Cheney: VP office not an "entity within the executive branch"

[AsburySkinsFan]

[Baculus]

In court we call that bias. Cheney's past record of kicking Democrats butts around the issues doesn't remove his rights or the law on this issue.

Facts are that Cheney's actions with regards to not disclosing the Energy Policy attendees was found to be proper in court. The Supreme court didn't call it "hindering an investigation" they called it an exercise of Executive Privilege designed to protect the Executive from encroachment by Congress.

Incorrect. The Energy department had to release documents under order from the court. There were reasons why Cheney attempted to keep these documents secretive, with the involvement of Enron as well as other energy executives in the so-called "Cheney Energy Task Force." And under the Federal Advisory Commission Act (FACA), documents, meetings, etc., are to be made open to the public, which they were not.

Again, Cheney has claimed "Executive Privileges" as a shield from disclosure.

The GAO were initially stymied in their efforts to gain this information. Judicial Watch, a public advisory group, continued their efforts with a lawsuit, which resulted in some documents being released, but this issue is STILL IN COURT as well. And the courts, and U.S. district judges, have most certaintly not found "Cheney's actions with regards to not disclosing the Energy Policy attendees was found to be proper in court." In fact, quite the opposite: they found their actions to be improper and are still pushing for further documents to be released.

You can read further information here:

[ur]lhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cheney's_Energy_Task_Force[/url]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_1270.shtml

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/taskforce/tfinx.asp

You will see that the situation is quite different then how you portrayed it in your post.

Incidentally, the energy executives lied, under testimony to Congress, when they stated that they were not participate in any meetings with the Energy Task Force. This testimony has now been proven to be false: Is this what you'd consider proper?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

No, this is not proper: Lying and deceit.

Again you miss the point. ISOO works for the President. ISOO gets it's authority and direction exclusively from the President. Cheney isn't crossing any congressional oversight. Cheney actions exempt him from a program solely controlled by the Executive. Do you really think Bush doesn't know what Cheney is up too? Do you really think Bush would Bust Cheney if he knew Cheney was screwing up?

read the first paragraph on their home page.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/

It doesn't say they "work for the President." They are responsible TO the President, but that page further states:

"We are a component of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and receive our policy and program guidance from the National Security Council (NSC)."

We live in a republic, not a democracy. The Executive as well as Congress and even the supreme court conducts much of their business in secrecy from each other and from us. Just like they did in George Washington's time. I think you would be used to it by now.

That is irrelevant. In a republic, the elected officials have a responsiblity to their constituents, namely the American citizenry. The idea that each branch conducts its business in "secrecy" from each other is an absurd defense of this subject, and is not a truthful nor accurate portrayal of the situation as well. As a means to strengthen checks and balances, efforts to create transparency have been made, to increase honesty in government. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, especially when you have issues such as the Energy Task Force's efforts to keep its actions a secret from the public.

There will always be closed door decisions, since 100% transparency isn't always possible, but that doesn't mean that our government should conduct itself in secrecy from the citizens. If that is the case, then we have a foreign entity as a government that is pursuing its own interests: Why else keep its actions and decision making private?

[Baculus]

Incidentally, if we wonder *why* efforts at secrecy have been made, in regard to the Energy Task Force, then review the following paragraph:

"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml

You can see an image of the pre-war Iraqi map here:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

The reason why this is relevant to the discussion is to provide reasons for motivation, and this isn't merely an issue of confidentiality, but secretative planning that affects U.S. policy.

[twa]

Cut funds for the VP?

The house just gave him a raise

http://www.examiner.com/a-802741~House_Appears_Ready_to_Accept_Raise.html?cid=rss-Politics

[Burgold]

OT: I wonder who will be happier at this point to see the Bush Presidency end... Republicans or Democrats?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Republicans in office, but it will still take them years to come out from W's shadow.

[China]

Originally Posted by China

Well, let's see how they do this time in trying to pry information from Cheney's office:

I'm sure they will get about as much information as usual from Cheney.

The letters FU seem likely,along with the words "Executive Privilege".

That's as soon as he takes off his President of the Senate hat and becomes part of the Executive.

Do you expect this kind grandfather?

Or the Guy with Big Brass ones? :laugh:

After this I would expect to see a Cheney like this one:

[JMS]

Incorrect. The Energy department had to release documents under order from the court. There were reasons why Cheney attempted to keep these documents secretive, with the involvement of Enron as well as other energy executives in the so-called "Cheney Energy Task Force." And under the Federal Advisory Commission Act (FACA), documents, meetings, etc., are to be made open to the public, which they were not.

:doh: The energy policy controversy didn't involve the energy department. The Energy policy controversy involved Cheney calling together a few close friends, ( all executives in Energy companies ), who allegedly dictated energy policy which Cheney accepted and congress passed into law.

Bush's "energy policy" consisted of billions of dollars worth of tax shelters and deductions for big oil, a relaxation of fuel efficiency laws, and land grants of federal lands where EPA requirements could be curbed in order to expedite the building of refineries. A proverbial kiss on the cheek from Bush/Cheney to big oil. An industry poised to make record profits in the near future.

You are correct that lower courts gave the case hope. You are incorrect with regard to the Supreme court which eventually backed up Cheney 100%.

US Supreme Court declines to order release of Cheney energy taskforce papers (June 2004)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/chen-j29.shtml

A 7-2 decision which ensured that this issue would not play a role in the 2004 election.

You might remember the controversy. Cheney went duck hunting with Justice Scalia a few weeks before the 3.5 year court case decision was announced?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/scal-f20.shtml

Cheney's energy documents remain secret to this day.

The controversy was the Democrats wanted to know who attended the meetings, what documents were exchanged, and what specifically was said and by whom. Cheney said, FORGETABOUTIT.

Who the executive consults with and how they reach their position is not the concern of congress or the American people. Congress gets an up or down vote, they don't get to micromanage the Executives thought process. It has to do with separation of powers and checks and balances under the constitution.

Can't have one branch of the federal government encroaching on another and still have separation of powers. With no separation of powers, there are no checks and balances.

Again, Cheney has claimed "Executive Privileges" as a shield from disclosure.

The GAO were initially stymied in their efforts to gain this information. Judicial Watch, a public advisory group, continued their efforts with a lawsuit, which resulted in some documents being released, but this issue is STILL IN COURT as well. And the courts, and U.S. district judges, have most certainly not found "Cheney's actions with regards to not disclosing the Energy Policy attendees was found to be proper in court." In fact, quite the opposite: they found their actions to be improper and are still pushing for further documents to be released.

You can read further information here:

You didn't go back far enough. The supreme court which has the final say, trumped the lower court. Cheney's documents remain secret to this day.

Your links only go through Jan of 2002, The supreme court ruled on this 100% backing up Cheney in Jun of 2004.

You will see that the situation is quite different then how you portrayed it in your post.

You are about half right again, and I remain essentially correct. You are right about what the case was about. Just wrong about the legal outcome, and wrong that your knowledge includes the benefit of Cheney's documents on the matter. 50% is still a failing grade, as the gap in your knowledge is what is fueling your obstinacy and flippancy in this discussion.

Incidentally, the energy executives lied, under testimony to Congress, when they stated that they were not participate in any meetings with the Energy Task Force. This testimony has now been proven to be false: Is this what you'd consider proper?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

No, this is not proper: Lying and deceit.

Yes, they did lie, if a leaked document anonymously given the the Washington post was introducible as evidence. Lucky congress had the foresight not to swear the Oil Executives in when they were speaking, or they could have been brought up on perjury charges instead of sent home in limos.

It doesn't say they "work for the President." They are responsible TO the President, but that page further states:

"We are a component of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and receive our policy and program guidance from the National Security Council (NSC)."

:doh: The National Security Council is part of the executive and works for the President.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/

And what the ISOO home page says is..

The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) is responsible to the President for policy and oversight of the Government-wide security classification system and the National Industrial Security Program. We receive our authority from Executive Orders 12958

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/

They are responsible to him, and have authority from him, and were even created by him. That means they work for him and without him they would have no authority, nor exist.

That is irrelevant. In a republic, the elected officials have a responsibility to their constituents, namely the American citizenry. The idea that each branch conducts its business in "secrecy" from each other is an absurd defense of this subject, and is not a truthful nor accurate portrayal of the situation as well. As a means to strengthen checks and balances, efforts to create transparency have been made, to increase honesty in government. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, especially when you have issues such as the Energy Task Force's efforts to keep its actions a secret from the public.

And yet that is what the Supreme Court found as they denied the lower court ruling and allowed Cheney to keep his documents secret.

Checks and balances aren't defined as each branch or even the people knowing 100% of what the other branches are doing. Checks and balances are defined as each branch having their own independent authority and role to play in the process. Independent and separate from the other branches of government, but all playing a role in the process.

There will always be closed door decisions, since 100% transparency isn't always possible, but that doesn't mean that our government should conduct itself in secrecy from the citizens. If that is the case, then we have a foreign entity as a government that is pursuing its own interests: Why else keep its actions and decision making private?

The Executive is free to form their opinion on a subject in any way they deem fit. Free to meet with whomever, free to consult with whatever, without oversight or disclosure. The way they collect information and from whom is not subject to the approval of congress or even the people of the United States. The people elect their representatives, those representatives make teh decisions. That's the definition of a republic.

The supreme court has said so many times, Including in 2004 when Cheney's case was decided in Cheney's favor and the lower court ruling was reversed.

( same link as above)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/chen-j29.shtml

[twa]

After this I would expect to see a Cheney like this one:

I liked mine better,but the darn rules rule.

[Baculus]

:doh: The energy policy controversy didn't involve the energy department. The Energy policy controversy involved Cheney calling together a few close friends, ( all executives in Energy companies ), who dictated energy policy which Cheney accepted and congress passed into law.[/ quote]

Yes, indeed the issue involved the Energy dept. since this is the department affected by the ENERGY policy meetings. You do not need to reiterated what I had already explained to the nature of the meetings. (Which you portrayed as "nothing improper happened.")

You may want to say "doh" when you look at your own responses in the thread, many of which have been incorrect.

Bush's "energy policy" consisted of billions of dollars worth of tax shelters and deductions for big oil, a relaxation of fuel efficiency laws, and land grants of federal lands where EPA requirements could be curbed in order to expedite the building of refinaries. A perverbial kiss on the cheek from Bush/Cheney to big oil. An industry poised to make record profits in the near future.

You are explaining the obvious. Are you just trying to make up, with a barrage of words, the mistakes you have made in your posts?

You are correct that lower courts gave the case hope. You are incorrect with regard to the Supreme court which eventually backed up Cheney 100%.

Incorrect, again. You first claimed that the courts found that Cheney had acted in a completely proper fashion. This is completely untrue. And even the article you just cited demonstrates that the court rejected Cheney's defense.

Also, you appeared to have only read one of my articles, since my other sources had up-to-date information, which includes data released over the last two years. (Your own cited article is from 2004.)

Again, all the evidence is exactly contrary to what you claimed, which is that Cheney acted "properly."

Cheney's energy documents remain secret to this day.

No true either, since some of the documents HAVE been released, which I have posted in a previous post (which you either ignored or overlooked). Judicial Watch's website has some of them, including the Iraqi "oil" maps.

The controversy was the Democrats wanted to know who attended the meetings, what documents were exchanged, and what specifically as said and by whom. Cheney said, FORGETABOUTIT.

Who the executive consults with and how they reach their position is not the concern of congress or the American people. Congress gets an up or down vote, they don't get to micromanage the Executives thought process. It has to do with separation of powers and checks and balances under the constitution.

Are you kidding? Not of the concern? This entire paragraph is rubbish and displays an amazing lack of how transparency is government functions. Checks and balances functions partially vis a vis transparency, which exists and which even the Executive must adhere.

Are we talking about a dictatorship? I am not sure if these paragraphs made me want to laugh or cry.

Can't have one branch of the federal government encroching on another and still have separation of powers. With no separation of powers, there are no checks and balances.

I do not think you even understand this subject.

Your links only go through Jan of 2002, The supreme court ruled on this 100% backing up Cheney in Jun of 2004.

What? Even your own sources demonstrates that this isn't true. You need to do a better job reviewing the material.

You are about half right again, and I remain essencially correct. You are right about what the case was about. Just wrong about the legal outcome, and wrong that your knowledge includes the benifit of Cheney's documents on the matter. 50% is still a failing grade, as the gap in your knowledge is what is fueling your obstinacy in this discussion.

Are you kidding? You even started this debate when you claimed the National Archives is a part of the Executive, which is wrong. And you continue to make fundemental errors in discussing this matter. You have been substantially incorrect on several occasions, and now you make this paragraph?

Hubris has no bounds.

And on this measure, you continue to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of this issue, and you then state that you are correct? Is this your fashion to somehow "cover up," in a Cheney-type fashion, your errors?

Yes, they did lie, if a leaked document anonoumously given the the Washington post was introducable as evidence. Lucky congress had the foresight not to swear the Oil Executives in when they were speaking, or they could have been brought up on perjury charges instead of sent home in limos.

Master of the obvious.

They are responsible to him, and have authority from him, and were even created by him. That means they work for him and without him they would have no authority, nor exist.

Oh god. I am not even oigng to argue you this issue, because you demonstrate a profound inability to read and comprehend. You just kind of "blather on" with no regard to reality. It is "Jms reality."

Checks and balances aren't defined as each branch or even the people knowing 100% of what the other branches are doing. Checks and balances are defined as each branch haveing their own independent authority and role to play in the process. Independent and separate from the other branches of government.

You are clueless on this matter. Again, I am not even wasting any more time when you won't even acknowledge "reality."

Yes, gee whiz, checks and balances have nothing to do with transparency. :doh: *Laughs then cries*

The Executive is free to form their opinion on a subject in any way they deem. The way they collect information and from whom is not subject to the approval of congress or even the people of the United States.

Are you kidding me? Have you even read any of the posts on this debate? Are you making this up as you go along?

the supreme court has said so many times, Including in 2004 when Cheney's case was decided in Cheney's favor.

These responses become more and more absurd. I can't help you understand further, since you don't want to understand.

[AsburySkinsFan]

JMS doesn't it seem interesting to you that the ISOO is "responsible to the President for policy and oversight of the Government-wide security classification system and the National Industrial Security Program" and they think its their job to investigate Cheney? Strange how even an Executive bureaucracy that gets its power from a particular EO is refused to fulfill the investigations that the EO formed it to do. Oh, wait I remember, Bush meant for it to exclude the OVP and that's why they didn't write it in the EO.

I'm sorry JMS, but no matter how much you type you still cannot explain why if the White House wanted the OVP to be exempt why they didn't put it in the EO, and you cannot explain why the ISOO thinks its their responsibility to investigate the OVP hence the whole problem to begin with.

They are crooks, and they are liars, and they manipulate anything they can to cover their tracks.

[JMS]

JMS doesn't it seem interesting to you that the ISOO is "responsible to the President for policy and oversight of the Government-wide security classification system and the National Industrial Security Program" and they think its their job to investigate Cheney? Strange how even an Executive bureaucracy that gets its power from a particular EO is refused to fulfill the investigations that the EO formed it to do. Oh, wait I remember, Bush meant for it to exclude the OVP and that's why they didn't write it in the EO.

Doesn't matter what I think. The fact is this isn't a check and balance as has been portrayed here. This isn't an issue with a legal redress. This is an internal dispute inside the Executive, where the President is the ultimate arbitrator of who is correct. The president has made the decision. The End.

The rest of this is just flogging a dead horse to make the VP look bad. Which I don't personally have a problem with, as long as folks know that's all it is.

I'm sorry JMS, but no matter how much you type you still cannot explain why if the White House wanted the OVP to be exempt why they didn't put it in the EO, and you cannot explain why the ISOO thinks its their responsibility to investigate the OVP hence the whole problem to begin with.

Not being pedantic here, but this is important distinctions for the discussion. The OVP is exempt, the Executive order can be interpreted that way, which Bush has done. The ISOO is not investigating anything. They are not an investigative branch they are an oversight branch.

And the Problem here has less to do with Cheney's legal actions as supported by the President and the linking of those actions arbitrarily so, to the spurious claim that the VP office is outside the executive.

They are crooks, and they are liars, and they manipulate anything they can to cover their tracks.

You have to prove that. So far that hasn't been proven. Certainly this controversy does not support that statement.

I think the wire tapping issue which the Dems are bringing up with subpoenas in order to uncover abuses in that policy are much more potentially damning. I don't know to much about them, but at least they involve real legally wrong doings.

[JMS]

:doh: The energy policy controversy didn't involve the energy department. The Energy policy controversy involved Cheney calling together a few close friends, ( all executives in Energy companies ), who dictated energy policy which Cheney accepted and congress passed into law.

Yes, indeed the issue involved the Energy dept. since this is the department affected by the ENERGY policy meetings. You do not need to reiterated what I had already explained to the nature of the meetings. (Which you portrayed as "nothing improper happened.")

No they aren't. The Energy policy doesn't effect the Energy department until after it is approved by Congress. The Energy policy must be approved into law by Congress, before it's actually implemented. The Energy department helps to implement some of that policy.

One of the controversies surrounding how Cheney developed his policy involved the lack of participation by actual Energy Department officials and consultants. Cheney was put in charge of developing the Administrations policy, and he involved his buddies (oil company executives) rather than the Energy Department bureaucracy.

You may want to say "doh" when you look at your own responses in the thread, many of which have been incorrect.

You see when I say you are wrong, I also say where you are wrong. Thus allowing you the chance to respond; rather than the blanket statement which doesn't add to the discussion, and which you continously feel the need to do in order to bolster your inability to support your statements.

You are explaining the obvious. Are you just trying to make up, with a barrage of words, the mistakes you have made in your posts?

I'm glad you take my statements as non controversial, correct and obvious. I didn't think they were obvious and wasn't trying to bore you with detail you are already were aware of.

Incorrect, again. You first claimed that the courts found that Cheney had acted in a completely proper fashion. This is completely untrue. And even the article you just cited demonstrates that the court rejected Cheney's defense.

They didn't reject his defense they "bolstered" it. If you read the article they determined that the lower courts didn't consider his defense appropriately.

The Supreme court reversed the lower courts ruling that Cheney had to disclose his documents and sent it back to the lower court with instructions to give “the high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive.”

The case was about getting the documents released, and the Supreme court overturned the lower court which called for Cheney to release his documents.

OK not a 100% victory. 98% victory.

Also, you appeared to have only read one of my articles, since my other sources had up-to-date information, which includes data released over the last two years. (Your own cited article is from 2004.)

Your links led to pages with links which lead to other pages with links. I saw nothing in those links more current than April of 2004 which predated the supreme court decision. Also these 2004 links were news articles supporting the 2002 lower court decision, and were not up to date. Please (re)post the specific link with the up to date information.

Again, all the evidence is exactly contrary to what you claimed, which is that Cheney acted "properly."

The supreme court blocked the lower court ruling that Cheney had to release his documents. That was the object of the court case. It did so because it found that the lower court had not fully considered the executives position.

I think blocking the release of the documents before the 2004 election was a victory for Bush Cheney. You are free to argue that Cheney's documents were released. ( which is wrong ). Or that the lower court ruling which was overturned was in fact the final word on the matter. ( which is also wrong. )

No true either, since some of the documents HAVE been released, which I have posted in a previous post (which you either ignored or overlooked). Judicial Watch's website has some of them, including the Iraqi "oil" maps.

Not released by Cheney, or the White House. That's what the controversy was about. Cheney's documents and how he formed the Bush energy policy.

Those documents have not been released.

Are you kidding? Not of the concern? This entire paragraph is rubbish and displays an amazing lack of how transparency is government functions. Checks and balances functions partially vis a vis transparency, which exists and which even the Executive must adhere.

Are we talking about a dictatorship? I am not sure if these paragraphs made me want to laugh or cry.

Transparency isn't in the constitution and thus isn't part of what the constitution calls checks and balances which is in the constitution. The congress has the power of the purse and shares the ability to pass laws with the senate. That's their power. The executive has the justice department and enforcement authority and they implement congressional laws and are not directly involved in passing them other than political influence. The Supreme court settles controversies if they are brought forward on constitutional grounds. None of these constitutional checks and balances imply congress should be allowed insight into how the Executive forms it's proposals for it's allies in congress.

I do not think you even understand this subject.

You can't have separation of powers if you allow the other branches of government to encroach on each others authority. If you loose separation of powers, you also loose checks and balances.

The reason why the checks and balances seems to have failed under Bush is because the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, Executive and the Supreme court. They were largely working on concert.

That's irrelevant, because our government is not formed on the premise of 100% correctness. It's formed on the premise that the majority of the people won't be wrong the majority of the times.

Your argument to dissolve separation of powers, and checks and balances because you don't like what they yield is what is worthy of tears.

What? Even your own sources demonstrates that this isn't true. You need to do a better job reviewing the material.

The court case was on whether Cheney had to release his documents. Whether the people had the right to know. The Supreme court reversed the lower courts ruling that Cheney had to release his documents. It handed a victory to Cheney Bush.

Are you kidding? You even started this debate when you claimed the National Archives is a part of the Executive, which is wrong. And you continue to make fundamental errors in discussing this matter. You have been substantially incorrect on several occasions, and now you make this paragraph?

Hubris has no bounds.

And on this measure, you continue to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of this issue, and you then state that you are correct? Is this your fashion to somehow "cover up," in a Cheney-type fashion, your errors?

yada yada yada....... you claimed the National Archives is a part of the Executive... yada yada yada....

The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), the part of the national archive which is involved in this "controversy" does in fact exist, work for, and answer too the executive.

Oh god. I am not even oigng to argue you this issue, because you demonstrate a profound inability to read and comprehend. You just kind of "blather on" with no regard to reality. It is "Jms reality."

I posted a link to the ISOO's home page who's first paragraph stated what I was saying. My reality is reality. Here it is again.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/

responsible too, and receives it's authority from the Presidency!!!

Checks and balances aren't defined as each branch or even the people knowing 100% of what the other branches are doing. Checks and balances are defined as each branch having their own independent authority and role to play in the process. Independent and separate from the other branches of government.

You are clueless on this matter. Again, I am not even wasting any more time when you won't even acknowledge "reality."

I feel you are frustrated. So frustrated you don't seem to have any sensible logical response and are thus left with personal attacks which highlight the incorrectness of your position.

Checks and balances do not require full disclosure. All three branches of governments are allowed to keep secrets on how they achieve their work product. It's the macro process which involves Checks and balances which spans the branches where checks and balances are applied, not the micro process inside any one branch...

_____branch____________(check)

• Executive___________Veto, power to interpret and implement laws
  
• Legislature__________Overturn veto with super majority, power of the purse(fund or not fund), power to pass laws, power to impeach the executive.
  
• Judicial_____________Power to rule laws and actions of the other two branches void or valid on constitutional grounds.
  

Are you kidding me? Have you even read any of the posts on this debate? Are you making this up as you go along?

These responses become more and more absurd. I can't help you understand further, since you don't want to understand.

Roberto Duran just said,.... No Mas... No Mas!... He didn't cry so much when he was receiving windmill punches from the sugar. But he too lost all dignity in the ring.

[Baculus]

JMS doesn't it seem interesting to you that the ISOO is "responsible to the President for policy and oversight of the Government-wide security classification system and the National Industrial Security Program" and they think its their job to investigate Cheney? Strange how even an Executive bureaucracy that gets its power from a particular EO is refused to fulfill the investigations that the EO formed it to do. Oh, wait I remember, Bush meant for it to exclude the OVP and that's why they didn't write it in the EO.

I'm sorry JMS, but no matter how much you type you still cannot explain why if the White House wanted the OVP to be exempt why they didn't put it in the EO, and you cannot explain why the ISOO thinks its their responsibility to investigate the OVP hence the whole problem to begin with.

They are crooks, and they are liars, and they manipulate anything they can to cover their tracks.

Well, that is why I pretty much gave up on debating the point with JMS. He will even state contradictions in his own writings and just doesn't seem to realize it or just ignores them.

[JMS]

Well, that is why I pretty much gave up on debating the point with JMS.

Debating? Is that what you call it? More like me clubbing you like a baby harp seal, resulting in you throwing a tantrum and flopping off to sulk.

He will even state contradictions in his own writings and just doesn't seem to realize it or just ignores them.

You've been beaten like a red headed step child, now begone and stop trying to save face by further posting vague accusations designed to obfuscate and not move the conversation forward.

[Baculus]

No they aren't. The Energy policy doesn't effect the Energy department until after it is approved by Congress. The Energy policy must be approved into law by Congress, before it's actually implemented. The Energy department helps to implement some of that policy.

One of the controversies surrounding how Cheney developed his policy involved the lack of participation by actual Energy Department officials and consultants. Cheney was put in charge of developing the Administrations policy, and he involved his buddies (oil company executives) rather than the Energy Department bureaucracy.

Incorrect, again. The approval of the energy policy doesn't mean that information isn't exchanged before the approval of the energy policy. You act as if each policy is made, that information is isolated. Information is *exchanged* - you really should read up on the governmental process and how information flow occurs before policy is approved or decided.

Besides the majority of the issue had to due with the Cheney Energy Task Force: gathering data from the Energy department just had to do with what THEY knew about these events. That Energy department is only a small part of it.

Hello. Clue meet Mr. JMS.

You see when I say you are wrong, I also say where you are wrong. Thus allowing you the chance to respond; rather than the blanket statement which doesn't add to the discussion, and which you continously feel the need to do in order to bolster your inability to support your statements.

My inability? I have posted many links which bolster it, and you don't even read them. It is pointless to even exchange date with you because it feels like you are a "bot": You just spew responses with no regards for what the other person has stated. It was the exact same issue with how TMK responded to you, and was a remarkable disably, by you, of an inability to understand basic issues. It takes pages to even make you understand the legal complexities of Executive Orders.

I'm glad you take my statements as non controversial, correct and obvious. I didn't think they were obvious and wasn't trying to bore you with detail you are already were aware of.

No, it was just ridiculous to see you type out what I had already stated, and after I had provided you with a virtual lesson on events surrounding the subject of the Energy Task Force. Especially after you made the claim that nothing "improper" happened. You went from having this stance of "Oh, nothing happened! Everything is peachy!" to talking details about the issue after I was able to point out that the fact that something *indeed* happened.

Basically, it was a joke to see you discuss the issue after all of the time you have taken to defend Cheney's position. A complete and utter sham on your behalf to even talk about improprietaries, and then continue with your position that nothing "improper" happened. In short, you can't be taken seriously in this matter.

They didn't reject his defense they "bolstered" it. If you read the article they determined that the lower courts didn't consider his defense appropriately.

The Supreme court reversed the lower courts ruling that Cheney had to disclose his documents and sent it back to the lower court with instructions to give “the high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive.”

B.S. They didn't "bolster" it. Where the do you get the idea that they bolstered it?! At the most, it was a partial victory, and only because of Justice Scalia.

Here is a discussion of the issue:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040702.html

In fact, it was sent back to the Court of Appeals.

The case was about getting the documents released, and the Supreme court overturned the lower court which called for Cheney to release his documents.

OK not a 100% victory. 98% victory.

Are you clueless? First of all, the issue continued even after that time for another year. Second of all, you have claimed that nothing improper happened, and it has been demonstrated that something improper DID happen, which is why it went as far as the Supreme Court. It did take, in 2005, the Court of Appeals to settle the issue, which resulted in the court deciding the task force didn't come under the "federal open meetings" law.

I am not sure what this "victory" that declared. I guess only a complete Cheney lack and apologist would declare that some sort of victory. Seeing you declare victory is like seeing Cartman declare "victory": It is funny.

And you don't even seem to be aware of the documents which have been produced over the last two years which demonstrates the reasoning why Judicial Watch and others were pursuing their lawsuites.

Again, Clue, meet Mr. JMS.

Your links led to pages with links which lead to other pages with links. I saw nothing in those links more current than April of 2004 which predated the supreme court decision. Also these 2004 links were news articles supporting the 2002 lower court decision, and were not up to date. Please (re)post the specific link with the up to date information.

ROFL. Pages had links which led to more links! Oh no, what I am going to do on the internets! I am sorry if you can't navigate via a web browser.

I am going to repost the information when you just have to use the appropriate page button and actually LOOK for it. Quit being so lazy and just look.

The supreme court blocked the lower court ruling that Cheney had to release his documents. That was the object of the court case. It did so because it found that the lower court had not fully considered the executives position.

I think blocking the release of the documents before the 2004 election was a victory for Bush Cheney. You are free to argue that Cheney's documents were released. ( which is wrong ). Or that the lower court ruling which was overturned was in fact the final word on the matter. ( which is also wrong. )

1) I never said all of Cheney's documents have been released. Some of the documents from the Energy Task force have been leaked, though. Please try to actually read my posts.

2) I was correct in regard to the lower court ruling: the fact that it was over-turned doesn't changed how the original ruling was declared, but just the end result.

Just because you have made some fundemental issues in your understanding of these issues doesn't mean you have to prove yourself "100%" victorious. More so, I was hoping that perhaps you would even learn a thing or two.

Not released by Cheney, or the White House. That's what the controversy was about. Cheney's documents and how he formed the Bush energy policy.

Those documents have not been released.

Isn't that why I even brought this issue up, because they were NEVER released? What is HILARIOUS is that this was one of my original points of contention, and now you are actually stating that to me, especially AFTER you declared that nothing improper happened.

Transparency isn't in the constitution and thus isn't part of what the constitution calls checks and balances which is in the constitution. The congress has the power of the purse and shares the ability to pass laws with the senate. That's their power. The executive has the justice department and enforcement authority and they implement congressional laws and are not directly involved in passing them other than political influence. The Supreme court settles controversies if they are brought forward on constitutional grounds. None of these constitutional checks and balances imply congress should be allowed insight into how the Executive forms it's proposals for it's allies in congress.

Why in the hell are you discussing this issue when the man you support, Cheney, has done everything to override checks and balances.

Please stay consistent for once in this debate.

For one: Yes, seperation of powers is part of the checks and balances system. No one even said it wasn't. But one of the key components of checks and balances is ACCOUNTABILITY, which you even deny the Executive has to its constituents. Accountability helps to ensure checks and balances, and if it was up to you and your boy Cheney, this would never happen.

Please read further then the dictionary definition of Checks and Balances to gain a deeper understanding of this issue.

You can't have separation of powers if you allow the other branches of government to encroach on each others authority. If you loose separation of powers, you also loose checks and balances.

The reason why the checks and balances seems to have failed under Bush is because the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, Executive and the Supreme court. They were largely working on concert.

Accountability. Look it up. AGAIN, seperation of powers is only a part of Checks and Balances. A checks and balances system can't even function without accountability, which is a large part of the issue that we are discussing.

That's irrelevant, because our government is not formed on the premise of 100% correctness. It's formed on the premise that the majority of the people won't be wrong the majority of the times.

Your argument to dissolve separation of powers, and checks and balances because you don't like what they yield is what is worthy of tears.[/quote

I never argued to dissolve seperation of powers. Try to actually respond to my argument with your disgenious attempts to change the issue to a position I didn't even support and state. In fact, if anything, Cheney's position has attempted to WEAKEN seperation of powers, and you are, ironically support it. Do you even think through your statements and positions?

The court case was on whether Cheney had to release his documents. Whether the people had the right to know. The Supreme court reversed the lower courts ruling that Cheney had to release his documents. It handed a victory to Cheney Bush.

And hence, the debate: Wow, he finally understands what we are discussing! Even though it took like 16 pages, HE GETS IT.

An amazing feat on your behalf.

The rest of your post was more of the same stuff you have been repeating and isn't even worth reading, because it says nothing new.

[JMS]

YADA YADA YADA....

Hello. Clue meet Mr. JMS.

.....

My inability? ...YADA YADA YADA.... No, it was just ridiculous ....

Basically, it was a joke

...YADA YADA YADA....

B.S. They didn't "bolster" it. Where the do you get the idea that they bolstered it?!

Wow. What a tirade... Ok I didn't, claim the Supreme Court Bolstered Cheney's defense. The article I quoted and you didn't read did.

US Supreme Court declines to order release of Cheney energy taskforce papers (June 2004)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/j.../chen-j29.shtml

I can see how you missed it. It was in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

In a decision that bolsters the Bush administration’s assertion of sweeping executive powers and frustrates the people’s “right to know” about the operations of the government, the Supreme Court on June 24 voted 7-2 to order further review of Vice President Dick Cheney’s refusal to comply with a lower court order that he provide information about the participation of energy industry executives and lobbyists in the Bush administration’s energy task force.

JMS 1 Baculus 0

At the most, it was a partial victory, and only because of Justice Scalia.

As you can clearly see from the above text the supreme court ruling was supported by a 7-2 vote. So it wasn't just because of Scalia..

JMS 2 Baculus 0

In fact, it was sent back to the Court of Appeals.

Agreed. where the court of appeals reversed themselves and found with Cheney. The papers remain secret to this day.

Are you clueless? First of all, the issue continued even after that time for another year. Second of all, you have claimed that nothing improper happened, and it has been demonstrated that something improper DID happen, which is why it went as far as the Supreme Court. It did take, in 2005, the Court of Appeals to settle the issue, which resulted in the court deciding the task force didn't come under the "federal open meetings" law.

The court case was about whether Cheney had the right to conceal his papers regarding the Energy Policy he produced. I said the Supreme court bolstered Cheney's case. And you have just stated that the court of Appeals seattle the issue by agreeing Cheney did not have to release his papers a year latter.

Both courts sided with Cheney. He had the right to keep his meeting secrete.

Cheney was thus not found to have done anything improper by concealing his papers.

JMS 3 Baculus 0

I am not sure what this "victory" that declared... ( cheney's court victory )

yada yada yada.... cartman... change the subject... yada yada... personal attack.. yada yada...

Again, Clue, meet Mr. JMS.

Also, you appeared to have only read one of my articles, since my other sources had up-to-date information, which includes data released over the last two years.

ROFL. yada yada yada.... internets! I am sorry if you can't navigate via a web browser.... yada yada ... ( you don't want to repost your refference )...

Can't find information you quoted in your own link..:doh:

1) I never said all of Cheney's documents have been released. Some of the documents from the Energy Task force have been leaked, though. Please try to actually read my posts.

No you didn't. But you did in ply that Cheney was forced to release some of his documents. Facts are Cheney hasn't released any of his documents and the courts have decided he proper in this action.

I won't give myself a point there.

but this issue is STILL IN COURT as well. And the courts, and U.S. district judges, have most certainly not found "Cheney's actions with regards to not disclosing the Energy Policy attendees was found to be proper in court." In fact, quite the opposite: they found their actions to be improper and are still pushing for further documents to be released.

JMS 4 Baculus 0

The supreme court bolstered Cheney's defense and sent it back to the lower court with instructions. The lower court found that the Cheney energy meetings were not subject to "federal open meetings" law. The end. The courts are not "pushign for further documents to be released, and the courts did find with Cheney.

2) I was correct in regard to the lower court ruling: the fact that it was over-turned doesn't changed how the original ruling was declared, but just the end result.

:doh: Just because the supreme court overruled them, and then they reversed themselves doesn't mean you were wrong in sighting the original court finding as the finished product? Which it wasn't.

Just because you have made some fundamental issues in your understanding of these issues doesn't mean you have to prove yourself "100%" victorious. More so, I was hoping that perhaps you would even learn a thing or two.

I have learned a thing or two.

YADA YADA YADA....Why in the hell

YADA YADA YADA...

Please stay consistent for once in this debate.

yada yada yada....

rant rant..

personal insult..

....

( about Cheney winning in the supreme court and subsequently the lower court and not having to release his documents )

And hence, the debate: Wow, he finally understands what we are discussing! Even though it took like 16 pages, HE GETS IT.

An amazing feat on your behalf.

yada yada yada.

You see I wasn't debating that. That's a statement of fact. The Supreme court bolstered Cheney's case by overturning the lower courts ruling. The lower court then reversed itself and agreed Cheney had not done anything improper in concealing his papers on the subject.

That wasn't what the debate was about.

It's just taken 16 pages of your personal attacks and flippancy to get you to acknowledge reality.

The debate was about The Cheney being outside of the Executive branch, which you lost about five pages back....

[Baculus]

Wow. What a tirade... Ok I didn't, claim the Supreme Court Bolstered Cheney's defense. The article I quoted and you didn't read did.

You stated it - if you want to use "bolster" from an article, which wasn't exactly positive, from a Socialist website, be my guest.

As you can clearly see from the above text the supreme court ruling was supported by a 7-2 vote. So it wasn't just because of Scalia..

Scalia had a large affect in this case. Obviously, with 7-2 vote, his vote was only one out of seven.

The court case...concealing his papers.

Tiresome reiteration. We know this, that is why we are debating this issue.

But you did in ply that Cheney was forced to release some of his documents. Facts are Cheney hasn't released any of his documents and the courts have decided he proper in this action.

I have stated in this debate that the papers in the Task Force SHOULD be released. That is why I have my position, which I have stated several times.

The supreme court bolstered Cheney's defense...doesn't mean you were wrong in sighting the original court finding as the finished product? Which it wasn't.

I never said that was the finished product. Don't create a strawman here, which you have been attempting to do in this post.

It's just taken 16 pages of your personal attacks and flippancy to get you to acknowledge reality.

What? Personal attacks? Flippancy? What are you talking about?

Oh - I see why your need for the "e-peen" and your "point scoring." Yes, earlier I demonstrated why you were incorrect. I even said you were incorrect, because I felt you have been on several issues. This isn't a "personal" attack - it is debating. Especially in a matter I feel strongly about. Now, I may have been silly at times, such as the "Cartman" comment, but by and large I am civil. But you have to really demonstrate that I have made it "personal," otherwise you have making a completely unfounded accusation. (Other then my 2nd to the last post where I was frustrated, not by you, but by my Dell keyboard. In turn, I ended up posting in a rather frustrated manner. And if it did come across as personal, then I do apologize.)

If you can't take a debate without feeling like you are being attacked, then perhaps the political threads aren't the best threads for you. And trust me: I have taken positions which aren't popular, have been called all sorts of names, and you roll with it. You have some thickskin.

The debate was about The Cheney being outside of the Executive branch, which you lost about five pages back....

Where? How? Your debate was originally that nothing "improper" was done and that "the people didn't need to know" about the Energy planning. That was your debate. You have now morphed it into something completely different, I suppose hoping that no one goes back and re-reads your posts. The original debate stopped pages ago....

I am done. If you are going to be hypersensitive and compare e-peens, that ain't my purpose here. I usually say "Let's agree to disagree" and "good debate" at the end of these, but in this case, I will just say "I am out of here" to keep it civil.

[IHOPSkins]

Whatever it takes to avoid following the rules. That's the legacy of this Presidency, the worst I've seen in my life time by far.

And the Vice President said..............

"There is no controlling Legal Authority"

Of course the VP was AL GORE!

How soon some forget.....This "IS" a shame