Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I dont see any evidence provided by you yet you are completely comfortable with in ignoring the political prosicution of people and the burning down and running of the road of someone who is obviously not a liberal.
To you the Bush admin ca do no wrong.
we will see what history says.
Then George Washington was paranoid and wrong. I think that even if I were to educate myself some more about Executive Privilege, I would still want such a convenience abolished. Would someone explain to me in a very simple way, what purpose it serves. I see it as a cop out an easy way for executives to cover up some embarrassing things that they do not want the public to know. Perhaps some exceptions can be made for the sake of national security as evaluated by an impartial team in each case an executive wants to use Executive Privilege for that reason. Yet, the issue of attorneys being fired certainly does not fall under confidentiality due to national security. Come on. You dont hide something unless you have something that you need to hide. The public has a right to know what is going on!
You didn't 'quote' so where was Geo. Washington 'paranoid and wrong'?
A number of presidents have invoked executive privilege over the years. Not just George Washington in 1796 but Presidents Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Fillmore, Buchanan, Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Cleveland, both Roosevelts, Coolidge. Hoover, and Truman. And, in more recent times, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
I think that it is wrong to use Executive Privilege unless the security of the nation would be seriously jeopardized.
Then George Washington was paranoid and wrong. I think that even if I were to educate myself some more about Executive Privilege, I would still want such a convenience abolished. Would someone explain to me in a very simple way, what purpose it serves. I see it as a cop out an easy way for executives to cover up some embarrassing things that they do not want the public to know. Perhaps some exceptions can be made for the sake of national security as evaluated by an impartial team in each case an executive wants to use Executive Privilege for that reason. Yet, the issue of attorneys being fired certainly does not fall under confidentiality due to national security. Come on. You dont hide something unless you have something that you need to hide. The public has a right to know what is going on!
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.
The Court recognized "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." It noted that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."
Nonetheless, the Justices concluded that the executive privilege is not absolute. Where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Court ordered President Nixon to divulge the tapes and records. Two weeks after the Court's decision, Nixon complied with the order. Four days after that, he resigned.
We have 3 distinct Branches of Government. Each has set powers. They are designed to prevent one branch from becoming more powerful than another. The Legislative Branch can not just order the President or his advisors, staff or employees to do what ever they want with out the permission of the President. Just as the President can not order Congress to do what ever he wants with out their agreeing to it. The Judiciary is there to resolve differences between the other two branches and its control is that Congress provides the laws and the President provides the Judges and prosecutors. Each branch depends on the other for legitamacy and authority. Each branch must have the ability to provide security and animity to its members that can not be usurped at the whim of any other branch. Each branch has specific powers, rights and privilages and no other branch can just arbitrarily ignore nor remove those things.
The President must have the power to receive advice and control of HIS branch of Government with no worry to the individuals of a political rival dragging those people through the mud on a political whim, vendetta or witch hunt.
As to hiding anything, President Bush has repeatedly told Congress they can question anyone they want BUT not under oath. A prudent precaution having seen the results of allowing Libby to testify under oath and what happened to him.
Since you do not think the President should be able to protect his advisors from political witch hunts does this mean you support the President being able to demand similar things from Congress? can he order members of Congress, their aids or staff to "testify" to him or his staff on a political whim? All he needs is a "charge" and then it is off to the races on making everyone in Congress answer personally to the president or his hatchmen?
Okay. I guess that I see your point. Without some executive privilege, one branch can take advantage of another branch and cause problems. It just seems to me that this executive privilege is being abused. I mean couldnt any question posed to anyone in the White House get the reply Executive Privilege. What did you have for lunch in the White House? EP. How far is your office from the vice presidents office? EP. Do you ever get coffee for your boss? EP. EP EP EP. Okay. I suppose that the judicial branch can look into if it is too abused. Perhaps congress can change the law about EP. Ultimately the voting public might vote the alleged EP abusers out of office if it gets really bad.
And that is my entire point, THE COURTS have to rule on whether the Congress or the President are right.
I guess, bottom line is that MK is going to just leave GW besmirched without reason?
