Congress’ Self-Imposed Ethical Standards
Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 18th, 2011 4:38 am by HL
Congress’ Self-Imposed Ethical Standards
The Atlantic notes that Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) decision to resign yesterday over a sex scandal makes him the “fourth married, male lawmaker in 15 months to resign suddenly over sexual indiscretion,” even as the ethics committee never rendered a verdict on any of their actions.
“They were largely matters of personal, private failing, but when the scandals broke, the countdown clocks for resignation started ticking… Republicans believe Pelosi is reacting to a standard Boehner has set — that she can’t be outdone on ethics when she built her winning 2006 majority largely on an argument that the GOP was ethically bankrupt. Whether by force or by choice, Pelosi now appears to be of the same mindset as her Republican counterpart that when it comes to sex scandals and the rank-and-file, there is zero tolerance… That mindset, however, does not translate as easily to non-sexual ethical allegations.”
U.S. in Talks with Taliban
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that “foreign military and especially the U.S. itself” were involved in peace talks with the Taliban, the BBC reports.
“He gave no details as to whether the discussions involved Taliban officials with U.S. authorities, or a go-between.”
Obama Rejected Advice on War Powers Act
President Obama “rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization,” the New York Times reports.
The lawyers “had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to ‘hostilities.’ Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.”
“Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.”
