11/25/19 source article link for the post title's quotation:
"Federal judge says former White House counsel Don McGahn must speak to House: 'Presidents are not kings'"
....An excerpt from another article describing the district court judge's ruling today:
"Jackson called absolute immunity “a fiction” that has been propagated by a succession of presidential administrations by simply repeating it as a fact while avoiding testing the principle in court."
(Source article link)
...............................................................................................................................................
(>>>Link to the actual court ruling ('memorandum opinion'), .pdf file viewer needed: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000)
.....................................................................................................................................................An additional excerpt from the ruling, linked above. Emphasis has been added here:
"...It also plainly advances constitutional separation-of-powers principles, rather than subverts them, when a federal court decides the question of whether a legislative subpoena that a duly authorized committee of the House of Representatives has issued to a senior-level aide of the President is valid and enforceable, or, alternatively, is subject to the President’s invocation of absolute testimonial immunity. Furthermore, Miers was correct to conclude that, given the indisputable Article I power of the House of Representatives to conduct investigations of potential abuses of power and subpoena witnesses to testify at hearings concerning such investigations, the Judiciary Committee has both standing and a cause of action to file an enforcement lawsuit in federal court if the Executive branch blocks a current or former presidential aides’ performance of his duty to respond to a legislative subpoena. See id. at 65–75, 78–94.
DOJ’s arguments to the contrary are rooted in “the Executive’s interest in******************************************************************************************************************
‘autonomy[,]’” and, therefore, “rest[] upon a discredited notion of executive power and privilege.” Id. at 103. Indeed, when DOJ insists that Presidents can lawfully prevent their senior-level aides from responding to compelled congressional process and that neither the federal courts nor Congress has the power to do anything about it, DOJ promotes a conception of separation-of-powers principles that gets these constitutional commands exactly backwards. In reality, it is a core tenet of this Nation’s founding that the powers of a monarch must be split between the branches of the government to prevent tyranny. See The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison); see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 120 (1976). Thus, when presented with a case or controversy, it is the Judiciary’s duty under the Constitution to interpret the law and to declare government overreaches unlawful. Similarly, the House of Representatives has the constitutionally vested responsibility to conduct investigations of suspected abuses of power within the government, and to act to curb those improprieties, if required... "
..From House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (11/25/19 news story excerpt (link)):
"...“Today’s McGahn ruling is a very significant victory for congressional oversight, and for the American people,” Schiff said in a statement.
He added: “To those witnesses who hide behind fallacious claims of absolute immunity, this ruling shows again how meritless their position remains. The witnesses who have defied Congress at the behest of the president will have to decide whether their duty is to the country, or to a president who believes that he is above the law.”"
*******************************************************************************************************************
(...(Soon..) From the president...??)
via GIPHY
No comments:
Post a Comment