Executive Privilege and blocking subpoenas

[Whoa_Nelly]

With Bush's threat to use Executive privilege to block subpoenas, it seems that this US Attorney investigation may drag on much longer should the question of invoking such privilege be placed before the courts. I sure hope it doesn't come to that, but the question did send me on a quick info search.


http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

What Is NOT in The Constitution
<snip>
Executive Privilege

Executive privilege is a right to withhold information from the legislative and judicial branches by the President or by one of the executive departments. There is question of whether the right exists at all, a question that has lingered since the very first President, George Washington, asserted executive privilege in his very first term. Most times, executive privilege is asserted for purported national security reasons. Washington, however, asserted the privilege when the House requested details of the Jay Treaty - his rationale is that the House has no role in treaty-making and hence no right to request the documents. In modern times, Bill Clinton refused to simply comply with an order to appear before a grand jury, and instead negotiated terms under which he would appear. Richard Nixon's is the most infamous use of executive privilege, and while the Supreme Court, in U.S. v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), recognized that there exists a need for some secrecy in the executive branch, but that the secrecy cannot be absolute. The Court ordered Nixon to turn over tapes and documents that a special prosecutor had subpoenaed. More recently, the minutes and records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force were requested and denied based on executive privilege. This case made its way to the Supreme Court, but is still active.






Granted, the following article is about Cheney invoking Executive Privilege, but in light of Bush's recent threat that he will block any subpoenas regarding the US Attorney investigation, this is quite very relevant.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THROUGH DICK CHENEY

<snip>
What is Executive Privilege and Where Does it Come From?

The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information.

<snip>
The Scope of Executive Privilege: The Nixon Case

Presidents often assert executive privilege even if the information or documents sought are not matters of national security. They argue that some degree of confidentiality is necessary for the Executive Branch to function effectively. Key advisers will hesitate to speak frankly if they must worry that what they say will eventually become a matter of public record.

The Supreme Court considered this argument in the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon. A grand jury convened by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski issued a subpoena to President Nixon requiring that he produce Oval Office tapes and various written records relevant to the criminal case against members of Nixon's Administration. Nixon resisted on grounds of executive privilege.

<snip>
Nonetheless, the Justices concluded that the executive privilege is not absolute. Where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Court ordered President Nixon to divulge the tapes and records. Two weeks after the Court's decision, Nixon complied with the order. Four days after that, he resigned.

<snip>
The closest the courts have come to extending the privilege to such discussions was in the 1993 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton. That case raised the question whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") applied to the health-care-reform panel chaired by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. And that question, in turn, depended on whether the First Lady is, or is not, an officer or employee of the government.

Under FACA, if a person who is not an officer or employee of the government is a member of a government group, then the group's proceedings must be open to the public. The health-care-reform panel had kept its proceedings private, so if the First Lady was not a government officer or employee, it had broken the law. Fortunately for the Clinton Administration, however, the court held that the First Lady is indeed an officer or employee of the government, and FACA thus did not apply.

The court strained the statutory language in order to reach this conclusion - but why? The answer is that a contrary result--to be precise, a finding that the statute's requirement of public meetings applied to the health-care-reform panel--would have raised a difficult constitutional question. And, under a well-established principle of legal interpretation, courts construe statutes in order to avoid difficult constitutional questions. The D.C. Circuit applied that principle in this case.

According to the D.C. Circuit, the difficult constitutional question was this: Does executive privilege extend to conversations between Executive officials and persons outside the government? If so, then FACA unconstitutionally violates that privilege by requiring those conversations to be disclosed. Had the court ruled that the First Lady was neither a government officer nor a government employee, it would have had to decide the difficult constitutional question--for FACA then would have required disclosure of deliberations between the (non-government) First Lady and the executive branch government officials on the commission.

more at link