Constitutional Showdown Coming

So the Congressional Democrats are up in arms about the apparent putsch which Bush and Rove and Miers have orchestrated with the firing of 8 US Attorneys. The Democratic leaders in both houses are claiming that the firings were politically motivated, and the Republicans are saying the US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and he the president reserves the right to remove the attorneys as the president sees fit. (I want to know how the republicans are able to keep their people in line and on message, since almost every republican has been saying exactly the same thing, it is almost eerie and downright scary that they are not allowed to say or think anything outside the party line)

The presidents posse is claiming they were within their rights to do so, and are using President Clinton's similar maneuver in 1993 when he forced all 93 US Attorneys to resign, with no resistance at the time from the Democratically controlled Congress.

Now there is some provisions in the Patriot Act, which allows the president to appoint new US Attorneys without Senate confirmation hearings. It is a bit annoying that even the most learned elected officials were not even aware that this provision was included in the Patriot Act. This is particularly disturbing to me, since it appears our esteemed leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle don't know what they are doing. An excellent reason why some folks are pushing for the Read the Bill Act, which forces legislators to sign an affidavit that they have read and understand everything included in all bills before they are allowed to vote under penalty of perjury. This type of law, might help prevent excessive pork and secret last minute provisions. I don't think it is particularly enforceable, but a good idea all the same

The problem I have now is the constitutional pissing contest which is about to unfold. Congress has begun to issue subpoena's asking to speak with political guru Karl Rove (why he is on the government payroll supported by tax payers, and not being paid by the republican party payroll is another ball of wax that really bothers me) and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who yeah by the way was once upon a time Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court. Bush through his mouthpiece Tony Snow has said that Rove and Miers could conduct private interviews with Congress, but not under oath, behind closed doors (no media) and with no official record of the proceedings. This offer seems to me like a major waste of time. Bush is saying that these people have executive privilege and are not compelled to testify even if subpoenaed

If these dismissals were not politically motivated as the republicans are claiming, then they should have no problem rolling anyone involved out in front of Congress, in front of a national audience on C-Span to answer all questions about these dismissals under oath. If they feel they did not do anything wrong, why the need for an off-the-record discussion and the claim to need executive privilidge? The interivew provides about as much value as the same folks meeting in a bar over drinks to hash over the same topic.

The other question that is lingering over this issue for me, if this is not politically motivated, then why is uber-spin meister Karl Rove even involved in this process? Rove and his kind reminds me of the political officer from the Hunt for Red October that Capt Ramius needs to kill in order to steal his sub and defect at the beginning of the movie (BTW/, I have always preferred Alec Baldwin in the Jack Ryan role over Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck). According to the Tom Clancy book, a member of the Communist party was required on every Soviet ship to ensure compliance and allegiance of every man on board. That is how I perceive Rove, involved in every aspect of the government to ensure compliance and allegiance. It is very scary how it seems the Bush administration is moving towards the Soviet totalitarian state model of punishing those that politically cross the exalted leader.

Here is another opinion from Larry Kudlow at the National Review (via Ragged Thots)

Why the “U.S. Attorneys Eight”?

Unfortunately, President Bush’s news conference yesterday failed to answer the absolute key question for the public: Why did he fire the eight U.S. attorneys?

If you read the transcript, he talked about “new leadership.” He also said, “Neither the Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled. We’re determined to correct the problem.”

But people watching Mr. Bush will still be wondering what his explanation is.
Of course, the President has the political and constitutional authority to hire and fire these prosecutors. But why were these eight dumped? Why not the other eighty-five?

It seems to me if you use a press conference event to go over the heads of the mainstream media, and broadcast to the American public, you have to deliver a clear rationale for your actions. Regrettably, I don’t think Mr. Bush did this.

And that’s one reason why he’s going to stay in hot water on the Hill, and probably remain in that hot water with the electorate.

Here’s my humble suggestion: Mr. Gonzales ought to be replaced by an eminent law school dean or college president—someone with enormous credibility and respect.

What comes to mind is President Gerald Ford’s decision to appoint University of Chicago president and former law school dean Edward Levi in the post-Watergate pardon period. Levi restored credibility for the Justice Department.

Just a thought.