Comments on: It’s Official: Bush Administration Says It’s Above the Law http://dancody.org/archives/its-official-bush-administration-says-its-above-the-law.html Progressive commentary & Wisconsin politics by Daniel Cody of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:01:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Sean http://dancody.org/archives/its-official-bush-administration-says-its-above-the-law.html#comment-12712 Sean Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:17:21 +0000 http://dancody.org/archives/its-official-bush-administration-says-its-above-the-law.html#comment-12712 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. 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.

]]> By: Daniel Cody http://dancody.org/archives/its-official-bush-administration-says-its-above-the-law.html#comment-12619 Daniel Cody Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:49:01 +0000 http://dancody.org/archives/its-official-bush-administration-says-its-above-the-law.html#comment-12619 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 <em>national security</em>, 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. 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.

]]> By: Sean http://dancody.org/archives/its-official-bush-administration-says-its-above-the-law.html#comment-12592 Sean Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:31:51 +0000 http://dancody.org/archives/its-official-bush-administration-says-its-above-the-law.html#comment-12592 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. 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.

]]>