Jewish World Review April 9, 2004 /19 Nissan, 5764
Bush was right to permit Rice to testify on 9-11
To allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath before the Sept. 11 commission, President Bush had to stand down from a claim of executive privilege. Mr. Bush was right to do that, but let's give the privilege its due.
Mr. Bush has described executive privilege as a "principle" of separation of powers. That's an all too brief way of putting it. The framers of the Constitution understood that there are three kinds of power legislative, executive and judicial and that good government lies in the distribution of at least the bulk of each kind of power to Congress, the president and the courts.
The framers also understood that the elective branches might clash. Indeed, you could say that clashes between the two are inevitable. After all, a Congress that wants from a president information that it regards as necessary to its legislative task is within its rights to insist that he give it up. And a president who wants to maintain his ability to carry out his executive function is equally within his rights to assert a privilege to hold back the information.
Mr. Bush justified his claim, as past presidents have, by citing the need for receiving confidential and candid advice from staff members: "A president and his advisers, including his adviser for national security affairs, must be able to communicate freely and privately, without being compelled to reveal those communications to the legislative branch."
It would be nice to have a tidy solution when the two branches so fundamentally disagree. But the framers failed to provide one. Not that they could have, for disputes between branches can't be governed by rules drawn up in advance. As University of Texas political scientist Jeffrey Tulis has observed, "There is no formula independent of political circumstance with which to weigh such competing institutional claims." Ordinarily, things are worked out through some sort of compromise acceptable to both branches.
In February, the commission interviewed Dr. Rice in private. She wasn't under oath, and the interview wasn't recorded. When the commission asked her to return for a public interview under oath, the president's lawyers countered by offering her for another private interview that would be recorded and then transcribed and made public. But the commission stood its ground, and the president yielded.
"Political circumstances" surely affected Mr. Bush's change of mind. Consider that if there is one case in which the national security adviser's public testimony before Congress is absolutely essential, it would have to be the one at hand. For here we have a body created by Congress and sanctioned by the president himself that's probing what went wrong before the Sept. 11 attacks and what changes should be made.
Consider, too, that the commission has demonstrated that it isn't embarked on some effort to undermine executive power. In return for her public, sworn testimony, the commission was willing to agree not to request any additional testimony of that kind from Dr. Rice or other White House aides, nor to regard her appearance as setting a precedent for making future requests for such testimony.
Though Mr. Bush won't concede the point, his claim of privilege wasn't helped by another "political circumstance" Dr. Rice's frequent media appearances in which she sought to rebut a former counterterrorism aide's criticism of the administration. Had Dr. Rice stayed off television, the president's assertion of the need for strictly private communications with his advisers would have been more persuasive.
When Dr. Rice takes her seat today before the commission, the debate will shift from what the president's spokesman calls "process" to "substance" from the dispute over executive privilege to the issues involving Sept. 11. Yet given our government of separated powers, process questions inevitably will return, with this president and this Congress and with future ones. Executive privilege will be back.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington
and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.
03/25/04: Colleges doing away with their racially exclusive programs
03/02/04: What does a conservative beat mean for The New York Times?
12/31/03: America is right to press for religious freedom worldwide
10/22/03: Case involving pledge should be easy for justices to decide
10/15/03: Dean places political considerations ahead of national security
08/28/03: Colleges creating policies that discourage intellectual exchange
08/14/03: Progressive reform could end up limiting government
07/30/03: Congressman, please consult Miss Manners
07/23/03:Words reveal much about Bush: Maybe there is a reason he won't retract sentence
07/08/03: Justices also said affirmative action must end
06/25/03: Court's law school ruling isn't persuasive
06/24/03: Whatever the Lynch story, everyone wants it
06/18/03: A judge shows he can set aside his strong views
06/04/03: Boston church becomes politically important again
05/28/03: YWCA names culture warrior as its new head
05/23/03: Washington steps in to help teach history
05/13/03: It may take another election to change filibuster rules
05/07/03: Paige works to improve education from inside out
04/30/03: Iraqis have choice to make regarding religious freedom
04/16/03: Is it acceptable for an education secretary to state a personal preference for religious schooling?
04/08/03: University officials must put academics ahead of athletics
04/02/03: Support for our soldiers means support for their orders
03/27/03: 'Free Iraqi Forces' underscore Bush's sincerity
03/18/03: Dems misunderstand judge's job
03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less
© 2003, Terry Eastland