Congress must investigate attorney firings, rampant politicization of government
by Fred Slocum
David Rivkin and Lee Casey (Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 28) are wrong on several counts in arguing that President Bush should prevent Harriet Meiers and Sara Taylor from testifying to Congress about their roles in the U.S. Attorney firings.
First, they contend the firings were neither unlawful nor inappropriate. The firings are legal, but definitely inappropriate. Politics properly influences appointment to U.S. Attorney positions, but only their initial appointment. Once in office, U.S. Attorneys must enjoy independence: freedom to make decisions about investigations and prosecutions free of political interference. Shredding this doctrine is unacceptable, and only the Bush administration refuses to recognize this. Before the current firings, the Congressional Research Service found at most three firings of U.S. Attorneys under similar circumstances in 25 years.
Second, they contend U.S. Attorneys serve at the president's pleasure. Not without limit: The norm of independence demands that presidents allow them to work free of political interference — including political retaliation for decisions to not prosecute the opposition party, which fired attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico faced. After his state's Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson complained that Iglesias had declined to prosecute some Democrats in a corruption investigation, Iglesias was sacked, and later concluded, "I wasn't a team player."
In 1974, Richard Nixon learned that executive privilege cannot be invoked to stonewall a criminal investigation. George W. Bush must also learn, possibly in court, that he cannot invoke executive privilege to stonewall a congressional investigation, either. Congress rightfully wants to investigate the U.S. Attorney firings, given the Bush administration's relentless crusade to transform every corner of national government into an appendage of the Republican Party, with unchecked disregard for civil service rules, the morale of career employees, and sometimes the law.
Bush political appointees have: illegally asked General Services Administration employees how to help Republican candidates in 2006; mounted a political purge of U.S. Attorneys; politically screened candidates for Justice Department career attorney positions, violating civil service rules and the Hatch Act of 1939; subjected candidates for scientific expert panels to political litmus tests; overruled recommendations of expert panels on issues including endangered species, "Plan B" emergency contraception, Georgia's 2005 "voter ID" law and the 2003 mid-decade congressional redistricting in Texas; and repeatedly altered scientific reports, especially on global warming, to slant them toward policies favored by pro-Republican corporate interests.
The attorney firings are only one example of this administration‚s rampant and extreme politicization of federal agencies, decisions and processes. Congress has long-recognized powers of oversight over executive agencies, must vigorously investigate the U.S. Attorney firings, and must not back down in the face of the Bush administration's repeated stonewalling of its requests for documents and information.
Fred Slocum is a professor of political science at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
David Rivkin and Lee Casey (Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 28) are wrong on several counts in arguing that President Bush should prevent Harriet Meiers and Sara Taylor from testifying to Congress about their roles in the U.S. Attorney firings.
First, they contend the firings were neither unlawful nor inappropriate. The firings are legal, but definitely inappropriate. Politics properly influences appointment to U.S. Attorney positions, but only their initial appointment. Once in office, U.S. Attorneys must enjoy independence: freedom to make decisions about investigations and prosecutions free of political interference. Shredding this doctrine is unacceptable, and only the Bush administration refuses to recognize this. Before the current firings, the Congressional Research Service found at most three firings of U.S. Attorneys under similar circumstances in 25 years.
Second, they contend U.S. Attorneys serve at the president's pleasure. Not without limit: The norm of independence demands that presidents allow them to work free of political interference — including political retaliation for decisions to not prosecute the opposition party, which fired attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico faced. After his state's Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson complained that Iglesias had declined to prosecute some Democrats in a corruption investigation, Iglesias was sacked, and later concluded, "I wasn't a team player."
In 1974, Richard Nixon learned that executive privilege cannot be invoked to stonewall a criminal investigation. George W. Bush must also learn, possibly in court, that he cannot invoke executive privilege to stonewall a congressional investigation, either. Congress rightfully wants to investigate the U.S. Attorney firings, given the Bush administration's relentless crusade to transform every corner of national government into an appendage of the Republican Party, with unchecked disregard for civil service rules, the morale of career employees, and sometimes the law.
Bush political appointees have: illegally asked General Services Administration employees how to help Republican candidates in 2006; mounted a political purge of U.S. Attorneys; politically screened candidates for Justice Department career attorney positions, violating civil service rules and the Hatch Act of 1939; subjected candidates for scientific expert panels to political litmus tests; overruled recommendations of expert panels on issues including endangered species, "Plan B" emergency contraception, Georgia's 2005 "voter ID" law and the 2003 mid-decade congressional redistricting in Texas; and repeatedly altered scientific reports, especially on global warming, to slant them toward policies favored by pro-Republican corporate interests.
The attorney firings are only one example of this administration‚s rampant and extreme politicization of federal agencies, decisions and processes. Congress has long-recognized powers of oversight over executive agencies, must vigorously investigate the U.S. Attorney firings, and must not back down in the face of the Bush administration's repeated stonewalling of its requests for documents and information.
Fred Slocum is a professor of political science at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Labels: Bush, corruption
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Good post.
The question is not whether Bush will learn "that he cannot invoke executive privilege to stonewall a congressional investigation" but will the entire Congress accept their responsibilities in our three-prong system of government? During the first six years, Bush ran roughshod without any oversight. Now the question is will Republicans hold loyalty to the Party and Bush -- or to be responsible as members of the Legislative Branch? To date, there has been minor squeaking for public consumption but no loud, universal voice by the Republicans ... just look at the Gonzales no-confidence resolution.
And you missed two other areas where Bush has exceed his power.
To date Bush has filled 105 vacancies using recess appointments. The Constitution provides in Article II - Section 2 :
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.
Here's the hook, most, if not all, of these vacancies occurred while the Senate was in session. Bush nominated candidates during the session, but exceed his powers by filling these jobs without Senate confirmation when they took a brief recess. If these vacancies occurred during a recess period and Bush appointed them, no problem, but that is not what happened.
The other area is Bush's use of signing statements whereby he is just ignoring legislation. Bush should have vetoed many of these bills instead of issuing signing statements.
Post a Comment
<< Home