Where in the Constitution does it give the president the powers of executive privilege?

Question

Be specific. and, why should congress let Bush get away with this so called privilege when they subpoena people in his office? How does this threaten National security if they are subpoenaed?

Answer 1

It doesn't. It's an implied privilege -- just like attorney-client privilege or spousal-communications privilege.

It's been invoked since the country was founded on certain specific matters related to national security. The most recent analysis by the US Supreme Court was against Nixon (holding linked below).

Never (before Bush) has it been held to apply to all documents and all activities of the entire executive branch in all things. In fact, the Supreme Court commented "any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution." (from US v. Nixon)

Furthermore "Special Prosecutors [have] explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in the process of seeking evidence deemed relevant". (Id).

So, it's a well-established privilege, but one also specifically limited in its scope and application.

Answer 2

President Dwight Eisenhower was the first president to coin the phrase "executive privilege," but not the first to invoke its principle: namely, that a president has the right to withhold certain information from Congress, the courts or anyone else — even when faced with a subpoena.

Nowhere does the Constitution mention the term or the concept of executive privilege. However, the Supreme Court finally accepted this claim during the Watergate dispute in 1974. The court agreed that the Constitution gives the president a privilege against mandatory disclosure of his communications, at least when he is speaking with his closest advisers.

And it's not always about national security. It's about being able speak freely with their aides. Presidents need candid advice from their aides — and aides simply won't be willing to give such advice if they know they might be called to testify, under oath, before a congressional committee or in some other forum.

Answer 3

Now this is better. It's implied.

I'm thinking this is political more than anything, rather than having a lot of basis.

That is, the reasons behind Congress wanting answers aren't all altruistic. Bush can't win re-election, so here are members of Congress jockeying for position.

I would imagine that there are some, not all, sensitive topics that should probably not be discussed in the open (e. g. Iraq withdrawl dates, the SPP).

Think of it this way. If Bush just lets Congress run amok with questioning, where does the line get drawn?

Answer 4

It's not in the constitution. You know why President Bush is using it. He has a bunch of Democrats throwing anything they can against the wall to see if it will stick. The president can fire anyone within the Executive Branch without cause. It's unfortunate the Congress doesn't respect that, but then again, they don't seem to respect anyone. Especially the people they represent!

Answer 5

What is truly absurd is that Cheney has been issued an order to release certain documents. He is resisting the realease claiming that the relevant statute is directed at the executive branch and he is claiming that the office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch because he is the president of the Senate.

Answer 6

It doesn't.

Now, having said that, the SCOTUS decided a number of years ago that "Executive Privilege" exists and is lawful.

Every President in the last 50 years has used the privilege, this isn't something you can pin on just the current Administration.

Answer 7

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power (reserve power) claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity

Answer 8

.... sorry I'm late, but I was searching the Constitution for your answer.

I hate to say it, but I can't find a bloody thing in the Constitution that would let any President abuse the powers of Government by invoking a thing called "executive privilege".

Answer 9

I think all Senators and Representatives should send all their memos and emails to the White House for examination. The President has the right to know how they come to their decisions, doesn't he?

Would it help if the President subpoenaed them?

Answer 10

It doesn't. It's a trick presidents use to avoid making themselves look bad.

And here's how Gonzo earned it: Gonzales earned the gratitude and indebtedness of Bush in 1996, when he enabled him to escape jury duty in Travis County, Texas, on the attenuated argument that as governor he might find himself in a conflict of interest in the future when considering a clemency or pardon. In fact, Bush's worry was filling out the juror's form that required listing arrests. By avoiding acknowledgement of his drunken-driving violation, Bush maintained his political viability. Grants of clemency and pardons never bothered Bush again. Of the 152 people condemned to execution in Texas during his tenure, the most under any governor in modern American history, he indulged in not a single act of clemency. His counsel, Alberto Gonzales, briefed him on 57 of these cases, and "repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence," according to a study published by the Atlantic.