Posted by
arandomguy on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:26:27 PM
Chuck Schumer now publicly called for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, claiming that the choice to fire 8 US attorneys was politically motivated, and that this somehow is an egregious violation of the President's and AG's constitutional responsibilities. Schumer also accused Gonzalez of making a false statement to Congress while testifying in hearings about the firings, claiming "We were told by the attorney general that he would, quote, 'never ever' make a change for political reasons."
"It now turns out that this was a falsehood. As all the evidence makes clear that this purge was based purely on politics." says Schumer. What Schumer fails to talk about however, is the fact that President Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys (save one), when he took office, and nobody complained. That is because it is the president's job to hire and fire US attorneys - they work for him. It is well within the President's authority to fire these people, and even if it was for political reasons, you cannot tell me that all 93 of Clinton's firings were because they were all bad lawyers. Bush 1 must have gotten at least 1 person right.
A Gonzalez top aide, Kyle Sampson, resigned yesterday amidst the phony controversy, but Schumer has said this will not be enough - that Sampson will not be the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy for a corrupt administration. According to Schumer: "Attorney Gonzales's chief of staff may well have obstructed justice,"
Schumer said, adding that if Gonzales knew what Sampson was doing,
"that's a pretty severe indictment, which means he doesn't have the
foggiest idea of what's going on in the Justice Department." (quoted from AP story).
What again, Schumer is failing to realize, is that there is no justice to obstruct. The Senate has no right to tell the president whom he can hire and fire - they can impeach, but short of that there is nothing they can do except complain.
My question is, why did nobody complain when Clinton fired all the US attorneys? Because it wasn't an issue then. Sure, it seems a little extreme, but it IS the president's authority to do so. I do not mind the Senate complaining when there is an issue to complain about. But I am sick and tired of the Senate trying to trample on the constitutional responsibilities of the executive branch. People in the Senate are so concerned about tyranny of a man - the Executive - that they have forgotten another kind of tyranny, that of a legislator. During the lead up to the American Revolution, the United States was upset with Parliament, not the King. Only at the very end, as the revolution was beginning in Lexington and at Bunker Hill, and only really with the publication of Common Sense did the revolutionaries begin to point their anger at the king.
Our constitution is not designed to limit Executive power. It is designed to limit all kinds of power in all branches of government. The Constitution is designed so that neither the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches become too powerful. When I see the Senate and House trying to abridge the Executive's constitutional authority and responsibilities, I fear for what is going to become of our government, and our wonderful system. Tampering with the Constitution is not something to be trifled with, by any of the Branches.
But it seems that the Democrats do not care, and are intent on stripping this President of every legal responsibility he has. This is dangerous, and I for one, cannot and will not stand for it.