Obama Presidential Administration

In May 2008, Obama asked Lu to begin planning for a possible presidential transition. Obama warned him to tell no one about the nascent operation, even his own wife, so Lu quietly rented a small office in D.C. and secretly met with people who had worked on previous Democratic presidential transition efforts. The planning efforts produced policy options on a wide range of topics, compiled names of and began vetting potential political appointees for top jobs, arranged over 100 security clearances, and managed the logistics for expanding the operations after Election Day. - - As of 02/25/2012:

https://www2.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/chris-p-lu-wikipedia-info-president-barack-obama

Watkins v. U.S., 77 S.Ct. 1173 (1957) - [n.2] Power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process, and is broad.

[n.5] In conducting investigation, Congress is not a law enforcement or trial agency and no inquiry is an end in itself, but it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress.

[2][5]We start with several basic premises on which there is general agreement. The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress.

This was freely conceded by the Solicitor General in his argument of this case. FN8 Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. . . .

FN8. ‘Now, we don't claim on behalf of the Government that there is any right to expose for the purposes of exposure. And I don't know that Congress has ever claimed any such right. But we do say, in the same breath, that there is a right to inform the public at the same time you inform the Congress.’

Overlie vs. Owatonna Independent School Dist. No. 761, 341 F.Supp.2d 1081 (2004) - Once Congress addresses a subject, the lawmaking authority of federal courts is greatly diminished.

Bruner vs. U.S., 340 F.Supp.2d 1204 (2004) - Congress is invested with a wide discretion, and its action, unless purely arbitrary, MUST be accepted and given FULL effect by the courts.

Watkins vs. U.S., 77 S.Ct. 1173 (1957) - Power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process and is broad . . . Congress, through its committees, may obtain any information it needs for proper fulfillment of its role, and is free to determine the kinds of data that should be collected; it is only investigations conducted by use of compulsory process that give rise to the need to protect rights of individuals against illegal encroachment. 2 U.S.C.A. § 192.

Nixon vs. Administrator of General Services, 408 F.Supp. 321 (1976) - Congressional power to INVESTIGATE, although limited to areas in which Congress possesses legislative authority, is both BROAD and INTEGRAL to the legislative process.

Clark vs. Board of Ed. Of Shelbyville, Ky., 350 F.Supp. 149 (1972) - Courts MAY NOT invade the domain of the legislature; where a plaintiff IS ASKING for legislative relief or relief which would ENCROACH on the legislative process the courts are WITHOUT powers to act.

U.S. vs. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 751 F.2d 220 (1984) - Power to INVESTIGATE is necessarily incident to Congress’ power to legislate.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. vs. U.S., 754 F.2d 365 (1985) - Congress has implied as well as express powers incident to its DUTY to legislate wisely, including POWER to INVESTIGATE.

Page vs. Shelby, 995 F.Supp. 23 (1998) - VINDICATION of PUBLIC interest in governmental observance of Constitution and law is FUNCTION of Congress and President, NOT judiciary.

Watkins vs. U.S. 77 S.Ct. 1173 (1957) - Congressional power of INVESTIGATION is not unlimited and there is NO general authority to expose the PRIVATE affairs of individuals WITHOUT justification in terms of the functions of Congress. . . .

FN8. ‘Now, we don't claim on behalf of the Government that there is any right to expose for the purposes of exposure. And I don't know that Congress has ever claimed any such right. But we do say, in the same breath, that there is a right to inform the public at the same time you inform the Congress.’

Raney vs. Stovall, 361 S.W.2d 518 (1962) - That legislature may make wrong decision is NO reason for INVASION by judiciary of EXCLUSIVE domain of legislature; and court MUST assume that SENATE will NOT KNOWINGLY permit VIOLATIONS of CONSTITUTIONAL provisions.

Ashland Oil, Inc. vs. F.T.C., 409 Supp. 297 (1976) – Although the INVESTIGATORY powers of Congress is penetrating and FAR reaching in scope, it is not unlimited. U.S.C.A.Const. art. I, § I et seq.