The promised hearings regarding why eight U.S. Attorneys were fired last year begins to day in the House and the Senate.
Aside from the merits of this dispute, increasing attention is being paid to changes that Congress approved in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act last year (read the DoJ coverage here). This Slate article provides background, but apparently Congress was unaware that tucked deep inside the bill were provisions removing the Senate's ability to confirm the appointment of attorneys.
Executive control of the Justice Department was thereby expanded without the knowledge of the legislative or judicial branches. This seems to confirm the points we have been discussing in class concerning the increase in presidential popwers over the past several decades, which seems to have been accelerating since W Bush has been in office.
A few things are worth considering.
-Is it appropriate for the chief executive to have full control over the Justice Department--or any executive department for that matter? He is "chief" executive after all.
-Is it dangerous for the president to have full control of the Justice Department. Is congressional and judicial oversight necessary in order to prevent tyranny?
-Is it dangerous if the president does not have full control over the Justice Department? Will we more vulnerable to bad guys if Congress can slow down the law enforcement process?
-Is a president likely to politicize the judiciary? Hire attorneys who will only attack his political enemies?
-Was Congress derelict in its duty by not beign fully aware of what they were voting on?
-Is this likely to emerge as a political issue in 2008 and beyond?
-etc, etc, etc . . .
