Quote:
Originally posted by Botnst
I can't for the life of me figure out where in the consitution individual behavior is proscribed--after all, the reason for the constitution was to protect individuals ffrom the excesses of gov, not the reverse (which I think is a problem for people like me who oppose gay marriage--that oughtta get the mail flowing).
Is it a lie? I don't know. It depends on if he knowingly gave a false statement. If he didn't do it knowingly then he was telling something incorrect, not factual, or some such. I think intentionality is a component of lying.
Now as I understand issue, its not that she's prohibited from testifying by writ of constitution. Instead, she is some sort of personal advisor to the president--not an appointee. If she were an appointee she would be under advice and consent of the Senate. She has no de jure authority so there is no legal strings on her. She has no budget and thus does not come under the House, from which spending is authorized. This arrangement was done intentionally so as to give the president discreet advice protected by the principle of executive priveledge from Congressional scrutiny.
The consitutional interest is this. If she were to give public testimony it would directly undermine the assumption of executive immunity. She could then be compelled under subpoena to give testimony.
No advisor to a president has ever been compelled to testifly before Congress or any legislated entity. All presidents jealously guard that principle.
Having said that, recall that the testimony which she declines is just a show. All witnesses have already submitted full and complete testimony in private to the committee. What purpose would be serve by compelling testimony from a witness that would necessarily be less complete than the classified testimony she's already provided?
Its just for show. Don't let it get you wound too tight.
B
|
Your answer is way too long. If the Constitution bears on this situation at all, it would be in connection with a separation of powers or executive privilege argument. There are matters on which the Commission cannot compel her to testify. If she volunteers to testify, the chances are high that she will have to invoke executive privilege from the witness stand, which would be awkward. So, it is probably inappropriate for her to testify. But prohited from testifying? That's another lie.