immunity?

[low_delta]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The daughter of a woman killed in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center urged national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Thursday to reconsider her refusal to testify publicly before the independent commission investigating 9/11.

"The American public deserves to see in public under oath what she knew ahead of time," said Carrie Lemack, vice president of the Families of September 11 group. "Anyone who has information about the attacks should do this. It's not a Republican versus Democrat issue. It's about safety."

Rice has spent several hours with the commission in private, but she has maintained that a member of the president's staff can't appear before a congressionally chartered commission without violating the Constitution's separation of powers.

What? On what grounds does she claim this? The same grounds that protects presidential executive orders from judicial overview?

Comments

[roadskoller.livejournal.com]

This administration makes me tired.

[dwivian]

That'd be it, yes. Oversight is a tricky thing. Cabinet-level staff cannot be compelled to appear before Congress -- they can choose to do so voluntarily, and most choose closed-door sessions. Which is their right.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

If that's the case, it's still no excuse for her not appearing. It gives her the RIGHT not to appear, it doesn't COMPEL her non-appearance.

[dwivian]

But, without the ability to compel her, she can invoke policy. It may be the policy of the administration (and, probably is) not to appear in open session.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Ah, but that's a different argument. If she made that argument it would show that she just didn't want to reveal certain things to the public. The argument she's making is that she's not ALLOWED to do so because it'd be a separation-of-powers conflict.

If you're not constitutionally ALLOWED to do something, it's not your fault; if you make a policy choice to keep things from the public eye, it is. That's the PR game she's playing... trying to make it look like it's not voluntary concealment.

[dwivian]

Again, if the policy of the executive is that it is not constitutionally allowed, then she's got the defense of the document, and policy. Buys her a rather safe position. And, you're right. It's entirely PR.....