Executive Privileges

I was reading online from various sources that a few other people in the executive branch have used or tried using "executive privileges" before.

Washington – once
Jefferson – once
Eisenhower – 40 times
Nixon – once
Henry Kissinger – once
Truman- once
Hillary Clinton (1993) – once
Bill Clinton – 6 times
G. W. Bush – four times
Cheney – Once (about whether Cheney must release papers related to the energy commission he headed in 2001) [Retrieved 8-10-07 from http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=mulhauser062504]

Executive privileges were upheld by the supreme court to protect the government. Instead it is used it to divide the dems and republicans further. Like former Republican Howard Baker said in a banquet dinner on C-span televised 8-10-07 we must "use politics wisely and learn to play together" [paraphrasing].

Also: The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information. [Retrieved 8-10-07 from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html]

It's a congressional gambit used only rarely, because the courts hate to referee what they see as political disputes between the other two branches of government. Its power is not absolute in getting aides off the hook. Congress can vote to declare them in contempt and refer the case to court for prosecution.
And a court fight over defying subpoenas, legal experts say, would mean a long wait for Congress. "To play it out in court ultimately means a two-year legal battle, where in the interim they'll get no answers to anything," says Stan Brand, a Washington, D.C., defense lawyer and former legal counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives.
"There is a stronger presumption in favor of executive privilege in those cases of White House advisers who are very close to the president, part of the inner circle, whose advice is really crucial for the day-to-day operations of the White House," Rozell says. [Retrieved 8-10-07 from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html]

The issue of executive privilege arose in court during Thomas Jeffersons presidency (who wrote the declaration of independence and was barely elected president). Counsel for Aaron Burr, on trial for treason, asked the court to issue a subpoena. In response to the government's suggestion that disclosure of the letter would endanger public safety, Marshall concluded that, if true, this claim could furnish a reason for withholding it, but that the court, rather than the Executive Branch alone, was entitled to make the public safety determination after examining the letter.And that pattern persists to the present. [Retrieved 8-10-07 from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html]

There are actually legislative (House and Congress) privileges in the Constitution. No executive (White House) and no judicial (Supreme Court).

The Founders never envisioned, and the Constitution of the United States does not provide for, a presidential privilege allowing White House advisers to flaunt congressional subpoenas, especially in the context of an investigation of potential executive branch impropriety. If the Founding Fathers thought the president needed a privilege, they would have provided for it. Of course, legal history teaches that presidents have prickled against the Constitution, while courts have enabled our chief executives. Although the executive and the legislative branches are coequal in some ways, the Constitution instructs that in the area of privilege they are not. The courts have been reluctant to recognize congressional (legislative) privilege.[Retrieved 8-10-07 from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/arti cles/2007/07/31/privileges_limits/]

I was watching the Alberto Gonzales, former Secretary of Justice, in the Justice Oversight hearing on C-Span today 8-10-07 and he will not answer a yes or no question. He will only gives these blanket statements like "other people" and "he was there on behalf of the president." He won't say that he had talks with the President or the vice President or anyone in the white house. What is the deal with these executive priveleges? Alberto Gonzales wasn't even under these executive priveleges at the time of these questions and he still wasn't answering the congress. If Gonzales was telling the truth he would just answer the questions. "The Dept. of Justice and the Dept. of Defense are the two most important departments in the government" according to republican Arlen Specter as he addressed Gonzales in the questioning.

I am sure there are more examples of executive privileges being used. I would love to hear about them.

Thanks. God Bless.

Aaron.