LAT: Bush (2001) Order (on Pres. papers) Lets Him Control Roberts' Memos

[DeepModem Mom]

(This story is an example of an important issue that probably will never make TV news, or be seriously considered and addressed by almost anyone among the general public. It's very easy to do these things with impunity.)


Bush Order Lets Him Control Roberts' Memos
A 2001 decree gives him the power to block the release of papers from presidential libraries, among them those of the high court nominee.

By David G. Savage and Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON — A little-noticed order issued by President Bush almost four years ago gives White House lawyers the right to block the release of memos written by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. when he worked for President Reagan.

The order, signed by Bush in November 2001, said the "incumbent president" had the right to approve the release of papers from the presidential libraries of his father, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan.

It set off a furor at the time among historians, archivists and librarians. They said it all but repealed the Presidential Records Act, a 1978 law that decreed a president's records were public property, not the private property of the former president. Under this law, a former president's papers were to be opened to the public 12 years after he left office. Exceptions could be made for national security reasons.

Bush's executive order added a new check. It said the "incumbent president may assert any constitutionally based privilege" after the 12 years had lapsed to block the release of files. Included among these many privileges were "records that reflect … legal advice or legal work."...

***

After Roberts' nomination, the National Archives office said it was prepared to release thousands of pages of files from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library near Simi Valley that came from Roberts' work as a White House lawyer from 1982 to 1986. But Bush's executive order did not permit their release until "the incumbent president an opportunity to review all the records," the archivists said....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-roberts11aug11,0,1821523.story?coll=la-home-nation

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. 'National Security' strikes again

Do they ever have to explain to anyone why someone/thing is a "national security" issue, or is it solely at the discretion of the POTUS?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. So then let's get it on the greatest page

or college football will cover it up

[tanyev]

3. And since the incumbent president still hasn't completed his

Hooked on Phonics tapes, it's going to be awhile.

[Talismom]

7. ROFL!!n/t

:rofl: :rofl: :spray: :spray:

[tk2kewl]

4. Extraordinary Circumstances!

Withholding info from the Senate qualifies, me thinks. :grr:

[progressoid]

5. Ooooh, so it's perfectly legal then.

:sarcasm:

[yodermon]

6. Constitutionality?

How does one go about challenging the constitutionality of an executive order??

[DeepModem Mom]

17. Anybody? Bueller? DU lawyer? nt

[FreeStateDemocrat]

8. Whatever happened to the most free and OPEN democracy in the world?

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Rule by edict

True to form.

[TankLV]

10. Yet somehow, coincidentally, Clinton items are misteriously leaked

constantly! And they can't figure it out!

Just in another amazing string of lucky breaks for this gang of criminals!

[shanti]

11. the *ush cabal set this up WAY in advance

they KNEW this was to be an issue. :grr:

[rodeodance]

12. bush is way out of line but what will be one about it?

A 2001 decree gives him the power to block the release of papers

[Kikosexy2]

13. No papers...

no appointment! No justice...no peace!

[hunter]

14. Roberts is clearly a right wing ideologue.

For his entire career Roberts has put out fires, cleaned up messes, and planned strategies for the Reagan and Bush administrations. He is not the mild mannered libertarian moderate people claim him to be; he is more like a very sharp and clever mafia lawyer.

I find it intensely irritating when people who only know Roberts from some puff piece they read in a news magazine claim I might be "plesantly surprised" once Roberts is appointed. That's Bullshit.

If the papers in the archives supported Roberts' nomination they would be released. But they don't. I'm fairly certain there are papers in the archives that would immediately derail Robert's nomination.

I'm not for giving Roberts any sort of pass. If Bush wants to get his Supreme Court nomination passed, let him nominate some well respected judge with a proven and public track record, not some viper who comes hissing out of the dark.

[Supersedeas]

15. little-notice!!!!! Historians hit the roof when they discovered this

executive order years ago. It was the INDEPENDENT?? (Corporate) media who little-noticed it (on purpose maybe)!!!!!!

[DeepModem Mom]

16. You're right -- and we noticed here at DU. But the story...

is not simple enough for mass media to pick up. I think few people understand the importance of something like this. The press, for example, had to explain the Constitutional significance of Nixon's Watergate actions to the public. Today, I'm afraid, they wouldn't do that -- Plame is portrayed as "political," fueled by disgruntled Democrats. There's no right or wrong now.