Friday, March 23, 2007
" EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE "
Executive Privilege..... OK folks lets tackle this nonsensical, not in the Constitution, plucked outa thin air, a hide behind mechanism, issue. They all try to use it to hide behind when they don't want the truth to get out. Where did it come from? Who first used it? Why do they keep trying to use it when the Supreme Court already ruled on it? This hide behind tree could be used from the White House all the way down to a Council President. It flies in the face of transparency and accountability in government, and says, " I am the sole decider and what I do is none of your business " Work with me people!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Well, it isn't peculiar to Bush, it hasn't always been used to hide malfeasance, and SCOTUS has never denied its existence, just said that it could be overcome in some cases. That is, it is not absolute like lawyer-client, priest-penitent, spousal, or the "self" privilege, but it is at least as robust as the journalistic privilege. (Apart from the 5th Amendment and immunity from self-incrimination, none of the above is any more explicit in the Constitution than Executive privilege.)
Just as the President cannot willy-nilly require a Senator's aides to discuss their private meetings with the Senator, at least not based on a claim that the Senator was acting "political" and made a misstatement to the contrary, the Senate (or House) cannot willy-nilly do the same to a Presidential aide.
You'll recall the kerfuffle from the House because Jefferson's office was searched in regard to the $90,000 in the freezer and related bribe materials, and in that case the Executive actually had a warrant supplied by the Judicial branch.
I would bet that the Administration would not hesitate to make people available if the Judiciary ruled they had to (making it less "obstructive" than the House was re Jefferson) but that it, like any Administration, would fight being compelled to do so, without Judicial backing for the move.
Leaving aside Bush and what you think of him, isn't it clear that the Executive branch would be severely weakened if the House or Senate could unilaterally compel testimony from its members? And wouldn't this be just as problematic as if the Executive could compel testimony from Legislative aides?
Both parties have been guilty of trying to use this "hide behind" I wasn't picking on one party over the other. You can put this in the same catigory as "SIGNING STATEMENTS". Just because someone has done it in the past and gotten away with it doesn't make it a point of leagilaty. Our System is busted and nothing but a joke.
As I understand the current issue, the conversations that Congress is interested didn't take place between an aide and the President, but instead between two aides. I don't believe executive priviledge can be invoked for actions that did not involve the President, but I could be wrong.
The irony is that the more the administration protests, the guiltier they look.
I hate to change the subject ( I really don't) but it just dawned on me yesterday as I drove over the Hadley Overpass for the ten thousandth time but the rusty guardrails are bolted to the brigde which leads me to this question.Why can't they unbolt them and take them inside for sand blasting and painting ( don't give me the lead bull shit ) or why can't they just replace them with new ones and maybe reuse the old ones somewhere else??? Same for the Sacco bridge on State Road. I know... to simplistic we need to do a study and we must be sure we don't disturb a pidgeon.
Public hearing Wed night on the Hadley overpass- chbpod
da snoop, I agree with your last point, and believe that appearances are what generally do, and should, limit the extent to which the political branches of government go to war with each other.
At the same time, I think both sides owe deference to UNITED STATES v. NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
"executive privilege" can be dated to precisely 1958, when a new Attorney General William P. Rogers used the term for the first time in American history.
The Supreme Court held in 1977, even former Presidents do not yield an unfettered veto over what happens to their non-personal papers. That means that advisors in fact must - and indeed should - operate according to the principle that their words might one day filter into the public domain.
1) Actually, the claim of executive privilege goes back at least to President Jefferson, in the 1807 trial of Aaron Burr for treason.
2) Indeed. The Supreme Court has also found that executive communications are "presumptively privileged" (1973, 1974), but that in the Nixon criminal case, with a Special Prosecutor, after indictments, with a proper, court-ordered subpoena, the presumption was overcome, but only to the extent that the documents should be available for in camera inspection (i.e., the judge seeing the documents privately, to see if they are relevant to the criminal investigation). From U.S. vs. Nixon:
"We have no doubt that the District Judge will at all times accord to Presidential records that high degree of deference suggested in United States v. Burr, supra, and will discharge his responsibility to see to [418 U.S. 683, 716] it that until released to the Special Prosecutor no in camera material is revealed to anyone. This burden applies with even greater force to excised material; once the decision is made to excise, the material is restored to its privileged status and should be returned under seal to its lawful custodian."
In contrast, today we have no indictment, no subpoena, no judge to inspect the documents, and no suggestion that the documents will generally be kept private unless used as evidence of a crime. (Indeed, I read that the Judiciary Committee has been making them public on its web site.)
(Note that I have no opinion on your 1958 timeline, because I do not think the history of the words "executive privilege" is as relevant as the actual invoking of the privilege we now call by those words.)
Those were just some history nuggets for your viewing pleasure and to give some background.
Since I can't post on Wes Flinn's blog--- why don;t we get the Official North Adams City Critter- The Beaver-- going over here--- chbpod
chbpod...Do we have an official Mascot for North Adams? If not then maybe the process could be started at a councal meeting. Wessfin should get the cadoos for the idea.
It seems to me that there was some discussion (not at Council) around town of doing something along the lines of the Pittsfield Sheeptacular and the Bennington Moose extravaganza-----given the Steeplecats-- I think felines were prominantly-- mentioned---but I'm not sure that North Adams: come see our pussies would be an improvement over beavers------
an offical mascot or critter would probably lead to the need to have an official flower- then cookie- then bird- etc.---a student at MCLA Tom Coppola is ding an arts management paper around marketing the arts in NA in some similar fashion-- if I recall from the newspaper article he was looking a steeples as the theme--chbpod
He, He, He, who woulda thunk that criters could be so sexy!
Critters can't be sexy?? Baaaaaaaaaaaa---- chbpod
Eh, I can't take credit for the beaver idea. It came from someone else at the table, but we all agreed I'd blog about it.
It's one of the funniest things I've heard in my time here, though.
WF
And the gift shops could sell replica beaver tails. Then the motto could be: Visit the Berkshires - Best Beavers anywhere - 10 bucks gets you a little tail.
He,He,He...I like it! And we could also have pictures of our own " OLD COOT " wearing a beaver skin hat with tail.
We could have downtown benches- shaped like a beaver-- with a sign from the Mayor-
Don't sit on my beaver!
Maybe we could get Ipana toothpaste to make a comeback and start up a manufacturing plant here-- remember Bucky Beaver??
chbpod
We could import several dozen beaver and let thom loose along the Hoosack River and let them build a bunch of dams that we later can use for our in City hydro generators...free labor...we won't have to have any illegal aliens doing the work!
How about this to liven up the downtown-- we don;t need no stinking Hooters--- not if we have a hopping rib and buffalo wing joint called Beavers--eh? chbpod
Post a Comment