Whether or not there is statutory basis for “Executive Privilege” , it could be proscribed by law.

If government ought to be ethical, then all officials of government ought to be accountable. If all officials of government ought to be accountable, then there ought be no way to evade accountability. If there ought be no way to evade accountability, then “Executive Privilege” ought to be either eliminated or restricted to request. Government ought to be ethical. Therefore, “Executive Privilege” ought to be either eliminated or restricted to request.

Here is the wikipedia link about Executive Privilege.

Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the interests of “good government” what do you think the United States should do with “Executive Privilege” as it currently exists?

Discuss.

For those voting to either "expand" Executive Privilege or "leave it alone", why do you support a mechanism for unethical government?

I voted restrict. Like everything else, it needs clarification, perameters and balances.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

Agreed it can do some good, but the present boy over uses it...

Don't be stupid, giving power to those head up the goverment is hardly "unethical". It needs to be expanded.

I don't have the time to get into it right now but i'll come back to this thread at some point.

I voted to leave it alone.

Government ought to be effective.

If, in order to be effective, government needs to be secretive then wholesale government accountability is contrary to the best interest of the governed.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

I voted to restrict it. While I can see a need to keep some things away from the general public. I think it has been abused, not just by bush but admins before . If it's used to protect the National Security and that alone then ok, however if there's a need for an investigation pertaining to something illegal or possibly illegal all cards need to be on the table.

Except our officials ARE held accountable, either through elections or through impeachment, which is an act carried out by those who themselves will subsequently be held to account for THAT action.

There is absolutely NOTHING preventing Congress as a body from impeaching the President or any other officer of the Executive branch for refusal to cooperate fully with Congress' oversite role. If they fail to do so, and enough of the people are outraged by that inaction, they will be held accountable. If they do so in an overly partisan or political manner, and enough people are outraged by their action, they will be held accountable.

But Congress does have the absolute power to hold members of the executive branch accountable, and their decisions to do so, or not do so is driven by the reflective will of the people in the end.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I was origionally going to vote "restrict" but Marcus's post makes alot of sence. While the privileges could be abused, the will of the people is ultimatly the final judge. - I voted "leave as is"

Restrict. This country was founded as reaction to monarchy. The Executive is not meant to be all-powerful.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Congress, however, is to a considerable degree a dysfunctional body, and a far more effective check would be to do away with secretiveness and allow the full light of day to disinfect the festering moral rot that permeates our gov't.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

If it ain't broke....

__________________
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to
change it." -- Barack Obama

I concur.

Hmmm that's true, and interesting; however the US has seemingly held a long fascination with "royalty" and dynasticism in politics, eg the Stevenson's of Illinois, the Tafts of Ohio, the Freylingheusen's of NJ, the Udalls, the Bushs, the Kennedy's, etc etc etc.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

False dilemma.

Government ought to be effective at what?

There is no necessary connection between secretiveness and effectiveness. In any case, the right of the people to have ethical government trumps any "efficiency" concerns and there is no necessary reason why ethical government can't also be efficient. Necessarily, ethical government is in the best interest of the governed.

Red herring and irrelevant appeal to popularity. Whether or not the people's will is to hold the executive branch accountable or not is beside the point. It is a responsibility of the legislative branch to hold the executive branch accountable. Anything which hinders or obstructs that accountability is by definition contrary to ethical government. You imply some showdown between the branches of the government on this issue. There is no need for there to be such a showdown neither is that approach necessarily constructive.