Serious or satirical?

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

And you think if you can't figure out what executive privellage is you should be posting on a political forum?

The Constitution never mentions executive priveledge so it's a good thing Nixon had a Supreme Court to bail his ass out isn't it?

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

There are many things the constitution doesn't talk about, there are loads of laws on the books that have been written years later, every President in history has used executive privellage, heck Clinton told us about the Secret service having a privellage.

Source on every president claiming executive priveledge?

It seems like whenever a Republican uses executive priveledge it's to hide something criminal.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

As appossed to when Clinton did it to hide infidelity....

What do you mean Source? Every single President has used Executive privellage because each has issued an executive order.

You'd think this trend alone would be enough to get the Dems to draft impeachment articles.

__________________

Executive Privilege dates back to 1796.

It has been asserted in a number of cases, by presidents of both parties.

It is a recognized response under the law. Hard to see how this merits impeachment. Exercising your rights under the law scarcely qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor.

It simply means a court will have to decide whether the documents are released or not.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

And which law would that be, Matt? The law that Scalia and Thomas have created for Bush and friends, or the law that applies to the rest of us?

__________________

It is the law that Bush and Company used their magic time machine to go back and establish in the late 1700s.



The case law (you might have a read at the findlaw treatise I posted) supports the existence of executive privilege. Many presidents have cited the privilege. It's all in the article I linked.

Can you please cite the law that makes claiming executive privilege a criminal act? Since you claim it is sufficient cause for impeachment, this should be no problem.

Honestly, I see absolutely no basis for claiming privilege on these documents. But I don't see it as a crime, either.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Would it have killed you to post the link again?It's not: the last time I checked, obstruction of justice was a criminal act.

(I'll let you dig up the findlaw link to obstruction of justice for yourself.)

__________________

Sorry.

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

I guess you think that if the police subpoena an attorney's notes, and the attorney claims privilege, then he or she is obstructing justice as well?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Ah, but in that case there has to be a client involved. This executive branch isn't working for anybody but themselves so...no client, no comparison.

__________________

Do you agree that there is a basis in law for a claim of executive privilege?

If so, how can asserting a privilege constitute a criminal act?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

If it's used to conceal a criminal act. Next question?

__________________