From the current proposal:

I think I'm gonna throw up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/2 ... 28294.html

Executive privilege anyone?

How so?

Before I get obner jumped, I'm not advocating that this should be non-reviewable. In fact I"m against this bail out plan. Just curious of the connections you see.

This whole thing just illustrates how weak Republicanism is at this point. They are now the party of big government and government intrusion into markets. I wish they would just go the way of the dodo bird.

No taxes and big government is a terrible combination.

because it prevents any oversight of the secretary of the treasury who is a member of the executive branch.

but without republicans, who will protect me from non-whites and from sex?

Do you really believe that Congress is going to hand over blind authority to the republican sec. of the treasury? Like I said I'm against this, but I'm really not concerned about some whole sale take over in violation of separation of powers. And if It came to that level, SCOTUS would review it.

I think more than anything else they want to have an immediate impact and not tie this up with unnecessary litigation.

they gave away their exclusive right to declare war. if they aren't protective of their most important function, why should i trust them to be cautious about this?

also what are you talking about a scotus review for. read the language. no court of law, no administrative agency.

Because the Supreme Court has only paid attention to such language once in its history. This isn't really new. SCOTUS authority comes from the Constitution for the most part. For this to work, Scotus would have to rely on a Civil War Era case that limited their authority by congress but even then SCOTUS recognized some avenue to the Courts is always open. So if they want to review it they will. They'll cite Marbury "this is a constitution were expounding." and this is the "provinance of the judiciary to say what the law is."

Don't think this is the same for obvious reasons. You're just being reactionary on purpose now.

Remember, they already gave away Habeas Corpus

And the Supreme Court restored it.But they never really gave it away. These generalities mask complex issues.

it is exactly the same. there is a disaster. the white house wants a solution immediately. they will pressure congress to cede power. how is it different at all? it's exactly the same script.

Right, but remember that Congress isn't immune to being bulldozed.

Because the administration isnt feisting this agenda out of now where. They pretty much have to do something. The Iraq War (I'm assuming your not talking about the War Powers Act) was completely driven by this administration and not by popular support. It had popular support but wasn't created by it. Not to mention this is a Democrat Congress with a lame duck president in an election year.

Its amazing how much executive power has grown. I was reading recently how in the first state of the union Washington steared clear of any policy discussion because he didn't want to interfere with or influence matters before Congress.

I really think quotes like this from the Huffington Post is the same tactics but for democrats. Its politicizing for the sake of politicizing. How about we just discuss the actual merits of this bail out. Like will it work? I don't think it will. And what exactly are we getting for 700 billion dollars?

The founding Fathers really missed on this one. They were so concerned with limiting the legislative branch and they really are silent on the executive. I don't think they imagined this.

Kudlow was highlighting the same section in his discussion of the bailout. its not just liberals that find it disturbing.

You're right. Hating this administration crosses party lines now, but I really don't think this is an extension of any power grab. I just don't like the plan.

And to be clear "executive privilege" is not nearly the same as the War Powers Act or really tied to expansion of power. executive privilege is the right of the president to keep certain documents secret if it pertains to national security.

I think and I could be wrong that this extension to other executive branch members have been denied as unconstitutional. I think it gets fuzzy in the AG office depending on his job function to which branch he actually belongs in relation to special prosecutors.

That will be the republican argument. However, as the article pointed out, it is unprecedented.

I think a bailout is unfortunately necessary, but there is no way in hell that I'm going to let them give Bush a trillion dollars and four months to spend it any way he wants.

If Congress refuses to pass the bill based upon those 32 words (as they should), the administration will run around wildly waving their hands and screaming at the top of their lungs that Legislators are standing in the way! Then, the markets will take another tumble, thus "proving" the administration's point. (Who will refuse to budge on this point.)
This will scare Congress just enough to pass the bill because it is, after all, an election year.

Pretty sly for a bunch of dummies.