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

[Baculus]

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.

Incorrect, as TMK and I have pointed out. This is a criticism of EO's: Defacto law making without Congressional involvement. And the President has signed laws that conflict with both Congress and the Constitution.

The issue with Presidential Orders is that they have really gained strength over the laws 20 years, especially with those EO's which are Constitutionally questionable.

[TMK9973]

JMS - You ok today? Normally you do better research.

It's not waxman pointout what chenny's arguement is, it the office of the national archivess. Waxman just made it public. In addition - Chenny's spokeman reconfirmed his poisition over the weekend.

Below is the letter from the archives to the Attny General asking for a decesion. In the background section, it states that when they asked the Vice President's office directly why he wasn't following this, they stated that they did not belive they were a entiy in the Executive branch.

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621094929.pdf

[TMK9973]

Incorrect, as TMK and I have pointed out. This is a criticism of EO's: Defacto law making without Congressional involvement. And the President has signed laws that conflict with both Congress and the Constitution.

Now - To be fair -Most EO's start with "Where permissibile by Law..."

The ones that are in conflict ussally get thrown out by Congress or accepted by congress in another bill.

it's not like the president can issue a EO that says all blue eyed people can now be killed.

[Thiebear]

Vice President: President of the Senate

Doesnt that make him part of Congress? (took it from the same kids website)..

[Baculus]

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.

No, Waxman is merely responding to the V.P.'s assertions. I have already posted a quote from Cheney's representative, and you can find a ton of articles dealing with this issue if you do some research. Suffice to say, there are many articles, in regard to this topic, which have quotes and attribute this assertion to Cheney and his office.

You are basically asserting that V.P. Cheney is above American lawn and any sort of assessment and investigation. And do you really expect that Pres. Bush is going to have a "break" with Cheney over this issue? Let's be real, here: No matter what, the President will support Cheney. Bush's support isn't any indication of the correctness of Cheney's position.

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.

Again, Waxman is only responding to the V.P.'s assertions.

And you still have not answered to me how Cheney can have it both ways: Executive Privilege while asserting his office isn't a part of that federal branch of office.

[TMK9973]

Vice President: President of the Senate

Doesnt that make him part of Congress? (took it from the same kids website)..

No problem - then have him STOP claiming Executive privlage when asked to produce docments to congress, and have him follow the much more stricter laws the legislator branch needs to follow.

[Baculus]

Now - To be fair -Most EO's start with "Where permissibile by Law..."

The ones that are in conflict ussally get thrown out by Congress or accepted by congress in another bill.

it's not like the president can issue a EO that says all blue eyed people can now be killed.

No, but Presidents have issued EO's that are rather questionable and have been struck down by courts. In fact, EO's have been questionable for a long time, and do sometimes circumvent law.

[TMK9973]

No, but Presidents have issued EO's that are rather questionable and have been struck down by courts. In fact, EO's have been questionable for a long time, and do sometimes circumvent law.

Yup - When they try to overwrite existing law, they get shot down by the courts. I agree.

In this case - Thre is no existing law to overwrite, so it seems a vaild one.

[Baculus]

Yup - When they try to overwrite existing law, they get shot down by the courts. I agree.

In this case - Thre is no existing law to overwrite, so it seems a vaild one.

Yes, I would agree with you on this matter.

[JMS]

Incorrect, as TMK and I have pointed out. This is a criticism of EO's: Defacto law making without Congressional involvement. And the President has signed laws that conflict with both Congress and the Constitution.

The issue with Presidential Orders is that they have really gained strength over the laws 20 years, especially with those EO's which are Constitutionally questionable.

No it's not. No single person in the country has the constitutional authority to disregard, rewrite, or amend laws. The President has that authority with his presidential orders...

"This is a little bit of a non-issue," Perino said at a briefing dominated by the issue. Cheney is not subject to the executive order, she said, "because the president gets to decide whether or not he should be treated separately, and he's decided that he should."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/23/MNGCEQKIMT1.DTL&feed=rss.news

If congress really gets upset about this they are free to try to pass a LAW to outlaw it. But there is no legal issue here for Cheney, not as long as the President says so.

[JMS]

No, but Presidents have issued EO's that are rather questionable and have been struck down by courts. In fact, EO's have been questionable for a long time, and do sometimes circumvent law.

1780's

[JMS]

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

Where am I wrong?

[JMS]

You do not understand Presidential Orders very well.

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

I think I do, and I don't think anything in wikipedia refutes what I've been saying. If you care to read your own resource.

Fact is Presidential orders are not laws. They have different properties than laws. The President is free to disregard, modify, or enforce his own orders. He does not have that authority with laws.

Most Presidential orders are just Policy positions for his cabinent officials. He changes them all the time.

[Chief skin]

OK Mr VP have it your way you are not part of the executive branch but, as President of the Senate you are then bound by ethics rules of Congress. You can't have it both ways 1 way or the other your actions are open to oversight that is what the founding fathers intended

[DixieFlatline]

I don't think there is a legal issue here as it is an EO, but I think its stupid for Cheney to do it differently (with the President's backing) consider he followed the EO for the first 2 years. And I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't.

Practically, I'm not convinced its a big deal. I heard one person state it basically means you don't have someone from the National Archive coming into the office every day to make sure you've stored the document according to the EO.

[TMK9973]

Where am I wrong?

Are you serious?

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

Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress of the United States, when those acts give the President discretionary powers

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

Definition and numbering: Proclamations and executive orders have

much the same legal effect, but are usually used for different

purposes: proclamations for ceremonial or broad policy statements,

executive orders for routine determinations under statutory authority.

They are numbered, in separate series, in order of issuance.

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

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies

Not sure what else I can do. You keep saying EO's don't have the same weight of law and the presdient can disregard his orders. But I have now given you source after source that says they have the same effect of law.

Period.

Where are you right?

[Koolblue13]

So Dick-n-Bush are above the law, the gov't and the constitution. They can do whatever they want and answer to nobody about it. Go to war without the congress. The more war they make, the richer they get. They can declair martial law whenever they want and Dick is building the containment facilities for us. They can get caught in lies that cost thousands of Americans lives. Invade our privacy leagally now. They become more powerful everyday even though thier approval rating is dropping. Continually use fear mongering and terrorism on thier own people. Still nobody seriously takes impeachment seriously.

I'm putting my head back in the sand. Somebody wake me when everything is flat.

[Baculus]

No it's not. No single person in the country has the constitutional authority to disregard, rewrite, or amend laws. The President has that authority with his presidential orders...

JMS, are you ignoring everything that is written and described for Executive Orders. They do indeed have the power of law - just because JMS has decided that isn't the case doesn't make it so. Just conduct a teeny, tiny bit of research on the internet; heck, we have already provided links that specifically contrary to your assertions.

Your statement merely reinforces what I have said in the past on this matter: That EO's are questionably Consititutional, but the fact is that they are allowed and they can and are enforced.

I am not sure what you are really asserting here with this part of your post.

If congress really gets upset about this they are free to try to pass a LAW to outlaw it. But there is no legal issue here for Cheney, not as long as the President says so.

Just because the President backs up Cheney does not make his actions, nor his attitude towers his position as a public servant any more acceptable. Heck, the President backs up A.G. Gonzales as well: Does that mean that his actions are somewhat legal, rational, or justifiable?

Bush doesn't care if Cheney is acting contrary to his EO, and Bush's support of Cheney doesn't justify Cheney's actions, in the present or in the past.

And I like how you continue to dodge my question about Cheney attempting to have it both ways with his assertion of Executive Privilege, and this issue. How very Cheney of you!

[chiefhogskin48]

Cheney is a laughing stock. These neo-cons have done irreparable damage to the phrase "Republican." It's a real shame, too...

[Baculus]

I think I do, and I don't think anything in wikipedia refutes what I've been saying. If you care to read your own resource.

Fact is Presidential orders are not laws. They have different properties than laws. The President is free to disregard, modify, or enforce his own orders. He does not have that authority with laws.

Most Presidential orders are just Policy positions for his cabinent officials. He changes them all the time.

You are very cleary not correct on this matter. It very clearly states, "Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress of the United States, when those acts give the President discretionary powers."

The odd thing is, you have yet to demonstrate a single source to backup your position.

You are not incorrect, and this is demonstrable.

I have researched this issue previously and have even made posts about the subject of EO's, so this isn't the first time I have discussed this issue.

[Baculus]

As this website declares. "Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress."

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

[TMK9973]

Just because the President backs up Cheney does not make his actions, nor his attitude towers his position as a public servant any more acceptable. Heck, the President backs up A.G. Gonzales as well: Does that mean that his actions are somewhat legal, rational, or justifiable?

Bush doesn't care if Cheney is acting contrary to his EO, and Bush's support of Cheney doesn't justify Cheney's actions, in the present or in the past.

I think this is a KEY point. Yes -it is a EO issued by Bush, who now says he didn't intend it to be used on Cheeny.

but he didn't write that in the EO. Therefore it's irelevent.

Just because the law might have unitended consequences, doesn't change it.

[JMS]

Not sure what else I can do. You keep saying EO's don't have the same weight of law and the presdient can disregard his orders. But I have now given you source after source that says they have the same effect of law.

Same as law. Except.. equals.... not the same.

Where are you right?

1. Waxman is the one claiming Cheney said this and did that, (ie VP is not in the executive branch and tried to get the Archives office eliminated), not Cheney. No paper trail.
   
2. The President has given Cheney the authority to ignore this EO, and the President has that authority.
   
3. EO's are not laws, cause the President does not have the authority to disregard or rewrite laws and HE DOES HAVE THAT AUTHORITY for EO's.
   
4. That this entire thing is a bogus shame, drummed up by the Democrates to give Cheney a black eye. ( a non story ).
   
5. That there is no written response to the Department of Archives two letters from the VP's office nor from the AG's office.
   

White House backs Cheney's disregard for executive order

06-23) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The White House defended Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday in a dispute over the refusal by his office to comply with an executive order regulating the handling of classified information as Democrats and other critics assailed him for disregarding rules that others follow.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cheney was not obligated to submit to oversight by an office that safeguards classified information. Cheney's office has argued it does not have to comply because the vice president's role as president of the Senate means his office is not an "entity within the executive branch."

"This is a little bit of a non-issue," Perino said at a briefing dominated by the issue. Cheney is not subject to the executive order, she said, "because the president gets to decide whether or not he should be treated separately, and he's decided that he should."

Democratic critics said Cheney is distorting the plain meaning of the executive order. "Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration's policy on torture to include tortured logic," said Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

The dispute stems from an executive order issued in 1995 by President Bill Clinton and revised by President Bush in 2003 establishing a system for protecting classified information. Cheney's office, like its predecessor, filed reports about its handling of classified information to the National Archives and Records Administration oversight office in 2001 and 2002, but has refused to do so since. The office also blocked an inspection of its handling of classified data.

The Archives' Information Security Oversight Office sent two letters to Cheney requesting compliance but never received a response. The office then asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January to decide whether Cheney was violating the executive order, but he has not responded either. Instead, according to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, Cheney's staff tried to get the oversight office abolished this year.

Perino said the president does not think the office should be eliminated, "and I don't think that anyone has suggested that."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said he would like to amend a spending bill that funds executive operations so that money for Cheney's office and home is put on hold until he clarifies which branch of government he belongs to. Emanuel acknowledged that the move is a stunt, but said if Cheney is not part of the executive branch, he should not receive its funds.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/23/MNGCEQKIMT1.DTL&feed=rss.news

[Baculus]

I don't think there is a legal issue here as it is an EO, but I think its stupid for Cheney to do it differently (with the President's backing) consider he followed the EO for the first 2 years. And I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't.

Practically, I'm not convinced its a big deal. I heard one person state it basically means you don't have someone from the National Archive coming into the office every day to make sure you've stored the document according to the EO.

It is hard to tell which legal issues or consquences are entailed in this case. And I can definitely think of reasons why he wouldn't: Wrong doing, involvement with previous investigations, etc...

Of course it is a big deal. It is a VERY big deal, due to Cheney's attempt to both misconstrue the nature of his position, as well as abuse his position to prevent any sort of investigatory proceedings. Not only that, but it is my fear that he is eventually trying to create some sort of precedent which he will use further down the road.

This goes beyond merely the National Archives, but really cuts to the manner and spirit in which V.P. Cheney has been operating in his role as a public servant and his responsibility to American citizens. More so, he believes he is above such responsibilities - it is arrogance, which I despise.

[TMK9973]

JMS- I understand your opionion. But you are incorrect on it. Not sure what else I can do. You keep saying over and over again that the president orders do not have the weight of law and the president can decide how they are followed.

Source after source just says your wrong (The Except in the source means it can't over write existing law). You have provided no sources only your opinion and the opinion of the white house spokesperson, the same office that said the president belives the domestic spying is legal without the FISA court order.

It's not true.

You also keep saying that Waxman made this arguement, not Cheeny himself. Again, you give no sources and we have given you sources that show his office made this statement to the Archives office, and that archives office reported it to the Attny General.

Your now like my 6 year old son. Hands over his ears saying "Your wrong, your wrong, your wrong" no matter all the sources that say differently.