Game over Obama closed the door on it. But then what did you expect?
Game over Obama closed the door on it. But then what did you expect?
USC : Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE | LII / Legal Information Institute This of course does not keep it from Congress's eyes or from the eyes of those with a real-time need to view them.. just away from Public eyes.
Here is a link to Article 2 of our Constitution if you think you can find EP in there anywhere. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
who controlled Congress wanted papers Jefferson didn't want to turn over. Jefferson was
the "strict constructionist" of his day; but asserted a privilege. The Federalists wouldn't accept that.
A negotiated agreement was arrived at in which Congress got part of what it wanted.
But turn this on its head. If there is no Executive Privilege, there must also be no Congressional Privilege,
and then what is to prevent The Executive from
demanding and even seizing every private paper possessed by The Speaker of the House or by any
other Congress person?
The system of Separation of Powers only works when there is mutual respect for the boundaries
implied by Separation of Powers. Similarly, neither Congress nor The Executive march into the halls
of the Supreme Court to demand records of their deliberations. The system can not work without
the boundaries being respected.
WHere are the boundaries? Two hundred plus years of practice and judicial rulings have defined them.
Our "constitution," that is our makeup as a nation and a government, is more then the very few words
we call our Constitution. It includes all of our laws, our traditions, our case law.
And our case law as well as quite a bit of history (real events, precedent), does allow for
Executive Privilege, so there isn't much point to arguing that such doesn't exist.
Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority in US v. Nixon noted: "Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Supreme Court opinion at FindLaw)
I seem to recall that Nixon tried to use it to cover-up his complicity in Watergate and that backfired on him.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Now, this does not grant them the type of privilege that the President is claiming as if you were to look at Section 5 above it, you will see that Congress establishes their own rules of conduct and is supposed to punish its own members with concurrence by 2/3rds vote.Quote:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
At first, The Senate used to meet in secret.
Yes, Congress has a (now*) limited immunity from arrest, but there is an implicit privilege that The Executive
won't march into the office of The House Speaker and go through Congressional document.
Which has no bearing on whether or not and how the other branches mightQuote:
Now, this does not grant them the type of privilege that the President is claiming as if you were to look at Section 5 above it, you will see that Congress establishes their own rules of conduct and is supposed to punish its own members with concurrence by 2/3rds vote.
IN the end the only thing that keeps it working is mutual respect for the boundary lines, not
brinksmanship and constitutional crises.
* I put the word "now" in there because as we all know Congressmen are arrested, tried and convicted, and not uncommonly. Nor are they immune from traffic tickets, DWI charges and other similar matters. The immunity they have is the broad immunity; a Prez can't lawfully arrest the unholy lot of them while Congress is in session.
Again, You failed to provide a link to the citation, so I went to look for it to confirm what was being said by whom and will have to disagree with your conclusion of whom was saying what and why. Yes, there is such a statement in Justice Burgers written opinion, however if you will look more closely at it, he is paraphrasing part of the argument by President Nixons counsel. Let's look at the whole statement. Anyone wishing to follow along with me may do so at. United States v. Nixon - 418 U.S. 683 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court CenterQuote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Well before we even get to the background information that the decision was based upon, we find BLUF (Bottom line up front) as is common in SCOTUS decisions, so please refer to #3 and 4 under Held: (right below the syllabus) where it says:Quote:
In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is 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; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human 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. [Footnote 15] Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; [Footnote 16] the protection of the confidentiality of
Page 418 U. S. 706
Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.
The second ground asserted by the President's counsel in support of the claim of absolute privilege rests on the doctrine of separation of powers. Here it is argued that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 295 U. S. 629-630 (1935); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 103 U. S. 190-191 (1881), insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications.
However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.
Again, we come back to a reference to such EP being valid for the Protection of Classified information under what would be USC Title 50 War and National Defense that I spoke of earlier.Quote:
3. From this Court's examination of the material submitted by the Special Prosecutor in support of his motion for the subpoena, much of which is under seal, it is clear that the District Court's denial of the motion to quash comported with Rule 17(c), and that the Special Prosecutor has made a sufficient showing to justify a subpoena for production before trial. Pp. 418 U. S. 697-702.
4. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e.g., 5 U. S. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 211. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of Page 418 U. S. 685
Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. Pp. 418 U. S. 703-707.
You should be able to see now that what you read was not the Courts opinion but simply background noise that the SCOTUS had to filter out. (Said a different way.. BS that the SCOTUS had to suffer through)
If Obama continues to act against Congress it could be to his detriment.
for a reason---"producing material for a criminal trial." Where is the criminal trial?
They are claiming a judicial right to material from The Executive for the purposes of reaching
a judicial decision. I don't see that literally in our constitution either, btw, for discussion sake.
The President has it for his muslim buddies, but not much else that I can see.Quote:
Which is exactly the issue at hand.
This should be easy now.
In his testimony on February 2nd Holder stated under oath that they were not going to hide behind any privilege.
Why was Roger Clemens in D.C. recently? Ooh yeah they were trying to prove he lied to Congress!
Looks like a slam dunk to me.
Stay on topic to Fast & Furious. No general political comments or Obama bashing just for the heckovit. :nono:
You WILL get this thread closed down!
Too late now since people have already commented on it but, if a post violates forum rules with general unrelated politics...REPORT IT! Do not respond or reply to it.
How do you report a post??? You Ask...
Click on the little ! inside of the small triangle icon - found down at the lower left of the bottom bar of every forum post.
If Congress and the DOJ can waste all the time and money they did investigating Baseball players use of steroids....it seems to me that a FULL investigation can be done on this failed government program that cost not only money, but cost life......AMERICAN life. If they can waste time and money on the bogus "witch hunt" of Valire Plann incident....then they can do a independent counsel to find out who knew what and when they knew it on this gun scam. If they can put Scooter Libby in prison for a innocent mis speak to Congress, then Holder can be held responsible for lying to Congress and find out who in the Administration was leaking government secrets to the New York Times. Time to hold them responsible for the crap they are pulling.