Could you please tell me where, exactly, it says in the constitution that employees of the executive branch do not have to testify before congress, when subpoenaed?

My brief research into “Executive Privilege” reveals that the only precedent for this is US v Nixon, where the court compelled the Nixon white house to turn over the watergate tapes. The court agreed that there was some priviledge in the Article III powers of the white house: there was a “valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” They specifically said in their decision that:

To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of ‘a workable government’ and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article II

This is the exact power the Bush white house is asserting–an “absolute privilege”. What I find terrifying however, is that if Bush continues to stonewall this might make it to the supreme court, and I would not be shocked if the Roberts court decided to hand absolute privilege to Bush. Some people are saying this is all a stalling tactic to “run out the clock” so that Bush & co are out of office before any fruit can come from these investigations. I actually think this is not the case. They are asserting this power because they believe that they have it. Cheney has not minced words when he describes the “unitary executive.” This crowd is authoritarian and they think that they have absolute power and discretion.

From digby:

Finally, there is the most important and indisputable fact that Bush and Cheney will never be convicted in the Senate. This isn’t the GOP of 1974 and they will never cross over in enough numbers. They won’t do it even if video tapes of Bush personally giving hush money to Scooter Libby turn up. Let’s not kid ourselves about that reality. The fact is that impeachment will probably bring their caucus together.

Digby is tragically right. The republicans have become an authoritarian party, as has their critically important base. They don’t care about issues, ideology or anything other than doing as they are told. The republicans in the congress will fall into line behind their own with few politicical consequences. The fact that Guiliani is ahead in fundraising and the polls while failing every single “values voter” litmus test proves that no issue is more important for the republican base than doing what they are told and waving the flag.

So now I understand what Bush was talking about back in 2004:

If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

When he said “taken care of” we all thought he meant “prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law” when he actually meant “protected from the consequences of their actions.

Yeah, as Vijay mentioned in the comments, Bush pardoned Scooter. Or rather, he just commuted his sentence. The conviction stand so that Scooter won’t have to blab.

White House refuses to turn over subpoenaed documents. Shit hits fan.

Or at least the US. I am convinced that before any of the huge issues that we need to solve in this country are even discussed we need to solve one huge problem: Money in politics. As long as winning office in this country requires donations from wealthy interests no serious change can happen. As a progressive coalition I think that (after getting out of Iraq) the only issue we should focus on, and I mean the ONLY issue, should be public financing of election. I don’t care what it takes, but right now your politicians, democrats and republicans alike, are controlled by (mostly corporate) interests. Until that changes, there can be no real progress.

Israel’s oppression of Palestinians is a huge issue, so I just want to start a discussion about it. Here’s a good article: There Has Never Been a True Left in Israel: Israeli Apartheid is the Core of the Crisis by Oren Ben-Dor at Counterpunch. Along with many others, he argues that the solution is One State. I agree, but I’ll need to read some books on this before I can give a solid argument. Good books to start seem to be: 1) The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock by Virginia Tilley, political scientist; and 2) The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by Rashid Khalidi, historian.

• This country is currently holding people without charge, in defiance of the law, the constitution and the Geneva Convention
• US Citizens were arrested and detained, without charge, for YEARS. They were not given access to an attorney.
• Both sets of people were tortured.
• We invaded, unprovoked, a sovereign nation, deposed the government and occupied the country
• the government is filled with incompetent ideologues.
• the government, including the legislature, is completely corrupt. Almost all decisions are made to benefit wealthy donors.
• oh yeah, and wtf

This point was made two years ago during the Valerie Plame affair, when Cheney was complicit in leaking her identity as a CIA agent to the press. Now here is another reason to throw him in jail: when a National Archives unit criticized Cheney for resisting their oversight, he suggested abolishing it. Cheney’s legal advisor, David S. Addington, argues that Cheney is exempt from oversight of the executive branch because he is also part of the legislative branch.

Mr. Addington did not reply in writing to Mr. Leonard’s letters, according to officials familiar with their exchanges. But Mr. Addington stated in conversations that the vice president’s office was not an “entity within the executive branch” because, under the Constitution, the vice president also plays a role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate, able to cast a vote in the event of a tie.

Mr. Waxman rejected that argument. “He doesn’t have classified information because of his legislative function,” Mr. Waxman said of Mr. Cheney. “It’s because of his executive function.”

Cheney’s office is attempting to destroy the balance of power and checks & balances, which have been principles necessary for the U.S. government to serve its ideals of freedom and democracy. Cheney is trying to extend the power of the executive branch over the functions of the legislative, thereby making the U.S. more like a monarchy and aristocracy than a democracy. As John Locke would say, the executive has misused the powers that the public entrusted in him, and thus we are justified in revolt against him.

I both hate and love this article in adbusters. It is a harsh critique of the american left…and its actually got some good points. Especially about the idiots with stilts at war rallies and those freaks that always stand up at political meetings.