Cheney boldly asserts that his office is not part of Executive Branch

Published on June 21st, 2007

These arrogant bastards have such a low opinion of this country and their fellows that they spout off the most ridiculous nonsense to defend their actions while we seem to just sit around sucking it up. Have they no shame? Have we no balls? By saying his office is not part of the executive to shield it from scrutiny is Cheney basically calling black white and telling us to go f*ck ourselves.

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.”

As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President’s position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President’s staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President’s executive order.

This is arrogance and misuse of power on a staggering scale. Does Cheney seriously believe that he can get away with it?

65 users responded in " Cheney boldly asserts that his office is not part of Executive Branch "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 DaveW said, on June 21st, 2007 at 2:22 pm

>>This is arrogance and misuse of power on a staggering scale.

Yes.

>>Does Cheney seriously believe that he can get away with it?

Yes.

Any more questions Smartalix

# 2 Smartalix said, on June 21st, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Well, I kinda did guess the answer to the second part already, but thanks!

# 3 BubbaRay said, on June 21st, 2007 at 2:43 pm

From the referenced article:
Vice President Cheney has refused to comply with an executive branch ethics law requiring him and his employees to disclose travel paid for by special interests.

So what’s new since 1960? JFK, LBJ, RMN, and on. Greatest crooks to never serve time. Oh goodness, let’s hope Bush is never disabled enough so that Cheney takes over (unless he already has?)

# 4 Bob said, on June 21st, 2007 at 2:43 pm

[Duplicate post. - ed.]

# 5 Bob said, on June 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pm

is Cheney basically calling black white and telling us to go f*ck ourselves.

YES! More should tell you commie pinkos that too.

# 6 Mike said, on June 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pm

The vice president doesn’t officially do anything except break tie votes in the Senate.

# 7 Angel H. Wong said, on June 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pm

And the Republicans Blame Clinton for that.

# 8 LoungeLizard said, on June 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Then I guess they can’t claim (unitary) executive privilege then, can they?

# 9 alger said, on June 21st, 2007 at 3:11 pm

#5, you left out “liberals, homos, nigras, mezicans and bitches”.

# 10 Ken... Just Ken said, on June 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Well, if he’s not part of the executive branch, doesn’t that mean he can’t claim “Executive Privilege”?

Subpoena him and take all his records, then let’s see which branch of the government he thinks he’s in.

# 11 Mister Mustard said, on June 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Hey, “we” elected the schmucks (except for the little thing about stealing the election). So now it’s coming home to roost.

God grant us the serenity to make it through to the next elections.

# 12 sdf said, on June 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pm

“So long suckers” – what do they care?

# 13 Just Some Dude said, on June 21st, 2007 at 3:59 pm

WAIT A MINUTE. Didn’t the Valerie Plane case tie into the Vice-president and his aids? And didn’t they use “Executive Privilege” to try and block the investigation??? Give me a break…

# 14 Mr. Fusion said, on June 21st, 2007 at 4:00 pm

#10,
Well, if he’s not part of the executive branch, doesn’t that mean he can’t claim “Executive Privilege”? …

Very good point.

# 15 Stars & Bars said, on June 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pm

What preceded the American Revolution?

Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/blacksto.htm
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/index.html

David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
http://tinyurl.com/383m6w

# 16 sdf said, on June 21st, 2007 at 4:13 pm

#14, it’s a nice thought, but as Smartalix suggests, the country is too complacent. Maybe if Cheney were a club-hopping heiress who got off on a DUI rap, the people might give a damn.

# 17 Stars & Bars said, on June 21st, 2007 at 5:30 pm

15 continued…

Notice how monarchy was such an integral part of society.

These anti-human-rights laws of 18th century society are reflected in the “Patriot Act”.

# 18 aaron aardvark said, on June 21st, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Does Cheney seriously believe that he can get away with it?

As others have pointed out, the answer is YES.

He will get away with it as long as the Dems don’t have the votes in Congress to stop him. And don’t think they wouldn’t stop him if they could. The Repubs have been pushing the narrative that the Dems are a bunch of weak, floppy wimps. The real wimps are the Republicans who can’t resist doing Bush’s bidding and haven’t had an independent thought among them – and always vote with Bush and against the will of the American people. (Can you say “stem cell funding”?)

# 19 Grimble said, on June 21st, 2007 at 6:16 pm

If he were brought up on charges now and convicted wouldn’t Bush just pardon him? Seems better to wait until they’re both out of office then convict the lot of ‘em.

# 20 TJGeezer said, on June 21st, 2007 at 6:40 pm

I’m wondering – it seems Waxman is onto something, he knows he is, and Cheney is scrambling to build a strone wall to dwarf Nixon’s. This reads like some very hardball politics is going on, because Cheney is either on the Bush bus or off it. He can claim executive privilege or he can claim executive orders don’t apply to him. Either way he’s probably damned because of the arguably treasonous outing of a live CIA network for short term political advantage. Waxman’s not pushing this hard entirely on his own.

We may be in for a very interesting summer. If they don’t all just go home.

Side question: Does anyone know if the automatic pardon for war crimes granted by the outgoing Rethuglicans can be reversed by congress? What if some congress member introduced a very simple bill rescinding that offense against justice? Assuming the automatic Bush veto could be overcome by the usual chickenshit congressional politicians faced with public reaction – would it be legal to rescind? Anybody have an opinion?

# 21 DoneZone said, on June 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pm

I am glad to see you so frigging outraged because it is so completely outrageous what Cheney is asserting. What a load of complete crap!
And we’re supposed to believe he’s not making a cent of the war when the company he previously was CEO of is getting the pig’s share of reconstruction contracts?
Obviously Cheney seems willing to cut and run from his ties to the Executive Office when it suits him. Slimy self-serving opportunists never exhibit solidarity to anything or anyone except themselves. So his willingness to attempt to exempt himself from government-wide regulation is hardly surprising.
The only thing I respect about the man is that he speaks proudly of his lesbian daughter. That is admirable.
But the rest of his act is truly repugnant.
America, you’ve got to wake up!

# 22 Kevin said, on June 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pm

It’s amazing watching so-called conservatives defend these lecherous, amoral thieves. Only lame ideologists afraid to remove their lips from the company teat would defend this crap by continually excusing their actions with the schoolyard logic of “well, other people did it too!” Yes, I’m a conservative but I ain’t a Republican until sane, decent human beings take the party back. Toeing the party line is such small-minded thinking it’s astonishing that adults spout this crap. Right and wrong come before Dems and Reps for me. It should for you too if you really claim to uphold conservative values. Since when is shi*ting on the Constitution the mark of true conservatism? But you don’t value that. You’re just thick-headed cheerleaders who are doing more to help the Democrats than they deserve. It really is shameful and you’d admit as much if you stopped circle jerking to Fox News long enough to acknowledge what’s really going on.

# 23 Lauren the Ghoti said, on June 21st, 2007 at 7:05 pm

When you consider the kind of “men” her father has always run with, is it any real surprise that his daughter prefers girls?

# 24 noname said, on June 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pm

It really is sad to see our 200+ years come to this. I don’t see how we can go for another 100 years?

Our founders and framers never imaged nor planned for this trisection of
1.) An executive claiming exaggerated powers and having complete disregard for the republic (congress and the public) and courts.
2.) Republic, congress and the public, so unwilling to challenge executive abuse of power
3.) Courts not challenging executive or congressional breeches of law.

Not to forget, our lame 4th estate, the press so overtaken by the profit motive. What good is a truthful press anyway when you have congress and the public so unwilling to challenge executive obvious abuse of power, rather then excusing it.

It’s true, people get the government they deserve. The public has forgotten this country is an experiment in participatory democracy.

The public is so caught up in surviving this American RAT RACE. No one is staying home with the kids, everyone is out shopping or on a cell phone (everyone is communicating, just no one is saying anything) or watching TV.

Gota have my Gas Guzzling Hummer, no matter how many Americans volunteers and die! Killing for GAS, that should replace “In God We Trust”.

# 25 James Armstrong said, on June 21st, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Hate to rain on your Bush-Bashing parade but…

Saying something and being accused by Henry Waxman of saying something is not the same thing.

# 26 Frank said, on June 21st, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Well, this would never happen in China LOL!!!!!!

# 27 Mister Mustard said, on June 21st, 2007 at 8:20 pm

>>The only thing I respect about the man is that he speaks proudly
>>of his lesbian daughter.

Yeah, but he hates all the rest of the lesbians. And gays. In fact, I think he hates anyone who won’t take it up the ass for petrodollars.

# 28 RBG said, on June 21st, 2007 at 8:40 pm

“Cheney, whose single constitutional duty is to serve as president of the Senate…”

“The vice president is saying he doesn’t have to follow the orders of the president,” said Garrett Epps, a law professor at the University of Oregon. “That’s a very interesting proposition.” He said the lines have not been drawn that clearly: ”

As vice president, Cheney receives his paycheck from the U.S. Senate, which also pays the salaries of much of his staff.”
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1261266.html

“That’s a very interesting proposition.”
Yeah, Isn’t that just what you guys were saying…

For more arrogant, ridiculous, no shame, no balls, staggering, misuse of power challenges to US society and law; check with the Supreme Court of the USA.

RBG

# 29 Anonymous said, on June 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pm

[Message deleted - See Comment Guidelines. - ed.]

# 30 meetsy said, on June 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm

someone! Remove “vera” the posting bot #29!

# 31 bobbo said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 am

You know, after you overcome your first reaction===what Cheney says makes sense, more sense than the executive office characterization.

99% of the executive branch cotninuum is simply because of his “title” as in Vice-President. We are all used to the business model wherein the Vice reports to and is hired/fired by the President of the Company. Is that the case here?===No. So he is NOT a Vice-President by common business practice.

What is his sole express function?–to serve in legislature.
Who pays him?–the legislature.

I say “Hoist him on the petard he has raised.

# 32 astro4554 said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 2:16 am

Have we no balls? Some have and are working hard to do something about it…

[Use embedded links, dammit! just type (a href="put link here with no spaces between these quotes")your comment text that will be highlighted goes here(/a) Just replace the "(" and ")" with "< " and ">" and you're good to go. - Ed.]

# 33 Harry Mangurian said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 am

I wonder what all you kids will get off on in 18 months when the evil men are gone. Reading these junk comments reminds me of when, as a kid, I would watch Flash Gordon and his team take on Ming the Merciless. You folks are just not as campy and entertaining.
Dale Arden: Flash, Flash, I love you, but we only have fourteen hours to save the Earth!

# 34 Jonathan fox said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 3:03 am

What Preceded the Laws of England? The Magna Carta. You might be in the New World and Im in the Old world but its funny how the mistakes are repeated. Its like Animal Farm. What was the American Revolution for again?

# 35 Tom 2 said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 am

WTF, i mean come on, this guy needs a class in government, this is so ridiculous trying to explain or debate it seems meaningless, whats he gonna do? Go to every government website and take his name off of the Executive branch websites, jesus christ, impeach bush? Na impeach cheney just for even saying that should be treason.

# 36 Tom 2 said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 4:31 am

Or maybe take his name off the constitution as well “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected…”

# 37 smartalix said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 4:56 am

33,

Cute words, but what do you base them on? These “junk comments” as you call them criticize the VP’s behavior. Your position intimates that you support his bullshit. Why do you have America? You don’t like the Constitution anymore? Why don’t you move to a country that has no laws instead of destroying the ones we have?

# 38 Rob said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 5:02 am

I think a very interesting constitutional argument has arisen here. I, too, always considered the Vice President to be a part of the legislative branch, simply because his constitutionally described duties as President of the U.S. Senate.
In any event, it should come as no surprise that any politician, no matter the party, will fail to do the right thing. In addition to that, you can be sure that said politicians own party will always defend his/her right to play this game.
The Dems are no better in this realm and those here who are so quick to judge the Republican’s would do well to remember that Dem’s get a free pass to steal and destroy documents from the National Archive with no more that a verbal slap on the wrist.
It’s all so absurd!

# 39 smartalix said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 am

38,

OK, I condemn that and those people should go to jail. We’re talking about TODAY, not actions of the past. Do you support or decry Cheney’s position?

If he really is a member of the legislature he has no Executive Priveledge, as has been pointed out. I’d love to see his pompous ass in front of a congressional committee, or better still, a criminal court with all the records of his office’s actions in evidence.

# 40 Sounds the Alarm said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 5:26 am

Cheney is a thug and this view is a joke BUT the DEMS STILL have no balls for doing anything.

Thus this will all come to nothing & he will pay no price.

BTW the only reason he “embraced” his lesbian daughter is for the 2004 election.

# 41 Guyver said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 am

Well if you go to USA.gov and do a search on branches of government, the first link is titled “Ben’s Guide: Branches of Government (3 to 5)”:

http://tinyurl.com/2bgm8f

[Please use TinyUrl.com for overly long URLs - ed.]

# 42 John Lyn said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 6:09 am

Dick is the Anti Christ.

# 43 Guyver said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 am

11. If Gore was able to carry his home state of Tennessee or Clinton’s state of Arkansas, the whole Florida fiasco would have been a non-issue and Gore would have been president.

24. Killing for Gas? Last time I heard that was when Desert Storm happend and it was because Kuwait asked us to liberate them. Not to mention Saddam just ended a very long war with Iran and depeted his funds. Pumping oil like crazy would have restored his funds, but he would get the wrath of Opec since he had no intentions of maintaining any sort of quota they wanted to impose. If we went to Iraq the first time, it was to keep the price of oil up, not down. Saddam would have flooded the market and we’d all be overjoyed in having cheap gas. Fast forward to today and this still keeps getting talked about.

33. They’ll just continue to bash.

38. STRONGLY agreed. There are those who don’t apply the same litmus test when it comes to one of their own.

39. He is in the executive branch. Period. If not, they need to stop telling 3rd graders on up that he is. He may sit in the senate and be its president to break ties, but he is not a part of the legislative branch even though he effectively has a function there.

40. I’ll start believing the Dems have a pair when they actually kill the funding to the Iraq War to keep their promise of ending it. Afterall, that was a campaign promise to their constituents. It’s oh so easy to do. Why aren’t they keeping their promise? Rather, they make up some bill with pork barrel and a timeline that they know any president will and should veto since that is beyond the scope of power for congress. Congress has two powers concerning war. Declaring it and funding it. Why won’t the dems keep their promise?

I had no idea Cheney ever said that was the reason why he “embraced” his daughter. It’s quite possible that even though he disagrees with that lifestyle, that’s no reason to banish her. I like how liberals like to use that as fodder. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL-q5vvaDmw

# 44 smartalix said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 7:30 am

” Kuwait asked us to liberate them”

So that means they are a democratic government now with equal rights for all citizens?

# 45 Guyver said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 7:48 am

44. They are a constitutional emirate whose populations is about 45% Kuwaiti. I do not know how many of the other 55% are considered “citizens”, but I recall a thing done on Kuwait 10+ years ago on 60 minutes that said many of these migrant workers are reduced to the kind of labor we have here in the U.S. from illegal aliens.

So excluding the migrant workers then yes, the 45% of the population are Kuwaiti citizens and are probably treated equally.

# 46 RBG said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 am

44. No, it means they’re not trying to kill us and everyone else in the world who disagrees with them.

RBG

# 47 Guyver said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 7:52 am

44. Just checked the CIA World Factbook and Kuwait has a total population of 2,505,559. Of that, 1,291,354 are “non-nationals”.

# 48 mpouchez said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 8:28 am

Clinton gets impeached for a blow j*b, this government blows up (perhaps) a half million people (depending on who one asks), sucks up to big business and kills our planet with environmental equivocation. Let’s see, can this be fair…? I have the balls to get rid of these government f***ks (all three branches), but collective brain power is what we really need. Can this be the failure of democracy, like social networks (way overrated), process that depends on mass wisdom?

cheers

# 49 smartalix said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am

45,

A “constitutional emirate” is a fancy word for dictatorship. Nice try.

46,

How do you know Kuwait isn’t contributing to Muslim Madrassas that preach hate to the West? You must have excellent intelligence assets.

# 50 Guyver said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 am

49. I would rather call it a kingdom, but if you would rather call it a dictatorship that’s your perogative.

There was a Kuwaiti professor arrested in Florida I believe for his affiliation with Al Qaeda or something to that effect a few years ago.

# 51 OhForTheLoveOf said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 am

#50 – A dictatorship is what a kingdom is.

# 52 RBG said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm

49. Because the oil teat was almost pulled out of their mouths by Iraq. That would be some irony for official Kuwait to then be surreptitiously providing for the US defeat in Iraq.

RBG

# 53 Rick said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Does this make it any easier to impeach this Satan-spawn?

# 54 Gez o'pete said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Coming up on “ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A 5th GRADER” American civics for vice presidents.

# 55 doug said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 3:03 pm

it is pretty damn clear that the VP is a part of the executive branch with some legislative duties (presiding over the Senate, breaking ties therein). It is, by its nature, a violation of the tradition of separation of powers and a constitutional afterthought, as well as proof that the Framers were not infallible, BUT IT IS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

me thinks that Dead Eye Dick is hiding something ….

# 56 Guyver said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 pm

51. The two are morally equivalent!?!?!?!? If you say so.

# 57 OhForTheLoveOf said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm

#56 – I didn’t say that.

If I had said that, I would have said, “A dictatorship is what a kingdom is and those two things are morally equivalent.” But I didn’t say that, I simply said, “A dictatorship is what a kingdom is.”

I’m gonna quit my job, go back to school, get my teaching certificate, and teach English. If I can get just a few people actually being able to speak their native language, it will have been worth it.

# 58 bobbo said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm

Well, by defintion and practice, they are the same thing, so equivalent in all ways?

There are examples of benevolent kings and dictators, and the culture is Disneyfied leading one to think that dictatorship=hitler and king=Queen Elizabeth or some other cartoon character, but by definition you have one person rule with no check.

Kinda like God.

# 59 bobbo said, on June 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 pm

55—–and others—–

“it is pretty damn clear that the VP is a part of the executive branch with some legislative duties (presiding over the Senate, breaking ties therein).” ////// or —-

It is pretty damn clear that the VP is part of the legislative brank with NO EXECUTIVE DUTIES AT ALL until elevated to the position of President.

Bald faced assertions with no reference or analysis is fun to make.

Atleast No 36 referenced the constitution. Too bad it is entirely off point and irrelevant but I saw the word “Vice-President” in there somewhere so my shotgun logic says it proves what I want.

Hey, its just words, and the Dems are spineless anyway.

# 60 Smartalix said, on June 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 am

59,

If he is part of the legislative branch then he is supposed to follow their rules, which he doesn’t either. This is all about evading the law, simple as that.

When people take refuge in minutiae you know they are playing the system. Cheney and his ilk need to obey the law.

# 61 bobbo said, on June 23rd, 2007 at 8:03 am

60–I agree totally==but also totally easier for congress to get him by his own argument. I wont hold my breath for congress to accept his gaff==they being not any smarter than too many posters here.

I don’t think the correct identification of which branch of government you are in is minutiae, but rather pretty important. Congress should strike while Cheney is befuddled.

# 62 Smartalix said, on June 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 am

61,

In the case of the VP, it is minutia. He does travel in both streams. But that isn’t a reason to evade the law.

# 63 bobbo said, on June 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 am

62===Correct again. But doesn’t Cheney avoid production subpoenas from Congress if he claims he has Executive Privilege as part of the Executive Branch – - AND – - doesn’t he lose that privilege if he is part of the Legislative Branch?

Now that is trivial only if having to repond or not to a subpoena is trivial. On that, its not worth the argument.

Very nice website you have there.

# 64 Smartalix said, on June 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 am

64,

That’s my point as well. He can’t simply say he falls between the cracks.

Thanks for the compliment!

# 65 MikeN said, on June 24th, 2007 at 7:19 am

There’s no federal law that says he has to comply. So why is Congress getting involved? Either Cheney is not part of the executive branch, in which case he’s right, or he is part of the executive branch, in which case he is higher up in the branch than the office that is arguing with him, in which case he’s again right. The President is of course even higher up, and his executive order would go higher, so he would be ‘the decider.’

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!