In a Constitutional Republican Government, There is No Such Animal as Executive Privilege

During the last eight years of the Bush Administration, and for several administrations prior, a rather new term since the Nixon Administration has seeped into America’s consciousness thanks to the mainstream media and political “analysts.”  That term has become the buzzword for an unconstitutional extension of executive “immunity” euphemistically labeled “executive privilege.”

The Bush Administration, however, took this unlawful legal precedence one further and it has been utilized recently and on a number of occasions by Bush architect Karl Rove to extend to not simply presidential “executive privilege” with respect to subpoenas or testimony in furtherance of potential impeachment proceedings, but also to those such as himself who held top level appointed positions in the Executive Office.   Mr. Rove arrogantly ignored a Congressional subpoena in 2007, and has thus far suceeded with the Obama Administration’s now cooperation in securing private, not public, testimony before the House Judiciary Commitee which is slowly pursuing Constitutional recourse due to many of the Constitutional violations of the prior Administration in letters and memos which have recently come to light. 

So slowly it appears to be simply a PR stunt for the media in order to attempt to quiet those Americans who believe that those who hold public office and are thus extended the public’s trust SHOULD be held accountable for blatant and intentional violations of it.  The circumstances surrounding our entry into the War in Iraq by any definition which has both economically and personally cost the majority of the Americans their lives and property certainly would fit those parameters.

In founding our Constitutional Republican form of government, the founders specifically limited the duties and powers of the federal government in order to secure the “government of the people” they envisioned.  The only proscibed duties of the president according to that Constitution are few and very limited.  Those powers were intentionally limited in order to prevent another monarchy which was the form of government those founders fought a war in order to escape - the sovereign privilege and sovereign rule which had resulted in tyranny under King George against the people of both Great Britain, and the American colonies.

There are really only two designated functions of the president of the United States per Constitutional provision.  Congress, as representatives of the people and the several states were given ALL legislative powers, and were to abide by the Constitution also and their enumerated powers in the enactment of any potential legislation which were to be inflicted on both the states and the people in order to preserve those inalienable rights and freedoms that cost many of their countrymen their very lives in order to secure.   Simple logic:  more laws mean less freedom.