The Obama Administration has been accused by public interest groups of being one of the most hostile administration toward whistleblowers since the Nixon Administration. Not only whistleblowers but reporters have been subject to abusive investigations and crackdowns under President Obama. Now, that record has taken an even more dangerous turn. The Justice Department is facing bipartisan criticism after it moved to restrict access of inspectors general to documents needed to ferret out corrupt and abusive practices. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued a controversial 68-page memo that says that the department’s inspector general would be required to get permission from the agencies it is investigating to obtain wire taps, grand jury testimonies, and credit information.
For the record, I have been a long critic of the OLC due to what I have viewed as a significant decline in both the neutrality and quality of work in that office. The office has been wrong on a number of important constitutional questions, including the unconstitutional use of recess appointments by the President. In my view, these opinions were a departure from the tradition of the OLC in offering detached and apolitical analysis.
DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz has correctly noted that federal law gives his office independent authority and that having to coordinate documents requests from the very agency under investigation is counterintuitive: “I strongly disagree with the OLC opinion. Congress meant what it said when it authorized Inspectors General to independently access ‘all’ documents necessary to conduct effective oversight. … Without such access, our office’s ability to conduct its work will be significantly impaired.”
He is joined in this view by key members of Congress from both parties, including Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., as well as Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and John Conyers, D-Mich. As Senator Grassley correctly noted “If the Inspector General deems a document necessary to do his job, then the agency should turn it over immediately.”
The requirement that IGs get permission and access from the subject agency is inimical to the very function of their office and the effectiveness of these offices. When combined with the controversial measures taken against whistleblowers by the Obama Administration, the new policy would allow an Administration far greater power in controlling investigations of its authority and would guarantee notice of potential controversies or scandals within its ranks.
The government does not have “watch dogs”. Dogs don’t wear watches. We don’t “watch”, we supervise. The government does not have guide dogs either. The government has no guidance. The government has spies.
And I can’t argue with your perspective, either, Forgot. The future will be interesting, but not necessarily pleasant to experience for anyone except the very rich.
Issac, you have some good ideas. The government is certainly broken now, and the fixes won’t be easy.
Tyger,
The unconstitutional “overreach” by the ineligible imposter, the egregiously corrupt actions of the Extreme Court and the new post-“tipping point” American landscape all point to a new lawlessness, wherein the bull is taken by the horns.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
Tyger
You tap away at the problem. The structure of the American system of government: two parties that create a polarization, the necessity for private funding to obtain a profile, and the funding for scumbags like Carl Rove and others to turn the whole thing into the circus that results in complacency and/or vitriol, and other faults, invites the types that fill the positions and makes it impossible for those that could really do some good from participating.
There are two main problems with the American political structure, money and the two parties. There is no need to present candidates to the voter via private funding. The amount needed is easily within reach of the government. If other countries can solve this abomination then why not the US? If the private dollar was taken out of the equation the actual substance of the candidate could then take the place of the circus we now have. Secondly there needs to be at least four parties. A third party would open up the way for a fourth party. A third party could be initiated by requiring that the Presidency be filled by someone who has no ties to either the Republican or Democrat parties.
There are other solutions but until Americans recognize that the present system needs changing we are stuck with it and the types it attracts.
Forgot, you’re right about the imposter in the office of president, but it’s way too late to stop or even correct the damage he has done. It would be nice to throw him out, but that will never happen for many reasons now.
Inga/Annie, a LOT of the American public is fed up with the corruption, lies, incompetence, broken promises, and ineffectiveness of government, along with the declining economy and disastrously high national debt. Along comes someone like Trump who ignores the politically correct status quo, thumbs his nose at those in government currently and calls them out for their inability to make things better for anyone but themselves, and has enough money himself that he doesn’t need to pander to the mega-rich — because he is one of them, but won’t sit silently by while the politicians continue to destroy the country — and many folks are going to get excited over the idea of electing him president and maybe getting some results the real politicians can’t or won’t produce. Simple as that. And calling him a buffoon or worse won’t change it.
PCS,
The birthplace of the “empty suit,” community organizer imposter is moot. He is not eligible for the office. He can’t be elected again because he was not legally elected in the first place. The only thing left to be done is to rescind, revoke, retract and erase from the record this unconstitutional occupation of elected office, fraud and usurpation of power. The Speaker of the House had the duty to scrutinize candidates for eligibility. Just as with the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and its incomprehensible verbiage, Nancy Pelosi ignored the issue – Nancy Pelosi had to “pass it to see what’s in it.” Nancy Pelosi passed on doing her duty of vetting and rejecting the Obama candidacy. Speaker Pelosi was negligent and derelict in her duty.
“Natural born citizen” is the requirement for President. “Citizen” is the lesser requirement for the lesser office of Congress and Senate. “Natural born citizen” is born in the U.S. of parents who are citizens. “Citizen” is born in the U.S. of one parent or naturalized.
The Washington/Jay Letter, 1786, raised the requirement for the presidency to
“natural born citizen” from “citizen” as a “strong check” against foreign
allegiances by the “Commander In Chief.”
************************************************************************************************
Section 1, Article II, U.S. Constitution
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years
a Resident within the United
States.”
***********************************************************************************************
“Law of Nations”
“…born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate
itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally
follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
***********************************************************************************************
Benjamin Franklin in 1775 thanks Charles Dumas of the Netherlands for sending
him 3 more copies of the newest 1775 edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations
Another founder of our nation and framer of our Constitution, Benjamin
Franklin, was also quite familiar and well versed with the writings of Vattel.
He had his own personal copy prior to the advent of the Revolution. And in 1775
he wrote to Charles Dumas an editor and journalist in the Netherlands and
thanked him for sending Franklin 3 copies of the newest edition of Vattel
(published in French). Franklin commented to Dumas that his personal copy was in
heavy demand by the other delegates to the Continental Congress meeting in 1775.
Dumas was the Editor for the newly published 1775 edition of Vattel’s Law of
Nations (in the original French) in the Netherlands. Franklin and most of the
founders were fluent in French which was the diplomatic language of that time.
Dumas also made comments in his writings to Franklin about Vattel’s enlightened
writings and vision for a new form of government for a nation where the people
were sovereign and the unique opportunity for its application to the affairs in
America in the colonies splitting from Great Britain. The words found in our
Declaration of Independence mentioning the “Laws of Nature” and the phrase
mentioning unalienable rights such as “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”
are right out of Volume 1 of Vattel. As are the words of seeking a more perfect
union in the Preamble of our Constitution were also inspired by the teachings
and writings of Vattel who wrote that government should always be striving to
perfect itself to better serve the people. Thus it is quite evident that the
founders read and used Vattel extensively. Here is a reprint of the letter from
Franklin to Dumas thanking him for sending the books.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
Is this what you’re talking about Paul?
sqeeky
The egos of which I speak are a result of the laurels on which we rest. Time to move on.
The Mookie wants a third term – Franklin Delano Obama or would it be Barack Zedong
There are some birthers who were able to put down the spear after Obama revealed his long form birth certificate, but maybe Trump has their little birther hearts a pitter patter again, who knows? All those years of writing a birther blog, then coming to the realization that Obama was really born in the US afterall, now Trump reviving the birther feeling that were buried for a few years. Oh my god, too funny, but sad really.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/27/donald-trump-cpac_n_6756836.html
Donald Trump still not convinced Obama’s birth certificate is real. LOL.
“Hey look, [Obama] wrote a book when he was a young man and it said, ‘born in Kenya, blah blah blah,'” Trump told the crowd. “I don’t know where he was born.”
Six years into Obama’s presidency, most Americans have given up questioning the president’s birthplace, and Trump’s comments were met with silence in the auditorium. Speaking directly after Trump, another would-be candidate, former Sen. Rick Santorum, made a joke about so-called “birtherism.””
***************
Hmmmm, maybe this is one reason why certain people are attracted to Donald Trump. It makes sense now.
Inga – Trump raises an interesting issue. Obama tells us in his autobiography that he is NOT born in the United States.
Paul, it would help if you had a quote from the book that says what you say it does. Please go find the pharagah and page.
Inga – I have not read the damn book. I only know what the MSM has reported.
LOL, Paul.
President Obama is the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.
James Riesen
It is unfair to Dogs to call these government agencies “watch dogs”.
My dear Squeekers I was born in 1952, so the 50’s it’s a bit of a blur of childhood fun. I was 18 years old in 1970 and graduating from high school and starting my post high school education and career. After that I was busy with family and career for quite a few years and was quite apolitical until Reagan was running for President. You fail to see your own extreme dysfunction when it comes to biases, they so discolor almost every single thing you spout on this blog’s comment sections. You say things that seem to be unhinged from reality, I think you are intelligent and if you could rein in your flights of fancy a bit you could contribute in a positive way to society instead of being consumed by hatred a and biases.
Philly, truer words…. “General dysfunction”. I think that a full 24% of these conservatives, IF NOT MORE are as politically and philosophically dysfunctional as can be.
@I.Annie
You are old enough to remember the 1950s and 1960s. You have MORE conservative economic policies then, than now. You had less deficit spending, and less illegal immigration. There was less welfare. There were more import fees. Whatever was, and is, wrong with those policies, they aren’t to blame for the majority of the mess we are in today.
You can’t blame this whole mess on conservative economic policies. You are just trying to distract from Democratic Party failures. They are trying to stuff the ballot boxes and in doing so, have helped lower the standard of living for everybody else.
You have no trouble believing that Monsanto would create a product whose use means that a farmer has to buy increasing amounts of that product, and Monsanto seeds that are less affected by that product. You have no difficulty believing that Big Pharma would sell medicines which make people sicker, where they need more medicines. There is a lot of money involved.
Is it really such a stretch to believe the Democratic Party would do the same? They import and create more poor people to buy their “product”—government freebies. There are trillions of public dollars at stake. In doing so, their “product” creates even more “consumers.” It is sick and twisted.
And you are one of the sick and twisted people who create distractions so that people won’t focus in on what the Party is doing. Oh well, your kids, grandkids, and great grandkids will have to live with the consequences, just like the descendants of slaveholders have to live with their actions.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
How many conservatives complain about executive overreach when one of “theirs” is in office?
The answer is zero.
Because conservatives are the ones always looking for a restoration of the monarchy, as long as it’s one of their Habsburgs and not someone else’s.
As I have said before, I deplore the overreach in the executive branch that has been going on for decades. Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter. the three branches are supposed to be in some kind of balance, and Congress has ceded power unceasingly for too long.
The office of the President will NEVER give up power on its own, regardless of which party is in power. Congress must take back power. Unfortunately this group of Republicans is so caught up in its hatred, racism and general dysfunction, it is doubtful that they will get the least of anything done.
Also there are seemingly intelligent people out there that are so driven by their biases and predjuduces they squelch their own best instincts. If they put down the spear, they might actually hear their inner voice again.