From: tmayer@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Tom Mayer)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:29:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.134027.25084@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>But aren't we talking about foreign policy though?  Besides the ability
>to declare war, what foreign policy powers are given to Congress in the
>Constitution?  If there are none, passing laws restricting the FP powers
>of the executive branch would seem to me to be unconstitional.
>
      More appropriately how does the constitution limit Congress in foreign
      policy.  The president is the Commander-in-cheif, and he's the
      one who negotiates treaties but aside from that what powers does
      he have.  The Congress has the sole power to appropriate any money
      to be spent by the federal government.  There's no limitation to domestic
      spending only.  If Congress says money cannot be spent for some purposes
      then that's the law.  The executive is supposed to "faithfully execute"
      the laws, not only obey those that it finds convienient.
 
 
>As an aside, the facts about IranContra have been known to Congress for
>years.  Why didn't the Congress impeach Reagan then if things were so
>awful?  These frivolous charges by Walsh against Weinberger before the
>election were thrown out.  The press release from the Clinton campaign
>was dated before the indictment.  This smacks of political dirty tricks
>that are supposed to be the forte of the Republicans (wait... Walsh is a
>Republican.... hmmmmm?)
>>>
>
 
      Congress did not impeach Reagan because it did not have proof that
      Reagan knew about the illegal diversion of funds or the subsequent
      coverup.  Even former Senator Rudmann of New Hampshire said that
      if the Congress had found evidence that Reagan knew of the diversion
      then Reagan should have been impeached.  But then again Rudmann is one
      of those old fashioned conservatives who believes in the rule of law.
 
      The charges against Weinberger were not thrown out. He was pardoned.
      The Special prosecutor actually informed the White House first that
      more indictments were coming.(He reported it first to the justice 
      department).  It was the court that required that the indictment
      be handed down before the election.  Walsh had wanted to wait till
      after the election was over. As to perjury before Congress 
      being a trivial charge, I would have to disagree.

      Remeber Walsh, a Republican, was appointed by a Republican
      President.  To somehow imply that he's been involved in a conspiracy
      to get Bush is laughable.  I think Walsh is again one of those old
      fashioned conservatives who believes in the rule of law.  I think
      he's disgusted by the Bush-Reagan crew because of their obvious 
      cynicism when it comes to this principle.
 
      But then again with Communism gone and with most people uninterested
      in the Trilateral Commission right wing conspiracy theorists have
      to hang their hats on something.
 
>JSL.
 

                             Tom Mayer
 
                             NCAR, Boulder, Co.
 
 
 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc