* executive privilege has legal basis

The so-called administrative privilege refers to USA president and government administration officials have the right not to legislative and judicial departments and the public that they involve state secrets, information and talk. Then, the concept of administrative privileges is how come?

Professor of University of Chicago law school, is introduced. The legal basis of the administrative privileges Sangshitaiyin. He said: "the concept of administrative privileges from section first American constitution of second. The clause that administrative power, the president of the United states. The USA president for a long time, in order to perform the duties of the president, it is necessary to secure, for some conversation for example, if he and Secretary of defense national security talks, to ensure that the conversation does not appear in the next day's newspaper. therefore, administrative privileges can ensure that the president's chief of staff, call a spade a spade to putting forward the suggestion, also can make the president frank with them."

Washington lawyer Lee Casey's presidency in root was in America Justice Department work. He pointed out that, in fact, America Constitution itself and no mention of executive privilege, this right is composed of America court was established.

Lee Casey lawyers said: "the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the president, as an independent department on an equal footing with other government departments, has the right to provide advice and file staff confidential. Administrative privileges can make people rest assured, conversation and President frankly, without fear of their own to make recommendations to the president, the conversation will be published in the newspaper. Therefore, the real suggest administrative privileges can ensure that the president to maximize the staff."

* George Washington for the first time to exercise administrative privileges

George Jonathan professor of University of Washington law school. Turley pointed out that, since the founding American, USA president began in some way to exercise administrative privileges. He said: "the first president George Washington had refused to put some material to the first congress. However, what we say today is mainly to establish administrative privileges to President Nixon in 1974 in the case. In that case, the Federal Supreme Court in the award very detailed expounds the necessity of maintaining administrative privileges and restrictions on executive privilege."

The first president George Washington was the first USA exercising administrative privileges president. In 1790, America and Britain signed a controversial agreement. Many Americans believe that, the agreement does not meet the American national interests, many lawmakers have also signed the agreement very dissatisfied, they asked the government to publish the negotiations. However, Washington said, negotiation is the administrative department, he has the right to the privacy.

* presidents enable administrative privileges *

Clinton's presidency, in 1999, USA Congress had asked the White House to provide relevant pardon roll into engaged in bombings in USA of Puerto brother of the file, however, President Clinton refused to surrender to the administrative privilege this batch file. However, the presidents in the exercise of administrative privileges are not always handy. 1970's exercise of executive privilege, Nixon not only recognized by the court, but because of the "Watergate" lost officer.

Although the Constitution does not mention USA administrative privileges, but USA court ruling that said, this right is implicit in the USA constitutional principle of checks and balances. America president himself said, in order to perform the duties of the president, they need staff bluntly suggested, but do not have to worry about because of remarks by Congress called. However, the court also pointed out that America, executive privilege is not absolute.

* executive privilege is not absolute

In 1972, Nixon was elected president American, "Watergate" exposure, Congress against Nixon and his assistant in the re-election of cover up the truth of the allegations, and asked Nixon to hand over the relevant records and materials. However, Nick refused to hand over these materials pine by administrative privileges. He pointed out that, in order to ensure that the interests of the state, he has the right not to disclose confidential communication administrative departments to other departments of the government.

In July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that American, both America constitution the principle of separation of three powers, or high-level official secrecy need, does not ensure that the president's executive privilege is absolute and unconditional. The court accepted that the president has administrative privileges on the military and diplomatic finite field, but in fairness, justice of the Court pointed out, the basic requirements for legal program has priority, therefore, the president must obey the orders of the court to hand over the relevant record and material. Nixon had to obey the court's decision, and resigned from the presidency in 1974.

The representative of the Ministry of Justice Party in the Federal Supreme Court Nixon's lawyer Philip Rakowala pointed out that, administrative privileges only involved in the war plans, military command, weapon design and other major national security issues that should be protected, so the administrative privilege is not absolute.

Raco Vala lawyers said: "in the America v. Nixon case, the Supreme Court ruled that a is discussed, obstruction of justice, urged the perjury determine the president and his top aides, bribery of witnesses and other criminal activities is the compelling public interest, this is more important than the president for the general interest of the white House communications confidential."

Professor of University of Chicago law school, is analyzed. Sangshitaiyin President Nixon decision. He said, Nixon in this case is successful, also lost, he won because the court established the legitimacy of administrative privileges, losing because the court's decision also pointed out, this privilege is not absolute.

Professor San Stein said: "the Supreme Court ruling to determine the legitimacy of administrative privileges. The court ruled, both, or Congress, all can't get the president's remarks. If Bush president and Secretary of state on the North Korea talks, conversations not because of a newspaper interested and on the second day the newspapers. The Federal Supreme Court also ruled that, executive privilege is not absolute, it is a restricted rights, that is to say, only when it is absolutely necessary, the public, Congress or the courts to get the president's conversation."

George Jonathan professor of University of Washington law school. Terry is further explained the meaning of the court. He said: "the Supreme Court's ruling is said, the president can withhold some information and not given to Congress or the courts. However, this right should be balanced, because the administrative privilege is not an absolute right. If Congress have compelling reasons for requiring the president to disclose some information, then the president lost this privilege. For example, Congress for the investigation of criminal crime and put forward this request, the president must hand over the relevant information."

* Bush government privileges controversial *

At the beginning of 2007, American Congress to raise questions about the 8 federal prosecutors were dismissed a case in 2006. American judicial department said, the prosecutor was dismissed for poor performance, of course, this arrangement has been approved by the White House. After that, including the Minister of justice, the Justice Department officials have USA was summoned to testify before Congress, they are required to provide the relevant materials, the reason and sacked for prosecutors to explain.

Congress on further investigation, also request access to the relevant documents of the White House, at the same time, summoned senior White House officials to testify before Congress, these officials including Meyers, a former White House counsel, White House chief of staff and former White House political director Taylor bolton. Although Taylor should be summoned to attend the Congress to testify, but for many problems are to be avoided. Meyers and Bolton simply refused to attend.

The White House says, White House officials have administrative privileges, and congressional investigations so far found no criminal evidence, therefore they can not response to congressional inquiries. After the Congress, the House Judiciary Committee issued a "contempt of Congress". However, it also requires all members of the house of representatives to take effect after the vote.

* the Congress and the president who is right? *

Professor of University of Chicago law school. Sangshitaiyin, points out, both Bush president, or the Democratic controlled Congress, the two sides on the issue seems to be rational. From the Bush presidential party, he put forward the relevant federal prosecutors were dismissed the internal conversation not to Congress is justified. However, he tried to expand the presidential executive privilege practices, indeed makes many people uncomfortable.

On the other hand, Congress worried because of improper conduct in this incident and requirement to get the conversation about seems also justified. Cass. Sangshitaiyin professor thinks, if President Bush insisted not to publish the conversation, and Congress continue to exert pressure, both sides are likely to resort to the courts to resolve the dispute.

* democracy would solve the Congress President confrontation *

Washington lawyer Lee. Casey pointed out that, in the America history, if Congress and the president of confrontation, both sides do not want to appear on their unfavorable precedent. He said: "a lot of the time, both sides go to the limit, then their retreat, and reach a compromise. Finally, the result is often, Congress has required materials and testified, the president also avoids the public. In this case the equally likely to occur. However, from a historical point of view, it is hard to say which party prevails, sometimes the president win, some congressional win, these problems can be solved by general American political system."

Lee Casey lawyers believe that, once the court made the final judgment, regardless of which department, will follow, and this is where USA legal system advantage. He said: "the Congress and the administration, Congress and the president often what can open, what can not open a dispute. I think, this represents our institutional advantages, here, each other two branches of government, one attack, the other party will fight back, finally may resort to the court. Once a court verdict, whether Congress, or the president, they will abide by the court's ruling."

* any government departments have no absolute power

Professor of University of Chicago law school. Sangshitaiyin, points out, America political system of checks and balances. Any government departments have no absolute power. San Stein also pointed out that, administrative privileges applicable range of uncertainty, so that the public can more easily understand a truth through democratic means.

Professor San Stein said: "although we have different opinions, even quarrel, but whether or not the president, Congress, the final decision. Power is generally scattered in various departments. America constitution to now has been 200 years, we still have a lot of questions unanswered. Administrative privileges should be how to define, scope is much, the court has not yet. This leaves some room for manoeuvre by democratic means to put pressure on the president. For example, if the president is in the cover up a the truth of the incident, the public can ask him to open the content.