Jun 28 2007
It’s Official: Bush Administration Says It’s Above the Law
Raise a hand if you’re surprised, the Bush administration says Congress - in their Constitutional role as one of the “checks” on the executive branch - has no right to subpoena it for information about illegal activity or get testimony from staff members. Basically, as our friends across the pond so eloquently put it, bugger off.
Which is what we’ve all come to expect from this administration and from this President, isn’t it? A failure who on the way out the door just can’t help but thumb his nose one more time at the people who elected him.
President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers’ demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Bush’s attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. AP
It’s the height of hubris and just plain wrong when any elected official thinks the rule of law no longer applies to them.
Quick question. Were you OK when Bill Clinton tried to use his executive privilege, or when Bush used it to deny disclosure into the Clinton administration? Asserting executive privilege is not hubris, it is the executive branches right to use, and if it is determined (like it was with Clinton) that it needs to be challenged, than so be it, but there’s no need to add this to your list of “bashing” points against this administration. It’s a “policy” that was started an used by 2 of our founding fathers, and there are appropriate checks to deal with this situation, specifically the Supreme Court.
Hi Sean,
You’re correct to note that executive privilege has it’s place. My point above is that executive privilege shouldn’t be, and according to many constitutional scholars, isn’t available as a reason to not comply with oversight when the information that’s being asked for can prove illegal activity. If that check wasn’t in place, there would be no way to stop the executive branch from break the law period, because any time they did, they could claim executive privilege on everything from the evidence to the suspects.
The previous President’s claims to executive privilege were on the basis of national security, and this was somewhat vetted by the Supreme Court vis-a-vis Nixon in the 70’s. I should also point out that Clinton never actually invoked the privilege, he threatened to and offered his testimony as barter with Congress in exchange for them not forcing his hand.
The thing to remember as this discussion goes forward and the Bush administration tries to confuse the issue is that the privilege, in as much as it’s been tested by the courts, has been said to be reserved for the use of national security matters, and expressly not for the use of covering up potential crime.
To begin with, Clinton did in fact invoke executive privilege, but was shot down in Federal court, and he agreed not to appeal. Although it could be argued that privilege should only be used for national security matters, I would argue that Jefferson’s use of it was not for national security nor was Clinton’s use of it in the Lewinsky ordeal. It is interesting that just because Bush invokes privilege you think he is covering up a crime. If he is in fact covering something up, I guess he’s taking the lead from his predecessor.