Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted on Wednesday to greenlight subpoenas and depositions as part of an investigation into the FBI’s Russia probe and the Obama administration.
The 8-6 party line vote authorizes Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the chairman of the committee, to issue a combination of subpoenas and set up closed-door depositions with approximately 40 individuals.
The votes come less than two months before the November election, injecting fresh acrimony into the Wednesday committee meeting where Johnson accused Democrats of a “coordinated spear” against his probes. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the panel, accused Republicans of a “partisan fishing expedition.”
“I’m disappointed that our committee is once again meeting to discuss the authorization of subpoenas instead … of the serious challenges facing Americans,” Peters said. “Your own public comments … state that your desire to reinvestigate these matters demonstrates the alarming partisan nature of this investigation which is designed to influence the presidential election.”
The votes give Johnson the power to set up depositions with dozens of officials he previously got authorization to subpoena in June.
But those subpoenas ran into a snag in August, when Peters accused Johnson of violating the committee’s rules by trying to set up the interview without support from Peters or a majority of the committee to formally issue the deposition notice.
Johnson blasted Peters on Wednesday accusing him of forcing the votes to authorize the depositions “based on an absurd interpretation of committee rules.”
But Wednesday’s vote also authorizes subpoenas of new individuals including former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.
read more:
Replies
Not according to the Federalist Papers, Michael, or according to the Constitution. "This Consitutution shall be the Supreme Law fo the Land." That statement makes clear that nothing supercedes the specific concepts, precepts and ordinances stated in the Consittution. Further, in The Federalist # 78 it states further that, if any law passed by Congress conflicts with the Constitution, "the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
NOthing is to violate the constitution as written and no premise may change what is in the Declaration of Independence, where the moral basis is established. We fool ourselves by thinking otherwise, as they made it very clear.
There is no constitutional or statutory basis for precedent to become law... on the contrary, there is evidence and constitutional law to provide the duty to oversee the law to citizens juries. The Jury system was intended to provide the PEOPLE with the FINAL REVIEW and APPROVAL of the Law... thru Jury nullification. Stare Decisi ... usurps both the statutory law and the Constitutional process to review the law.
Judges and the legal profession have overreached and need to be jerked up by the neck... and either hung or corrected. Unelected Judges and Prosecutors serve the people and thru their service, the law becomes the servant of the people. A judiciary that sets in judgment of the law and issues edicts to rebuke or override the Statutory law as approved by Congress and the President ... has usurped Constitutional powers they don't have.
It is no different in med school. They have a couple of hours of nutrition and nothing about health or maintenance of it. I have heard this multiple times from the mouths of lawyers, exactly what you are saying.
Executive Orders (EO's) get their authority from Article 2 Section 1, Clause 1... which vests the Executive Power of our Government in the President. As Chief Executive, his Lawful Orders are to be carried out by the inferior officers of the Administration. Additional and specific powers are given to the President in Article 2, Section 2, and 3.
EO's are, therefore, a tool of the Chief Executive... used to administer his policy and leadership of the government. EO's have their authority thru their vestment in the Chief Executive. They are a means of communicating orders and directives to his agents for the Administration of Government.
Common law is subject to Constitutional and Federal Statutory law... it is also subject to the verdicts of Juries and where it conflicts with Constitutional and Statutory law, it must be found void, by a properly informed and instructed Jury.
A properly functioning jury system supplied with informed and capable jury members is capable of nullifying bad common and statutory law... case by case.
Case law is the construct of pettifoggers to manipulate Constitutional and Statutory law to fit their needs as... kingmakers and the final arbiters of the law. However, Constitutionally they are neither ... Case law applies ONLY to the case at hand... every case must be adjudicated separately to obtain relief under the law, as the law is applied to the specifics for each case.
Right again. I have some friends who are young lawyers, late 20'. They told me they weren't taught the Constitution in law school, nor even briefed on it. They were taught "case law", that a previous decision should be the basis on their current case. Whether the previous decision followed the Constitution or not wasn't a factor. No wonder our "legal" system is so screwed up!!!!!
Federal de facto law does exist (show me in the Constitution the listed authority of Executive order). But common law does exist certainly at the state level. In New Mexico, Spanish common law for community land use is hundreds of years old and in effect today. If federal resolution of Roe vs Wade does occur, and the federal government tries broad sweeping reform, the states under the protection of reserved states rights may tell the federal government to buzz off where they are concerned. I see that as a real possibility. This works for state executions of the condemned, right? I frankly loathe abortion. Please don't kill the messenger!
And, besides cautioning on the use of Wikipedia for reliable legal information, your assertion that Roe is not law is obviously and patently absurd. Like slavery, which was confirmed to be "legal" in Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade is most definitely the law of the land, however contrary to God's Law that it may be. That's probably why we should keep praying even more for our country and working to right such grievous wrongs, since an intentional turning against the Creator's will is likely to turn out as well for us as it did for the ancient Israelites.
The founders themselves called unrighteous laws "pretended legislation."
From the founders, "Acts of pretended Legislation" that are "foreign to our constitution" the Congress "has combined with [the bureaucracies]...giving (their) Assent," thus "subject(ing) us to [their arbitrary forbidden] jurisdiction."
Wrong... show us where the Constitution provides the Judicial Branch with the power to MAKE LAW... or to overturn the law? There is no such Constitutional authority. There are provisions to ensure that such usurpations would not occur... specifically a JURY SYSTEM that decides the LAW and its application thru the administration of Justice.
Our Forefathers provided the right to a Jury trial for all criminal cases and in every civil case involving a sum greater than 20 dollars. Why? To ensure the final arbiters of the law and justice rested with the People thru a Jury system.
However, we find the Jury system has been abused by the modern judicial system... they have been relegated to the manipulation of the judiciary and lawyers. Where juries were once able and encouraged to judge the law and the facts, were permitted to see all the evidence and to ask questions of witnesses under oath, and could nullify the law thru their verdicts the Courts now neuter them too be little more than drones of the judicial system.
We must return to a system where the people adjudicate the law, not judges... Judges are there to administer the courts and aid juries to find justice and the truth... not to complicate justice thru an ever impossible set of judicial rules designed to deny the common man justice and the ability to understand how the Courts work.
The Dred Scott decision was indeed legal even though it was founded on Constitutional phrasing that was in conflict ideologically with the whole purpose of the Constitution (but I bet you know that whole story). By the abolishment of the phrasing, and the Executive acting upon the redressing (amending) language, the technically legal became translated into being definitionally illegal, restoring continuity of ideals. Or so I hope.
Roe vs. Wade has never had any fundamental Federal Constitutional grounding, but has gained Executive observance due to accumulating precedence. But it can just as easily be rectified by a Scotus review to be acknoledged the Executive, or banned by legislation. No Amendment process is needed. Some will argue though that the notion of abortion, like captial punishment, is a states rights issue. The will and decency of the People is the key.
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 13 Next