I'm new to the political scene. But I was watching the news and the term executive privilege was used and a brief explanation was provided. I researched the term and found out that it has been used by past and present Presidents. The executive privilege clearly states that individuals connected to the executive branch of government will not acquiesce to demand to disclose confidential information in cases where the outcome will negative affect on the executive branch or detrimental operations. What a crock! I searched the constitution, and I could not find the concept of executive privilege. This leads me to believe that the term is an implied presidential interpretation. Is this possible? If so, Should the concept of executive privilege be defined in a statute to ensure important information is not excluded from review for political reasons or should it remain a rather undefined term to protect the privacy of the President

Dark_crow

It is constitutional privilege that exempts members of the executive branch from disclosing information that affects national security. However, executive privilege cannot be used to cover up actions and policies that involve an outright violation of the law, or to shield an official who might have lied to Congress. Yes, executive privilege is controversial because of occasional abuses.

tomder55

Executive privilege is an implied power of the executive. This has been debated throughout our history . The courts has generally taken a position that it will not rule on issues of seperation of powers ;even though they have in fact ruled both ways throughout history ;so the issue will continue to be debated.

That is not what it implies at all. Generally Presidents have argued that they cannot get candid advice from their staff if the staff is then compelled to testify to Congress and have their advice revealed under oath and posibly jeopardize them .Even in the Watergate case;where the courts made a rare ruling against executive privilege the ruling allowed for "the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties."

You are correct in saying that it has been used by past and present Presidents. In fact perhaps the earliest use of the concept was in the Washington Administration. Alexander Hamilton created a National Bank and Washington directed him to justify it Constitutionally against protests by Jefferson ,and Madison . He made the defense that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution.
Ironically Jefferson who argued against the concept had no trouble invoking executive privilege when he purchased the Lousiana Territory.

Ok so the debate continues then . My position on this is that all 3 branches have implied powers that are subject to use and abuse. We have just discussed executive powers but how about legislative and judicial implied powers ?

Does the Necessary-and-proper clause. or the "elastic clause" (Article 1 Sec 8)allow Congress to pass laws that go beyond the scope of enumerated powers ? They do all the time. Necessary-and-proper clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nowhere in the constitution is the concept of judicial review. But SCOTUS in McCulloch Vs. Maryland and Marbury v. Madison ,decided that they indeed have implied powers Why are McCulloch Vs. Maryland and Marbury Vs. Madison important? - Yahoo! Answers.