Darryl Levinson (continued): The decadence of the US Congress

Mon Feb 6 19:45:35 PST 2006

I think it's been explained that the reason is the visual.  Taking the oath 
is associated with lying tobacco executives.  It's a symbol of 
untrustworthiness.  Thus, the Dems wanting the picture of Gonzalez taking 
the oath on TV and Republicans wanting to avoid it

At 09:01 PM 2/6/2006, Sanford Levinson wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62B93.58926663"
>
>Both Marks make very interesting points (not surprisingly).  As to Mark 
>T., I note that Specter emphasized that Gonzales had taken the oath before 
>and was quite willing to take the oath this time also, but, for reasons 
>not entirely clear to me, he (Specter) thought it would be unnecessary to 
>put him under oath today.  It strikes me as telling, though, that even an 
>issue like this breaks down on straight party-line vote.  The "decadence" 
>may not so much be the failure to require the oath as precisely the 
>complete politicization of what, I now gather, is an almost completely 
>symbolic point.  Why did Specter care so much, if Gonzales in fact was willing?
>
>I'm sure that Mark S. is correct, though that raises interesting questions 
>about why we bother putting people under the oath at all.  In any event, 
>as always, I learn important things from people on this list.
>
>sandy
>
>
>----------
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Scarberry, Mark
>Sent: Mon 2/6/2006 7:31 PM
>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: RE:Darryl Levinson (continued): The decadence of the US Congress
>
>And, if I'm not mistaken, it is a felony to knowingly and willfully give
>materially false testimony before a congressional committee, without regard
>to whether an oath is taken. (Of course, it wouldn't be perjury, but I
>believe it would be a violation of 18 USC section 1001, which could result
>in a five year prison term.)
>
>Mark S. Scarberry
>Pepperdine University School of Law
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>[<mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu>mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] 
>On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet
>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 5:11 PM
>To: Sanford Levinson
>Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: Re: RE:Darryl Levinson (continued): The decadence of the US
>Congress
>
>I'm basically with Sandy on the general story he's been telling, but I don't
>see that this incident has much to do with "cravenness."
>One might say that, in the past, Senators (of both parties) trusted Cabinet
>members to tell the truth, and therefore didn't insist on an oath, and that
>the Republicans were following tradition, while the Democrats were trying to
>score political points.  And, particularly because this is the AG, and with
>the expiration of the independent counsel statute, the possibility of a
>perjury prosecution is so small that there's no point in going through the
>charade of the oath.  If it turns out that someone can pin a lie on the AG,
>there'll be no less damage than if he had sworn an oath.
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C62B82.7CBF4E3B"
>
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01C62B82.7CBF4E3B
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>         charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> >From the NYTimes story on Gonzales's testimony:
>
>When Mr. Feingold pushed to have Mr. Gonzales sworn in, Mr. Specter called
>for a vote. The committee voted, 10 to 8, along party lines not to have Mr.
>Gonzales sworn in.
>
>=20
>
>What more need be said about the cravenness of the US Congress--and the
>priority of party loyalty?  (Were the Republicans (properly) afraid that
>Gonzales might commit perjury?)   Recall, incidentally, that Bush wasn't
>required to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission.  Is this just
>another sign of monarchical prerogative in our new constitutional system?=20
>
>sandy =20
>
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01C62B82.7CBF4E3B
>Content-Type: text/html;
>         charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Conlawprof Digest, Vol 28, Issue 5</TITLE> <META
>http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META
>content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1515" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV
>dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft> <P><SPAN class=3D160520101-07022006><FONT
>face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>From the=20 NYTimes story on
>Gonzales's testimony:</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><FONT face=3DArial
>color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>When Mr. Feingold pushed = to have Mr.=20 Gonzales
>sworn in, Mr. Specter called for a vote. The committee voted, = 10 to 8,=20
>along party lines not to have Mr. Gonzales sworn in.</FONT></P> <P><FONT
>face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</P> <P><SPAN
>class=3D160520101-07022006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
>size=3D2>What=20 more need be said about the cravenness of the US
>Congress--and the = priority of=20 party loyalty?&nbsp; (Were the
>Republicans (properly) afraid that = Gonzales might=20 commit
>perjury?)&nbsp;&nbsp; Recall, incidentally, that Bush wasn't = required
>to=20 testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission.&nbsp; Is this just =
>another sign=20 of monarchical prerogative in our new constitutional=20
>system?&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=3D160520101-07022006><FONT
>face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>sandy&nbsp;
></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01C62B82.7CBF4E3B--
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.

**********************************************************

Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060206/7547a982/attachment.htm