executive privilege is not absolute

[bigrebnc1775]

Looks like the Constitutional "teacher" forgot about this.


The courts have consistently held that executive privilege is not absolute and can be “overcome by an adequate showing of need.” This is a flexible standard and does not lend itself to clear predictions about whether a particular assertion of executive privilege will be upheld, but the courts have provided some guidelines to govern claims of executive privilege. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon, for example, that a claim of executive privilege will normally be defeated when the privileged information is needed to provide evidence in a criminal trial—although the strong presumption against revealing information that would jeopardize national security would control even in this instance.

Executive Privilege 101

 

[bigrebnc1775]

obama is going to regret this day

Supreme Court has rejected claim of ABSOLUTE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. They say the judiciary, not the President, (is) the final arbiter of a claim of executive privilege.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

obama is going to regret this day

Supreme Court has rejected claim of ABSOLUTE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. They say the judiciary, not the President, (is) the final arbiter of a claim of executive privilege.

Executive Privilege requires ( in order to be valid) that communications occurred between the Executive on the matter being denied to Congress. Holder has stated for the Record he did not know of Fast and Furious before a certain date. And thus one must assume the President did not know either and that no EXECUTIVE communications covered by Executive Privilege would be involved before that date.

The President has just admitted he knew about Fast and Furious and that they discussed it before the date Holder told Congress about.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

obama is going to regret this day

Supreme Court has rejected claim of ABSOLUTE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. They say the judiciary, not the President, (is) the final arbiter of a claim of executive privilege.

Executive Privilege requires ( in order to be valid) that communications occurred between the Executive on the matter being denied to Congress. Holder has stated for the Record he did not know of Fast and Furious before a certain date. And thus one must assume the President did not know either and that no EXECUTIVE communications covered by Executive Privilege would be involved before that date.

The President has just admitted he knew about Fast and Furious and that they discussed it before the date Holder told Congress about.

The day obama invoked executive privilege is the day obama admitted he had knowledge about fast and the furious. It is my opinion the information they are hiding will show they used fast and the furious as a means to get more support for a out right gun ban.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That may be so, bigrebnc. I am glad you are aware that SCOTUS will decide this matter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Decision and Rationale
The Court ruled unanimously that President Richard Nixon had to surrender the tapes. Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. Burger wrote, “The impediment that an absolute, unqualified [executive] privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art[icle] III.”

Burger then turned his attention to the damage that a privilege of confidentiality would cause to citizens' constitutional rights: “The right to the production of all evidence at a criminal trial similarly has constitutional dimensions. The Sixth Amendment explicitly confers upon every defendant in a criminal trial the right 'to be confronted with the witnesses against him' and 'to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.' Moreover, the Fifth Amendment also guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. It is the manifest duty of the courts to vindicate those guarantees, and to accomplish that it is essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produced.” The Court made it clear that the President could not withhold evidence from an ongoing criminal prosecution of another person simply because he was the President.

Several days before, the House Judiciary Committee had approved three articles of impeachment. On August 9, 1974, Nixon became the first President in U.S. history to resign from the presidency. He did so in order to avoid going through the likely prospect of being impeached by the full House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate.



Read more: United States v. Nixon (1974) United States v. Nixon (1974)

 

[Two Thumbs]

if Holder is innocent

why would he need saving?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

if Holder is innocent

why would he need saving?

obama and holder were going to use this as a way of getting support for an out right gun ban.
I think that's what they are hiding.

 

[Two Thumbs]

if Holder is innocent

why would he need saving?

obama and holder were going to use this as a way of getting support for an out right gun ban.
I think that's what they are hiding.

I kinda doubt that.

Eventhough I have little doubt that liberals wouldn't put up much of a fight against it, they could NEVER use the Constitution as a reason to do anything again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

if Holder is innocent

why would he need saving?

obama and holder were going to use this as a way of getting support for an out right gun ban.
I think that's what they are hiding.

I kinda doubt that.

Eventhough I have little doubt that liberals wouldn't put up much of a fight against it, they could NEVER use the Constitution as a reason to do anything again.

Do you remember when obama clinton and holder were down at the border campaign to help the Mexicans with the gun problems and the cartels?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtWIUcAaJHU]Guns Seized in Mexico - Where Are They From? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Two Thumbs]

obama and holder were going to use this as a way of getting support for an out right gun ban.
I think that's what they are hiding.

I kinda doubt that.

Eventhough I have little doubt that liberals wouldn't put up much of a fight against it, they could NEVER use the Constitution as a reason to do anything again.

Do you remember when obama clinton and holder were down at the border campaign to help the Mexicans with the gun problems and the cartels?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtWIUcAaJHU]Guns Seized in Mexico - Where Are They From? - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX8MOpSpBR0&feature=related]Sec of State Clinton in Mexico - YouTube[/ame]

No, and that link didn't help

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I kinda doubt that.

Eventhough I have little doubt that liberals wouldn't put up much of a fight against it, they could NEVER use the Constitution as a reason to do anything again.

Do you remember when obama clinton and holder were down at the border campaign to help the Mexicans with the gun problems and the cartels?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtWIUcAaJHU]Guns Seized in Mexico - Where Are They From? - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX8MOpSpBR0&feature=related]Sec of State Clinton in Mexico - YouTube[/ame]

No, and that link didn't help

The video's?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

executive privilege is not absolute

No one ever said it was.

But it is an established and accepted principle predicated on the doctrine of the separation of powers:

George Washington, for instance, in 1796 refused to let the House of Representatives see presidential papers dealing with negotiations over the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain. Some years later, Andrew Jackson said Congress couldn’t have documents detailing negotiations over the shape of Maine.

In the 1950s, President Eisenhower refused to allow his attorney general to testify before the McCarthy-era House Un-American Activities Committee. It was at this point that the concept got the name “executive privilege” and expanded to cover more than direct presidential papers.

Watergate gave executive privilege more legal heft. President Nixon asserted that he had broad powers to withhold from Congress executive branch documents, testimony from officials, and (most crucially) his White House tapes. Federal judges ruled that presidents did indeed have a presumption of executive privilege. But they also held that this power isn’t limitless. Executive privilege could be overruled if Congress showed an overriding public need for the information. In Nixon’s case, that’s what happened.

Since 1980 US presidents have claimed executive privilege 25 times in various circumstances. Ronald Reagan did it three times. Bill Clinton? Fourteen. George W. Bush asserted it six times.

On Fast and Furious, Obama invokes 'executive privilege.' What's that? - CSMonitor.com

The problem for the partisan right and the president’s enemies is there is no evidence of an ‘overriding public need’ that can be brought before a Federal judge to compel the Administration to provide the privileged documents.

And wanting to only ‘get rid of Obama’ doesn’t constitute an ‘overriding public need.’

 

[bigrebnc1775]

executive privilege is not absolute

No one ever said it was.

But it is an established and accepted principle predicated on the doctrine of the separation of powers:

George Washington, for instance, in 1796 refused to let the House of Representatives see presidential papers dealing with negotiations over the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain. Some years later, Andrew Jackson said Congress couldn’t have documents detailing negotiations over the shape of Maine.

In the 1950s, President Eisenhower refused to allow his attorney general to testify before the McCarthy-era House Un-American Activities Committee. It was at this point that the concept got the name “executive privilege” and expanded to cover more than direct presidential papers.

Watergate gave executive privilege more legal heft. President Nixon asserted that he had broad powers to withhold from Congress executive branch documents, testimony from officials, and (most crucially) his White House tapes. Federal judges ruled that presidents did indeed have a presumption of executive privilege. But they also held that this power isn’t limitless. Executive privilege could be overruled if Congress showed an overriding public need for the information. In Nixon’s case, that’s what happened.

Since 1980 US presidents have claimed executive privilege 25 times in various circumstances. Ronald Reagan did it three times. Bill Clinton? Fourteen. George W. Bush asserted it six times.

On Fast and Furious, Obama invokes 'executive privilege.' What's that? - CSMonitor.com

The problem for the partisan right and the president’s enemies is there is no evidence of an ‘overriding public need’ that can be brought before a Federal judge to compel the Administration to provide the privileged documents.

And wanting to only ‘get rid of Obama’ doesn’t constitute an ‘overriding public need.’

The courts have spoken

Decision and Rationale
The Court ruled unanimously that President Richard Nixon had to surrender the tapes. Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. Burger wrote, “The impediment that an absolute, unqualified [executive] privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art[icle] III.”

Burger then turned his attention to the damage that a privilege of confidentiality would cause to citizens' constitutional rights: “The right to the production of all evidence at a criminal trial similarly has constitutional dimensions. The Sixth Amendment explicitly confers upon every defendant in a criminal trial the right 'to be confronted with the witnesses against him' and 'to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.' Moreover, the Fifth Amendment also guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. It is the manifest duty of the courts to vindicate those guarantees, and to accomplish that it is essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produced.” The Court made it clear that the President could not withhold evidence from an ongoing criminal prosecution of another person simply because he was the President.

Several days before, the House Judiciary Committee had approved three articles of impeachment. On August 9, 1974, Nixon became the first President in U.S. history to resign from the presidency. He did so in order to avoid going through the likely prospect of being impeached by the full House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate.



Read more: United States v. Nixon (1974) United States v. Nixon (1974)

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Second term will be full of executive privileges and orders.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Second term will be full of executive privileges and orders.

Second term? hell obama hasn't made past the first one yet,

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Second term will be full of executive privileges and orders.

Second term? hell obama hasn't made past the first one yet,

Foreshadowing of what's to come if they stay in power.

 

[salem.hills]

Good post this is what I've heard all day so its needed for a criminal case in my opinion which doesn't matter but I'm hopeful for justice now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Looks like the Constitutional "teacher" forgot about this.


The courts have consistently held that executive privilege is not absolute and can be “overcome by an adequate showing of need.” This is a flexible standard and does not lend itself to clear predictions about whether a particular assertion of executive privilege will be upheld, but the courts have provided some guidelines to govern claims of executive privilege. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon, for example, that a claim of executive privilege will normally be defeated when the privileged information is needed to provide evidence in a criminal trial—although the strong presumption against revealing information that would jeopardize national security would control even in this instance.

Executive Privilege 101

What's your point?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Looks like the Constitutional "teacher" forgot about this.


The courts have consistently held that executive privilege is not absolute and can be “overcome by an adequate showing of need.” This is a flexible standard and does not lend itself to clear predictions about whether a particular assertion of executive privilege will be upheld, but the courts have provided some guidelines to govern claims of executive privilege. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon, for example, that a claim of executive privilege will normally be defeated when the privileged information is needed to provide evidence in a criminal trial—although the strong presumption against revealing information that would jeopardize national security would control even in this instance.

Executive Privilege 101

What's your point?

obama didn't have the authority to use it, all he did was tell everybody he knew about fast and the furious.