Lies, Deceit, Disdain and Arrogance
by L. J. Martin
Exercising executive privilege to protect national security is one thing, invoking it to cover your ass or to keep you in a positive light for political advantage is another. In the first instance it’s a patriotic act, in the second a cowardly and conniving act that reeks of the beginning of dictatorship.
It’s time to stop the president from covering obvious illegal acts with executive privilege. It’s time for the appointment of a special prosecutor, as was done in Watergate, to force the president and attorney general to stop hiding the truth from the people.
No branch of government represents the people more directly than the one-man one-vote branch that is the House of Representatives, and Obama and Holder are refusing to reveal the truth of their actions to the house, producing a cherry picked 10,000 documents out of the almost 200,000 requested by the House, by you the people. Are you, or anyone you know, so naive as to believe those documents produced are the incriminating ones? This administration is pissing in our faces again and telling us it’s raining. It’s raining all right, raining lies, deceit, disdain and arrogance.
I continue to be astounded by how stupid the president and his attorney general think we, the American public, are. Then again, maybe we are? Not complying with the request of the House is a slap in the face to every American citizen; invoking executive privilege is a dictatorial act, as far from a democratic act, as has ever been taken by an American president, particularly when, like Nixon, it’s done to hide illegal and politically devastating acts from the American people.
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of the doctrine of executive privilege in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a “sufficient showing” that the “Presidential material” is “essential to the justice of the case.” How can the covering of illegal acts by the attorney general’s office, which resulted in the death of a border patrol agent, not require a “sufficient showing?” This whiffs of why we rebelled from England and a “king” in the first place. Executive privilege is a specific instance of the more general common-law principle of deliberative process privilege and is believed to trace its roots to the English Crown Privilege.
Executive privilege is reaching past the constitution, back to the time of kings, and you and I being serfs.
How far will this president go to stay in office and continue the destruction of America?
Are we going to continue to stand for it, or will we welcome Obama as the first American dictator?
This from Wikipedia:
In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a “sufficient showing” that the “Presidential material” is “essential to the justice of the case.”(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch’s national security concerns.
Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.
In the context of privilege assertions by US Presidents, “In 1796, President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents related to the negotiation of the then-recently adoptedJay Treaty with the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Therefore, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House.”
President Thomas Jefferson continued the precedent for this in the trial of Aaron Burr for treason in 1807. Burr asked the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel Jefferson to provide his private letters concerning Burr. Chief Justice John Marshall, a strong proponent of the powers of the federal government but also a political opponent of Jefferson, ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for these sorts of court orders for criminal defendants, did not provide any exception for the president. As for Jefferson’s claim that disclosure of the document would imperil public safety, Marshall held that the court, not the president would be the judge of that. Jefferson complied with Marshall’s order.
In 1833, President Andrew Jackson cited executive privilege when Senator Henry Clay demanded he produce documents concerning statements the president made to his cabinet about the removal of federal deposits from the Second Bank of the United States during the Bank War.
End of wikipedia article.
It’s time we stopped the president in his dictatorial royal tracks, or time to begin bowing to the new King of America.