Eisenhower’s executive privilege and the public interest

2019 ◽  
pp. 54-84
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Baron
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
White House ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Creation

This chapter delves into the depths of one of the most important developments within modern American politics, the creation and institutionalization of executive privilege. In facing a fervent Congress in the grips of McCarthyism, Eisenhower issued a letter denying testimony to the Senate for the Army-McCarthy hearings. His letter included a memo from Attorney General Brownell that claimed the president had an inherent constitutional privilege to deny information to Congress or the public if it was in the public interest and for national security. This action institutionalized the Cold War Paradigm in the executive branch and created an extra-constitutional power for the president. Eisenhower issued several executive orders concerning classification and public dissemination of government information, along with the creation of the Office of Strategic Information (OSI) within the Commerce Department to oversee these policies. Eisenhower claimed historic precedent to justify his inherent constitutional power, regardless, it showed a learned response that changed executive power. Congress would respond in 1955 by creating the Special Subcommittee on Government Information chaired by Rep. John Moss, given jurisdiction for oversight on all executive branch information policies and practices. With the issue of freedom of information institutionalized in Congress, a 12-year legislative power struggle would unfold between Congress and the White House ending with the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966.

Nixon and the resurgence of executive privilege

2019 ◽  
pp. 140-178
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Baron
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
White House ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
Security Concerns

With the passage and implementation of FOIA under Johnson, the CLDC moves into the next iteration by examining the implementation, oversight, and amendment phase. This was driven in large part by Nixon's actions after coming into office. While Nixon talked about transparency, he took steps to expand White House control over information, not just following the precedent of Eisenhower, but in expanding the scope of executive privilege. Nixon asserted that executive privilege covered all White House conversations with any staff, appointees, and employees, expanding beyond the national security concerns in the public interest of his predecessors. Nixon's actions to expand executive power left Congress in the position of again grappling with ways to respond, including eventually amending FOIA to strengthen the law as an oversight measure. The first FOIA amendments began under Nixon but would not be finalized until President Ford was in office.

Presidential Privilege and the Freedom of Information Act

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Baron
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Contemporary Politics ◽  
Government Secrecy

Executive privilege (EP) as a political tool has created a grey area of constitutional power between the legislative and executive branches. By focusing on the post-WWII political usage of executive privilege, this research utilizes a social learning perspective to examine the power dynamics between Congress and the president when it comes to government secrecy and public information. Social learning provides the framework to understand how the Cold War's creation of the modern American security state led to a paradigm shift in the executive branch. This shift altered the politics of the presidency and impacted relations with Congress through extensive use of EP and denial of congressional requests for information. When viewed through a social learning lens, the institutional politics surrounding the development of the Freedom of Information Act is intricately entwined with EP as a political power struggle of action-reaction between the executive and legislative branches. Using extensive archival research, this historical analysis examines the politics surrounding the modern use of executive privilege from Truman through Nixon as an action-reaction of checks on power from the president and Congress, where each learns and responds based on the others previous actions. The use of executive privilege led to the Freedom of Information Act showing how policy can serve as a congressional check on executive power, and how the politics surrounding this issue influence contemporary politics.

Оксана Кукуруз, Взаимодействие политики и права в процессе общественной трансформации в Украине и Республике Польша

2021 ◽  
pp. 158-162
Author(s):  
Ivanna Kyliushyk
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Book Research ◽  
Social Transformation ◽  
Common Goal ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Effective Development ◽  
Politics And Law

The author of the book research the interaction of politics and law as two important social regulators that have a common goal the effective development of society. The author defines the real models of interaction between politics and law, which have formed in Ukraine and the Republic of Poland in the process of social transformation, and the creation of an appropriate model, which should be based on the goal of ensuring the public interest.

scholarly journals The Attorney General, Politics, and the Public Interest. Contributions to an Evolving Constitutional Convention

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Michael Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Constitutional Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
Normative Framework

Abstract The prosecutorial independence of the Attorney General (AG) is a firmly established constitutional convention in Canada, but it is also an evolving convention, subject to ongoing contestation and debate. This article is a contribution to that debate. It defends a normative constitutional framework wherein the AG’s authority to make final decisions in matters of criminal prosecution is balanced against a corresponding duty to consult with cabinet and the prime minister on the public interest implications of prosecutorial decisions when the circumstances warrant. Within this normative framework, respectful contestation and debate amongst ministers, the prime minister, and the AG in determining the public interest merits of prosecution is welcomed, even encouraged, and if conducted with the requisite integrity, objectivity, and transparency, it is regarded not as a threat but as a valuable check and balance on AG independence and an indispensable form of quality control on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Government secrecy: public attitudes toward information provided by the authorities

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Gunnlaugsdottir
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
General Public ◽  
National Registry ◽  
Western World ◽  
Public Expenditures ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Public ◽  
Government Provision

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present findings of a survey conducted during 2012 in Iceland with the intent of examining public opinion on government provision of information, i.e. whether the public felt that the authorities withheld information, either about subjects of general public interest or about public expenditures, if the authorities felt there was a reason to do so. Design/methodology/approach – A survey questionnaire was sent in March 2012 to almost two thousand Icelanders. This was a random sample selected from the National Registry. The response rate was almost 67 per cent. The survey was modelled on other research and resources that had examined trust toward public authorities and the influence of Freedom of Information Acts on government information practices. Findings – The survey discovered that the greater part of the citizenry felt that the authorities did keep important information of general public interest secret often or sometimes. Only 2-3 per cent of them believed that this never happened. Most of those surveyed felt as well that important information about public expenditures was often or sometimes withheld. Only 3-5 per cent of the respondents were of the opinion that this never happened. Practical implications – The results could be of value to public authorities that want to improve the provision of information and practice according to freedom of information act. They could also bring varied and valuable opportunities to the profession of records managers as well as others who practice information management. Originality/value – The survey adds valuable information and fulfils a need for a better understanding of what the public believes regarding government provision of information in Iceland. Although the survey is limited to Iceland, these findings may also be of value to public authorities and researchers in the Western World, Australia and New Zealand, to give a few examples where the culture and the practice of government may not be that different, as well as in other countries. The survey can lay the foundation for further research into the field.

scholarly journals Tafsir Wewenang Seponering Jaksa Agung Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 29/PUU-XIV/2016

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilham Dwi Rafiqi
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
State Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of

The affirmation of the attorney general's authority in the Elucidation of Article 35 letter C of the Indonesian Prosecutor's Law after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 29/PUU-XIV/2016 still leaves problems and has the potential to cause new legal problems. This research will look at and analyze how the authority of the Attorney General after the decision is as well as how the concept of an ideal arrangement that ensures legal certainty. This research uses normative juridical research with a statutory approach and case studies which in this case are court decisions. The results showed that after Constitutional Court decision, there was a change in the meaning of the Elucidation of Article 35 letter c of the Republic of Indonesia Prosecutor's Law. Based on the results of these interpretations and decisions, the legal implications that followed were related to the conditions for setting aside cases in the public interest, namely in setting aside cases in the public interest, the Attorney General was required to 'require' first to pay attention to suggestions and opinions from state power agencies that have relationship with the problem. The concept of an ideal arrangement that can guarantee legal certainty as an indicator to measure and assess the implementation of the Attorney General's obligations can be done by clarifying the definition of "state power agencies" for which advice and opinions are requested and making criteria for the term "public interest".

scholarly journals Let the People Know the Facts: Can Government Information Removed from the Internet Be Reclaimed?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Nevelow Mart
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The People ◽  
Public Interest Groups ◽  
Types Of Information

Ms. Mart examines the legal bases of the public’s right to access government information, reviews the types of information that have recently been removed from the Internet, and analyzes the rationales given for the removals. She suggests that the concerted use of the Freedom of Information Act by public interest groups and their constituents is a possible method of returning the information to the Internet.

OPTIMALISASI ASAS OPORTUNITAS PADA KEWENANGAN JAKSA GUNA MEMINIMALISIR DAMPAK PRIMUM REMEDIUM DALAM PEMIDANAAN

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-236
Author(s):  
Yodi Nugraha
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
The Public

In the Indonesian criminal justice system, every public prosecutor possesses the authority to cease criminal prosecution in the name of public interest. In contrast, in the Netherland, only the Attorney General (Procureur Generaal) at the Supreme Court has this authority.  This article discusses this authority to cease of terminate criminal prosecution in the name of public interest.  To do this a comparative approach is used in which the ruling of this authority to terminate criminal prosecution as found in the Draft of the Indonesian Criminal Code will be compared against the same regulation and policy used in the Netherlands.  A doctrinal and comparative law approach will be used. One recommendation resulting from this research is the need to re-evaluate the existing procedure and requirement of terminating criminal prosecution in the public interest in the Indonesian context and the introduction of Rechter-Commissaris into the criminal justice system.

scholarly journals The response to whistleblowing by regulators: a practical perspective

Legal Studies ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 408-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Savage ◽  
Richard Hyde
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Appropriate Treatment ◽  
Regulatory Functions ◽  
Information Requests ◽  
The Way

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides protection for whistleblowers; it does not place statutory obligations on regulators to act in response to whistleblowing concerns. Using Freedom of Information requests as a research methodology, this paper seeks to examine how whistleblowing is approached by regulators and what happens when a whistleblowing disclosure is made. Forty-eight national regulators in a variety of fields and 408 county, district and unitary local authorities with responsibility for the regulation of food were contacted. The paper begins by considering the importance of whistleblowing disclosures and how they are protected in PIDA. The examination of the law reveals that several organisations with important regulatory functions are not prescribed, and this has the potential to create inconsistencies in the protection of whistleblowers. The bulk of the paper examines the results of the Freedom of Information requests. By examining the results of these requests, it was possible to show that there are a number of inconsistencies in the way in which regulatory agencies handle concerns. Several changes to practice are suggested in order to ensure that the whistleblowers receive appropriate treatment and that the concerns that they express can be properly addressed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document