General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why did the FBI have to inform congress? [View all]Bucky
(54,013 posts)Checks and balances is NOT only there to offset unconstitutional behavior. The president can veto a budget because he doesn't like it, no only because if he thinks it's unconstitutional. Where did you get such an outlandish idea?
And Congress can question and investigate and subpoena employees of both other branches for any policy reason, not just on Constitutional grounds. It's true federal judges are mostly limited by Constitutional questions, but that doesn't apply -- and has never applied -- to the legislative or executive functions for checking and balancing each other.
I'm not sure why you don't see that Congressional oversight is an important part of checks and balances. When I teach classes in American government, it's in the printed material. Any government teacher who leaves that out of her classroom instruction isn't doing her job.
Note, I'm not sayng Congressional Republicans don't abuse their oversight function. Clearly they do. What they did to Secretary Clinton over Benghazi is atrocious. They should all be turned out for that. But it is their duty. And I'm pretty sure the FBI director is required by law to report changes in status of important political investigations to Congress, even if they are October surprise bullshit cases like this one.