Executive Privilege And Public Knowledge

Many precedent cases show that the manner in which he was investigated, violated his fourth amendment

Most of the specifications for the executive branch in the Constitution, other than how he is to be elected, have to deal with the interactions between Congress and the President. The president can (fill in the blank) but only if (this part) of Congress approves. The powers of the president have been interpreted widely so that he has more power than I believe the Framers intended. They wanted him to be able to check Congress with veto power and be the head of the military. However, I think that presidents nowadays have too much power. They are active in trying force their policy agenda through Congress, manage foreign relations, and act as the administrative head of the entire nation. The textbook lays it out well in, "The vast size of the executive branch and the number and complexity of decisions that must be made each day pose a challenge for the White House.” (316) In order to deal with the stresses put on the executive branch, there are thousands of employees that work to give the president the information that he needs to make decisions. He has advisors, cabinet members, legislative liaisons; the list goes on and on, but he is the person who actually gets to make all of the choices. The President is limited in some ways and given more power in other ways by the structure laid out for him in the Constitution, and evolved to be what it is now.

Executive order is a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law. Executive Order (EOs) were used since President George Washington but were not mandated to be publicly released until 1900. To date, there have been thirteen thousand eight hundred and seven executive orders. Many argue that these orders are unconstitutional as it gives one-person authority to make changes without consequences and without the consent of Congress. The term executive order is not a principle found within the Constitution. EO is derived from Article II, Section I of the Constitution in which it states, “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”. The term executive power was never defined, leaving it open to the interpretation of each president. That statement coupled with Article II, Section III “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” has been the backbone of how presidents have been able to create these orders.

I can’t forget the fact that they also provided pictures and videos. The reason why I think President was allowed to expand presidential power in this way is due to the fact that both his team and himself couldn’t a no as an answers. It was as if a teenager was denied permission to go out and jumped out of the window either way. Furthermore, because they couldn’t take a no as an answer they would clearly work their way around the case. Such as that one time when “Congress denied the authority to the president they found another way they went to the Justice Department”. I don’t really remember what it exactly said about checks and balances but I do remember that people were pissed off. People believed that it was time to have check and balances and that, the constitutional tradition of checks and balances was certainly not being respected when Brush was

A presidential executive order is an instruction issued by the President of the United States in exercising the constitutional authority vested in him to pass executive orders. This authority is derived from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, which means the presidential executive order has the power to become a law. Presidents have been mostly using presidential executive orders to issue directives in regard to managing the ways in which the federal government functions. Thus, presidents usually issue executive orders for the purpose of changing or improving the operations of the executive branch and federal agencies and to execute constitutional or statutory presidential duties and tasks. It is in

Not only did the Act violate the separation of powers, it also interfered with Bush’s

The President may not declare war, but he may deploy soldiers. He may require in writing the opinions of any of the heads of state departments as it relates to their respective offices. The President also has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S., except in cases of impeachment. The President also has the power to make treaties with foreign powers provided the Senate has consented by a two-thirds majority. He may also appoint ambassadors, ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President also has the power to fill vacancies in the Senate temporarily. On extraordinary occasions, the President may convene or temporarily adjourn either or both legislative houses in the interest of resolving disputes. The President is also charged with meeting with ambassadors and other public representatives. The President can also be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. With the presidential powers now outlined, let us explore the opposing opinions of each presidential power(Colonies of Nations, 549-553).

Executive - Mainly used by the President, this power enforces the law. This power also grants the ability to veto the proposal for a law, appoint federal posts, negotiate foreign treaties, appoint federal judges, and grant pardons for a crime.

In United States v Nixon, five burglars broke into the Democratic Party headquarters. After investigations, president Nixon received a subpoena ordering him to release tapes and transcripts connected to meetings between him and some individuals who had been indicted in the incident. Although the president released edited copies of the transcripts, his attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena on grounds of executive privilege. The attorneys claim was that the judiciary lacked the powers to determine the president’s claim of executive privilege. It was held that no individual, not even the president is above the law and, therefore, the president cannot use executive privilege to withhold criminal evidence. The problem of separation of powers in this case arises from the president’s attorney that the concept of executive privilege stems from the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the executive insulates the president from judicial proceedings. Although the constitution provides for the separation of powers, these powers are not intended to operate independently and the assumption that the president is immune to judicial proceedings would affect the constitutional balance and impair the functionality of the judiciary. It is noteworthy that the offenses that led to the resignation of Nixon were relatively minor and the crisis was constitutional.

The case New York Times Co. Vs United States in summary was a first amendment battle between the United States government and the prominent newspaper cooperation New York Times in 1971. The premises of this legal battle was based on the New York Times reporter Daniel Ellsberg publishing in excerpts illegally leaked, classified documents containing the United States involvement in the Vietnam War specifically on the anticipated death counts (Institution, 2015, p. n .p). However, The United States government finding out about leakage placed a prior restraint also known as “government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place” on New York Times cooperation based on National Security grounds (Prior Restraint, 2015). The case, despite the over powering strength of the nation and the accusations against the New York Times Cooperation the case was ruled in favor of the New York Times by the Supreme Court (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni, 2015, p. 458).

That same year, Congress would tap into its oversight powers once again as it launched a full-fledged investigation against Nixon and top White House officials who used their political positions for political advantage in the Watergate scandal. Citing “executive privilege,” Nixon asserted that he, as president, was immune from legislative oversight and that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order wiretaps without warrants.

In the past, the power of executive privilege has been used by Presidents to conceal information that has to do with foreign affairs and negotiations, military, national security issues as well as deliberations and policy making that is done between the President and his top aides. This power is only used when Congress asks the President or one of his top aides to produce all of the information pertaining to an event or situation. If the President then feels that parts of this information needs to be kept secret to protect the best interest of the public, or the other issues listed previously, then he will use executive privilege in order

Throughout American history, after the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, the validity of executive privilege has been questioned in federal courts and among legal scholars on countless occasions. According to Merriam-Webster, executive privilege entails, “exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch” (Merriam-Webster). In other words, executive privilege is the notion that the President is exempt from having to give evidence or disclose information to congressional hearings or to judicial inquiries. Executive privilege also typically includes immunity from legal disputes involving the presidency. Although not officially referred to as “executive privilege” until Eisenhower’s presidency, the first argument of executive privilege or immunity took place during George Washington’s presidency (The Constitution and Executive Privilege). Claiming executive privilege has been a common occurrence throughout all U.S. presidencies and continuing with President Obama. Those who argue against the legitimacy of executive privilege use the reasoning that it is not constitutional because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and interrupts the separation of powers. On the other hand, many legal scholars assert that executive privilege is necessary for

The President’s formal powers, as found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, begins with Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This was the first power listed, signifying the prominence placed on keeping the country secure and safe, especially from foreign invasion. The next formal power of the President is the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States. An example of said power would be, President Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal and the President ordering a reprieve or delay in the case of a person on death row until their case can be heard by a higher court. The President also has the power to make Treaties, with Senate approval, and to appoint Ambassadors and Supreme Court Judges, again, with Senate confirmation.

"Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix," President Harry Truman once said. Harry Truman understood the importance of an open government in a free society. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has a different outlook. From the first days of his administration, President Bush has taken steps to tighten the government's hold on information and limit public scrutiny of its activities. Expansive assertions of executive privilege, restrictive views of the Freedom of Information Act, increasing use of national security classification, stonewalling in response to congressional request for information – all these were evident even before the September 11 attacks (At Issue: Has the Bush administration misused government