Invoking history, Bush wants court out of subpoena fight
Lawyer Blogs
If there's one thing Congress and the Bush administration can agree on, it's that they've got a fight of historic proportions on their hands.
The House Judiciary Committee is demanding documents and testimony from President Bush's closest advisers about the firing of federal prosecutors.
When the White House refused, the Democrat-led committee went to court. Lawyers called the president's actions the most expansive view of presidential authority since Watergate.
Late Friday night, the Bush administration responded with court documents of its own, similarly steeped in history. Lawyers called the lawsuit unprecedented. Citing George Washington and Grover Cleveland, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, they said these types of clashes get resolved without going to court.
"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote.
The idea the Congress can't order the president or his advisers to do something is a principle known as executive privilege. That privilege isn't spelled out in the Constitution and courts are rarely asked to decide exactly what it means. And when they have been asked, judges have tried to avoid getting too specific.
"Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.
That makes for a murky area of law and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said.
Clearing it up "would forever alter the accommodation process that has served the Nation so well for over two centuries," attorneys wrote.
Congress wants to know whether the Bush administration fired several U.S. attorney for political reasons. That controversy contributed to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigning last year.
The Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify and demanded documents from President Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten.
Related listings
-
High court says gay partners can't get health benefits
Lawyer Blogs 05/08/2008A same-sex marriage ban prevents governments and universities in Michigan from providing health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.The 5-2 decision affects up to 20 universities, community colleges, scho...
-
Court refuses to block execution in Ga.
Lawyer Blogs 05/07/2008The Supreme Court has refused to block the execution of a prisoner in Georgia, clearing the last obstacle to the resumption of capital punishment in the U.S. after a 7-month pause.William Earl Lynd was scheduled to die Tuesday evening. He would be th...
-
Executions scheduled to take place in US states
Lawyer Blogs 05/06/2008Georgia is poised to become the first state in the nation to execute an inmate since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in September to review Kentucky inmates' claims that lethal injection is unconstitutional. The court ruled last month that Kentucky's ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.