Wednesday, March 21, 2007

PERSPECTIVE ON THE U.S. ATTORNEY FIRINGS - AND SOME ACTUAL FACTS (which still won't convince the screeching zealots of the left)

I have discovered a wonderful new site, Garden Ridge, and I found this brilliant piece of actual FACT there this morning:

". . .That said, one contribution I believe I can make to this discussion is to remark that this whole "scandal" reminds me of the circumstances surrounding a previous Washington scandal: the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868. The specific circumstance being the Tenure of Office Act of 1867.

The successor to the since-sainted Abraham Lincoln, Johnson was politically unpopular, and with good reason-- he was an awful President, and a racist whose policies hastened the collapse of Reconstruction and a hundred succeeding years of Jim Crow. The Radical Republicans who favored pro-black, anti-Confederate policies had every reason to contest the Democrat Johnson's actions, and one of their tactics was to pass-- over Johnson's veto-- the Tenure of Office Act.

The Act, simply stated, gave the U.S. Senate the power to approve not only the appointment of political members of the administration as per the Constitution, but also *the removal* of political appointees. Thus, the President could no longer fire anyone who received a Senate confirmation without also receiving Senate approval for his actions.

This wasn't done for reasons of constitutional interest-- it was done for the very specific purpose of protecting a number of former Lincoln Administration officials serving in the Johnson White House, especially Secretary of War (and Radical Republican) Edward Stanton. When Johnson attempted to remove Stanton without Senate approval-- thus violating the Act-- Congress struck, impeaching the President, and nearly removing him from office.

Ultimately, the Act would be repealed (in 1887). A similar law dealing with lesser officials (i.e. sub-Cabinet appointees) was ruled unconstitutional in 1926 in Myers vs. United States."

What is being said here is something clear, concise and SIMPLE - the U.S. Attorneys serve AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. The President can fire them FOR CAUSE or for NO CAUSE.

I will grant that political tone-deafness occurred during these firings, but nevertheless, there is nothing illegal or criminal about the firings and if the United States Congress wants to continue to look foolish (since January 3, 2007 that seems to be their full time occupation), then they can continue down their chosen path.

Ah yes, subpoenas are being issued as we speak! The President will, if he is half the man I think he is, tell the U.S. Congressional committees to go pound salt - as he has every right to do. The Congressional moonbats will huff and puff and garner numerous soundbites and, if they persist in trying to embarrass the President with this nonsense, may find themselves before the U.S. Supreme Court for the ultimate smackdown. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch!

I know, I promised to be all nice and kind in 2007 - it's becoming injurious to my health. I'm just saying - I'm about to go from fuming to spewing!

UPDATE: This is rich:
“Oh, and one little tidbit to ponder, Chuckie [Schumer] and company are demanding subpoena's at the same time that Congress is fighting subpoena's in a REAL criminal case involving Jefferson. How Interesting.”