Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (55564)	4/2/2007 2:01:46 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

It's Called the Constitution By Jay Sekulow Friday, March 30, 2007 A controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has led to threats by Congress to issue subpoenas requiring Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and other senior White House advisors to testify and produce internal White House documents regarding the reasons for these firings. While U.S. attorneys are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, it is well known that they serve at the pleasure of the President. It is his sole discretion as to whether these U.S. attorneys maintain their positions. There is absolutely no statutory authority restricting the President's ability to remove a U.S. attorney for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, Congress has not made removal of a U.S. attorney subject to Congressional approval. It is important to remember that President Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office in 1993, and gave them only ten days to vacate their offices. This was certainly within his authority as Chief Executive and did not raise a firestorm of protest like the one that has been leveled at the current administration. Now a constitutional conflict and crisis looms. Congress is prepared to issue subpoenas and the President is prepared to exercise Executive Privilege. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales takes a question during a news conference in Washington, Friday, March 9, 2007.Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, FILE) Executive Privilege protects communications sent to or received by senior White House advisors and their staffs concerning the exercise of the President's authority to remove Executive Branch employees from compelled disclosure. The doctrine of Executive Privilege stems from the separation of powers and is designed to ensure candor between the President, his senior advisors, and those from whom they receive information. Article II of the United States Constitution provides that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" who "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." In the famous Supreme Court case, United States v. Nixon, the Court acknowledged that the Constitution affords a significant "privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications." Executive Privilege makes sense. It is based on the President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisors. The Supreme Court correctly noted that there is a: "valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision-making process." Executive Privilege is clearly applicable to communications authored or received by the White House counsel, senior deputies and advisors. In actuality, there are two privileges that apply here—both the Presidential Communications Privilege and the Deliberative Process Privilege. The President's decision to remove an Executive Branch employee, such as a U.S. attorney, is exactly the kind of quintessential policy decision that Executive Privilege is designed to protect. Any congressional attempt to interfere with the President's ability to obtain confidential advice about the desirability of removing U.S. attorneys from their positions would constitute an egregious intrusion into the area of responsibility allocated by the Constitution solely to the President, thereby violating the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers. Executive Privilege is the necessary means of ensuring that Congress does not overstep its constitutional boundaries by seeking to impair the President's performance of his constitutional duties. Here there has been no assertion of any criminal conduct, nor is a criminal investigation involved. History confirms that there is no precedent to override a claim of Executive Privilege where the information relates to a decision fully within the President's discretionary authority. It may well be that this ends up at the Supreme Court of the United States. If the Court does get involved, its fundamental focus must be to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. For in the end, that's what this issue is all about. Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. Listen to his radio show, Jay Sekulow Live, on Townhall here. Learn more about the ACLJ at www.ACLJ.org URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaySekulow/2007/03/30/its_called_the_constitution