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

[twa]

I'm going to guess that their actual view on the matter is closer to this: "We know what we're claiming is wrong, but nobody's going to do anything about it, so we don't give a damn."

It has yet to be shown to be wrong and is under legal review. :whoknows:

In the abstract I look forward to seeing the legal arguments and possible judicial opinions...I have a weakness for odd cases,especially ones defining constitutional roles.

[Larry]

I'm going to guess that their actual view on the matter is closer to this: "We know what we're claiming is wrong, but nobody's going to do anything about it, so we don't give a damn."

My bet is a slight variation, more along the lines of "but by the time they fight the thing all the way to the Supreme Court, I'll be retired on a pension some place that doesn't have extradition. (And probably Pardoned.)"

[Jumbo]

My bet is a slight variation, more along the lines of "but by the time they fight the thing all the way to the Supreme Court, I'll be retired on a pension some place that doesn't have extradition. (And probably Pardoned.)"

I can almost envision after Karl Rove announced he knew how to swing the religious right over to support Bush pre 2000, and proved to be correct, that being convinced of infallibility he introduced a concept to the Trinity that they jumped at---something along the lines of "you know, no one's had the balls before, but we can do whatever we want and go tell everyone who says otherwise to go **** themselves" and get way with it. This is our chance to hit 'em hard and hit 'em deep and change things to how we want them legally or illegally and tough **** on the people who don't want to support the vision" :laugh:

What’s bad is not only did I vote Bush twice (I’ve voted dem 4 pres once in my life), but I still wouldn’t vote for Kerry. :laugh:

[Baculus]

Especially after reading the WP article on Cheney, this issue appalls me every more. It is simply incredulous that the V.P. is trying to virtually re-write the role of the office of the V.P. Not only that, but he is actually trying to create a fourth branch of office: After all, if the V.P. office isn't a part of the Excutive, Legislative, or Judicial branch, is it part of some magical branch of which we are unaware? What are the secrets that Cheney are attempting to protect?

This is really absurd, and while stories about Diaz's handbag makes the headlines, we have a quiet attempt to re-write the function of the Vice-Presidency. It is disgraceful, and, IMHO, Cheney SHOULD be investigated: We know something is just stinking wrong with some of his actions, and he is trying to put himself above American law. It is incredulous.

A further article:

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/news/stories/2007/06/22/natcheney0622a.html

[JMS]

Especially after reading the WP article on Cheney, this issue appalls me every more. It is simply incredulous that the V.P. is trying to virtually re-write the role of the office of the V.P. Not only that, but he is actually trying to create a fourth branch of office: After all, if the V.P. office isn't a part of the Excutive, Legislative, or Judicial branch, is it part of some magical branch of which we are unaware? What are the secrets that Cheney are attempting to protect?

This is really absurd, and while stories about Diaz's handbag makes the headlines, we have a quiet attempt to re-write the function of the Vice-Presidency. It is disgraceful, and, IMHO, Cheney SHOULD be investigated: We know something is just stinking wrong with some of his actions, and he is trying to put himself above American law. It is incredulous.

A further article:

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/news/stories/2007/06/22/natcheney0622a.html

These articles are inflamitory and rather misleading. The reason the VP's office can stiff arm the archive office is because of two reasons.

(1) The Archive office is itself in the executive branch, and thus gets all it's power to operate through the presidency.

(2) Bush gave Cheney the authority to reclassify national secrets almost from day one in office.

So the executive branch has a policy on what information to archive based upon the secretive ratings of the information. Cheney not complying isn't the same thing as claiming their VP's office isn't in the executive. It's rather stating he's not going to comply because he doesn't have too.

The President has that authority because he set's policy for the Archives office. Cheney has the authority because the President gave him the authority. Interesting tidbit. Not only does cheney have the authority to reclassify state secrets. He can do so without any written documentation. Which clears up any state secretes mishanding information he might run into.

Anyway. Cheney is a powerful and a misguided presedential advisor. He will go down in history as a poor excuse for a Sec State, Sec defense, and National Security advisor to George W. He had a better reputation before George W. granted him all these special powers.

[TMK9973]

So the executive branch has a policy on what information to archive based upon the secretive ratings of the information. Cheney not complying isn't the same thing as claiming their VP's office isn't in the executive. It's rather stating he's not going to comply because he doesn't have too.

The President has that authority because he set's policy for the Archives office. Cheney has the authority because the President gave him the authority. Interesting tidbit. Not only does cheney have the authority to reclassify state secrets. He can do so without any written documentation. Which clears up any state secretes mishanding information he might run into.

The legal argument they are using is 2 fold, and is intresting.

1) Because as a Vice President, your only REAL duties, per the consitution, is in the legislative branch, they do not have to follow rules for the excetive branch. That would almost be plausable if then he followed the stricter rules of the legilative branch. But Cheenys office claims he is not really part of them eaither.

(Also - What is neat, is this office has claimed excutive privliages often when refusing congrass requests).

2) The rules are part of a presidental order. So now the president who made the order says he never intended the law to be in place for the VP or himself.

They admit that while the law doesn't SAY the VP is exempt, the fact that the president says this was his intent, is enough.

That is a intresting precident. Judges all the time do try to factor in Congress intent when making a ruling, but they also refer back to what is written first. The white house is basicly saying "No, no, intent is MORE important that what is actually written".

Of course, the fact that the white house has been following the order and the VP's office followed the order for the first 2 years, tends to throw this arguement out the window (Can I now say they are lying, or do I still have to say they are just mis informed?).

I wish democrats would get some balls and hold these guys accountable. I think Bush has some bad advisors, has been led astray, but that he belived in everything he's done.

I think Chenny is a power hungrey scum who knows he's breaking the last and doesn't care.

[Baculus]

No, the National Archives is an independent agency of the Federal government. It is NOT a part of the Executive branch. So your assertion that the article is somehow "inflammatory" is not accurate. Some details about this particular government entity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Archives_and_Records_Administration

And you are missing a huge part of the issue: Do you understand what Cheney is attempting to claim, and do you *not* understand what is the issue at hand with this discussion? He IS stating that his office is not a part of the Executive branch. This is what his representative stated:

"The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code)."

And part of the issue has been Cheney's secrecy in the past: A well-known example is his efforts to keep the national energy policy meetings a secret, from the topics of discussion to those who were in attendance.

[JMS]

The legal argument they are using is 2 fold, and is intresting.

1) Because as a Vice President, your only REAL duties, per the consitution, is in the legislative branch, they do not have to follow rules for the excetive branch. That would almost be plausable if then he followed the stricter rules of the legilative branch. But Cheenys office claims he is not really part of them eaither.

(Also - What is neat, is this office has claimed excutive privliages often when refusing congrass requests).

2) The rules are part of a presidental order. So now the president who made the order says he never intended the law to be in place for the VP or himself.

They admit that while the law doesn't SAY the VP is exempt, the fact that the president says this was his intent, is enough.

That is a intresting precident. Judges all the time do try to factor in Congress intent when making a ruling, but they also refer back to what is written first. The white house is basicly saying "No, no, intent is MORE important that what is actually written".

Of course, the fact that the white house has been following the order and the VP's office followed the order for the first 2 years, tends to throw this arguement out the window (Can I now say they are lying, or do I still have to say they are just mis informed?).

I wish democrats would get some balls and hold these guys accountable. I think Bush has some bad advisors, has been led astray, but that he belived in everything he's done.

I think Chenny is a power hungrey scum who knows he's breaking the last and doesn't care.

TMK9973 is it your understanding this is a legal issue? The Archive department works inside the executive branch. What is archived or isn't is the sole purveiw of the President, not congress and certainly not justice.

If Cheney wants to not comply with the policy set forth by the president, and the President is ok with him doing so. It's not a legal issue. That's why Waxman is whining about it, instead of a federal prosecutor.

Fact is this story only has legs with people who don't understand the issues.

Don't make me defend Cheney. I'm a huge Cheney critic, as I am with Bush. But this story is just silly.

Cheney is a secret squirel. He doesn't want his papers archived with the President's. If the President is ok with Cheney keeping his papers separate; then what's the big deal?

Not like the American public is going to be prevey to any of those papers for 50-60 years down the road. Cheney is too big an ego maniac to destroy his papers. He's probable got his own library picked out in Wyoming.

[Baculus]

TMK9973 is it your understanding this is a legal issue? The Archive department works inside the executive branch. What is archived or isn't is the sole purveiw of the President, not congress and certainly not justice.

If Cheney wants to not comply with the policy set forth by the president, and the President is ok with him doing so. It's not a legal issue. That's why Waxman is whining about it, instead of a federal prosecutor.

Fact is this story only has legs with people who don't understand the issues.

Don't make me defend Cheney. I'm a huge Cheney critic, as I am with Bush. But this story is just silly.

Cheney is a secret squirel. He doesn't want his papers archived with the President's. If the President is ok with Cheney keeping his papers separate; then what's the big deal?

Not like the American public is going to be prevey to any of those papers for 50-60 years down the road. Cheney is too big an ego maniac to destroy his papers. He's probable got his own library picked out in Wyoming.

Please see my above post. You are not quite correct on your assertions. (BTW, your name always makes me think of JMS, the creator of Babylon 5. Heh.)

[Baculus]

Incidentally, this issue does tie-in with Executive Order 13233, introduced by none other then White House Counsel Gonzales, to "limits access to the records of former United States Presidents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233

IMHO, they are trying to protect Presidential misconduct more then anything else. This issue originally started during the Clinton administration, as a note.

[TMK9973]

JMS - You are incorrect.

1) this issue is NOT about what is acrhived and what is not (Although that is also happening as well right now). This is about a presidantal order, which carries the weight of law, about how to handle classified national security information. They basicly have to report every year what information they have that falls into that catagory and how they are handling it.

It absolutly is a legal issue and why Waxman has asked the atty general to get involved and review.

[JMS]

No, the National Archives is an independent agency of the Federal government. It is NOT a part of the Executive branch. So your assertion that the article is somehow "inflammatory" is not accurate. Some details about this particular government entity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Archives_and_Records_Administration

And you are missing a huge part of the issue: Do you understand what Cheney is attempting to claim, and do you *not* understand what is the issue at hand with this discussion? He IS stating that his office is not a part of the Executive branch. This is what his representative stated:

"The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code)."

And part of the issue has been Cheney's secrecy in the past: A well-known example is his efforts to keep the national energy policy meetings a secret, from the topics of discussion to those who were in attendance.

The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”

Baculus you were right. The archive department went "independent" in 1985. But I think my point is still valid. As the article clearly states Cheney wasn't violating a law. Cheney exempted his office from a Presidential order, which only the President can authorize.

This isn't a legal issue. The Presidential ( executive ) papers are not the property of the federal government. They are collected as a curtessy for the Presidential Libraries and remain the property of the presidential libraries or even the Presidential family.

If Cheney has worked out his own deal, what's the big deal. His non compliance in this matter is not a legal issue. It's certainly not a constitutional crisis. Waxman is trying to stir the pot and make it a political issue. There are so many valid reasons to jump down Cheney's throat. Why make up weak reasons?

I think it makes people tune out from the real issues.

Nothing will come of this. Because nothing should come of this.

[JMS]

JMS - You are incorrect.

1) this issue is NOT about what is acrhived and what is not (Although that is also happening as well right now). This is about a presidantal order, which carries the weight of law, about how to handle classified national security information. They basicly have to report every year what information they have that falls into that catagory and how they are handling it.

It absolutly is a legal issue and why Waxman has asked the atty general to get involved and review.

No. A presidential order does not carry the weight of law. A President is free to change or disregard his own orders. And if the President says so, so is Cheney. A President is not free to change or disregard a law which originates in the Legislative branch of government not the executive.

And part of the issue has been Cheney's secrecy in the past: A well-known example is his efforts to keep the national energy policy meetings a secret, from the topics of discussion to those who were in attendance.

Buculus, that meeting remains secret to this day. Because Cheney asserted Executive privilege. Cheney and the President have the authority to seek advice where ever they like. If they choose to keep their ad visors secret, they have that right.

Unfortunately legislating morality does more harm than good, at least that's the argument. I too would like to know what advice Bush's largest campaign contributor was giving him after his first election win.. ( Enron ). Unfortunately legally, we nor congress have the right to know.

Again, This is an argument not about the peoples right to know. Clearly the people don't have the right to know. This is an argument about which stack of classified papers will house the VP's documents. The Presidential stack kept by the national archives, or Cheney's personal archive likely under his bed.

Bush's papers go to his Presidential library in Texas and won't be unclassified in our ( my ) lifetime. Cheney's papers I guess are going somewhere else.

[Baculus]

Baculus you were right. The archive department went "independent" in 1985. But I think my point is still valid. As the article clearly states Cheney wasn't violating a law. Cheney exempted his office from a Presidential order, which only the President can authorize.

This isn't a legal issue. The Presidential ( executive ) papers are not the property of the federal government. They are collected as a curtessy for the Presidential Libraries and remain the property of the presidential libraries or even the Presidential family.

If Cheney has worked out his own deal, what's the big deal. His non compliance in this matter is not a legal issue. It's certainly not a constitutional crisis. Waxman is trying to stir the pot and make it a political issue. There are so many valid reasons to jump down Cheney's throat. Why make up weak reasons?

I think it makes people tune out from the real issues.

Nothing will come of this. Because nothing should come of this.

I believe you are missing the entire point of this issue:

1. Again, let me reiterate to you, embolded, what his office has stated:

"The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code)."

In short, if this comes under legal scrutiny and accepted, then it could set some sort of precedent.

And not only that, but Cheney is not in compliance with a Presidential order, of which the National Archives are attempting to execute as part of its duties.

2. Cheney has been extremely secretive in the past, and continues to do so. This is merely another indication of this secrecy, some of which some have accused of breaking U.S. law. In fact, Cheney is even attempting to abolish the oversight agency involved in this matter, which is the nformation Security Oversight Office.

3. Cheney feels that his office is above and beyond ANY inspection: Congressional, investigatory, or otherwise. He CANNOT continue to stiff-arm any investigatory body, as if he is above the law. That is a huge component of this particular subject, and has been a component of Cheney-related investigations for the last few years.

4. And this is the IRONY of the case: In the past, Cheney has claimed Executive privilege when attempting to block Congressional investigation into his records. And now, he is claiming that his office isn't even a part of the Executive branch - so which is it?!

I am not sorry, but these actions are indefendable.

[Baculus]

No. A presidential order does not carry the weight of law. A President is free to change or disregard his own orders. And if the President says so, so is Cheney. A President is not free to change or desregard a law which originates in the Legislative branch of government not the executive.

Actually, Presidential Orders DO carry the weight of law, and that is why they have been criticized, since it empowers the President to sign orders which are enforceable as law. Presidential Orders are also known as Presidential Directives, Executive Orders, etc.

Buculus, that meeting remains secret to this day. Because Cheney asserted Executive privelidge. Cheney and the President have the authority to seek advice where ever they like. If they choose to keep their advisors secret, they have that right.

Read the embolded part: HE CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, and now he is saying that his office doesn't fall under this branch of the Federal Government! So how can he claim Executuve Privilege? And the Energy Policy meeting issue wasn't just about a meeting with advisors, but it is the issue of secretive meetings to create defacto policy, which blocking any attempts to gain further information on these meetings. Especially if these meetings involved corporations involved in fraud, such as Enron.

[JMS]

I believe you are missing the entire point of this issue:

1. Again, let me reiterate to you, embolded, what his office has stated:

"The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code)."

In short, if this comes under legal scrutiny and accepted, then it could set some sort of precedent.

And not only that, but Cheney is not in compliance with a Presidential order, of which the National Archives are attempting to execute as part of its duties.

2. Cheney has been extremely secretive in the past, and continues to do so. This is merely another indication of this secrecy, some of which some have accused of breaking U.S. law. In fact, Cheney is even attempting to abolish the oversight agency involved in this matter, which is the nformation Security Oversight Office.

3. Cheney feels that his office is above and beyond ANY inspection: Congressional, investigatory, or otherwise. He CANNOT continue to stiff-arm any investigatory body, as if he is above the law. That is a huge component of this particular subject, and has been a component of Cheney-related investigations for the last few years.

4. And this is the IRONY of the case: In the past, Cheney has claimed Executive privilege when attempting to block Congressional investigation into his records. And now, he is claiming that his office isn't even a part of the Executive branch - so which is it?!

I am not sorry, but these actions are indefendable.

First off Baculus, We don't know if Cheney is claiming that or not. We are getting that from Waxman, not from Cheney. Fact is Cheney doesn't have to justify why he is exempting himself from Bush's presidential order. The President has the authority to exempt, modify or disregard his own orders. I mean, he just wrote the order down. It's not like they are vet ed by congress or anything.

If Cheney tries to suggest the VP's office isn't part of the executive branch in a legal matter; I think that would be a concern. Fact is Cheney has the authority to exempt himself out of this policy no questions asked.

Waxman is stirring the pot here.

[TMK9973]

Executive Orders absolutly and without doubt have the power of law.

JMS- I know you are not a republican fan, and I do appricate your line of thinking (For instance - I never thought the whole firing US Attny was a issue, since the president is allowed to hire and fire them at will, for any cause he wants).

But in this case - It actually is a violation of law. The fact that Bush wrote the law make it worse, not better.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson184.html

[JMS]

Actually, Presidential Orders DO carry the weight of law, and that is why they have been criticized, since it empowers the President to sign orders which are enforceable as law. Presidential Orders are also known as Presidential Directives, Executive Orders, etc.

? what are you talking about? Are you suggesting the President can't disregard or ammend his own orders? Are you suggesting that the President can disregard or ammend congressional laws?

No?

Then Presidential orders are not laws, nor do they carry the weight of laws, at least if you are the President. They are a different animal.

Read the embolded part: HE CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, and now he is saying that his office doesn't fall under this branch of the Federal Government! So how can he claim Executuve Privilege? And the Energy Policy meeting issue wasn't just about a meeting with advisors, but it is the issue of secretive meetings to create defacto policy, which blocking any attempts to gain further information on these meetings. Especially if these meetings involved corporations involved in fraud, such as Enron.

I agree with you. It's bogus Cheney can invite a few oil companies to his office and they can hash out the nations energy policy. But that's what likely happenned and the People don't have the right to know.

As I said, The President ( and his officers ) have the right to seek advice from anybody they deem fit. They don't have to vet or inform congress to who those advisors are who what advice was given. There are separation of powers issues here and executive priveledge issues. Cheney is on the right side of the law on this one. Cheney to this day has not said who attended those meetings on national energy policy nor what advice was given.

[twa]

Bac, he was able to claim Executive privilege because he was working under power granted by Bush...which SCOTUS agreed was correct and covered.

The VP's only constitutional duty is legislative in breaking a tie in the Senate and being next in line of succession.

Bush has delegated Cheney power on his own,but there is no power inherent in the office other than the two listed.

It truly is separate with the president unable to remove him or even direct him if the VP chose to ignore or go against his wishes.

The whole issue should have been over when Bush said Cheney was not included because a EO is not a law ,but rather a directive.

Unless Waxman wishes him to write it down for posterity's sake :laugh:

[Baculus]

First off Baculus, We don't know if Cheney is claiming that or not. We are getting that from Waxman, not from Cheney. Fact is Cheney doesn't have to justify why he is exempting himself from Bush's presidential order. The Presdient has the aurhority to exempt, modify or disregard his own orders. I mean, he just wrote the order down. It's not like they are veted by congress or anything.

Cheney, and his office, HAVE made the claim: This isn't coming from just Rep. Waxman, but from Cheney's office and its staff. This is obviously a position and statement that Cheney supports, and it isn't something that is just being created by his opponents. It is strange for you to continue to make these assertions when it is HIS OFFICE THAT ARE MAKING THESE ASSERTIONS.

We know that Cheney's office is making these assertions because they have publically stated their position.

If Cheney tries to suggest the VP's office isn't part of the executive branch in a legal matter; I think that would be a concern. Fact is Cheney has the authority to exempt himself out of this policy no questions asked.

Waxman is stiring the pot here.

You don't seem to understand what is happening. It is CHENEY'S OFFICE that is making the claim, not Rep. Waxman or his office. Cheney does not have the power to exempt himself at his whim and pleasure.

And Waxman isn't stirring the pot: That is a really off the mark statement to make.

[JMS]

Executive Orders absolutly and without doubt have the power of law.

JMS- I know you are not a republican fan, and I do appricate your line of thinking (For instance - I never thought the whole firing US Attny was a issue, since the president is allowed to hire and fire them at will, for any cause he wants).

But in this case - It actually is a violation of law. The fact that Bush wrote the law make it worse, not better.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson184.html

President's don't write laws. Congress does. Presidential orders are not laws because the President is free to ammend his own orders, repeal them, or disregard them. The President does not have the same authority with laws. Nor can the President write a Presidential order which conflicts with a law passed by Congress.

The folks who wrote your essay are the same folks questioning the authority of the IRS to tax the American people. President's since Washington have been writting presidential orders. Nothing new in it.

[TMK9973]

? what are you talking about? Are you suggesting the President can't disregard or ammend his own orders? Are you suggesting that the President can disregard or ammend congressional laws?

No?

Then Presidential orders are not laws, nor do they carry the weight of laws, at least if you are the President. They are a different animal.

As far as the first part -That is EXCATLY what I am saying.

Same with Congress - Congress can't pass a law and then not follow it, saying "I wrote it, I can break it".

Same with Presidantal orders. I can't just write it and ignore it.

I'm pretty sure they aren't amendable eaither, however he can revoke it and rewrite it if he wants. But he has not done it.

Also - Presidant orders can't override congress law. They are used to clariffy. So Congress can pass a law to override it if they don't like it.

For instance - the whole debate about federal funding for stem cell research? That is a presidental order -Not a congressional law.

So there was no law allowing, or not allowing, federal funds to be used for stem cell research. Bush signed a order forbiding it, and it has the same weight of law.

Congress then, has tried many times, to pass a law saying it IS allowed. Bush has vetoed it. Congress has never passed a law saying it is not allowed eaither, but with the absence of any law, presidant orders take over.

In this case - Congress has a law about how to treat confidential info. There was no law on the books about what the execuitive branch must do to show that it's in compliance with those laws. So -Bush signed a order stating what they must do.

Congress can pass a law changing those requirements, and could also pass a law mandating those requirements, however -since neither has been done, the presidential order has the rule of law on what must be done.

[TMK9973]

President's don't write laws. Congress does. Presidential orders are not laws because the President is free to ammend his own orders, repeal them, or disregard them. The President does not have the same authority with laws. Nor can the President write a Presidential order which conflicts with a law passed by Congress.

The folks who wrote your essay are the same folks questioning the authority of the IRS to tax the American people. President's since Washington have been writting presidential orders. Nothing new in it.

JMS - I'm ussally with you. But your just wrong on this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order

http://www.albanylaw.edu/sub.php?navigation_id=849

http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

[Baculus]

? what are you talking about? Are you suggesting the President can't disregard or ammend his own orders? Are you suggesting that the President can disregard or ammend congressional laws?

No?

Then Presidential orders are not laws, nor do they carry the weight of laws, at least if you are the President. They are a different animal.

You do not understand Presidential Orders very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29

I agree with you. It's bogus Cheney can invite a few oil companies to his office and they can hash out the nations energy policy. But that's what likely happenned and the People don't have the right to know.

Of course the people have the right to know. It is called transparency in government. And it is supposed to prevent corruption and the type of misguided cronyism that we see eminating from the V.P.

As I said, The President ( and his officers ) have the right to seek advice from anybody they deem fit. They don't have to vet or inform congress to who those advisors are who what advice was given. There are separation of powers issues here and executive priveledge issues. Cheney is on the right side of the law on this one. Cheney to this day has not said who attended those meetings on national energy policy nor what advice was given.

HOW CAN HE HAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHEN HE IS CLAIMING THAT HE ISN'T A PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? Answer me that question?

And Executive Privilege does not entail protecting the President and the Executive branch from ANY actions they may take. Of course, the President and V.P. can receive counsel from anyone they may desire, but that doesn't mean that such counsel is automatically exempt from public knowledge and record keeping.

After all, the question has to be asked, WHY is the V.P. so secretive? Why is he attempting to abolish agencies that would record such information? WHY is he attempting to even block any record of whom he receives visitations and counsel? His actions aren't merely attempts to protect privacy, but he knows his actions wouldn't meet the approval of both American citizens and elected members of Congress.

Also, this issue was also taking place when there was an investigation during lawbreaking during the Valeria Plame issue. Coincidence? Probably not.

It reminds me of a speech that Cheney gave to the Council on Foregin Relations. He chuckled and said that he never mentioned, when running for office in Wyoming, that he was a member of the CFR because he knew his constituents wouldn't approve. And that pretty much sums up how Cheney has always operated: Secrecy. And I doubt it is always for a good reason.

[JMS]

Cheney, and his office, HAVE made the claim: This isn't coming from just Rep. Waxman, but from Cheney's office and its staff. This is obviously a position and statement that Cheney supports, and it isn't something that is just being created by his opponents. It is strange for you to continue to make these assertions when it is HIS OFFICE THAT ARE MAKING THESE ASSERTIONS.

We know that Cheney's office is making these assertions because they have publically stated their position.

No, Waxman has publically stated Cheney's position. Show me a Link where Cheney is making this ludicrous claim.

As I said, Cheney is free to give whatever reason he likes for disregarding the Presidential order. Cause the President is backing him up. If Cheney tries to claim his office isn't part of the executive before a congressional law. Then we have an issue.

You don't seem to understand what is happening. It is CHENEY'S OFFICE that is making the claim, not Rep. Waxman or his office. Cheney does not have the power to exempt himself at his whim and pleasure.

Yes he literally does. Bush has granted Cheney that authority.

And we are only hearing this justification from Waxman, not from Cheney. Fact is Cheney's intern could have written that letter to the archive department, because as long as Cheney is holding the Presidential authority; that's the level of importance placed on justifying his actions. None.

And Waxman isn't stirring the pot: That is a really off the mark statement to make.

Waxman is complaining about the justification given for an action which requires no justification. That's the definition of stirring the pot.