I fought the law, and I won

[cyrano]

Can somebody with more experience in Constitutional Law explain to me why Executive Privelege or Separation of Powers is being invoked to escape being called upon to testify (under oath, God forbid) before a congressional inquiry?
I mean, if Clinton had refused to meet with Ken Starr during HummerGate, or refused to allow cabinet members to do so, claiming that it would be inappropriate, certain political parties would have crucified him.

Seriously. How is G-Bu playing this avoidance of having testimonies, obviously important and relevant testimonies, being given or being given in private and not under oath?
Does he have a rational platform to stand on here, or is he just being the Chimpanzee in Chief again?

Comments

Separation

[forkmonkey.livejournal.com]

Separation extends to judicial oversight, meaning that it's pretty bloody hard to bring a sitting president to trial over anything, because the Judicial branch isn't constitutionally able to bring him to trial.

This was tested during the Clinton years, when Clinton was sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. Arguments were made that since the actions were not embroiled in his legal duties, he could be tried. Counter arguments were made that his schedule cannot be set by a court, so that he can't practically be brought to trial. Eventually, the Supreme Court failed to rule on some of these particulars but it did hold that:

"The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts--i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749, 752, and n. 32--provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct. Moreover, immunities for acts clearly within official capacity are grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it."

and

"The separation of powers doctrine does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office."

But, still, if a president does something really screwed up, the Legislature can impeach him and remove him from office.

Re: Separation

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

You rule. How do I not know this, having majored in PoliSci?
(Admittedly, not U.S. PoliSci but still.)