Are Truth Commissions (Like Leahy's) Unconstitutional?

[garybeck]

The Legislative Branch is supposed to MAKE LAWS.

The Executive Branch is supposed to ENFORCE LAWS.

Right?

A truth commission does not make laws. Maybe you can DISGUISE it as an forum to help you deicde how existing laws need to be changed, but that is a disguise, and I don't even see that happening. It appears to blatantly be a truth commission with no other purpose other than to expose things that happened. How is this a duty of the Legislative branch? If you want to change the existing laws, and you need to hold hearings with that purpose, then go ahead, and call people to testify if you need to.

But having a truth commission run by the legislative branch seems to me to be an overstepping of constitutional authority.

The only way around this is to pass a law saying that there must be a truth commission, which is what they are going to attempt to do. But this is really an overstepping too. If this were valid, then they could pass a law giving the Legislative branch the authority to enforce laws, which would be unconstitutional, as I believe this truth commission is.

Giving immunity is a form of law enforcement. it is deciding who needs to be punished and who shouldn't. it is granting freedom to people who may otherwise need to be prosecuted by the Executive Branch, whose purpose IS to enforce the law. The Executive branch is supposed to decide who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. Granting immunity will prevent the Executive Branch from doing its job.

We already have laws against torture and spying on americans, and they were broken. It is up to the Executive Branch to enforce these laws. Get out of the way Mr. Leahy and stop overstepping your Constitutional authority.

Are there any laywers out there who can shoot me down on this? Or better yet, take it to a judge and stop this thing before they let criminals go free.

[stillcool]

1. Here's something..

U.S. Constitution: Article I
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

Source of the Power to Investigate
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/05.htm

[Swede Atlanta]

2. Basic Civics Lesson is needed here.....

Yes, at the highest level

Legislative - Makes Law
Executive - Enforces Law
Judicial - Interprets Law

But each branch serves as a check on one another. In this case Congress would be investigating whether or not the Executive Branch, under Bush, broke any laws. Congress cannot force Obama to prosecute Bush officials but it does have certain powers of removal for cause for select members of the Executive branch. By shining light on these issues, Congress creates pressure on the Executive to do its job.

There is nothing unconstitutional about Congress looking into these matters. In fact having Congress take the lead and uncover the wrongdoing might be better than having Obama be perceived as being on a witch hunt.

[garybeck]

3. OK but...

I think there's a difference between investigating and granting immunity.

And I still don't like it!

I would buy this thing if there was only limited immunity give to those who have important information to share and were working under orders from higher-ups. The blanket immunity is what really bothers me and that still seems like an overstepping of authority, going beyond plain investigation.