Quote :

"Attorneys for two public interest groups argued Tuesday for the release of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force records, with the Bush administration calling it a case of "separation of powers.""

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/27/scotus.cheney/index.html

Cheney doesn't have to turn over papers because of (implied) executive privilege / separation of powers.

Quote :

"Cheney has held that his office is not fully part of the executive branch of government despite the continued objections of the National Archives, which says his office's failure to demonstrate that it has proper security safeguards in place could jeopardize the government's top secrets. According to documents released Thursday by a House committee, Cheney's staff has blocked efforts by the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office to enforce a key component of the presidential order: a mandatory on-site inspection of the vice president's office. At least one of those inspections would have come at a particularly delicate time — when Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and other aides were under criminal investigation for their suspected roles in leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney22jun22,0,405085.story?coll=la-home-center

Cheney doesn't need to comply because he's not really part of the executive branch.


So basically, he does whatever he wants.



*Also: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/

Cheney runs the White House.

6/24/2007 3:21:36 PM

Dick Cheney is the 4th Branch of Government.

6/24/2007 3:31:33 PM

Jan. 20, 2009 can not come soon enough

6/24/2007 3:31:34 PM

i want to see some more of Lynn Cheney's bodice-ripping lesbian fantasy novellas.

6/24/2007 4:47:40 PM

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Democrats_plan_to_cut_Cheney_out_0623.html

Quote :

"Democrats plan to cut Cheney out of executive funding bill Josh Catone Published: Saturday June 23, 2007 Print This Email This Following Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that his office is not a part of the executive branch of the US government, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) plans to introduce an amendment to the the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill to cut funding for Cheney's office. The amendment to the bill that sets the funding for the executive branch will be considered next week in the House of Representatives. "The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch," said Emanuel in a statement released to RAW STORY. "However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments." At a press briefing yesterday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino said that Cheney's assertion that he operates outside of the executive branch of government was "an interesting constitutional question that people can debate" and a "non-issue." On Thursday, Emanuel suggested that if Cheney feels his office is not part of the executive branch "he should return the salary the American taxpayers have been paying him since January 2001, and move out of the home for which they are footing the bill." Emanuel also released the following graphic satirizing the situation:"

6/24/2007 4:54:39 PM

^ Sure NOW the democracts grow some balls. Still, here's hoping the amendments goes through.

6/24/2007 5:09:09 PM

Quote :

"Sure NOW the democracts grow some balls"

About fucking time.

How is it that Dick Cheney always feels that he is above the law and does not have to adhere to the constitution. I guess he mistook the position of VP as Elected Monarch of USA

6/24/2007 9:42:37 PM

^^I love that spin. Blame the democrats.

6/24/2007 10:14:56 PM

Quote :

"Dick Cheney is the 4th Branch of Government."

haha that made me lol

6/24/2007 10:19:30 PM

^^ Blame the democrats for what? Christ, there was no blame anything in the post you were referencing. How about next time you start to post your partisan hackery, you take a second to think, what the fuck am I adding to this thread by posting this.

6/24/2007 10:27:30 PM

wait a sec.

something just happened here.

6/25/2007 1:29:45 AM

The president basically said his office is exempt from the restrictions, too.

So it's more like

BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
executive judicial legislative bush cheney hearts stars and horseshoes, clovers and blue moons, pots and golden rainbows, and new red balloons

6/25/2007 9:12:59 AM

^^Do you lack reading comprehension? You know, the whole part about "NOW the Democrats"

If that isn't spin, I don't know what is.

Just like when Patty McHenry was defending Mark Foley, "Do you know that the Democrats didn't know anything."

It's call spin Chance.

6/25/2007 9:14:00 AM

What, you don't think the democrats share any blame for the situation this country is in? They voted for, without reading, the PATRIOT act. They lost the 2004 election to arguably the most hated president since Nixon because instead of putting forth a viable front runner, they chose the lease charismatic, least interesting and least electable candidate of the ones they had. Since winning control of congress (and thus control of the finances) they have yet to enact any policies which would reign in Bush or any government spending. And last but not least, despite having a president with historicly low approval ratings among all of america, and having majority control of congress, they haven't yet been able to impeach the man they constantly insist is a criminal mastermind and who is single handedly destroying the freedoms of america, something the Republicans were able to do to a very popular president over a blow job. The democrats have had roughly 50% power for the last few years. If our country is going to hell in a handbasket, they are at least 50% responsibile for that.

This is the first VIABLE bill that's actualy taking a good hard stance to enact change that the democrats have come out with in a long time, so I stand by my statements that it's about time they grew some balls, it's just too bad it's sort of too little too late.

6/25/2007 10:27:35 AM

Quote :

"they have yet to enact any policies which would reign in Bush or any government spending. And last but not least, despite having a president with historicly low approval ratings among all of america, and having majority control of congress, they haven't yet been able to impeach the man they constantly insist is a criminal mastermind and who is single handedly destroying the freedoms of america, something the Republicans were able to do to a very popular president over a blow job."

it's hard to do any of that when you essentially have a president and staff who makes up thier own rules....i mean, just look at the first post.

6/25/2007 10:45:34 AM

But this is the first bill in a long time that's had a snowballs chance in hell of viably reigning the president and his staff in. It's a reasonable position and well within the bounds of congresses power. Furthermore, whether the president and his staff follow the rules would be irellevant in an impeachment proceeding, except to act as wieght for the impeachment process. Impeachment only requires the legislative branch, and in this case, the chief justice of the supreme court. Whether the executive branch is following the rules is irellevant. If the president is succesfuly impeached, he is removed from office, and further subject to criminal and civil suits for crimes comitted.

6/25/2007 12:48:44 PM

Quote :

"executive judicial legislative bush cheney hearts stars and horseshoes, clovers and blue moons, pots and golden rainbows, and new red balloons"

that made me laugh my ass off.

Quote :

"What, you don't think the democrats share any blame for the situation this country is in? They voted for, without reading, the PATRIOT act."

If they would have voted against it in the post-9/11 environment the Bush Administration would have had a field day blasting opposition to the Patriot act and try to claim that they were being soft on terrorism. Bush approval rating was around 85-90 % post 9/11, now it is just above 30%

[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM. Reason : l]

6/25/2007 3:31:16 PM

If by just above 30 you mean just above 25 (or maybe less?) he's tied with nixon's lowest right now.

6/25/2007 3:36:00 PM

^^ All just excuses for failing to do their job. Or are you suggesting that their politcal carreers were and are more important than the rights and freedoms of the people whom they are charged with representing? Furthermore, you ignore the point that they PASSED THE BILL WITHOUT READING IT. It doesn't matter if the bill would guarantee free healthcare and chickens for the entire world or if it was an order to have every child under 13 sent to work slave labor in china, it would have passed because NO ONE READ IT. The shit hole that this country is digging itself into is equally blamed on the democrats as it is on the republicans. Claims of bush ignoring the rules or having alot of popularity, or an act being political suicide are all just excuses for failure to perform their jobs.

6/25/2007 4:13:52 PM

agreed

6/25/2007 4:41:44 PM

Quote :

"Do you lack reading comprehension? You know, the whole part about "NOW the Democrats""

who the hell are you talking to, nutsmackr? i didnt say anything, and ive totally lost track of who's saying what, here.

6/25/2007 4:46:07 PM

that was meant for blind hate, but a person snuck in.

6/25/2007 5:57:10 PM

Quote :

"If by just above 30 you mean just above 25 (or maybe less?)"

If by Bush you mean Congress, then yes, you are correct.

Quote :

"President Bush Job Approval RCP Average Approve 31.1% Disapprove 63.8% Spread -32.7% Poll Details Congressional Job Approval RCP Average Approve 25.2% Disapprove 64.0% Spread -38.8% Poll Details "

6/25/2007 6:10:07 PM

Why can't we just impeach Cheney?

6/25/2007 7:01:18 PM

The democrats could easily impeach him with a simple majority vote. They could impeach him for cronyism if they wanted to.

Convicting him is much tougher, since it requires 2/3rds of the senate.

6/25/2007 7:16:12 PM

RCP Average is a flawed method of polling. You can't average 10 polls over a 5 week period and get a reflective sampling.

6/25/2007 7:30:07 PM

Quote :

"Dick Cheney is the 4th Branch of Government."

6/25/2007 8:45:30 PM

Quote :

"that was meant for blind hate, but a person snuck in."

word.

i confused already. i was thinking that Blind Hate and 1337 B4k4 were answering for each other

Twistas got me all fucked up now, looking for aliases.

6/25/2007 9:18:37 PM

Quote :

"You can't average 10 polls over a 5 week period and get a reflective sampling."

How so? I trust you are stronger in statistics than me.

6/25/2007 10:04:27 PM

Quote :

"Why can't we just impeach Cheney? "

he is not part of the executive branch DURR!!!!

6/25/2007 10:16:18 PM

^ I'm not saying that Vice President Cheney isn't a part of the executive branch, but he's also president of the Senate, which is a part of the legislative branch of our federal government. How do you square that?

6/25/2007 10:21:00 PM

His actions and duties in the Senate are part of the Senate. His actions and duties in the Exective branch are part of the Executive branch. It's not that hard.

6/25/2007 10:42:02 PM

Hahaha

We've reached the end of the road in partisan politics.

People are actually arguing that the Vice President is not entirely part of the executive branch.


^^There's nothing to be squared. He's a member of the executive branch who has a check (in this case a vote) on the legislative branch. The President can sign or veto bills... does this also make him part of the legislative branch and not subject to executive orders?

[Edited on June 25, 2007 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2007 11:03:40 PM

Quote :

" How so? I trust you are stronger in statistics than me."

different samples, different questions, differnt polling methods.

RCP takes polls from various organizations over a certain amount of time, adds them together and divides by the total number of polls. It isn't statistically reliable.

6/25/2007 11:11:26 PM

I think you need to retake ST371 ^

6/26/2007 12:03:05 AM

DICK MOVE

6/26/2007 1:09:46 AM

^^^^ A VP has a "check" on the legislative branch? It's called a vote--a VP actually votes to break ties in the Senate. And to address your example, a president can exercise his or her veto authority as a part of the executive's power--this is actually a check on the legislative branch by the executive branch.

In any event, (1) I do think that the VP should be/is a part of the executive branch; (2) VP Cheney is trying to have it both ways, which is not right; and (3) the issue in question is much more complicated than some here seem to think.

And this post doesn't even get into the way executive orders are carried out and who they apply to. I mean, a US president has awesome powers granted by the Constitution--and some are often referred to as "inherent powers" or "vesting powers" (i.e., "by the powers vested in me" to do X). So, the issue in question is really not quite as clear-cut as some here would obviously like for it to be.

6/26/2007 1:55:13 AM

So you're saying that the VP's power to break ties in the Senate isn't a part of our system of checks and balances?




A VP The Senate has a "check" on the legislative executive branch? It's called a vote--a VP The Senate actually votes to break ties in the Senate on treaties made by the President.

[Edited on June 26, 2007 at 2:22 AM. Reason : dee dee dee ]

6/26/2007 2:21:20 AM

^ You're a dumbfuck. So, your argument is that the VP comes into the Senate chamber; presides over the Senate for that time; and casts the tie-breaking vote--in the Senate--but he's performing an executive check? Are you sure about that? What about when VPs represented a different party than the presidents?

Quote :

"The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he 'shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided' (Article I, section 3). In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. More than half the total number of 233 tie-breaking votes occurred before 1850, with John Adams holding the record at 29 votes, followed closely by John C. Calhoun with 28."

Quote :

"While vice presidents have used their votes chiefly on legislative issues, they have also broken ties on the election of Senate officers, as well as on the appointment of committees in 1881 when the parties were evenly represented in the Senate. The vice president's other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates 'in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,' so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1). Only a few happy vice presidents — John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush — had the pleasure of announcing their own election as president. Many more were chagrined to announce the choice of some rival for the office."

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

BTW, (1) your veto analogy was ass. And (2) you didn't address executive orders.

6/26/2007 3:01:00 AM

Quote :

"think you need to retake ST371 ^"

Maybe if the questions were reliably similar and the polling data wasn't old v. new. But RCP doesn't rely upon reliably similar questions. They take polls from different polling organizations and mixes them together. It doesn't work that way.

6/26/2007 8:20:41 AM

Ok then mister all knowing, stop being vague and acting like you know what you are talking about, and actually prove that you know what you are talking about.

Anyone can make statements like "it doesn't work that way".

6/26/2007 8:53:46 AM

Quote :

"So, your argument is that the VP comes into the Senate chamber; presides over the Senate for that time; and casts the tie-breaking vote--in the Senate--but he's performing an executive check?"

Yeah... an executive check on the legislative branch. Is this really that hard? I'll let you sit in on one of my civics classes if this is difficult for you.

Quote :

"Executive Branch * Checks on the Legislature o Veto power o Vice President is President of the Senate o Commander in chief of the military o Recess appointments o Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress o May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment o Compensation cannot be diminished"

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html



dee dee dee





[Edited on June 26, 2007 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2007 10:47:22 AM

Im going to have to go with Boone on that one, the VP tie break is an executive check on the legislative branch.

6/26/2007 2:00:03 PM

^^

Quote :

"I'm not saying that Vice President Cheney isn't a part of the executive branch, but he's also president of the Senate, which is a part of the legislative branch of our federal government."

Quote :

"In any event, (1) I do think that the VP should be/is a part of the executive branch; (2) VP Cheney is trying to have it both ways, which is not right; and (3) the issue in question is much more complicated than some here seem to think."

hooksaw

Can some of you not read or do you just not want to comprehend my position? Have you ever heard of playing devil's advocate? I am making the following point: "[T]he issue in question is much more complicated than some here seem to think."

What about when VPs represented a different party than the presidents? Were the VPs performing an executive check then?

And the "dee dee dee" shit makes you look like the fucking little jerk that you are.

^ Wow! Big surprise.



[Edited on June 26, 2007 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2007 3:28:05 PM

^ Wow! Big surprise.



[Edited on June 26, 2007 at 5:41 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2007 5:41:04 PM

Quote :

" What about when VPs represented a different party than the presidents? Were the VPs performing an executive check then? "

Not relevant to the discussion

6/26/2007 5:46:06 PM

^^^Dude, you asserted that the VP's vote in the senate was somehow a legislative duty. I proved you wrong.

Yes, you said other stuff, too. I didn't address that because it wasn't anything debatable.



[Edited on June 26, 2007 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2007 7:04:01 PM

Quote :

"Ok then mister all knowing, stop being vague and acting like you know what you are talking about, and actually prove that you know what you are talking about. Anyone can make statements like "it doesn't work that way"."

poll 1 (taken May 1)

"Do you approve of the job the President is doing"
1. Approve (29%)
2. Disaprove (60%)
3. Do not know (11%)


Poll 2 (Taken May 30)

"How do you rate the President's job rating?"

1. High (34%)
2. Low (58%)
3. Do not Know (8%)

Poll 3 (Taken June 5)

"Do you think the President is doing a bad job"

1. Yes (75%)
2. No (25%)

See what I'm getting at here?

Plus, between May 1 and June 5 many things could have happened.

That is why you cannot average polls. Sure you can average polls from the same organization which typically maintain the same questions, but you cannot average polls from different organizations that use vastly different questions, have vastly different response abilities and expect some sort of reliable data

[Edited on June 26, 2007 at 7:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2007 7:07:58 PM

I don't see why not. It's an "approval rating", which in and of itself is a pretty vague term. So averaging differently worded questions that are at least pretty similar (feel free to debate the nuances of similar if you choose, but I don't care to), makes sense. As you pointed out, data from 1 month ago perhaps shouldn't be reflected in a current approval rating, but as a moving average type of thing, then I think it is perfectly acceptable.

No one said that a generic "approval rating" had to be multiple degrees of confidence. It's a rule of thumb representation.

6/26/2007 7:44:11 PM

I don't think Cheney's tie-breaking votes are executive checks. I'm agreed with hooksaw on that one.

However, I disagree with hooksaw when he claims that this is a more complicated issue than some are making it out be.

Cheney is an arrogant fuck face who does whatever the fuck he fucking wants to do.

Anybody who would jump to defend him or spin this shit is a fool. He's turned his back on his party, the people, and what we understand is our government. I think folks would be a lot more angry about this if it wasn't so absurd and hilarious.

[Edited on June 26, 2007 at 8:35 PM. Reason : sss]

6/26/2007 8:33:15 PM