GOP senators refuse to put
Attorney General under oath
Mon Feb 6, 2006 20:42
GOP senators refuse to put Attorney General under oath on
wiretaps
Raw Story, MA - 7 hours ago
Republican senators refused to put Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about President Bush's ...
Attorney General won't say whether non-terrorist suspects are ... Raw Story
Results 1 - 10 of about 272 for Attorney General Alberto Oath
Republican senators refused to put Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about President Bush's clandestine wiretap program, RAW STORY has learned.
Advertisement
The move was first picked up by ThinkProgress. ThinkProgress has the video here.
Testimony before Congress is governed by Congressional law; individuals can still be prosecuted for lying to Congress. Technically, individuals need not be under oath to face prosecution. Democrats have focused on having individuals under oath before -- most notably oil executives -- who were found to have lied to a Senate Committee when they said their companies did not take part in secretive meetings with Vice President Dick Cheney on U.S. energy policy. The Washington Post later reported that the executives had been lying.
The transcript from the Gonzales hearing relevant to putting the Attorney General under oath follows.
#
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, CHAIRMAN (R-PA): So the question is, should the ruling of the chair be upheld that Attorney General Gonzales not be sworn?
HATCH (R): Aye.
GRASSLEY (R): Aye.
DEWINE (R): Aye.
GRAHAM (R): Aye.
KYL (R): Aye.
CORNYN (R): Aye.
SPECTER: By proxy, for Sen. Brownback, aye. Sen. Coburn – We’ve got enough votes already. Sen. Leahy?
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, RANKING DEMOCRAT: Emphatically, no.
KENNEDY (D): No.
BIDEN (D): No.
KOHL (D): No.
FEINSTEIN (D): No.
FEINGOLD (D): No.
SPECTER (R): Aye. The ayes have it.
FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.
SPECTER: Could you repeat that Sen. Feingold?
FEINGOLD: I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.
SPECTER: The practice is to rely upon the staffers. But without counting that vote – Well, we can rephrase the question if there’s any serious challenge of the proxies. This is really not a very good way to begin this hearing.
Democrats frustrated by Gonzales on eavesdropping
Reuters - 3 hours ago
... Democrats pounded away on Monday at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' defense of ... in January 2005 when the attorney general said under oath that Bush ...
Gonzales Faces Tough Questions on Spying Olberlin
FOX News Wastes No Time Spinning Gonzales Hearing On Warrantless ... News Hounds
Gonzales Defends Legality of Surveillance Guardian Unlimited
Free Internet Press - Forbes -
all 1,013 related »
An Oath is an Oath is an Oath
George Washington, Letter to Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1787
http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers//constitution/1787/bwshton.html
The warmest friends and the best supporters the Constitution has, do not
contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable
and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must
come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and,
as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it
is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on
their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments
which are necessary ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have
more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.
So what about the Electoral College? There's been a lot of talk about it
since all this electoral confusion bubbled up in Florida. I've been
hearing a lot of pros and cons about it. I, for one, wish someone would
come up with a website that seriously looked at ALL those pros and cons,
and that treated us citizens as the intelligent, free-thinking men and
women that we are. We all need to get a better sense of what the
consequences might be if we eliminated the Electoral College or changed it
in various ways (and I've heard a number of proposals) -- AND what we can
expect if we keep it exactly as it is. A really good example of the kind
of powerful citizen-education site I'm talking about is
http://www.destinationdemocracy.org
- Destination Democracy -- which
explains the ins and outs and unintended consequences of various campaign
finance reform proposals. It seems quite unbiased and VERY informative.
It's SO much more helpful than watching people fighting over the issue --
and then trying to make head or tail out of all their bit-and-piece
arguments. I hope someone does something like that for the Electoral
College issue. I'd like to see your good arguments set up alongside the
good arguments of folks who have other viewpoints on it. Makes sense,
doesn't it?
But when it comes to Mrs. Clinton violating her oath by proposing an
amendment, I'm afraid I just can't agree with you on that one. I think we
have to watch it, and get clear on when people are really undermining the
Constitution (like Waco) and when they are being responsible citizens who
we happen to disagree with.
Good luck to us all.
Tom
An Oath is an Oath is an Oath
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oath.htm
=================================
Randi Rhodes
3pm-7pm ET Mon-Fri Listen Live
Home Page: http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php
SEE ARCHIVES FOR 2/6/2006
http://www.randirhodesarchives.com/
HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)
Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states:
"The"individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)
Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v. Henkel
None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruled
Since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case.
Compared with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick!"
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the united States of America (1901-1909)
APFN POGO RADIO YOUR WAY
http://www.apfn.net/POGO.HTM
Raw Story, MA - 7 hours ago
Republican senators refused to put Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about President Bush's ...
Attorney General won't say whether non-terrorist suspects are ... Raw Story
Results 1 - 10 of about 272 for Attorney General Alberto Oath
Republican senators refused to put Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about President Bush's clandestine wiretap program, RAW STORY has learned.
Advertisement
The move was first picked up by ThinkProgress. ThinkProgress has the video here.
Testimony before Congress is governed by Congressional law; individuals can still be prosecuted for lying to Congress. Technically, individuals need not be under oath to face prosecution. Democrats have focused on having individuals under oath before -- most notably oil executives -- who were found to have lied to a Senate Committee when they said their companies did not take part in secretive meetings with Vice President Dick Cheney on U.S. energy policy. The Washington Post later reported that the executives had been lying.
The transcript from the Gonzales hearing relevant to putting the Attorney General under oath follows.
#
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, CHAIRMAN (R-PA): So the question is, should the ruling of the chair be upheld that Attorney General Gonzales not be sworn?
HATCH (R): Aye.
GRASSLEY (R): Aye.
DEWINE (R): Aye.
GRAHAM (R): Aye.
KYL (R): Aye.
CORNYN (R): Aye.
SPECTER: By proxy, for Sen. Brownback, aye. Sen. Coburn – We’ve got enough votes already. Sen. Leahy?
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, RANKING DEMOCRAT: Emphatically, no.
KENNEDY (D): No.
BIDEN (D): No.
KOHL (D): No.
FEINSTEIN (D): No.
FEINGOLD (D): No.
SPECTER (R): Aye. The ayes have it.
FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.
SPECTER: Could you repeat that Sen. Feingold?
FEINGOLD: I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.
SPECTER: The practice is to rely upon the staffers. But without counting that vote – Well, we can rephrase the question if there’s any serious challenge of the proxies. This is really not a very good way to begin this hearing.
Democrats frustrated by Gonzales on eavesdropping
Reuters - 3 hours ago
... Democrats pounded away on Monday at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' defense of ... in January 2005 when the attorney general said under oath that Bush ...
Gonzales Faces Tough Questions on Spying Olberlin
FOX News Wastes No Time Spinning Gonzales Hearing On Warrantless ... News Hounds
Gonzales Defends Legality of Surveillance Guardian Unlimited
Free Internet Press - Forbes -
all 1,013 related »
An Oath is an Oath is an Oath
George Washington, Letter to Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1787
http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers//constitution/1787/bwshton.html
The warmest friends and the best supporters the Constitution has, do not
contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable
and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must
come hereafter; for in the present moment, it is not to be obtained; and,
as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the People (for it
is with them to Judge) can as they will have the advantage of experience on
their Side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments
which are necessary ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have
more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.
So what about the Electoral College? There's been a lot of talk about it
since all this electoral confusion bubbled up in Florida. I've been
hearing a lot of pros and cons about it. I, for one, wish someone would
come up with a website that seriously looked at ALL those pros and cons,
and that treated us citizens as the intelligent, free-thinking men and
women that we are. We all need to get a better sense of what the
consequences might be if we eliminated the Electoral College or changed it
in various ways (and I've heard a number of proposals) -- AND what we can
expect if we keep it exactly as it is. A really good example of the kind
of powerful citizen-education site I'm talking about is
http://www.destinationdemocracy.org
- Destination Democracy -- which
explains the ins and outs and unintended consequences of various campaign
finance reform proposals. It seems quite unbiased and VERY informative.
It's SO much more helpful than watching people fighting over the issue --
and then trying to make head or tail out of all their bit-and-piece
arguments. I hope someone does something like that for the Electoral
College issue. I'd like to see your good arguments set up alongside the
good arguments of folks who have other viewpoints on it. Makes sense,
doesn't it?
But when it comes to Mrs. Clinton violating her oath by proposing an
amendment, I'm afraid I just can't agree with you on that one. I think we
have to watch it, and get clear on when people are really undermining the
Constitution (like Waco) and when they are being responsible citizens who
we happen to disagree with.
Good luck to us all.
Tom
An Oath is an Oath is an Oath
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oath.htm
=================================
Randi Rhodes
3pm-7pm ET Mon-Fri Listen Live
Home Page: http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php
SEE ARCHIVES FOR 2/6/2006
http://www.randirhodesarchives.com/
HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)
Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states:
"The"individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)
Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v. Henkel
None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruled
Since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case.
Compared with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick!"
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the united States of America (1901-1909)
APFN POGO RADIO YOUR WAY
http://www.apfn.net/POGO.HTM
