Subpoenas
Since Rove, Myers and Bolton have all ignored subpoenas made by House committees, when do you plan to arrest these fugitives and force them to comply?
Governing Philosophy/Process : Browse Popular Ideas
Moderators
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »11 comments for Idea: Subpoenas
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Fisa, telecom immunity and your oath of office
10 comments for Idea: Fisa, telecom immunity and your oath of officeI'm curious how any Democrat, much less any member of Congress, considered their oath of office to uphold the Constitution before they voted to allow for telecom immunity in the service of warrantless, secret, illegal and unconstitutional searches of our phone calls.
As the Bill passed under your stewardship, clearly not many did. What a disservice to the citizens of your district and to the country overall.
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
If George Bush and Dick Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses, then just what is an impeachable offense?
1 comment for Idea: If George Bush and Dick Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses, then just what is an impeachable offense?If George Bush and Dick Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses, then just what is an impeachable offense?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
accountability and the rule of law, now and in the future
Madam Speaker, as one of your constituents in San Francisco, I have supported you at the polls for many years, and was proud when you became Speaker of the House. Could you please restore our hope in the rule of law, and give us a sense of how the Democratic Congress will act to hold criminals in the Bush administration accountable for their illegal acts? With the judicial and executive branches of government ignoring ...more »
Add your comment for Idea: accountability and the rule of law, now and in the futureMadam Speaker, as one of your constituents in San Francisco, I have supported you at the polls for many years, and was proud when you became Speaker of the House.
Could you please restore our hope in the rule of law, and give us a sense of how the Democratic Congress will act to hold criminals in the Bush administration accountable for their illegal acts? With the judicial and executive branches of government ignoring their duty to the constitution--or worse, furthering the lawless "unitary executive"--we the people are counting on Congress to defend the Republic.
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
When will you start opposing the Republicans?
The Democratic Congress of 2006 was elected on a clear anti-Bush mandate. Unfortunately, you seem to have misread that mandate. You have apparently been making it a priority to pass any legislation, even if it's bad Bush-backed legislation, rather than making it a priority to *stop* the worst Republican schemes. You bottled up impeachment hearings, and you failed to use inherent contempt on subpoena-violators, but ...more »
4 comments for Idea: When will you start opposing the Republicans?The Democratic Congress of 2006 was elected on a clear anti-Bush mandate. Unfortunately, you seem to have misread that mandate. You have apparently been making it a priority to pass any legislation, even if it's bad Bush-backed legislation, rather than making it a priority to *stop* the worst Republican schemes.
You bottled up impeachment hearings, and you failed to use inherent contempt on subpoena-violators, but more importantly you passed the warrantless wiretapping law, every Iraq spending request, and several other bills which the majority of Democrats opposed very strongly. We know that you had the power to stop at least some of those, using your agenda-setting powers. The Republicans used those powers to stop our bills.
Can we trust you, in future, to start using your powers as Speaker to at least prevent the worst of the worst legislation? Why should we trust you to do so? Why shouldn't we ask our Representatives to elect a different leadership?
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Why is there a public perception that the Republicans are effectively still in control of Congress?
When the Republicans led Congress, they were quite successful, using procedural and political tactics, in blocking the Democratic Party's agenda. Why is it that the Republican Party, now the minority, seem to maintain this power? Allowing the minority party a seat at the table may seem like the civil and polite way to govern, but it has resulted in the public perception of a deadlocked, do-nothing Congress, or worse, ...more »
3 comments for Idea: Why is there a public perception that the Republicans are effectively still in control of Congress?When the Republicans led Congress, they were quite successful, using procedural and political tactics, in blocking the Democratic Party's agenda.
Why is it that the Republican Party, now the minority, seem to maintain this power? Allowing the minority party a seat at the table may seem like the civil and polite way to govern, but it has resulted in the public perception of a deadlocked, do-nothing Congress, or worse, one in which the majority party capitulates to the minority party even when polling shows that the majority party has the backing of the majority of the population. What have you done to alter this perception?
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Who gave Pelosi the authority to take Impeachment off the table?
3 comments for Idea: Who gave Pelosi the authority to take Impeachment off the table?I can't seem to find the clause anywhere that gives her the power to decide this. Rep. Kucinich has done everything "by the book" and impeachment should be moving forward. Why is Pelosi trying to impead what should be her consititutional duty.
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Support for Contempt Proceedings Against Rove.
Madam Speaker, Re Rove's likely refusal to appear before the House tomorrow, it's been reported that your communications director Brendan Daly sent (Huffington Post) the following statement: Those reports are completely untrue -- the Speaker has not urged the Judiciary Committee not to seek contempt charges against Karl Rove. The committee can seek a contempt citation if it decides to do so. (Fyi, Henry Waxman's ...more »
Add your comment for Idea: Support for Contempt Proceedings Against Rove.Madam Speaker,
Re Rove's likely refusal to appear before the House tomorrow, it's been reported that your communications director Brendan Daly sent (Huffington Post) the following statement:
Those reports are completely untrue -- the Speaker has not urged the Judiciary Committee not to seek contempt charges against Karl Rove. The committee can seek a contempt citation if it decides to do so. (Fyi, Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee is looking at a contempt citation against the attorney general over documents. The Speaker has no objections to that -- it's the committee's decision.)
A source with the House Judiciary Committee also denied Pelosi was opposing contempt charges.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In view of your office's lukewarm statement, my question to you is do you SUPPORT contempt charges? Please elaborate. Extra points for your opinion of Rove's role in the prosecution of Dem. Gov. Siegelman-Alabama.
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Iraq War Funding
Madam Speaker: Forgive my legislative ignorance, but after pulling out an 8th grade Civics book from the early 1970’s, it is well known that the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the ...more »
Add your comment for Idea: Iraq War FundingMadam Speaker:
Forgive my legislative ignorance, but after pulling out an 8th grade Civics book from the early 1970’s, it is well known that the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."
As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Therefore any funds appropriated for the Iraq War must start as a bill in the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.
My assumption is that you have some political control over John Murtha (D-PA) who chairs the House Defense Appropriations Committee in the 110th Congress and the Democratic majority on this committee. This committee had a Democratic majority of nine Democrats and six Republicans.
I am baffled on how you as the Speaker of the House could NOT prevent ANY Iraq War funding bill from being killed at the committee level before it ever reached the House for a vote. It seems logical to me that no war funding means NO MONEY, which means withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. This was a similar tactic during the early 70’s in the Vietnam War.
Please enlighten me on House legislative procedure and why this tactic was not used as a means to bypass the myriad of war funding bills you helped put before the President of the United States.
Please explain how one of the lowest rated Presidents in the history of the United States got every dollar he wanted to wage war in Iraq.
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Impeachment
Add your comment for Idea: ImpeachmentIf you'll take impeachment off the table for a president who's committed war crimes, what would a president have to do for you to impeach him?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Off the table???
1 comment for Idea: Off the table???If you could take impeachment off the table, why could you not take a FISA bill with immunity off the table?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
What has "taking impeachment off the table" accomplished?
When you became Speaker, you announced that impeachment was "off the table." I would like to know the rationale for this statement at the time, and I would like to hear your opinion as to whether the events since then have justified your removal of this option. In short, why did you say it? Were you afraid of the Republicans and their media machine screaming you were after payback for the Clinton debacle? Were you ...more »
1 comment for Idea: What has "taking impeachment off the table" accomplished?When you became Speaker, you announced that impeachment was "off the table." I would like to know the rationale for this statement at the time, and I would like to hear your opinion as to whether the events since then have justified your removal of this option. In short, why did you say it?
Were you afraid of the Republicans and their media machine screaming you were after payback for the Clinton debacle?
Were you afraid that impeachment would be a distraction from the business of passing bills which the president would then veto?
Were you anxious to avoid controversy?
Did you believe that the Bush administration would cooperate with subpoenas from Congressional committees?
Has your "off the table" strategy worked the way you intended it to?
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Your silence on Rove and other BushiCo abuses is deafening.
You should be on the podium denouncing Rove's no-show and noting that Rove and the Bush administration aren't above the law. It's not like there aren't -- to paraphrase Keith Olbermann -- 50 running administration scandals. No one lacks for material. Why aren't you as upset as the rest of us? They don't ignore rights, ignore the waste and fraud of their crony contractors that we're paying for, selectively prosecute ...more »
Add your comment for Idea: Your silence on Rove and other BushiCo abuses is deafening.You should be on the podium denouncing Rove's no-show and noting that Rove and the Bush administration aren't above the law. It's not like there aren't -- to paraphrase Keith Olbermann -- 50 running administration scandals. No one lacks for material.
Why aren't you as upset as the rest of us? They don't ignore rights, ignore the waste and fraud of their crony contractors that we're paying for, selectively prosecute elected officials like state governors, out CIA agents which is supposed to be treasonous...
What more do you need????
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Bill Clinton vs Bush Impeachment
Speaker Pelosi: Can you understand why millions of Americans are so upset with you and Congress for “taking impeachment of President Bush (current approval rating 28%) off the table?” When you have enabled the most corrupt administration in American history to perpetuate its crimes with impunity? When millions of our tax dollars were spent to impeach Bill Clinton for having a consensual affair (while his accusers, ...more »
2 comments for Idea: Bill Clinton vs Bush ImpeachmentSpeaker Pelosi: Can you understand why millions of Americans are so upset with you and Congress for “taking impeachment of President Bush (current approval rating 28%) off the table?” When you have enabled the most corrupt administration in American history to perpetuate its crimes with impunity? When millions of our tax dollars were spent to impeach Bill Clinton for having a consensual affair (while his accusers, Newt Gingrich, and Henry Hyde were also engaged in adultery) at a time when Clinton’s approval rating was 78%? When we the people implored Congress not to impeach Bill Clinton, yet the Congress did so anyway?
When Bush and Cheney still have 7 more months of signing statements, launching illegal wars (Iran), granting executive privilege to anyone they don’t want to testify before Congress (Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, etc...), continued questionable surveillance of Americans, continued program of waterboarding and torture of innocent humans?
Can you understand why we’re upset?
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Accountability, Oversight, and Karl Rove
1 comment for Idea: Accountability, Oversight, and Karl RoveI've read that Chairman Conyers is being pressured not to pursue Karl Rove with contempt charges once Rove gives the Judiciary Committee the one finger salute with failure to appear. Has the Democratic Party been truly rendered impotent by the Bush administration? Are accountability and oversight important to Congress?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
What People's Business?
Add your comment for Idea: What People's Business?I have heard that you have taken impeachment off of the table so that Congress can attend to the American People's business. Exactly what business is it that we, as a People, have that trumps upholding the Constitution?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
No contempt for Karl Rove?
Add your comment for Idea: No contempt for Karl Rove?Nancy Pelosi, why have you urged the Judiciary committee NOT to go forward with contempt charges against Karl Rove for violating his supoena?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
So, how's that subpoena power working out?
Add your comment for Idea: So, how's that subpoena power working out?Yeah, I know. But, in your opinion, how well has the subpoena power of the House of Representatives worked in keeping the behavior of the Administration within bounds - particularly with regards to torture and warrantless wiretapping - and what other remedies, if any, do you suggest?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Why do you keep letting Republicans call the shots?
Add your comment for Idea: Why do you keep letting Republicans call the shots?Madame Speaker, you are a *Democrat* but you'd never know it by the way you have "led". Will you either grow a spine, or step aside for someone who will actually .. you know, *lead*?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
What Are You Thinking?
I am trying to strike a delicate balance between being deferent enough to elicit a candid response, while at the same time giving voice to a burgeoning sense of frustration whose nature does not bear description in these polite fora. My goal in asking the question is to better understand what is happening and, more importantly, why. To me, it seems obvious that the Bush/Cheney Administration is systematically violating ...more »
3 comments for Idea: What Are You Thinking?I am trying to strike a delicate balance between being deferent enough to elicit a candid response, while at the same time giving voice to a burgeoning sense of frustration whose nature does not bear description in these polite fora. My goal in asking the question is to better understand what is happening and, more importantly, why.
To me, it seems obvious that the Bush/Cheney Administration is systematically violating laws, regulations, procedures, ethics, and principles to serve its own ends, the true nature of which are still unknown to us. The roster of crimes committed (so far) is easily researched, quite long and, as such, not worth repeating here. To date, nothing substantive has been done to redress any of this.
You are clearly in possession of the same collection of facts. You, indeed, are closer to the matters than most of us. We take great umbrage at what is happening, and are horrified at where things are leading. That said: Why are you, seemingly, not?
What facts have you in your possession that explains away everything the Bush/Cheney Administration has done? What political calculus are you considering that allows you to apprehend the same collection of facts and, seemingly, arrive at an entirely different conclusion? How is our reaction to what we are seeing invalid or misinformed? And why should we -- who, too busy with day-to-day mundanities to spend the time required to grasp every nuance at play -- agree with and support your evaluation?
In short, and asked with genuine curiosity and desire to understand: What are you thinking?
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Oversight and Subpoena Power, are they worthless since impeachment is off the table?
Add your comment for Idea: Oversight and Subpoena Power, are they worthless since impeachment is off the table?One of the main reasons you gave for electing Democrats in 2006 was oversight and subpoena power. Since you have taken impeachment off the table and since the attorney general will not follow up of contempt of congress resolutions, how can congress exercise its oversight duties and what real difference has subpoena power made in uncovering the misdeeds of, for instance, Karl Rove?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Are we a Nation of Laws or are we a Monarchy?
This is not about politics or political calculation. It is about whether this Nation stands up and enforces the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the most basic of Human Rights, or whether this Nation instead establishes completely criminal conduct, the tyranny of mass-murder, and the arrogance of dictatorship ('unitary executive') as legal American public policy. Over one million totally innocent people in ...more »
1 comment for Idea: Are we a Nation of Laws or are we a Monarchy?This is not about politics or political calculation. It is about whether this Nation stands up and enforces the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the most basic of Human Rights, or whether this Nation instead establishes completely criminal conduct, the tyranny of mass-murder, and the arrogance of dictatorship ('unitary executive') as legal American public policy. Over one million totally innocent people in Iraq, many of them little children and women, have been murdered without provocation. Richard Bruce Cheney and George Walker Bush have also used our own sons and daughters recklessly as cannon fodder in a dishonest war based on propaganda and a marketing campaign of entirely phony scare tactics ('mushroom clouds', 'unmanned drones' from the militarily crippled Nation of Iraq). Over 30,000 more Americans have been crippled and left deformed for life. And this has cost American citizens hundreds of billions of dollars, that we do not have, and destroyed the reputation of this once honorable Country and replaced it as the home now of human torture, secret rendititions, the mass-violence of aggressive War, the use of illegal weapons such as White Phospersous, and civilian-killing Cluster Bombs, and other treachery. In addition, our civil liberties have been systematically dismantled, and, due to the abuse of 'signing statements', even the laws of Congress itself have been made irrelevant.
The U.S. Constitution says that Congress SHALL Impeach, (not "may if it is convenient"), the executive when such crimes against our Constitution and mankind have been committed.
If Congress refuses to use the Impeachment clause in the presence of these horrific crimes against our Nation, our Constitution, and against mankind now, then when would Impeachment ever apply? Congress, by doing nothing now, will have set the bar for Impeachment so high as to be essentially stripped completely from the American experience altogether. Therefore, free license by the executive branch to commit horrific crimes at will is only inevitable, and the co-equal separation of powers will be destroyed. A message will have been sent to all future Presidents and Vice-Presidents, that this is all acceptable, legal, permissible conduct. Our Nation will soon devolve into a de-facto Monarchy, whereby the U.S. Constitution itself is null and void, and the basic Human Rights of man are only at best selectively applied. How can you simply stand there and do nothing, while this happens to our beloved Nation? Is this what you wish to be remembered for?
Furthermore, by taking no action and refusing to enforce the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is itself violating the principles of the U.S. Constitution, and is itself acting as a direct accomplice and a willing accessory to the 35 Articles (Crimes) committed by these plainly corrupt officials, Cheney and Bush.
History also shows that when investigations were first held against Richard Nixon, Impeachement was initially unpopular, but it became clearly supported by the majority of law-abiding Americans once the criminal evidence was discovered, and Nixon was forced to be held accountable. Government accountability is always supported by the public throughout history, and the more serious the crimes the MORE it is overwhelmingly supported. History shows that the Democratic Party then won the 1974 midterm elections in a landslide, and then the Presidency in 1976. Cheney and Bush today are already the most unpopular figures to hold their respective offices in modern U.S. History -- even without prosecution, and holding them accountable to the law will only disgrace and embarrass them further.
But as stated previously, this is not about politics. It is about whether all future Presidents and all furture Adminstrations have now: the legal right to start the mass-violence of aggressive War for specious reasons, the legal right to torture human beings, the legal right to wiretap American citizens, the right to ignore at will the very Laws of Congress, and the legal right to destroy and disregard the U.S. Consitution itself at their pleasure -- all with no possible recourse. This is what non-action assures. It assures that this history will be repeated (McCain, Jeb Bush, etc.) again, and that the conduct of Dick Cheney and Bush will be now legitimized as "non-criminal", acceptable conduct - no longer subject to recourse.
History will regard yourselves and this Congress as cowardly, treasonous accessories to these awful crimes, and as the willful enablers of these Bush-Cheney crimes. For such crimes and horrible abuses can never just happen in a vacuum. Evil only can only triumph when good men decide to do nothing. This will be your own legacy and history. You may as well print on your tombstone, "I let this happen".
The blood of millions of innocent lives is on your own hands. Hanging in the balance, is new aggressive acts of mass violence (War) against Iran -- this time possibly involving Nuclear Weapons, and based once again on more trumped-up fear and falsehoods. Yet you have a chance to re-establish and make clear just what is legal conduct, and what is not (Cheney, Bush) by putting the U.S. Constitution first, and common good of our Country first.
It is, in fact, your own sworn oath to do precisely this.
It is time to start defending the U.S. Constitution, and STOP protecting and defending the disreputable Richard Bruce Cheney and George Walker Bush.
Either you are with us, or you are with "them" (the criminals: Cheney and Bush), and against everything that this Nation is supposed to stand for.
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Subpeona Enforcement
Add your comment for Idea: Subpeona EnforcementShould the Congress arrest Failure To Appear violators to enforce its self-provided subpoena power?
If not, why isn't Congress's subpoena power a farce?
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
What plans do you have to guard against corruption when Democrats take over in 2009?
Republicans held the Presidency and majorities in both Houses of Congress from 2003 through 2006. The lack of oversight and serious challenge during those years allowed the President to go seriously off-track with Iraq, appoint cronies and wolves to mismanage federal agencies, abuse secrecy and civil liberties, destroy a thriving economy, and a probable host of additional ills yet to be discovered. The corruption and ...more »
Add your comment for Idea: What plans do you have to guard against corruption when Democrats take over in 2009?Republicans held the Presidency and majorities in both Houses of Congress from 2003 through 2006. The lack of oversight and serious challenge during those years allowed the President to go seriously off-track with Iraq, appoint cronies and wolves to mismanage federal agencies, abuse secrecy and civil liberties, destroy a thriving economy, and a probable host of additional ills yet to be discovered. The corruption and arrogance of the GOP congress was breathtaking. By the 2006 elections, the GOP had hung itself.
In 2009, chances are the Democrats will have the Presidency and majorities in both Houses of Congress. What will you do to ensure that Democrats do not go down the same path and disgrace the party the way the GOP has? What can we do to ensure that a Democratic Congress performs proper oversight of a Democratic Executive?
« less full details »
-
This idea is active.Governing Philosophy/Process »
Selective Enforcment of Laws by the President
American government has traditionally struggled with the balance of power between Executive and Legislative branches, as the constitution allows for only two real checks on unrestrained Executive power: legislative authority on spending and impeachment. Neither of these is particularly effective in restraining "nullification by administration"--selective presidential nullification of legislation by refusal to enforce ...more »
1 comment for Idea: Selective Enforcment of Laws by the PresidentAmerican government has traditionally struggled with the balance of power between Executive and Legislative branches, as the constitution allows for only two real checks on unrestrained Executive power: legislative authority on spending and impeachment. Neither of these is particularly effective in restraining "nullification by administration"--selective presidential nullification of legislation by refusal to enforce specific provisions. What legislative strategies can Congress use to ensure faithful execution of laws in the context of an uncompliant president?
« less full details »
Social Web