Bring It On!

Cheney Asserts Independence From Executive Branch- Is The Vice-President Now An Official ‘Rogue’ Element In Our Government?

June 21st, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |

Vice-President Dick Cheney has obviously spent too much time in “undisclosed” locations because since 2003 he has directed his office to quit complying with Executive Order 12958 that requires the National Archives to inspect federal agencies and White House offices to ensure that they are complying with the security procedures regarding classified information.

In a letter to the national Archives, sent in 2006 by Cheney’s staff, Cheney asserted that the Office of the Vice-President is not an “entity within the executive branch” and therefore not subject to presidential executive orders.

Excuse me…what?!?

Since when was the OVP not part of the executive branch? Has Dick Cheney ever even read the Constitution of the United States? You know, the one he took an oath to uphold and protect?

The disclosure that Cheney views himself and his office as a separate apparatus unaffected by any restraint comes from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Congressman Henry Waxman. The issue itself was brought to Waxman’s committee by National Archive personnel after the Department of Justice (under Alberto Gonzales) refused to look into the matter. In other words, this bold and stunning assertion was discovered not as the result of some “witchhunt” for wrongdoing.

The prospect that Cheney clearly views himself and his office (and has apparently since 2003) to be an ‘independent operator’ inside the American government, subject to no laws or rules from anyone or anything, including the president, is chilling indeed.

If this isn’t enough to remove this man from office then American government and democracy is nothing but a farce and a shell of its former self.

[tag]Cheney, Committee+on+Oversight+and+government+reform, waxman, executive+order+12958, politics, justice[/tag]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 26 Responses to “Cheney Asserts Independence From Executive Branch- Is The Vice-President Now An Official ‘Rogue’ Element In Our Government?”

  2. By christopher Radulich on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply

    Sounds like a CEO.

  3. By Ron on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply

    B-b-but he hasn’t been convicted or accused in court of anything and therefore is not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors! From this it follows that he has done nothing wrong! He is beyond suspicion because nothing can be proven! That’s the way the ball bounces in this real, cruel, tragic world, so suck it up!

    /wingnut

  4. By Tom Harper on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply

    I read something like that on BuzzFlash. They were saying the Constitution really doesn’t say much about the office of Vice President. Other than a few specific functions — replacing a dead president, casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate — the position is mostly ceremonial and doesn’t have many restrictions in the Constitution. I hope this isn’t true or else Cheney has found himself a monstrous loophole.

  5. By ken grandlund on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply

    Well, the Constitution clearly places the office of the VP within the Executive branch as I read it.

    From Article II, Section 1, Clause 1:

    “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,8 and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:”

    Clause 6:
    “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office,10 the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”

    Section 4:

    “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    And further in the 25th Amendment, Section 4:

    “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments …”

    Seems pretty clear to me that the Office of the VP is indeed within the Executive branch. Cheney is trying to make it seem otherwise to hide who knows what…

  6. By christopher Radulich on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply

    high crimes and misdemeanors do not require a conviction in court. No court even charged clinton, much less convicted him.

  7. By SteveIL on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply

    Vice-President Dick Cheney has obviously spent too much time in “undisclosed” locations because since 2003 he has directed his office to quit complying with Executive Order 12958 that requires the National Archives to inspect federal agencies and White House offices to ensure that they are complying with the security procedures regarding classified information.

    So, you’re complaining about the National Archives making sure an administration complies with security procedures regarding classified information. Uh, where were the National Archives people when Sandy Burglar took classified information out of the National Archives? (And, by the way, I believe ol’ Sandy Burglar gets his clearance re-established soon, especially if the Hillary-beast becomes the Prez.)

  8. By Steve O on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL with the classic but, but, but, but, but, Clinton got away with it defense.

    Shit happens dude!!!!!

    New president, new line of crimes against common folk like me and you. Except this time we just might send the fucker to jail. I guess you are a true conservative SteveIL, so why defend a destroyer of you beliefs? The neo-con president and his cronies do not represent you and would lock you up in a heart beat if it served their personal motives.

    Blow jobs and walking out with stuff that was over classified and weren’t the originals does not equal destroying original e-mails and using public office for political means.

  9. By SteveIL on Jun 21, 2007 | Reply

    Lying about blow jobs to a grand jury is very much about using a public office for political means; only God and the Clintons know what else they got away with. And how do you know the stuff Sandy Burglar stole was “over-classified”? Is it because he, a thief and liar, said so? Can you say Clinton and Clintonista cover-up?

  10. By SteveIL on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    And if Henry Waxman were so concerned about “oversight”, why the hell isn’t he investigating the National Archives and their inspection of “federal agencies and White House offices to ensure that they are complying with the security procedures regarding classified information” with respect to leaks having been made by the CIA, especially as it relates to the leaks by “Yellowcake” Wilon or of those in the CIA who leaked the name of “Yellowcake’s” wife, “Double-O Soccer Mom”, and didn’t bother to tell anybody she was possibly covert? Oh, no. Waxman can’t do that, can he?

    That fucking Waxman and his committee is nothing but a sham. More bullshit by a bullshit artist.

  11. By ken grandlund on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    Damn, SteveIL, you really have swallowed the whole bait haven’t you. This post isn’t about Waxman or his committee or about the NA or about Berger either. It’s about Dick Cheney asserting that he and his office are a separate, non-accountable arm of government by saying his office is not part of the executive branch and therefore not subject to presidential executive orders.

    Get a grip man, and stay on topic for a change. Do you condone this assertion by Cheney? Do you concur with it? If so, you are agreeing that Dick Cheney, and every future VP, is in and of themselves above the law and with no constraints other than those they choose to place upon themselves. And that pal isn’t what this country is supposed to be about.

    Why do you hate America SteveIL???

  12. By SteveIL on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    Have you read Waxman’s letter to the Vice President? It confirms that what Waxman is doing is a sham, a bullshit witchhunt to dig up dirt on Cheney without doing proper oversight on why the CIA did nothing to protect the identity of their covert agent (which Waxman spins in his letter), nor why the National Archives have been miserable failures in protecting classified information (hence the Sandy Burglar theft and all the leaks). Although Cheney has never said why he said what he said, it can be reasonably assumed that the failures of these agencies to protect national security secrets, as is their function, forms the main reason for Cheney ignoring them. It can also be assumed he said what he said knowing in order to avoid saying so outright, to make it known to our enemies how dysfunctional the protection of national security secrets have become. Am I speculating? You bet, and I wouldn’t admit to know exactly what’s going on in the government since I don’t work for the government. Yet, Waxman’s letter seems to me to at least show that my speculation is entirely plausible. And again, this becomes a case of what kind of “oversight” is being done by Waxman and his committee.

    By the way, here’s the bullshit statement of Waxman’s letter:

    Your office may have the worst record in the executive branch for safeguarding classified information.

    It is the job of the CIA and the National Archives to do this, and it is Waxman’s job to do oversight of this. Has there been any? No.

    As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald established, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, your former Chief of Staff, leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative to several reporters in June 2003. Mr. Libby was convicted in March of perjury, obstruction ofjustice, and false statements for lying to a grand jury and to FBI agents in order to conceal his role in the leaking of this information.

    This is the same bullshit, complete with a pointless argument as it relates to Libby. “Libby…leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative…” What has come out is that nobody but the CIA knew she was covert when they told Libby, which is why nobody was ever charged with violating the IIPA, and the CIA and the National Archives failed to stop the leaks by “Yellowcake”. Waxman stating exactly what Libby was convicted of proves it, and it wasn’t for knowingly leaking the name of a covert agent. But, as has been the case repeatedly, Waxman has done nothing to question the CIA or the National Archives on why they haven’t protected their own covert people or classified national security information.

    I don’t hate America. And I won’t stoop to questioning whether you. However, I do question why you and many others continue give a pass to those who are not doing the jobs they were elected to do. In Waxman’s case, it’s oversight.

  13. By BYSHOP on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    So if he’s not a memeber of the executive branch, he has no executive priviledge to hide behind. Subpeana the shit out of him and if he doesn’t comply jail him for contempt.

    SteveIL how can the archives and CIA do thier jobs if Cheney refuses to co-operate? It’s in line with the current admin attitude, if it’s broke don’t fix it just ignore it. As far as oversight goes Clinton 1052 subpeana’s. Bush before Waxman, 3. Fault Waxman all you want, but he’s doing his job which is way more than anyone can say about Tom Davis. Being that this is still somewhat of a democracy, and the vast majority of Americans want this oversight, you sir are in the minority so suck it up buddy the people have spoken.

  14. By christopher Radulich on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    On the evening of Oct. 2, 2003, former White House national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger stashed highly classified documents he had taken from the National Archives beneath a construction trailer at the corner of Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW so he could surreptitiously retrieve them later and take them to his office, according to a newly disclosed government investigation.

    In other words it happened during a Republican president and a republican house and senate. What has this to do with the Clinton administration? Seems to me it just an other case of republican incompetence.

  15. By manapp99 on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    Chris says:

    “In other words it happened during a Republican president and a republican house and senate. What has this to do with the Clinton administration? Seems to me it just an other case of republican incompetence.”

    What has this to do with Clinton? Only that Berger was his National Security Advisor and was caught stealing classified documents. I do have to agree that he should not have been able to leave the National Archives without sporting a pair of handcuffs. That was indeed a law enforcement failure and could be called incompetence.

  16. By SteveIL on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL how can the archives and CIA do thier jobs if Cheney refuses to co-operate?

    Why should Cheney cooperate if the CIA refuse to do its jobs?

    And why doesn’t Waxman haul up Tenet, Paul Pillar, and the Wilsons, and anybody else in the CIA who was part of this mess? After all, it was these bureaucrats who were more interested in keeping the bureaucracy as it was than it was in doing its job. It was they who allowed the leak.

    Waxman doing his job, compared to Davis? Davis is no prize, but Waxman doing the wrong thing for the sake of being seen to do something is pathetic (like the Senate and their “comprehensive immigration reform” fiasco). Davis has even sought to subpoena “Double-O Soccer Mom” because her previous testimony to that committee, under oath, indicated she had nothing to do with getting her husband, “Yellowcake”, sent to Niger, when the evidence and previous testimony to other committees indicates otherwise. Waxman has refused. I don’t understand why if he’s looking to get to the heart of the matter, unless it is because Tenet (the Clinton appointee who should never have been kept on by Bush) and the Wilsons (contributors Democratic Presidential candidates, although “Yellowcake” did contribute to both Gore and Bush, in that order, in 1999); “Yellowcake” contributed to Kerry right around the time he began leaking to the NYT and the WaPo) are good Democratic Party contributors.

  17. By SteveIL on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    Following up on my last comment, and responding to this from Chris:

    What has this [Sandy Burglar stealing classified information from the National Archives, during the 9/11 hearings, I might add] to do with the Clinton administration?

    There’s only one phrase that can possibly describe what Sandy Burglar did and Waxman refusing to bring back “Double-O Soccer Mom”, the Democratic campaign contributor, for further testimony.

    Cover-up by the Democrats.

  18. By Paul Watson on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL,
    Why should I do my job because Cheney isn’t doing his? Either you’re a professional and do the job you’re paid for, or you’re not and you should get a new one. Doesn’t matter if you’re the only person who’ll do y our job, you saidyou’d do it, so you damn well do. That’s what being profesional and taking personal responsibility means. Cheney clearly isn’t a professional and should get a new job, as should those in the CIA who can’t do their jobs properly.

  19. By ken grandlund on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL-

    Still spinning and not answering the charge against Cheney asserting he’s an ‘independent operator’ eh? Are you dizzy yet???

    Oversight is oversight, and Waxman’s committee isn’t relegated to one single instance or screw-up to investigate. Now, someone from the National Archives, after trying to get their job done and being stonewalled by Cheney’s office and the DOJ took his case to Congress. So whether or not you like it, this is part of Waxman’s job. hell, with this administration, there are probably so many illegal, immoral, corruptable things swept under sarpets and hidden in closets or ‘deleted’ from memory that we’ll never have the whole story of debauchery.

    And yet, that seems to be fine with you. You ought to be ashamed of your own continued ‘cover’ of Cheney.

  20. By SteveIL on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    Cheney isn’t the professional? Who you crappin’? Cheney asks the CIA to look into a story about Saddam looking to purchase uranium in Niger. The CIA, with the assistance of “Double-O Soccer Mom”, gives the job to her husband “Yellowcake”. He goes and comes back. It came out that he never filed a proper report, and the CIA never bothered to brief Cheney. Then, two months after the war begins, “Yellowcake” starts leaking information and the CIA does nothing to stop it, nor does it attempt to protect the identity of cover agent “Double-O Soccer Mom”.

    I think you have it confused as to whom was being unprofessional. At least you got this part right as far as who should be out of a job:

    …as should those in the CIA who can’t do their jobs properly.

    Thankfully, Tenet, Pillar, and “Double-O Soccer Mom” are no longer at the CIA.

  21. By Paul Watson on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL,
    It’s entirely possile that both aren’t professional.
    If Cheney is refusing to cooperate with something that is a legal duty of his office, as it appears, then he is not acting professionally.

  22. By SteveIL on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    Ken, get over that faux “outrage” over Cheney’s supposed extra-constitutional whatever. How many here lauded the Squeaker of the House when she did her own extra-constitutional two-step over Syria? And how did that work out? Another anti-Syrian Lebanese politicion blown up. Great. Just great.

  23. By Chris on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    Since the republicans were in charge it must be a republican cover up. Now 4 years after the event you want the democrats to investigate? And what is their to investigate?

    In April 2005, Berger was convicted of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. The conviction stemmed from his theft and subsequent destruction of classified documents from the National Archives in Washington.

    It is remarkable how far the republicans will go to avoid taking responsibility for anything.

  24. By ken grandlund on Jun 22, 2007 | Reply

    I see nothing “extra-constitutional” about Pelosi going to Syria, or talking with other heads of state. It is neither unprecedented nor illegal. And she was joined by several other lawmakers, including some Republicans.

    Cheney, on the other hand, is asserting extra-constitutional priveliges he neither has nor is entitled to.

    Once again, your tactic is to blame others for their actions, which have nothing to do with the post BTW, and never address the issue at hand.

    I suppose you endorse shooting people in the face too?

  25. By SteveIL on Jun 25, 2007 | Reply

    Of course you don’t. Creating a foreign policy from Congress is both “extra-Constitutional” and illegal (Logan Act). Just because there were Republicans there doesn’t make it right.

  26. By Ronald Holland on Jun 25, 2007 | Reply

    Both Bush & Cheney actlike they are above the law.

    Dick Cheney is the power behind the throne. Of course, he and Bush believe they are exempt from Presidential Executive Orders.

    Still, Presidential Executive Orders during the War on Terror can be used by the executive branch to further destroy the Constitution and our liberties.

    Read the Final Presidential Executive Order from the online book, “The Swiss Preserve Solution” at http:// http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.com/swisspreserve14.htm

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Jun 28, 2007: Bring it On! » Blog Archive » Bush To Congress- Screw You!

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel