Top Dog
Another partisan battle. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees sent subpoenas to the White House, asking for documents related to the U. S. attorney firings last year. Like many presidents before him, Bush is citing “executive privilege.”
This is not going to be a rant about that, however. This is a post to share some information I’ve recently come across that concerns “executive privilege.” My point here is to summarize the article; find it on the NPR website if you’re interested in a more in-depth look. I learned quite a few things, most importantly:
1. It’s not in the U. S. Constitution. It’s not explicit there, although some say it’s implied under “separation of powers.” But just because you say it, that doesn’t mean you’re gonna get it, which leads me to the next interesting point:
2. It all started with George Washington, who, in 1792, didn’t want to hand over information about a “disastrous expedition against American Indian tribes.” He lost the battle against Congress, too.
3. Sometimes a president is successful. Eisenhower, who coined the phrase, didn’t want individuals from his administration appearing before an Army hearing concerning preferential treatment allegedly sought by Senator McCarthy for a former aide. Eisenhower prevailed. On the other hand, Nixon and Clinton famously did not.
4. Despite partisan declarations throughout history, the STATED purpose of “executive privilege” is for protection of sources: presidents want “candid advice from their aides — and aides simply won’t be willing to give such advice if they know they might be called to testify, under oath, before a congressional committee or in some other forum.” I’m pretty sure that in some cases there are other reasons involved, but this is how it’s presented, anyway.
So in the midst of the Washington, D. C. skirmish, I found this interesting. Feel free to discuss the latest skirmish, your views on executive privilege, or the Nixon and Clinton hearings. (Just kidding about that last phrase, please.)
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
July 7th, 2007 16:08
I had to do a reality check. Is it realistic to expect politicians to deal with real information? After all they did find Women, Men and Dodo’s in Iraq. It is nothing new, our parliament had a bit of difficulty with divine right and some chap by the name of Charles the first. That seems to have faded as a public issue, the newspapers certainly don’t seem to report it much these days.
We have had almost continuous rain here in England for weeks, then it was sunny today, perhaps I had a little too much?
July 14th, 2007 10:47
If advisers are giving advise that is either illegal or questionably unethical, and there is no ramifications (checks and balances) for the advise they are giving, who or what is able to stop them from doling out this advise? Any person needs to be able to be accountable for the advise or recommendations they provide, especially if some one, in the case the POTUS acts upon that advise.
I know this is a very extreme example but it is the first I could think of. This privilege which Bush is provoking is like Hitler saying that none of his adviser (Goering, Goebels, Himmlers and their minions) were not accountable for the policies they implemented.
A government and the members of the bureaucracy needs to be responsible to the people who have put them in charge to be able to justify the actions. Here in the US, we have 3 branches of government to execute these checks and it is the right one (Congress) to check the other (Executive) and allowing one to flaunt its authority to the other is just bad policy.
And finally, if the Bush administration really didn’t do anything wrong, as they have claimed from the beginning, what is the problem with having the aides testify?
August 18th, 2007 21:20
I just want this presidency to be over. Will it never end?!?!?!?
The only thing I can hope for is that he goes down in history as our biggest mistake. It breaks my heart to think of the ramifications of his presidency. The complacency, my own included, alone should be enough to make us all weep. How are we supposed to want to be active in our government when we see it favoring the rich over and over again? How can we inspire our children to take up public service just for the honor of it and not for the financial gain? We will never be able to inspire the activism for the social change of the ’60’s and 70’s with leadership such as we have. I’m willing to take up the fight again even though I am old and tired, even though it seems useless. Are there others out there willing to come out of their comfortable lives and go against what we have come to accept as the norm? What will it take to give our children back their hope?