executive privilege is not absolute

[Charles_Main]

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

of Course not. However Obama can be pretty confident it would take the Courts till past Nov to act.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Probably so.

 

[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

of Course not. However Obama can be pretty confident it would take the Courts till past Nov to act.

True so very true.

 

[Peach]

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

The article is pablum. Executive privilege is very narrowly defined, and not applicable in this situation; light years away from absolute.

 

[Ariux]

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.’

Shit-for-brains Afros want America to be a turdworld country. In turdworld countries, corrupt "presidents" are protected from oversight. And, shitheads make from the poop of lessor gods defend that corrupt behavior.

 

[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

The article is pablum. Executive privilege is very narrowly defined, and not applicable in this situation; light years away from absolute.

national security is the only legit reason to use executive privilege

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yawn.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Why is the unelected SC given final say on every issue.? Some democracy we have here.

 

[Peach]

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

The article is pablum. Executive privilege is very narrowly defined, and not applicable in this situation; light years away from absolute.

national security is the only legit reason to use executive privilege

Exactly!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why is the unelected SC given final say on every issue.? Some democracy we have here.

the SC? Do you mean supreme court?

If so it's called checks and balances

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The article is pablum. Executive privilege is very narrowly defined, and not applicable in this situation; light years away from absolute.

national security is the only legit reason to use executive privilege

Exactly!

So why did obama use it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because he does not have to?

Because your interp is wrong?

Because, obviously, he will drag this out beyond the election. If he is not re-elected, the Dems in the Senate (they will have at least 40 votes) will stone wall most of the Republican investigation.