Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-07-2019, 06:50 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,297

'Absolute immunity' versus 'executive privilege'


What is the fundamental difference between the "absolute immunity" that might be granted to any aide of a US president and the president invoking "executive privilege" in suppressing an aide's testimony?

Today, the House Judiciary Committee sued to to force former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II to testify before Congress. Apparently, the White House response will be to assert 'absolute immunity' from Congress's subpoenas.

I guess what I am really getting it is how is absolute immunity a fundamentally different defence than invoking executive privilege (and this NYT piece states that the two are not equivalent but provides no details), and if executive privilege is essentially inviolable, why does the White House not just assert executive privilege now? Why not play their trump card now? Am I wrong in thinking executive privilege is untouchable?

(I am putting this in Elections but could see it in GD or even GQ if the mods think it better placed somewhere else)
  #2  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:15 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
This is a good article about it (although it is one-sided and supports the controversial concept):

https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1164186/download

Basically, absolute immunity from testifying before Congress is larger than executive privilege. Executive privilege says that certain communications can be kept from Congress. Absolute immunity says that top advisors to the President cannot be forced to testify at all.

The idea is that Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches of government. One cannot order the other to do things like comply with a subpoena. As the article says, the President has no power to order Congress to come to the oval office, so why should Congress have the power to order the President or his top advisor to come to Congress?
  #3  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:32 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
Because the different branches have different powers, of course.
  #4  
Old 08-11-2019, 12:30 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Because the different branches have different powers, of course.
Very true, but there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that Congress has such a subpoena power. One may argue that its power to impeach constitutes a duty to investigate allegations which may lead to impeachment and to effectively investigate these allegations it must have a compulsory subpoena power, but does that lead to a power to subpoena the President's lawyer? That wouldn't fly in a normal grand jury proceeding.

Further, it would imply that the branches are not co-equal and that by giving Congress such a power it is greater than the Executive.

It is one of those interbranch tug of wars for which there is no precedent and will have to be fought.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017