Help Me Out Here!
I have a legal (or is it theory?) question. The President has has asserted executive privilege with regard to staff or cabinet level advisers. This has been presented with the notion that if the President's advisers cannot speak freely, without their words being made public for political gain, then the President is unreasonably denied the frank advice which must be afforded the high office.
Ok, let's say we all (or at least I) buy that line of reasoning. Why is it that this sort of privilege should be extended to individuals who are no longer working with an advisory/executive status in the government? (e.g.: Karl Rove, Monica Goodling, etc.) It seems to me they no longer have to worry about ensuring frank exchanges from people who no longer work with the president, as they will no longer have the protected advisory role. This, would negate the supposed 'chilling effect' that the executive privilege doctrine proposes to protect.
Any thoughts?
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, bush, constitution, executive privilege
posted by Polly @ 5:22 PM
4 Comments:
Continued reliance upon the advice?
that seems to be the notion used (of course this is uncharted territory), but by that logic, anyone whom ever gave the executive advice could be a potential "return advice giver" (think the Cheney energy task force). more to the point, it creates a fiction to protect executive wrongdoing where the only remedy is to allow crimes to occur OR to impeach. certainly justice could exist somewhere between these 2 extremes.
The reason the privilege should extend past the point of association is the chilling effect disclosure could have on current advisers.It has nothing to do with "return advice".
The analogy to attorney client privilege is simple. Just because your client fires you does not allow you to disclose everything they said to you. Not only does the duty protect their interests, it also reassures your current clients their communications are also protected.
As for whether the choice should be impeach or not, that is the only scenario the constitution contemplates. If there is not enough evidence of criminal activity to bring the executive up on charges, Congress should not have the ability to interfere with the administration's activities. There is a separation of powers, not congressional oversight of the executive.
actually, this notion of privilege, and the comparison to the Atty/Client privilege also is not contemplated in our constitution.
under this logic, anyone that speaks or works for the president can be denied permission to testify. moreover, this is not the right evoked when a person on the President's staff has aided in the commission of a crime. that right would be the '5th'.
Post a Comment
<< Home