The power of executive privilege has been extremely controversial since basically the beginning of the United States as a democratic government. Many saw this power come into a greater public focus particularly during the Nixon presidency and the infamous Watergate Scandal, but the theory and use of executive privilege existed long before Nixon. As in true American fashion, some argue in favor of executive privilege, while others view it in a more negative light. The intense controversy is what makes executive privilege so intriguing to review in a deeper and more in depth analysis. The theory of executive privilege has derived its power throughout evolution of time, a series of presidencies, and quite a few pinpointed circumstances resulting in some very notorious court cases.
First off, to understand examples of executive privilege, the concept itself needs to be defined. Although there are various definitions of executive privilege, they all are quite similar when it comes down to it. According to one definition executive privilege is “the executive’s right to withhold information from either Congress or the judicial branch –and thus, indirectly, from the people” (Magi 561). Another, very similar, definition is: “an implied power that enables presidents and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and, ultimately, the public” (Rozell 550). Both definitions note that executive privilege is the withholding of information from the other two branches of government and, at the end of the day, from the people as well. Sometimes this also entails the executive denying a request to appear before the judicial or legislative branch (Holt 237). Most executive privilege disputes, however, ar...
... middle of paper ...
...o a collision of powers and will cause some sort of debate or argument, and possibly even a legal dispute.
Executive privilege has been around since Washington’s first term in office as the first official president of the United States. During Washington’s presidency he set the stage for the use of executive privilege that will evolve over time into something far greater than its initial purpose. Clinton and Nixon utilized executive privilege in a greater sense than Washington, and later Jefferson. They used executive privilege to cover up their wrongdoings and illegal activities. The outcome of the Nixon trial led to the official acknowledgment of executive privilege as a power allotted to the president and other executive officials, but it also noted that the power of executive privilege does not override the need of key information in a criminal investigation.
...in the cover-up; several people shredded documents, lied under oath and obstructed justice. At least if the participants in the scandal had been effectively punished, perhaps it would have curbed some of the power held by the executive branch. But the lack of consequence sends a dangerous message: if staff members of the executive branch are able to accomplish so much behind America’s back and are not held responsible for their actions, pardoned by the president, part of the executive branch itself, then the executive branch is far more powerful than Americans realize. What the government tells us it is doing may not actually be true, and at the end of the day there is nobody to enforce the laws on the members of the executive branch. In this regard, the Iran-Contra affair exposed the true, relentless power of the executive branch – and how little we know about it.
Presidential power has increased all the time. Compared to the first U.S. president George Washington, the modern presidency has more power and departments (Patterson, 2014). The expansion of presidential power increases the ability of the Executive branch to regulate and protect our society. On the other hand, the president may abuse his presidential power. Like in this case, the President Nixon monitored his staff’s conversation at the Oval Office, and he let some people to set up the recording device in the Watergate complex (“teachingamericanhistory.org”, n.d.). In my opinion, the president Nixon abused his presidential power to set up these recording devices. Even though he had the excuse that the conversations he recorded may contain the national security issue, the method that he get information was not appropriate. He cannot just record everything without other people’s permission to achieve his goal. These recording conversations might have other people’s privacy. Even though the U.S. constitution does not state the word privacy, it can be derived from the Bill of Rights (Patterson, 2014). The people’s privacy is protected now, and any other person cannot invade their privacy without permission. Therefore, the president Nixon violates other people’s privacy, which was against the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the Supreme law of the U.S., the President Nixon had to follow it (Patterson, 2014). Thus, when the presidential power conflicts with the Constitution, anyone in Executive branch should obey the
" 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. 3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
The preamble of the Constitution lays out six reasons for its establishment of which two reasons standout, the establishment of justice and providing for the common defense. The national security of the United States was of paramount importance to our founders and remains so today after over 200 years. While there is no clear answer on how to achieve security, our constitutional system of government provides the framework for seeking its ends. The Constitution itself, in its ambiguity and deliberate requirement for interpretation, along with the elements of division of power and the rule of law, play key roles in how our government provides the blanket of security for our nation. This paper will explore how these elements complement and contrast one another in providing our government leaders the tools to achieve national security.
White privilege is a concept that many people are unfamiliar with, but not because they do not benefit from it. In the paper “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh argues that white people have an advantage over those of other races, though most are completely unaware of it or simply take it for granted. Her recognition of white privilege came from the concept of male privilege. She says that she looked at that concept and realized there was certainly something similar to it in regards to race (McIntosh, 1988, 11). This paper has great importance to the function of society. Because many white people do not recognize their unfair and disproportionate advantage in society, racial tensions can rise even more because there is a major wall blocking people from fixing the current issues.
transparency in the president’s constitutional objections, reservations, and assertions of power. Manuscript submitted for publication, School of Law, UCLA, Retrieved from http://www.uclalawreview.org/wordpress/?p=339
Despite the national attention the Watergate scandal had gained President Nixon, he won the second term presidency. The major problem for Nixon would come later. The investigations of the Watergate scandal lead to the discovery of other criminal acts by officials including Nixon. During the investigation many things begin to surface. It was discovered that documents had been destroyed that may have made a link between Nixon and the Watergate scandal. These documents may have shown that he had some acknowledgement in what had happened. There was evidence that people involved in the Nixon campaign had been wire tapping phones illegally for a long time according to “dummies.com”. The greatest issue would come to light during the 1973 Watergate hearings. During testimonies it came to light that every conversation was recorded in the Oval office according to “study.com”. It was demanded that these tapes be reviewed to learn how much involvement President Nixon had in the Watergate burglary. The President felt that he had the right to withhold these tapes through what he referred to as executive privilege. This means that if it is the best interest of the public the president has the right to keep information from the
Many have been imprisoned, then subject to the horrors of torture known as solitary confinement or administrative segregation (AS) in the Canadian prison system. No matter the crime, it is a harsh punishment to inflict on any human being. The practice typically involves confining a prisoner to a single cell 23 hours daily with no meaningful human contact. Administrative segregation can last for months to years at a time. It is non-rehabilitative as it has negative effects on human beings causing symptoms of depression and self-harm, cognitive disturbances, and psychosis. Additionally, inmates in AS are more likely than the general population to commit suicide. Punishment through administrative segregation is paradoxical to the Canadian prison
As a member of the dominant race in America, I know that I possess certain unearned privileges that allow me to be more successful overall. I was raised with the mindset that racism doesn't affect me because I am white. The U.S. education system taught me about my racial and ethnic history, but it is likely that my classmates of different races could not say the same. I learned about racism in school but not to view whites as privileged or degrading towards subordinate groups. My group was never seen at fault for oppression or took any responsibility for it. Myself, nor my peers, were ever seen or viewed as unfairly advantaged or privileged. I grew up under the impression that any person could achieve what they wanted if they simply worked hard
The President of the United States is considered to be the most powerful person in the world. However, the President is not given the full power, as we think they are given. The President’s legislative powers are defined by a checks and balances system among the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch of the American Government. What are the President’s legislative powers? The two main legislative powers the President has is to pass or sign a bill and to veto a bill. However, even if the President vetoes a bill, Congress can still override that veto by a two-thirds vote from both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
While relationship between the legislative, executive and judiciary largely remained the same, the public perception of President’s place in system has changed (Jeffrey Tulis, 1990). In the twentieth century, a strong executive emerged and was institutionalized in American national politics. Even though the framers anticipated that Congress would be the predominant branch of government, contemporary presidents wield formidable formal and informal resources of governance. As a result, the public expectations of presidents have grown and created a gap between expectations and formal powers. In an attempt to explain presidential power and its limits, four major often conflicting theories of presidential power has emerged in the last four decades.
According to Webster Dictionary, executive privilege can be defined as “exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government”. In more colloquial terms executive privilege is described as the president having the “right” to harbor secrets from congress, the courts, and public when the circumstance presents itself. The circumstance must be involving national security needs, along with keeping the integrity of behind the scenes discussions that occur within the White house. Although, this power is not directly stated within the constitution it’s often referred to as an implied power of the president. Every president of the United States has called upon executive privilege in their term thus creating
Almost every conflict situation consists of one party having more power than the other. When the power differential is significant, this usually has a major effect on both the matter and process of the dispute. In order for the outcome of the conflict to be fair, both parties must be relatively equal when it comes to power if resolution of the conflict is to be fair. If one side is far more powerful than another, they are more likely to impose their solution on the weaker party, who in turn will be forced to acquiesce, because they have no other choice.
Given the greater potential benefits and the relatively low consequence to the public en masse, one can contend that every state within the United States of America should adopt the current practices of the international community and extend the right to vote to felony probationers and parolees. The evident majority of the disenfranchised felons reside and work alongside the populous, yet are forbidden from voicing dissent or approval from the legislation that affects their families and themselves. With the gradual increase and rate of disenfranchised citizens this is a crucial moment to reconsider and revise these detrimental policies. Non-incarcerated felons should have suffrage for six reasons outlined in the following paper. Reestablishment of enfranchisement for probationers and parolees would: (I) proffer democracy; (II) diminish racial inequalities in access to the ballot box; (III) promote public wellbeing (as parolees
Many are aware that the President of the United States has the power to veto a bill, however many are not aware that all three executives are authorized the power of the veto a bill that is sent to them from the legislature. All three executives are also given the authority and ability to appoint certain criminal justice personnel, those who they choose have the ability to influence the criminal justice one way or another whether it be in a positive manner or a negative manner.