holding these political hearings. If it were up to the Congress, it would conduct all of its affairs in secret. It practically does already passing unread bills in the middle of the night and adding pork spending after a bill is passed.
By sooo_gothic

Aug. 5, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Flag

Yeah that's nice, and there are checks and balances against congress as well. The point here that seems to be glossed over is that the administration consistently hides itself whenever it's accused of wrong doing. When the Abramoff scandal hit, many members of congress fell to that scandal. The administration consistently tries to hide its tracks. Eventually all of this cloak and dagger garbage will be revealed, whether in a court of law or in the history books.