Woe, woe, woe is the electorate.
Just out of curiosity, where in the Constitution is Congress’ oversight role mentioned, or on what text is it based?
"’‘We are of the opinion ‘that the power of inquiry–with process to enforce it–is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-- which not infrequently is true–recourse must be had to others who possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry–with enforcing process–was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate-- indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.’’ McGrain v. Daugherty
"’‘The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.’’ Watkins v. United States.
It doesn’t come from a specific grant in the Constitution, but rather as an essential part of the legislative function.
Exactly. Just as the Court said in Woe vs. Raid. 
Wow, that’s a lightning-fast trip through the judicial system for the case of the New Bedford illegal aliens roundup.
To give the devil his due, here are the claims of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, founded in Warren Burger’s “core duties” thesis, with respect to a clearly parallel situation in 2001, where a Congressional committee was seeking to subpoena information from DOJ cases handled under Janet Reno:
Here is the LandmarkCases.org summary of the “executive privilege” argument as decided in U.S. v. Nixon:
I would submit that what is true for a judge is fortiori true for the Congress in its Constitutionally mandated oversight role.
Czarcasm may be on the right track. A couple of days back someone on Countdown (I think it was one of the Democratic senators now nipping at the administration’s heels, but by now y’all should know better than to trust my memory) said that Executive Priviledge can apply only to conversations with the president. Chats between aides, no matter how important they may be, cannot be covered by EP.
This bunch gets more Nixonian with each day. Heck, they’ve even brought Fred Fielding into the fray (he was John W. Dean III’s assistant under Nixon).
So, if I read your cite correctly, you’re telling me that Bush is using the exact same argument that Nixon used and, consequently, lost with?
-Joe
It’s part of their implied powers. It’s based on this part of the Constitution:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Underlying the legislature's ability to oversee the executive are democratic principles as well as practical purposes. John Stuart Mill, the British Utilitarian philosopher, insisted that oversight was the key feature of a meaningful representative body: “The proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government.”1 As a young scholar and future President, Woodrow Wilson—in his 1885 treatise, Congressional Government—equated oversight with lawmaking, which was usually seen as the supreme function of a legislature. He wrote, “Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of administration.”2
The philosophical underpinning for oversight is the Constitution’s system of checks and balances among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution,” described the system in Federalist No. 51 as establishing “subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner that each may be a check on the other.”
In sum, oversight is a way for Congress to check on, and check, the executive.
**The U.S. Constitution**
Although the Constitution grants no formal, express authority to oversee or investigate the executive or program administration, oversight is implied in Congress’s impressive array of enumerated powers.3 The legislature is authorized to appropriate funds; raise and support armies; provide for and maintain a navy; declare war; provide for organizing and calling forth the national guard; regulate interstate and foreign commerce; establish post offices and post roads; advise and consent on treaties and presidential nominations (Senate); and impeach (House) and try (Senate) the President, Vice President, and civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Reinforcing these powers is Congress’s broad authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The authority to oversee derives from these constitutional powers. Congress could not carry them out reasonably or responsibly without knowing what the executive is doing; how programs are being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials are obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. The Supreme Court has legitimated Congress’s investigative power, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties. In 1927, the Court found that, in investigating the administration of the Department of Justice, Congress was considering a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.”4
There is a long history behind executive reports to Congress. Indeed, one of the first laws of the First Congress—the 1789 Act to establish the Treasury Department (1 Stat. 66)—called upon the Secretary and the Treasurer to report directly to Congress on public expenditures and all accounts. The Secretary was also required “to make report, and give information to either branch of the legislature ... respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his office.”
That’s how I’d understand it, yes.
RTFirefly: For validation of the Constitutional stature of Congressional oversight, see Hamlet’s post #23 in addition to the link and quotes from the Senate website provided by PatriotX.
What about my question? Isn’t Bush trying to use the same argument that failed for Nixon more than 30 years ago?
-Joe
Pshaw, ancient history.
The first sentence in my answer that you quoted was supposed to be in response to you, and to have used the “quick quote” feature to quote you. When I saw that didn’t work to quote your post (after making a quick post on another board), I went to edit my post to indicate it was responding to you – and the edit function loaded S - L - O - W - L - Y. I typed your name, bolded, as fast as the keystrokes would display them, and hit “submit edit” – and got the supercilious VBB message that I should have done it before edit time had elapsed.
In view of the fact that I documented to the Powers That Be that this was a recurring problem, I simply said “Fuck it!” at that point and decided it was not important enough seemingly to anyone to rattle anyone’s chain about.
I have read them, and now consider myself enlightened. (Ooooommmm…)
An amusing idea for a Dem counterstrike crossed my mind earlier today. Congressional Dems to Bush: “You think those conversations with your aides are privileged? Fine. Let’s see how that works if you don’t have any aides. If they won’t testify, then in the next budget, the only funding for White House operations will be for the salaries of the President and Vice-President. Oh, and we’ll keep on paying the electric and water bills. But that’s it. Have fun being the Unitary Executive.”
Rule of Five, dude. See any of the Justices from 1974 still on the Court?
Fred Fielding, the old Watergate hand now serving as WH Counsel in similar conditions, is hard at work.