Question about seperation of powers

[Non_Comformist]

Hi all,

Hope you can help me with this. On 60 minutes, Condaleza Rice said that there is a long standing principle that sitting National Security Advisors do not testify before congress and that the seperation of powers needed to be maintained. My question is, forgetting the politics of it, what is the theory behind this principle?

[Cubswin]

OK...i think what you are asking is why are there seperations of power and where do they come from?

Back in the day, one the biggest concerns of the framers of the constitution was the concentration of power in the hands of one person....why you ask? Well that big bad king of england didnt treat anybody well... especially the wee little american colony. Our forefathers saw the problems of a monarchy and wanted to avoid this. The first attempt at a constitution was the articles of confederation. This first attempt at a constitution failed to create a strong enough federal government. Basically, the states were more powerful then any central governing body and did whatever they wanted. Something needed to be done to create a more central government, but one that did not give anyone person too much power. Soooo... poof.... along comes the constitution as we know it today.

The constitution first three articles spells out the powers of the executive, legislature, and judiciary. The framers were careful to define the roles and powers of each of these 3 branches so as to make sure that power didnt fall in the hands of anyone person. In ensure that any branch of the government doesnt become too strong there are certain checks that one branch has over another. For instance, the president can veto legislation passed by the congress. Or the congress can block a judicial nomminee (this is a check of the legislature on the executive). Or the courts can check both the legislature and executive by declaring a law unconstitutional.... ok you get the point.

So when we talk about seperation of powers we are talking about the roles of each branch of government.... and what Condy is saying is that the legislature is over stepping their powers by asking her to testify. The problem is that while the constitution attempts to spell out the roles of each branch of government there are some gray areas. The role of government was much smaller back when the constitution was drawn up and their was no need for a stinking NSA.

So what happens now??? Well, the administration is going to contend that there is no precidence for a NSA to testify and the congress will continue to cry foul. In the end, she will not testify unless she wants to do so.

I hope this all makes sense.... if you want me to explain something in more detail just let me know.

regards
cubswin

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Back in the day, one the biggest concerns of the framers of the constitution was the concentration of power in the hands of one person....why you ask? Well that big bad king of england didnt treat anybody well... especially the wee little american colony. Our forefathers saw the problems of a monarchy and wanted to avoid this

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm up for some pommie bashing but this isnt accurate

the seperation of powers is a concept that evolved from the english common law - it wasnt invented by the people who wrote your constitution it was probably adopted by them from the english model of government and law

dont feel bad - i live in an english colony too

the thrust of what you describe as the seperation of powers is correct...

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[GWB]

It should be noted that Executive priviledege has been claimed primarily by the White House and not the various cabinet agencies. So Colin Powell will testify under oath, while Condi Rice who is one of the several hundred people who are actually in the White House staff exerts Executive Priviledge.

My closest advisors are in the White House staff, and I need to receive their advice without fear of interference of Congress.

W

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
It should be noted that Executive priviledege has been claimed primarily by the White House and not the various cabinet agencies. So Colin Powell will testify under oath, while Condi Rice who is one of the several hundred people who are actually in the White House staff exerts Executive Priviledge.

My closest advisors are in the White House staff, and I need to receive their advice without fear of interference of Congress

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not happy with the tone of this statement george - i dont know the exact breadth of privelege that extends to the executive in the USA government but i doubt it would extend to most if any business in government agencies - i suspect they didnt "claim" some form of privelege because they simply arent covered by the legal concept

courts dont usually interpret executive privelge broadly - in the words of a famous australian politician "keep the bastards honest"

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[GWB]

My point was that the vast majority of the Executive branch is not protected by Executive Priviledge (usually), just the President's White House staff of a couple hundred people. Condi Rice for example has no real power in government except as an advisor to the President.

The President can't compel Congress to do his bidding, and the Congress can't compel the President to do theirs. Both the White House and Congress are relatively small organizations, and must be free to operate without control by the other. It is important to not set precedents that will diminish either branch's legitimate independence.

Large government departments like State and Defense are different in the sense that they are not closely tied to any of the 3 independent political branches (Supreme Court is third). Congress has a legitimate oversite role over these, while the President is the "CEO" over them.

[spamuell]

Much as I'd love the UK to take the credit for this idea, the original doctrine of the Seperation of Powers was written by Baron De Montesquieu (I can never spell this name), who was, unfortunately, French.

This was influenced by John Locke though, who I'm pretty sure was English. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Chris Alger]

The constitutional and legal basis for limiting executive accountability to Congress arises in the prospect of Congress using its investigative powers -- which clearly apply to the Presidency -- to cripple the executive's ability to exercise its delegated powers (recalling that all government powers are delegated by the people through the Constitution). But there is no "tradition" of National Security Advisors invoking a blanket right to refuse to testify under oath. (At least two prior NSA's did). If push comes to shove and she's served with a subpoena, Bush could theoretically invoke Execuitve Privilege and refuse to let her testify, but the Supreme Court hasn't acknowledged that any such privilege even exists. (Nixon lost the argument in a decision that seemed to open the possibility a privilege that extended to national security, as opposed to an ostensibly more mudane criminal offenses).

What's interesting, however, is Rice's willingness to testify at all while insisting it be in private. It appears that the only reason to testify in private without an oath would be to shield someone from perjury charges while making statements that one wishes to conceal from the public. Under this circumstance, the usual arguments regarding executive privilege wouldn't apply.

[slavic]

It appears that the only reason to testify in private without an oath would be to shield someone from perjury charges while making statements that one wishes to conceal from the public.

How about switching "while" to "and/or"

As the NSA Condi would certainly have information that could not be publicly stated. If that information was key to the understanding of the committe then speaking in public would be pointless. Since the nature of hte enemy is to use the major news networks as their intelligence wouldn't this make more since?

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
the seperation of powers is a concept that evolved from the english common law - it wasnt invented by the people who wrote your constitution it was probably adopted by them from the english model of government and law

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you grossly misrepresented what i said. In no way did I imply that the framers of the constitution invented the concept of seperation of powers... I simply explained why that concept was adopted. This concept evolved from both common law and the work of many great thinkers. By the time the constitution had been drawn up, however, the idea of seperation of power in america had evolved leaps and bounds ahead of the english variety.

[ QUOTE ]
dont feel bad - i live in an english colony too


[/ QUOTE ]

i do feel bad for you....you guys are still in the commonwealth [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

regards
cubs