PDA

View Full Version : Executive Privilege



yellowwing
03-27-04, 10:29 PM
We are hearing that alot lately. What is it exactly? I don't think that the 'undecided' voter really wants to hear that line. If they are not careful, the Republicans are going to Executive Privilege themselves out of a job!

ivalis
03-27-04, 11:20 PM
The theory is that the president should be able to have candid conversations w/ his advisors. I agree with the principal.

The hypocracy (there is so much of it in this administration) is that Condi Rice can make the rounds of talk shows to bad mouth Clark while claiming executive priviledge to avoid testifying under oath.

greybeard
03-27-04, 11:24 PM
What is it exactly?
Executive privilege is the same thing Kerry uses to keep his military records from being released. Same thing Howard Dean used to keep his Governorship records sealed while on the campaign trail. Same thing Kerry uses to keep his negotiations over the POW/MIA/Vietnam Trade issues confidential.
That answer your question? It's een used extensively by all past presidents, notably during the whitewater investigation, and watergate. I think T. Jefferson as the 1st to use it, as explained in his papers on the Avalon Project website. He was a twicky wascal.

ivalis
03-27-04, 11:30 PM
Neither Kerry or Dean are afforded executive privilege as neither are chief executives.

Dean's records are sealed as are most govenor's after leaving office.

Note that all of Reagan's & Bush I & Clintons records are also sealed, which is more troubling to me.

greybeard
03-28-04, 12:12 AM
Don't know about your state, but in Texas, the Governor is in fact, chief exec of the state govenment. Governor's records are only sealed if they request it. When asked why his records were sealed in a Q&A a few month's ago, at one of the debates-Deano replied "Executive Privilege". Obviously he believes it is applicable, whether it is or not.

usmc4669
03-29-04, 02:43 PM
yellowwing[b]

[b]
We are hearing that alot lately. What is it exactly? I don't think that the 'undecided' voter really wants to hear that line. If they are not careful, the Republicans are going to Executive Privilege themselves out of a job!

ivalis


The theory is that the president should be able to have candid conversations w/ his advisors. I agree with the principal.


The hypocracy (there is so much of it in this administration) is that Condi Rice can make the rounds of talk shows to bad mouth Clark while claiming executive priviledge to avoid testifying under oath.

Hell, they all do it.

Who's right?

Although claims of executive privilege have been made since the administration of George Washington, the law remains remarkably unclear, partly because the relevant actors have usually tried to avoid a direct confrontation if possible. Thus, who prevails in the current controversy may turn out to be less a matter of what the law is, than of who blinks first: Congress (acting through Comptroller General Walker), the Administration, or the courts.

What is Executive Privilege and Where Does it Come From?

The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information.

For example, in 1796, President Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Accordingly, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House.

Eleven years later, the issue of executive privilege arose in court. Counsel for Aaron Burr, on trial for treason, asked the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum--an order requiring the production of documents and other tangible items--against President Thomas Jefferson, who, it was thought, had in his possession a letter exonerating Burr.

The Scope of Executive Privilege: The Nixon Case

Presidents often assert executive privilege even if the information or documents sought are not matters of national security. They argue that some degree of confidentiality is necessary for the Executive Branch to function effectively. Key advisers will hesitate to speak frankly if they must worry that what they say will eventually become a matter of public record.

The Supreme Court considered this argument in the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon. A grand jury convened by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski issued a subpoena to President Nixon requiring that he produce Oval Office tapes and various written records relevant to the criminal case against members of Nixon's Administration. Nixon resisted on grounds of executive privilege.

A Precedent from the Clinton Years

Finally, no case to this point holds that executive privilege applies to conversations between Executive officials and persons outside the government, such as corporate officers of Enron and other companies.

The closest the courts have come to extending the privilege to such discussions was in the 1993 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton. That case raised the question whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") applied to the health-care-reform panel chaired by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. And that question, in turn, depended on whether the First Lady is, or is not, an officer or employee of the government.

In 1996, executive privilege was invoked as the basis for refusing to turn over 2,000 documents to the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee as part of the investigation of the Filegate scandal.

During the campaign of that same year, the Clinton administration invoked executive privilege to prevent Congress from obtaining a memo written by the FBI Director and Drug Enforcement Administration Chief in which Clinton was criticized for failing to effectively deal with illicit drug use and narcotics smuggling.

In June of 1997, the Clinton administration engaged in an executive privilege battle with Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz, who was investigating former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. Smaltz sought 84 documents that had been withheld by the Clinton administration. The documents pertained to Espy's acceptance of bribes.

In resolving the controversy, the assertion of executive privilege was upheld in a limited way by the Federal Court of Appeals. The Court ordered a reexamination of the 84 documents to release only those that contained information relevant to Smaltz's investigation of Espy.

By subpoenaing presidential advisers, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr would like to gain insight into the discussions of the innermost circle of the President's closest associates.

yellowwing
03-29-04, 05:53 PM
Thanks for the info. I think that in this case Executive Privilege is working in the Democrats favor. The longer Condoleezza Rice stonewalls, the more votes the DNC gets. Heck even the Christian...

usmc4669
03-29-04, 06:25 PM
I don't think so. It works both ways <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It was the GOP and the President that caught Halliburton

yellowwing
03-29-04, 06:46 PM
What! I beg to differ on the Administration blowing the whistle. Two senior Democratic lawmakers say Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is gouging U.S. taxpayers... (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/16/politics/main578436.shtml)

usmc4669
03-29-04, 08:27 PM
Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and John Dingell, D-Mich

What would you expect from a Liberal News Channel and News Paper.

(CBS/AP) Two senior Democratic lawmakers say Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is gouging U.S. taxpayers while importing gasoline into Iraq. The Houston-based company contends it is paying the best price possible.

The New York Times reports that in a letter to the White House budget office, Reps. Henry Waxman of California and John Dingell of Michigan contended that, "Halliburton seems to be inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers."

namgrunt
03-30-04, 10:34 PM
I will have agree with Ivalis as to the soundness of the principle of Executive Privilege. If Condoleeza Rice testifies in open hearing, it will set a bad precedent. If this is used once, it can be used again and again. The effect will be the nullification of the position of National Security Advisor. This will affect this Presidency and all that follow.

It would allow the Legislative Branch of Government to intrude into the Executive Branch's methods of conducting normal business. The system of Checks and Balances will eventually totter from the imbalance. Considering the fact that Richard Clark has himself used this "privileged" association to go before closed sessions of Congress, "OFF THE RECORD", it is curious he now demands that exact thing from his former boss, Dr. Rice.

Congress will be able to throw a monkey wrench into the Administration, by demanding more open testimony in other cases it doesn't like. It is a Pandora's box, easy to open, but impossible to close again.

Thats how I see it.
Semper Fi!

MillRatUSMC
03-31-04, 12:53 AM
We just had our Governor use Executive Privilege here in the State of Indiana.
He froze the records of public officals, the tax payers will no longer have access to much our officals make per year.
The President sign an order that froze the records of daddy, WJC and his presidency records.
We won't have access to those records unless they sign a wavier.
I doubt that they will ever do that.
Other than them speaking under oath, we will never know what happened all these years.

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo

usmc4669
03-31-04, 07:19 AM
I will have agree with Ivalis as to the soundness of the principle of Executive Privilege. If Condoleeza Rice testifies in open hearing, it will set a bad precedent. If this is used once, it can be used again and again. The effect will be the nullification of the position of National Security Advisor. This will affect this Presidency and all that follow.

Condoleeza Rice will testify.

Lock-n-Load
03-31-04, 10:05 AM
:marine:Pres Bush ia totally aware of abuses that could plague his Presidency and that of the others after him...with restrictions to the former, Bush-Powell-Rice, who the Democrats hoped would run from a public "Congressional Inquisition"...now find that they are about to be literally blasted out of the water; since, the usual suspects are out in the open now...all's fair in love and WAR...it should sound like an olde beach/front shooting gallery [with all those clanging sound effects]...as the 3 Republicans qualify as Expert Riflemen/woman...now you tell me, Marines...how in hell, can they miss Fat Boy Kennedy's silhouette target :D :D

Lock-n-Load
04-09-04, 11:33 AM
:marine:Time to bump this post up...it was posted about 2 weeks before Condolezza Rice was grilled by the Congressional Inquisition..you know, the pros and cons...yesterday and today Ms Rice fired.."Expert" in my opinion...nothing to hide or to apologize for...I can still hear the bulls-eyes clanging one after another...hey, Condolezza, wanna go to USMC Sniper training???....Fat Boy Kennedy hasn't uttered a word since..LOL....LOL Semper Fi :marine:

namgrunt
04-09-04, 02:42 PM
I still don't like the precedent which has been set, but I do have to say Condoleeza Rice punched those liberals on the commission right between the horns. She stood her ground and answered the questions without losing her cool, or her point. Some of the commissioners tried to use the hearings as a platform to make and spin negative comments against the current administration, not as a "fact finding" group.

The presence of the "9/11 Families" in the hearings was another nail in the coffin of "objectivity" for this committee. They clapped when Condi Rice was attacked or mocked by the active questioning commissioner. That has an affect on the participants as well as the listeners on TV. I thought it was cheap and tawdry of them to interject their "opinions" by clapping or booing. They must not be happy with the millions of dollars they have been given.

As to whether this will change future testimony from advisors to the President, I hope this was the only time this will be done. I recall it was billed as a "one-time occurrence", but don't expect the opposition to a seated President will not use this in the future. I still think it was wrong, but I'm not the President.

garryh123
04-09-04, 05:30 PM
It looks like all the 9/11 families presented by the media said the same thing(coached by the liberal dems)

USMC-FO
04-09-04, 06:16 PM
Not that anyone asked...but my opinion is that while Shrub--aka Bush--did not have his eye on the ball I hold Clinton the BJ king primarily responsible for 9-11. He missed or did not act on many provations while sitting on the King seat. How does one say a Pussy" in polite company ??

greybeard
04-09-04, 07:27 PM
How??? C-l-i-n-t-o-n.

USMC-FO
04-09-04, 07:35 PM
OK..think Sudan "here's OBL..." Nah...never mind...

USS C-O-L-E......

Embassy attacks in Africa...

"I did not have sex with that girl...."

All equal not paying attention in my book..

namgrunt
04-09-04, 10:06 PM
There is enough blame to go around on all sides of this event. It is fortunate that hearing didn't get underway on the Pearl Harbor attack in the first year of our involvement in WW2. I'm sure FDR would have been removed from office, and we would have been thrown into chaos and indecision here, which would have affected our effectiveness in the war zones.

The 9/11 fact finding commission should have been comprised of non-politicians. Then, real answers might be forthcoming. Instead, because it is an election year, the hearings are becoming finger pointing sessions and not much else.