Should Executive Privilege Be Absolute

546 Words3 Pages
Should the Executive Privilege Be Absolute In United States, the Executive Privilege played a positive role on the president in domestic and foreign policy decisions, defend national interests and the protection of national defense secrets. However, this privilege can be abused by the president and executive members as well in seizing power, even provide legal basis to disguise their illicit activities at the White House. In my point of view, I think the executive privilege should not be absolute due to lack of transparency and supervision on the matter of personal interest and national security. As the strongest nation across the global, the president and members of the executive of the United States has the power to conduct a number of operations or information in secret and the executive privilege grants them to resist some legislative and branches of government for disclosing those communications if would potentially interfere the functions of executive branch (Legal Information Institute). However, with such privilege, anyone could make mistakes. The Executive Privilege could grant the president power to conduct operations for personal interest, such privilege can disrupt the justice of investigation. In the Watergate scandal, when the U.S. supreme court asked president Nixon…show more content…
In this situation, the executive privilege merely served as the amulet of the president to cover up his personal interest toward reelection, moreover, the investigation has been disrupted many times during the process and led to protest from many justice officials toward Nixon. It is clear that without supervision and regulation, the executive privilege did not serve its true purpose to protect the country and became a super untouchable protection for the president. Although after the protest, Nixon turned over some of the tapes rather than all of them, but the issue on properly use of executive privilege remains the
Open Document