Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
U.S. v. Nixon clarification
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][from the post]: When the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon (1974) rejected Nixon's invocation of that privilege to resist a Grand Jury Subpoena for the Watergate tapes, this is how the Court defined its scope:
The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the court. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.
The full quote, with my emphasis added:
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, 629-630 (1935); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 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. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. [418 U.S. 683, 707]
The court is responding to the president's counsel's assertions, not making any holding of its own. In fact, the holding rejects any such claimed privilege of "confidentiality of Presidential communications" "[a]bsent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets".
Cheers,
-
Not a wise idea....
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn [from the post]:
For that reason, it is important to them to establish principles which will prevent (or at least substantially delay) any meaningful investigations by Congress into the White House's conduct over the last six years, and creating a privileged buffer around key administration officials and White House documents serves that purpose quite well.
If they're going to establish a principle, a precedent, why pick the case where the most is known already and the funny business is hanging out there like a redneck's butt from a Dodge on a Friday night? They're already in deep political doo-doo on this one, with Republicans joining the demands for Seedy Gonzales to step down (not to mention Rove being in the thick of things....) And this isn't even about "national security", but rather about Republican corruption. Seems that if they want to rally the troops for a show of force, this is the least sympathetic flag around which to rally the troops to make that argument....
Cheers,