And since it's not a part of the Constitution could it be legally challenged?
2007-12-17 14:16:15 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
because those are the rules for the people, to whom the rules that govern us, do not apply
2007-12-17 14:20:24 · answer #1 · answered by loanman 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm not a person in the legal profession but I have taken an ap gov't class so I think I can somewhat answer this question. Executive privilege is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but it is implied from the doctrine of seperation of powers. George Washington set precedent during the time when he made the Jay treaty with England, which was meant to resolve issues between the two nations. The House wanted to see some documents regarding this treaty but since the Senate has the power to ratify treaties and not the House, Washington refused to show the House the documents. I hope that answers your question.
2016-05-24 10:55:17 · answer #2 · answered by amada 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US Constitution allows presidents to invoke executive privilege when they want to ... It's part of the separation of powers. Executive privilege allows ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5176256
There should be nothing that is not applicable by the US Constitution and what is currently happening. The US President should not be allowed to be "legally" corrupt otherwise why bother having a US Constitution.
It should be challenged otherwise the US President can be an emperor.
Imperial Presidency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The author wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution
2007-12-17 14:29:01 · answer #3 · answered by American Dissenter 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What kind of privileges are you talking about because the constitution does award executive privileges in Art II.
2007-12-17 14:22:27 · answer #4 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A lot of things are legal that aren't in the constitution.
2007-12-17 14:28:46 · answer #5 · answered by StressedLawStudent 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Are you referring to executive orders that pretend to make law for 300 million people? No. While they may have the form and color of law, they have bypassed the legislative process and are of no substance.
2007-12-17 14:24:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not in the constitution, but it's not prohibited by the constitution either. So congress can go either way.
2007-12-17 14:46:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely. But I'm sure it would lose. How can it not, he'd just declare ExPriv. Makes the whole system sound a little silly, don't it?
2007-12-17 14:22:10 · answer #8 · answered by Bob H 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋