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

[TMK9973]

BTW JMS - From YOUR article. Unless Dana Perino now works for Waxman, can we drop the argument you have been saying that only Waxman has said this is Cheney's position....

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."

[Baculus]

Same as law. Except.. means not laws.

JMS, are you intentionally trying to be difficult?

Take a double-take at your above statement, and tell me if it makes any sense.

THEY ARE ENFORCED AS LAW AND CARRY THE SAME WEIGHT AS LAW. End of story. End of debate. And you still have not provided a source to back up your rather convulated logic.

[*]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.

[*]The President has given Cheney the authority to ignore this EO, and the President has that authority.

[*]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.

[*]That this entire thing is a bogus shame, drummed up by the Democrates to give Cheney a black eye. ( a non story ).

[*]That there is no written response to the Department of Archives two letters from the VP's office nor from the AG's office.

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

Good job: You have used the President's convulated argument to support your own convulated argument.

[DixieFlatline]

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.

I meant practically as far as handling the documents goes.

I have yet to see it, but if you can show me where Cheney has said he's part of the legislative branch and not executive, then I'll agree with you on how big a deal it could be because I think that would be a ridiculous rationale. But the only person I've seen state that is the person from the National Archives.

[Predicto]

Just so all of you know, this is technically a "legal" argument, but it is not really one as a practical matter, because it will never be decided by a court. Courts stay out of intergovernmental disputes like this.

It is really a question of power politics and public opinion.

[China]

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.
   

Actually, the original claim is by the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives, not Waxman (this has been pointed out to you previously but you ignored it):

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

Also Cheney's office has stated the following:

"This matter has been carefully reviewed," spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said. "It has been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to the office of the vice president."

Link

[Baculus]

I meant practically as far as handling the documents goes.

I have yet to see it, but if you can show me where Cheney has said he's part of the legislative branch and not executive, then I'll agree with you on how big a deal it could be because I think that would be a ridiculous rationale. But the only person I've seen state that is the person from the National Archives.

That is the entire point of this thread, where Cheney has stated that he is now a part of the Legislative branch. His position is that he is both a member of the Executive and Legislative branch, a "hybrid" position.

[Baculus]

Just so all of you know, this is technically a "legal" argument, but it is not really one as a practical matter, because it will never be decided by a court. Courts stay out of intergovernmental disputes like this.

It is really a question of power politics and public opinion.

Part of the issue is that Cheney attempted to abolish the The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, so I think this is more then simply power politics when the agency responsible for auditing and oversight was possibly going to be dismantled.

Why would Cheney attempt such a thing, except, in my mind, for self-serving reasons?

[JMS]

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.

None of your sources say that TMK9973, you are reading it into what they say. And TMK, I posted the President's spokesman quote which stated my points..

"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."

I don't know how clearer it can get for you. There is no controversy in what she said. The controversy is in what Waxman claimed the VP said in response to the Department of Archives two letters. And the only person saying that is Waxman and the Democrates. Neither Cheney or Bush have publically reaffermed what Waxman is quoting..

Either way though. It's irrelivent. Bush has the authority, and thus Cheney is on firm ground.

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.

TMK, the fact this Clinton originally wrote this EO, and that President Bush revised it in 2003 should give you a hint that the President has great flexibility on Presidential orders which are not built into laws.

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.

Waxman claimed the VP's office responded to the Archives office with the objectionable quote. The Washington Post in their article said neither the VP's office nor the AG's office responded to the National Archive. Nor did the President's spokesperson reiterate that bogus line of reasoning. A line of reasoning intended to insite controversy.

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.

Your sources don't say what you think they say. "Like laws" and "legally inforceable", are not the same as Laws. The fact is the President is free to change or selectively modify Executive orders. He does not have that freedom with regard to laws.

here is a petition to the President asking HIM to rescind a EO.

http://www.smu.edu/facultysenate/reports%20and%20resolutions/Resolution_on_Executive_Order_13233_--_14_February_2007.htm

Here is another statement from the President that he isn't going to rescind one of Clinton's executive orders regarding publishing documents in Spanish.

http://www.englishfirst.org/13166/13166bush5401.htm

[Baculus]

Incidentally, this is a letter that started the recent matter on this subject:

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621095027.pdf

As you can see, the position, which is at the heart of the debate, originally came from the OVP, which is the Office of the Vice-President. Others, such as Rep. Waxmen, are merely reiterating the VP's position.

[China]

His position is that he is both a member of the Executive and Legislative branch, a "hybrid" position.

How convenient!

[Predicto]

Part of the issue is that Cheney attempted to abolish the The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, so I think this is more then simply power politics when the agency responsible for auditing and oversight was possibly going to be dismantled.

Why would Cheney attempt such a thing, except, in my mind, for self-serving reasons?

Oh, I don't disagree that this is horrible stuff and Cheney should get kicked in the nads for this nonsense (and plenty more).

I'm just saying that it is not going to happen in a courtroom. We are not going to get a US Supreme Court decision resolving the powers of the Presidency and the permissible scope of Executive Orders. It will never happen.

[DixieFlatline]

That is the entire point of this thread, where Cheney has stated that he is now a part of the Legislative branch. His position is that he is both a member of the Executive and Legislative branch, a "hybrid" position.

I know that's the point of the thread, but I've yet to see where they claim it. In the link China posted, a spokesperson says they determined it didn't apply to the VP's office, but they didn't say why. The article makes you infer it was this "hybrid" position, but it might have been they believe Bush exempted them.

[TMK9973]

JMS - So now "Legally Enforceable" to you is the same as a law?

That's a intresting argument.... If it's legally enforceable, then how is that not a law?

I never said they can't be modified by issueing another EO. In fact, I said he absolutly can receind or reissue a EO. But he can't use issue a statement saying someone doesn't have to follow it. Has he passed another EO saying the VP is exempt?

And - According to you know - The EO's, although legally enforceable, are not the same as law, but the Presdential spokesman is the final authorty on intrupting laws when it comes to the EO?

Hmmmmm

Is there anyone else that is agreeing with JMS on these points, are is he on a island here?

[TMK9973]

I know that's the point of the thread, but I've yet to see where they claim it. In the link China posted, a spokesperson says they determined it didn't apply to the VP's office, but they didn't say why. The article makes you infer it was this "hybrid" position, but it might have been they believe Bush exempted them.

Well - Your right that Cheney has not put anything in writing. So here is what we have.

1) Archives have stated that Cheney has made this claim

2) White house spokesperson has said Cheney has made this claim

3) Cheney has not denied making this claim.

[DixieFlatline]

Incidentally, this is a letter that started the recent matter on this subject:

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621095027.pdf

As you can see, the position, which is at the heart of the debate, originally came from the OVP, which is the Office of the Vice-President. Others, such as Rep. Waxmen, are merely reiterating the VP's position.

Actually, to be technical, its the guy writing the letter that infers that Cheney believe he's not entity of the executive branch. I'm going to see if I can find that Chicago Tribune article he refers too.

[Baculus]

I know that's the point of the thread, but I've yet to see where they claim it. In the link China posted, a spokesperson says they determined it didn't apply to the VP's office, but they didn't say why. The article makes you infer it was this "hybrid" position, but it might have been they believe Bush exempted them.

Refer to the .pdf I posted, which was from a letter that was sent from the V.P.'s office.

[Baculus]

Actually, to be technical, its the guy writing the letter that infers that Cheney believe he's not entity of the executive branch. I'm going to see if I can find that Chicago Tribune article he refers too.

Cheney isn't going to pen a letter out himself that states that position: That would be careless, nor is it necessary. That does not change the nature of his position.

You aren't going to find Cheney saying it on footage, nor will you find him specifically stating some of the more controversial positions that he holds. And even if he did state such a position, he can always deny it (which he has done so in the past...).

[DixieFlatline]

Well - Your right that Cheney has not put anything in writing. So here is what we have.

1) Archives have stated that Cheney has made this claim

2) White house spokesperson has said Cheney has made this claim

3) Cheney has not denied making this claim.

I missed the White House saying he made the claim.

I found the Tribune article..looks like it was the one posted earlier.

Btw, I'm not saying Cheney isn't acting stupidly, just seems like we're making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't think any precedent would be set, if that's the chief concern, because no one is publicly claiming that reason now.

[Baculus]

Oh, I don't disagree that this is horrible stuff and Cheney should get kicked in the nads for this nonsense (and plenty more).

I'm just saying that it is not going to happen in a courtroom. We are not going to get a US Supreme Court decision resolving the powers of the Presidency and the permissible scope of Executive Orders. It will never happen.

Yes, it will never happen. Even if Cheney, as an example, was found guilty of wrong doing, you would never see him in a courtroom, even if he, for example, shot someone in the face.

[China]

Here's what's in writing: the description of the OVP in the 2004 Plum Book (a listing of various government positions). You can bet Cheney and his general counsel had input into the way the OVP is listed in this report. The OVP is listed in an Appendix and not in either the Executive or Legislative branch sections and is described as follows:

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).

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/p226_appendix5.pdf

[DixieFlatline]

Here's what's in writing: the description of the OVP in the 2004 Plum Book (a listing of various government positions). You can bet Cheney and his general counsel had input into the way the OVP is listed in this report. The OVP is listed in an Appendix and not in either the Executive or Legislative branch sections and is described as follows:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/p226_appendix5.pdf

China, does that make it an official government view?

[China]

China, does that make it an official government view?

From the Foreward of the Plum Book, this is a report issued by Congressional committee:

Every four years, just after the Presidential election, the ‘‘United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions,’’ commonly known as the Plum Book, is published, alternately, by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform.

This publication contains data (as of September 30, 2004) on over 7,000 Federal civil service leadership and support positions in the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointment (e.g., positions such as agency heads and their immediate subordinates, policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials). The duties of many such positions may involve advocacy of Administration policies and programs and the incumbents usually have a close and confidential working relationship with the agency head or other key officials.

[Predicto]

Yes, it will never happen. Even if Cheney, as an example, was found guilty of wrong doing, you would never see him in a courtroom, even if he, for example, shot someone in the face.

hehehe. Not what I meant, but funny!

[JMS]

Incidentally, this is a letter that started the recent matter on this subject:

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621095027.pdf

As you can see, the position, which is at the heart of the debate, originally came from the OVP, which is the Office of the Vice-President. Others, such as Rep. Waxmen, are merely reiterating the VP's position.

Baculus, check your source.

That is not a letter from the OVP's it is a letter to the OVP from the National Archives.

Also this letters does not say that the VP's office said they aren't in the executive.

Rather..

This claim is an assumption put in the mouth of the VP's office third hand by way of the National Archive who read a YEAR OLD interview in the Chicogo Tribune. :doh:

NOTE!!!! The more than 1 year old Chicogo Tribune article didn't say that the VP wasn't in the executive. The Chicogo Tribune article said a VP spokesman said this Executive order was reviewed and did not apply to them. The rest is all Assumed by the Director of the National Archive.

Fact is the VP doesn't have to give a reason for exempting himself because ITS A PRESIDENTIAL ORDER!!!!

How bogus can you get?:doh:

(second paragraph)

Per the attached news article("Cheney Keeps Classification Activity Secret" by Mark Silva, Chicogo Tribune May 27, 2006) the OVP spokeperson indicated that, "This has been reviewed and it's been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to [the Office of the Vice President], which has both legislative and executive functions." I take this explaination to mean that OVP does not believe it is included in the definition of "agency" as set forth in the Order, since it doesn not consider itself an "entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

These words didn't even originate from the VP's office. It's an assumption from a more than 1 year old newspaper article....

Here is what the VP's spokes person actually said....

Despite an executive order signed by President Bush in 2003 requiring all agencies or “any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information’’ to report on its activities, the vice president’s office maintains that it has no legal obligation to report on its classification decisions.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2006/05/cheneys_secret_classifications.html

Not even a quote...Please...:doh: and nothing about the VP's office not being part of the Executive.

[JMS]

Refer to the .pdf I posted, which was from a letter that was sent from the V.P.'s office.

TO THE VP's OFFICE NOT FROM the VP's office.

Also the document doesn't even quote VP people saying the claim "the VP's office isn't in the Executive".

The National Archive puts those words into Cheney's mouth based on a more than 1 year old Newspaper Article from the Chicogo tribune in which the VP's office never made that claim!!!!....

This is bogus threw and threw.