Executive Privelege and Legislative Independence?

The nation, whether they know it or not, has gotten 2 great lessons in constitutional law this month. First, the Senate tried to force Presidential advisors to testify about Presidential decisions. This violates the balances of powers. Second, the Justice Department seized official documents from a legislator's office and a court has demanded those documents be returned.

While one branch may investigate illegal actions taken by another, they cannot make broad claims to access documents or testimony from the other branch which are not shown to be linked to an illegal act.

Hence, the Congress was correct in demanding that Nixon turn over tapes which related to a known crime that occured. But, the Congress is wrong to demand testimony from Rove or others regarding to firing prosecutors, because there is no underlying crime. (The president has full discretion to fire federal prosecutors and does not need Congress' approval or oversight.) It's a clear case, but libs will lie.

You are absolutely right and explained it very well.Great Question.

I don't believe thats exactly right. Whether or not they testify or not they are still supposed to appear before Congress. Rove didn't.

If only the public education system was this informative, libs might be able to grasp this.

ok the law is the law!!!

but to me and i believe many many many other peaple is like ok o.j. got off because he was aquitted so he didnt do it and he cannot be touched!

it was a well picked jury by the defense!

they were older black women who probably had the hots for
o.j.

then they used the race card!!

thats what saved his a**!

so the case was won by technicalities and stupid racist opinions!

the jury was interviewed years later and all of them regretted their verdict!!

so the technicalities and laws are protecting guilty men bush, cheny, gonzalas!

and the jury and the race card are the repuclican pary!!!

so these guys claiming executive priveledge are guilty everyone knows but they are getting off by technicalitis!!!

sound sane to anyone besides me?!!!

That is a well defined statement with out any sources. Care to support yourself?

The difference is that executive privilege is NOT a constitutionally mandated right, but a tradition. When framing the constitution Alexander Hamilton explained that some powers are purely executive, but this was not elaborated upon.

The difference here is that Bush is the first president to not yield to Congress when claiming executive privilege. Past Presidents have claimed executive privilege to withhold information before voluntarily providing. For example, in one of the first cases to explicitly cite executive privilege, in 1953 Harry Truman refused to recognize a subpoena to congress before allowing himself to be questions.

And I would not be so quick to label an attack on executive privilege as a negative view on liberals. Instead liberal/conservative views on executive privilege change with the president. Todays climate is identical to that of the Reagan years. However, beginning in 1995, the conservative controlled Congress was opposed to overuse of the executive privilege.

that's not true.

congress can bring impeachment charges, which do not require an illegal act.