Doing so makes one suspicious does it not?
2007-07-09 07:29:55 · 20 answers · asked by Old Guy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes, I believe so. With the Bush and Cheney reputations and those of his administration, I do believe he is just trying to cover up even more wrongdoings, so he is using the executive priveiledge thing to get away with it.
2007-07-09 10:13:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Executive Privilege, as a doctrine, is no different than lawyer-client privilege, or priest-penitent privilege, or spousal communications privilege. They are all intended to protect certain types of confidential communications, in order to encourage those types of conversations.
For Executive Privilege, that applies to any confidential communications with the president that are related to the president doing his job as executive. But like all similar privileges, it pertains only to confidential communications that involve the president.
To answer your question, yes -- any privilege is a way to cover up the truth. It prevents certain communications from being revealed. That's their purpose. But because it interferes with the seeking of truth, most courts have held that all privileges should be construed as narrowly as possibly, for exactly that reason.
As far as Bush's use of that doctrine, I'm sure there are several specific communications that would fall within the scope of the privilege. But I'm also sure that many of what he hopes to not have revealed would not fall within the privilege. Including any conversations or documents that he wasn't party to -- since the privilege protects only communications with the president.
But that's only the law. Politics is a whole other beast, and it remains to be seen how this gets resolved politically, or whether it will end up going to court.
2007-07-09 14:34:22 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Although it certainly seems that way of late, the origins of the theory of executive privilege deal more with the separation of the three branches of our government and the recognition that the executive branch may need the ability to shield certain information from general distribution. Naturally, this is a concept that can be abused.
2007-07-09 14:34:12 · answer #3 · answered by John W 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but there is a difference between covering the truth, and keeping people who don't need to know something from knowing it.
You may say freedom of the press or something similar to that, but there are some things the press has done that were completely stupid, such as the New York Times publishing all of the weak points in the soldiers' armor.
2007-07-09 14:36:10 · answer #4 · answered by blackdrgn121sn 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You bet! I can understand in cases of national security that the executive has the right to keep things secret, but the firings of federal distric attorneys does not seem to me a matter of national security. Bush and his administration do not want the public to find out that those D.A's were fired because of political reasons. I do hope that the Supreme Court can leave any partisan feelings aside and order the President of the United States to come clean in this case, We the People, have the right to know when our government is misbehaving.
2007-07-09 14:35:05 · answer #5 · answered by William Q 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No the Constitution was set up so that an over bearing Congress, or President, or Supreme Court could not go on witch hunts...and to keep Secret stuff Secret...the President gets more Intel than the average member of Congress, except the Intel Committee..
2007-07-09 14:34:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hell yeah! How dare the president actually have rights! Even worse, he actually has the gall to use his rights.
Lets see...
The democrats want all of the republicans personal and private info so that they can create havoc for them.
They have no right to this info, (and know it) so they cry things like "they must be hiding something"
They make up a witchhunt and say you must give me all your info.
Most people see through the crap. Notice Congress has the lowest rating in history?
Watch what would happen if someone asked them for the same info. There would be some real crying then.
2007-07-09 15:22:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It would seem so. The message we get from the White House is they really dont care what the people who elected them into office think. I thought that was the idea of a republic,guess I was mistaken.
2007-07-09 14:38:41 · answer #8 · answered by phlada64 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is a way to cover up the truth. Clinton should have used it instead of saying he didn't have sex with that woman.
2007-07-09 14:33:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It sure looks that way. What is really amazing though is how Cheney can attempt to claim to not to be in the executive branch of government.
2007-07-09 14:33:52 · answer #10 · answered by x2000 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋