NYT: Executive Privilege Should Not Apply-Mr. Bush's Claim Is Baseless

[kpete]

Overprivileged Executive
The New York Times | Editorial

Wednesday 11 July 2007

...........

Congress and the American public need to know all that has gone on at the Justice Department. But instead of aiding that search for the truth, President Bush is blocking it, invoking executive privilege this week to prevent Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, a former top aide to Karl Rove, from telling Congress what they know about the purge of federal prosecutors.

Mr. Bush's claim is baseless. Executive privilege, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a judge-made right of limited scope, intended to create a sphere of privacy around the president so that he can have honest discussions with his advisers. The White House has insisted throughout the scandal that Mr. Bush - and even Mr. Gonzales - was not in the loop about the firings. If that is the case, the privilege should not apply.

Even if Mr. Bush was directly involved, Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor would have no right to withhold their testimony. The Supreme Court made clear in the Watergate tapes case, its major pronouncement on the subject, that the privilege does not apply if a president’s privacy interests are outweighed by the need to investigate possible criminal activity. Congress has already identified many acts relating to the scandal that may have been illegal, including possible obstruction of justice and lying to Congress.

The White House argues that its insistence on the privilege is larger than this one case, that it is protecting the presidency from inappropriate demands from Congress. But the reverse is true. This White House has repeatedly made clear that it does not respect Congress’s constitutional role. If Congress backs down, it would not only be compromising an important investigation of Justice Department malfeasance. It would be doing serious damage to the balance of powers.



more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/opinion/11wed1.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[rfranklin]

1. Roberts has shown precedents mean nothing to him...

There will be a new "executive privilege" right discovered in some nook or cranny of the Constitution which no other judge or scholar has seen before. As well as the establishment of the Fourth Branch of Government...the Cheney-ency.

[NewJeffCT]

2. Of course

If the 9-0 decision in Brown vs Board of Education didn't phase him in overturning precedent, I don't think the Watergate decision, or the fact that "executive privilege" does not appear in the Constitution will phase him in the least.

[Captain Hilts]

3. This really is deja vu all over again. nt