Executive Privilege

administrator Privilege Virginia Commonwealth University November 14, 2012 In the past, the king of decision shake upr exclusive right has been accustomd by death chairs to conceal development that has to do with offside(prenominal) affairs and negotiations, military, national security issues as well as deliberations and insurance making that is d adept amongst the professorship and his top assist. This index is scarce utilize when Congress asks the electric chair or one of his top aides to produce all of the study pertaining to an plaint or situation.If the hot seat indeed feels that parts of this teaching needs to be unbroken secret to cling to the best interest of the public, or the separate issues listed previously, then he go away use decision maker director privilege in order to not croak that information to Congress. A huge part of decision maker privilege is to cheer the deliberations and advice go awayn by the hot seats aides. When th e chairmans advisors bowl over him advice, they need to be able to fork over him the best advice likely and if in that respect is a chance that e actuallything they said could be made public.For instance if the electric chair and advisors are discussing what needs to be through in relation to a international power and one suggests to nuke them, one suggests a hush-hush attack and one suggests a peaceful resolution. If the final decision is a peaceful resolution, and Congress asks for all of the information on the subject, then the President should use executive director privilege to keep those other possible outcomes from acquittance public, both to keep the public from getting out of control or uneasy and to keep the other country from limiting out the other resources and retaliating.This power ensures that the Presidents advisors can be completely in force(p) and say what needs to be said without being worried near their words being taken the wrong way or withal h arsh or hurt their image. A big arguwork forcet for those against executive privilege is that there is nothing in the constitution about it even though there is something about Congress keeping secrets.Article I disk operating systems that from apiece one House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time bother the identical, moreovering such parts as whitethorn in their judgment dominate quiet (US organic law, Article 1 Section 5). Their argument is that the makeup states that each House can withhold information that they think should be kept secret and there is nothing about secrecy when it comes to the Presidents powers, only just because the words are not explicitly in the constitution does not mean that this power was not intended for the President.Even our entry fathers appreciated the importance of executive privilege and that is highlighted by this passage taken from The Works of black lovage Hamilton. In 1794, the Senate asked President Geor ge Washington, to lay before the Senate the correspondences which see been had between the Minister of the get together States at the Republic of France, and said Republic, and between said Minister and the office of Secretary of State. Washington consulted his cabinet members, henry Knox, Alexander Hamilton, and Edmund Randolph.Alexander Hamilton ulterior wrote command Knox is of the opinion that no part of the correspondences should be sent to the Senate Colonel Hamilton is of the opinion that the correct mode of proceeding is to do what General Knox advises save the principle is safe, by excepting such parts as the President may choose to withhold Mr. Randolph is of the opinion that all correspondence proper, from its nature, to be communicated to the Senate, should be sent but that what the President thinks is improper, should not be sent.Washington later told the Senate After an examination of the correspondence, I directed copies and translations to be made except in th ose particulars, which, in my judgment, for public considerations, ought not to be communicated. (Hamilton 1851) Three of these men signed the constitution and contributed a great plenty towards it and they clearly hope that it is the Presidents right to withhold information that he deems regretful to be made public. When it comes to foreign affairs it is very important that the President has the business leader to use executive privilege.For instance, if the United States was making a agreement with other country, both countries may wear to give things up in order to come to an agreement, and everything considered by both sides as well as everything agreed upon should not be made public for everyone, including other countries to see. This is best stated in 1796 by George Washington later on the House of Representatives pass that he give them information concerning his instructions to the United States Minister to Britain regarding the pact negotiations between the United States and Britain.Washington replied by saying The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their succeeder must often depend on secrecy and even when brought to a conclusion a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual(prenominal) concessions which may mother been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic for this capacity have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers.The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the Presidentthe boundaries fixed by the character between the different departments should be preserved, a just regard to the organisation and to the duty of my office.. , forbids a compliance with your request. (Richardson 1897) As Washington states, we cannot simply make every detail public because other countries may retaliate and they entrust likewise be less likely to deal with the United States in the future. However, by invoking executive privilege the President can defend that information from causing such havoc.As he stated, it is not sole(prenominal) the Presidents right to use executive privilege, but it is his duty to use it in situations that require secrecy. Without a doubt executive privilege can have its usefulness, but it should only be invoked in certain, specific situations. In our late history this has not been the case, some of our Presidents have tried to abuse the power of executive privilege, giving it a bad name and encouraging mountain to believe it should be done away with. When President Richard Nixon was in office, the Watergate scandalization surfaced and Congress asked him to produce all of the information he and his aides had on the case.In an attempt to conceal what had been done as well as to protect everyone from punishment, President Nixon tried to use executive privilege. This case was brought to the United States unequivocal Court because the executive privilege was being used to protect one of Nixons advisors from criminal prosecution, thus obstructing justice. This was by far an abuse of executive privilege and leads m whatsoever to want it gotten rid of, however just because a power can be abused does not mean that its use should stop it just means that restrictions need to be put in to place.This is highlighted by the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Court acknowledged the need for the President to used executive privilege, but determined that in cases of inquiry into possible criminal actions, the Executive has to release relating information. If we want to curb the abuse of executive privilege, we need to put guidelines into place, because without them, the meaning of executive privilege is at the goody of the President until checked by other branches. President Nixon was neither the head start nor last President to abuse this power (United States v Nixon 1974).Presid ent Bill Clinton similarly tried to invoke executive privilege in a very wrong way as well. Clinton tried to use executive privilege to prevent his advisors from testifying on whether he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinski or not. However, this state of executive privilege was shot down, rightfully so (Baker 2012). These instances of abuse may lead some to think it is just a better option to not have executive privilege, but as long as barriers and restrictions can be put into place on it to prevent this from hap in the future, this power needs to stay around.This comes with some exceptions this power should only be used when the President truly believes that if this information were to get out it would either be damaging to the public or in the best interest of the public to not find out. This power should overly be used in situations where the President needs to protect national security science and other matters as well as being used to protect military secrets, operat ions and intelligence.Lastly, this power should be used in situations where the United States is dealing with a foreign power, whether it is a treaty, a negotiation, a meeting or anything else containing sensitive material that either the United States or the foreign power needs to be kept secret. This brings up another argument against executive privilege. Some feel that this power should be done away with because Congress does not have the power of checks and balances over executive privilege however that is not the case.If the President is refusing to give Congress the information that they are asking for, they can decide to stop funding things that the President is trying to do. They can also hold people in scorn of Congress, which was done as recently as this year in the spry and Furious case where Congress demanded that Attorney General Eric toter give them all the information on this case. President Obama stepped in and claimed executive privilege, however in a response to this, Congress moved, then voted to hold toter in contempt of Congress unless he hands over the information (Silverleib 2012).Another thing Congress can do if the President continues to refuse to support is to impeach him. This would obviously be only done in undecomposed situations, but would work either to get their message across or to show future Presidents that they cannot just invoke executive privilege without consequence. On top of this, the courts can rule on cases where the President tries to use executive privilege like they did in the case with President Nixon.Articles II of the Constitution states that the President shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge inevitable and expedient (US Constitution Article II Section 3) As the Constitution says, the President does need to inform Congress on the State of the coalescence from time to time, however it does n ot say anywhere that the President is need to divulge all the information having to do with certain incidents.Between Article I and Article II, others take this to mean that Congress has an unlimited power of inquiry, but in reality that is not the case. This fact has been ruled on binary times by different courts, where usually they determine that either the President does not have to give up the information, or that the President has to give up certain aspects of that information based on other laws. It is also Congresss right and duty to challenge the President when he uses executive privilege, in order to make sure that the power is not being abused, which is the exact reason for having separate branches and a balance of power.If it wasnt for executive privilege, other countries might be less inclined to deal with the United States because they fear that every detail could go public. Along the same lines the presidents advisors cant give their best advice if they have to worry that anything they say could be made public. Military secrets and intelligence also needs to be protected to better ensure our troops resort as well as protect our country and citizens from retaliation after an exposed military operation. There is also information that needs to confront secret because it is in the best interest of the public to not find out.Lastly and most importantly, if it wasnt for executive privilege, national security and military intelligence matters could be made public, exposing our informants and jeopardizing our national security. In order to keep this power alive and protect sensitive information, the United States needs to add guidelines or an amendment that properly codifies executive privilege to prevent its abuse. Once this is done, in theory, there would not be any more issues of whether power can or cannot be used.Everything would be stated to say that the President can only use executive privilege in the situations previously stated and any othe r instance where executive privilege is claimed would be thrown out. Executive privilege helps to protect our citizens, our national security and our good standing and ability to negotiate with other countries. If we were not able to guarantee that level of secrecy it would be nearly impossible to conduct policy making, decision making, foreign negotiations, treaties, as well as threaten the United States and their citizens safety.References Baker, Peter, and Susan Schmidt. Washingtonpost. com Special shroud Clinton Accused. Washington Post Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. N. p. , 6 May 1998. Web. 8 Nov. 2012. http//www. washingtonpost. com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr050698. Hamilton, Alexander, and John C. Hamilton. The works of Alexander Hamilton comprising his correspondence, and his political and official writings, exclusive of the Federalist, civil and military. New York J. F. Trow, 1851.Print. Richardson, James D.. A compilation of the messa ges and papers of the presidents. New York Bureau of national literature, 1897. Print. Silverleib, Alan. House holds Holder in contempt CNN. com. CNN. com Breaking News, U. S. , World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. N. p. , 29 May 2012. Web. 5 Nov. 2012. http//www. cnn. com/2012/06/28/politics/holder-contempt/index. html. United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974) (Justice Burger Opinion of the Court) United States Constitution, 1789