Secret advice to the president/vice president in domestic affairs legally protected?

[David Simmons]

Why should it be? I can understand why the formulation and planning of foreign and military matters need to be, especially during a war, but why in domestic affairs?

Is it some sort of game? Does the executive want to spring the details of a domestic program, like an energy policy, as a sort of ta da with the flip of a cape revealing it? Or is the secrecy wanted so that opposition will be unprepared when the proposal is finally sprung?

It might be able to understand and possibly even agree with secret advice if the advisors were all members of the president/vice president staff. However in the case of Cheney and the energy thing all of the planning and avisory group weren't staff.

In any case it seems silly. Cheney's energy proposal is going to be looked over with a magnifying glass just because he is so adamant about not saying who helped him formulate it. And even if that were not the case it wouldn't become law without congressional action which usually involves lots of hearings and outside witnesses not hand picked by the administration.

So why should proposals for action in public domestic affairs be formulated by a secret cabal?

[2sense]

The justification is that if public the advice will be politic rather than accurate. Apparently we have no reason to expect presidential advisors to have enough backbone to be honest even if it isn't the politically correct thing to say. When you realize the reasoning was formulated by the Nixon Administration everything falls into place.
-

[David Simmons]

The justification is that if public the advice will be politic rather than accurate. Apparently we have no reason to expect presidential advisors to have enough backbone to be honest even if it isn't the politically correct thing to say. When you realize the reasoning was formulated by the Nixon Administration everything falls into place.
-

I don't see how that explains it. Is it expected that staff would give the principal advice that they wouldn't want made public? What sort of advice would that be? "OK Mr. Vice President, if we accept A's suggested course we'll have $10 million more to split among us than if we accept B's?"

I can well believe that some politicians would ask for advice on how to do something that might be on the shady side and some staffers would give it. But why should it be protected legally? I don't see how revealing the process to the light of day reduces the president's power (seapration of powers argument). The president proposes legislation, such as the energy policy that Cheney formulated, which must be passed by Congress. If Congress calls a staffer to a hearing to explain how something was developed and the staffer refuses to answer, I believe I would start looking for a snake in the grass.

In the Cheney/energy case many of the advisors aren't even staff. I can see how an oil company executive might not want his advice made public, but how does keeping it secret with legal protection for the secrecy advance the public interest? And isn't that one of the executive department's responsibilities?

[2sense]

Hey, I'm with you; let the sun shine in. I was just giving their justification.