No worries. Everyone lets some bullshit slip about stuff they don't know, myself included, and its important for others to call them on it. It can end up pretty hostile on these boards, and I was just trying to avoid going down that road.

Anyway, the President's newfound powers were repealed only a year later thanks to upset state governors: [Insurrection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]. Of course, in all sorts of hypothetical situations, the text of these laws may not have much weight in the event of a large-scale emergency. I did some research two or three years ago about the evolution of some executive orders, and if Congress triggers some certain provision (probably a particular national emergency), the President does assume some ridiculous powers. While a dictatorial America is possible theoretically, realistically, I don't see it happening unless there is some large-scale massacure, such as a nuclear bomb in one of our cities, occurs. And even then, I don't see it as being a permanent measure. That's just my opinion, though.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Sounds like a workable system to me. It doesn't seem like a bill for such a process would be difficult to draft, either.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

What if the law provides for a person or agency to avoid certain law enforcement procedures? I don't think "executive privilege" is actually codified, but this is hypothetical.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Not sure if I understand what you are asking, but I'll take a shot at it anyway.

I don't think there should be one set of laws for some people and another set for others. That's the stuff of tyrants and dictators.

I don't mean one set of laws for some and another set for others, necessarily, just that the same set of laws applies to people differently. This is really unavoidable; the law is going to treat a convict differently than it is going to treat a business executive, and him or her differently than it is going to treat a public servant, and him or her than it is going to treat the highest executive office of the United States. While the law may be basically the same, everyone does have some different obligations depending on their status or job.

The point I was getting at was, what if executive privilege was codified into law? Perhaps it is already, perhaps not; the point is if the rule of law technically provided for a person or group to avoid that certain legal procedures; for example, if a Congressional bill allowed an executive officer to avoid submitting to investigations under particular circumstances. I guess my ultimate point is that appealing to the rule of law might not get the outcome you desire.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Sorry but I'm not getting what you are driving at. If a law applies differently from one person to another, then it by definition isn't the same. A businessman becomes a convict if he commits a felony and then gets "treated" as such.

I don't think any "executive officer" should get any free pass to avoid being investigated, period. NO exceptions. They are doing the public business and should ALWAYS be accountable for their actions.

Good point. What I should have said is that the same set of laws provides different obligations to individuals depending on their job, status, title, etc. For example, the Constitution gives Congress, the President, and judges a hell of a lot more obligations than it does to Joe America. Tax laws provide different obligations depending on a person's socioeconomic position. Criminal law provides different obligations depending on the extent of the crime committed. The law isn't necessarily "treating" them differently, I suppose, but it does acknowledge differences.

With the above line of thinking, the executive office is obligated to uphold the law and to defend the United States. Part of that duy today is to safeguard nuclear and other military secrets; should someone charged with keeping that information not have any ability to avoid investigation?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Yes, I agree, seems fairly self-evident to me.

If they are not violating any laws then the point is moot. If they are, then no, under no circumstance should they be above the law or being investigated.

You really need to take logic 101 again, how is it an irrellevant appeal?

It certainly enforces accountability between the executive and legislative branches

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

No. Impeachment is optional not mandatory so that doesn't enforce accountability between branches. Elections have no direct bearing on forcing accountability between branches either. (That was your irrelevant appeal to popularity.)

And exactly how would your proposed ideas be "mandatory", would the enforcement fairies do it?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

They can be codified into law with non-compliance carrying mandatory legal consequences. If the legal mechanism is in place, then it becomes a question of law enforcement.

Gee, isn't law enforcement an executive function? Where exactly, and with who is the full executive power of the Federal Government placed by our Constitution?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Your questions appear to imply that if the executive doesn't wish to enforce the law upon themselves then they don't have to. This makes these complex questions (logical fallacy) and false dilemma.

If the enforcement of such laws requires a separate enforcement force for the legislative branch, then that could be codified into law as well.

Why do you support allowing for a mechanism for unethical government?

Jesus, more of your misunderstanding of basic principles of logic. There is no logical fallacy or false dilemma.

We have a system of checks and balances. The FULL executive power of the Federal Government is vested in the President and through him the executive branch. Law enforcement is an executive function. However, failure to faithfully execute those powers or to abuse ones power and discretion is a "political" matter over which the legislative branch DOES have full and unfettered constitutional authority to deal with (with tools ranging from refusing to appropriate funds up to impeachment and removal from office).

No fallacy, no false dilemma to somebody who bothers to read and understand the separation of powers and checks and balances provided for in the Constitution.

That would be unconstitutional, law enforcement is an executive function, and impeachment powers rest soley with the Congress.

Because I understand that there is no workable system of government in a representative republic which completely prevents the possibility of unethical governance, and that the system of separation of powers and checks and balances is still far superior to any other idea that has been proposed.

Let me ask you this, would this "separate enforcement force" for the legislative branch be answerable to the legislative branch? How would its members be appointed? Would they be unaccountable? If so, what is to stop abuse of their own power?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane