Part of me finds this an egregious political interference with Constitutional process, and part of me says everything in Washington is political and this just happens to be a White House that makes more issues political than those in the past. So, my question is this, is this really a Constitutional matter (apparently Congressional Republicans and White House Republicans teaming up to do political cleansing of the Federal District Attorneys), is there a criminal matter (the Attorney General lying to the Congress) or is this just unseemly and incompetent governance from a White House that has made these things their historical legacy? To really belabor the point, which, if any, administration since FDR has attempted to impose so much of its own political correctness on the Federal Government? Historically, neither party owns the patent on hamhandeness in the White House.

Sent by David Johnston | 5:46 PM ET | 03-16-2007

I'd suggest asking a constitutional law expert about the legal underpinnings of this debate. I'm guessing it has something to do with the tension between Art II sec. 1 cl. 1 ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President") and art II sec. 2 cl. 2 (the President gets to appoint officers) on the one hand and, on the other, the Take Care clause, art II sec. 3 ("he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed").

On second thought, maybe you should ask three constitutional law experts, so we get the full range of right answers.

Sent by Jeff Cours | 8:33 PM ET | 03-16-2007

Two other questions.

First, does a U.S. Attorney have a duty to avoid bringing charges where the attorney can "find no federal crimes" (to quote the LA Times article)?

Second, after the lapse of the special prosecutor law, whose job is it to investigate and/or prosecute allegations of wrongdoing within the executive branch? If the answer is the U.S. Attorneys, what impact does Mr. Gonzales' action have on their independence?

Sent by Jeff Cours | 1:43 AM ET | 03-17-2007

Wow, great questions, Mr. Cours. Looking forward to hearing/seeing thoughts on your questions in interviews Monday.

Sent by David Johnston | 12:50 PM ET | 03-17-2007

Thank you for your kind compliment, Mr. Johnston. I hope the show will be able to answer them.

I have one more question. A Jan. 16 Talking Points Memo by Joshua Marshall alleges that some of the fired attorneys were investigating Republican corruption.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011958.php

Several news reports, such as this one by US News & World Report (re-reporting the Washington Post), state that the attorneys were fired for failing to investigate allegations of vote manipulation by Democrats.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/news_blog/070314/old_allegations_of_voter_fraud.htm

How have the cases under investigation by the U.S. Attorneys' offices changed, and how are they likely to change (if at all), as a result of the firings?

Sent by Jeff Cours | 1:53 AM ET | 03-18-2007

Who rewrote the Patriot Act to allow interim appointments without Senate review? This secret plan to abuse the Patriot Act was in motion before the Act was even passed. before it even passed.

Sent by Gregg Silk | 2:13 PM ET | 03-19-2007

If you compare a new administration to a business takeover, you can understand a new President firing all previous appointees in the sense that they want their "management" team in place. If you continue with this line of thinking, how can you justify firing a select few people without just cause? A business person could never fire an employee without having a valid reason, and in some cases, documentation to back it up. This just shows how unlike business government really is.

Sent by Ralph Karkur | 2:36 PM ET | 03-19-2007