today's civics lesson is brought to you by Orrin Hatch

the former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has an unusual new theory about separation of powers

Lawmakers have given the White House until this morning to explain why the White House claimed executive privilege on subpoenaed documents related to the congressional investigation. Lawmakers also want an accounting of documents being withheld.

"I think it's time for the stonewalling to stop," Leahy said.

Fratto said the White House would respond "in a manner consistent with the principle of the separation of powers." He declined to be more specific.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on Leahy's committee, defended the White House.

"There comes a point where the White House has to say, 'Hey, look there are certain confidential things in the White House that we're not going to share with Congress just like there are certain confidential things in Congress that we're not going to share with the White House,' " Hatch said on CBS's Face the Nation.

and yes, it is a new theory for Senator Hatch

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) warned yesterday that Clinton "has an obligation" to answer questions from Starr and suggested, in an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation," that defying a subpoena to testify before Starr's grand jury could itself "certainly be grounds to file articles of impeachment."

and why would that be?

HATCH DOUBTS QUICK REPORT: Numerous pundits had predicted an interim report in May from Starr to Congress on President Clinton's shenanigans, and, of course, were proved wrong. On NBC's "Meet the Press" June 7, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he doubted Starr would produce anything anytime soon. He blamed Clinton's stonewalling and warned that Starr needed "awfully strong facts in order for an impeachment trial to be justified."

On CBS's "Face the Nation" the same day, Hatch made it clear that allegations regarding Monica Lewinsky and the Paula Jones lawsuit could be fodder for impeachment hearings. "Perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice are all high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes, they would be impeachable;' he said.

or, triumphally (from the National Review)

The magic word ''subpoena'' had caused all the amorphous legal wrangles to crystallize in new and unexpected shapes. Suddenly the despised and fanatical independent counsel became an officer of the law, making a simple and comprehensible request; the artful, impervious President became a potential crook in a lineup. When Sen. Orrin Hatch warned that failing to comply with a subpoena would itself be an impeachable offense, and when even Democrats signaled agreement, the President had gone a stonewall too far.

It is a little-known fact that the founders' original intent was to balance the power of the executive branch by creating the office of Guy Who Wants to Know What You've Been Doing With Your Penis (Ben Franklin was particularly enthusiastic). Sadly, in the current instance nobody really wants to know.

Bummer about the whole cancer on the presidency thing.