Does the "Presidential Executive Privilege" mean that the President is above the law, able to do anything?

Question

Does the "Presidential Executive Privilege" mean that the President is above the law, able to do anything?

Answer 1

I hear they have Constitution toilet paper at the White House.

Answer 2

NO he is not above the law the ability to use executive orders were given to him by the law. Not illegal at all. All presidents have used them.

Answer 3

I think the president should read the constitution upon waking up every morning, to be reminded, you know?

Answer 4

Actually no, no one is above the law, not even the president history has proven this fact true through watergate with Nixon who was impeached. and clinton who also faced impeachment through purjury (sry cant spell at this moment) when he lied about his relations with his mistress.

Answer 5

The original point of executive privilege was to prevent the Congress from usurping the power of the executive branch through endless investigations and hearings.  The effect of the privilege under Bush is that it is invoked to protect the President and his cronies from prosecution for their illegal acts.  Witness: Bush invoked the privilege to prevent the testimony of the Attorney General concerning the leak of Valerie Plame's name.  This was a crime, and no orders or cover-up concerning the leak could possibly be the proper use of executive authority.  It is not proper to invoke the privilege to frustrate criminal investigations.

Answer 6

That's exactly the point.

Answer 7

No.  It means that there are certain powers it has that cannot be usurped by Congress or the courts.

Just as an individual's Fourth Amendment right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure does not mean that such an individual "is above the law, able to do anything."

Answer 8

Executive privilege is the same as the Congressional privilege which can be used to prevent what each considers an unwarranted intrusion into its sphere of constitutional autonomy. This is a necessary provision of the Separation of Powers inherent in the US system of government. It has nothing to do with being “above the law.” For the Executive Branch, there are Constitutional appointees such as Cabinet Secretaries who are appointed by the President under the authority of the Constitution and accountable to the people of the United States via their elected representatives in the US Congress. Hence Congress has the authority to call Cabinet members before their bodies to testify under oath. This is their Constitutional privilege. However the Executive also has the authority to hire, at his own expense, advisors who are accountable only to the President. They are there to give advice in the most frank and open manger free of political oversight and/or public scrutiny. This ensures that they will not hesitate to give the President the advice he needs rather than editing their remarks in fear of being called to account for them. Congress has no legal authority over such people hence the President may exercise his “privilege” to prohibit Congressional intrusion into the business of the Executive Branch. This is the same law that Clinton used to prevent Richard Clark (Presidential advisor on terrorism) from testifying before a Congressional Committee on Terrorism in 1996. It is the same law that Congress used to prevent the Justice Department from raiding the Congressional offices of Congressman William Jefferson despite overwhelming evidence that he had already committed several crimes under color of office.

I understand that to the uninformed and/or politically motivated, this all may seem a vast obstruction of justice. But in reality it is a necessary component of the system of justice.

Answer 9

It is pretty much a loophole that prevents the President and his administration from taking any accountability for their actions.

Answer 10

No. The president, and all that have sworn the oath, are expected to act lawfully. The president has broad powers, some of which the Congress at times, seeks to constrain, and likely would, were it not for Executive Privilege. As Commander in Chief, the president can act without Congressional approval to initiate actions based on presidential finding, a document citing some intelligence data and a cause for action. Some believe such executive orders allow the president "to do anything".

Some activities calimed to be protected by executive privilege include White House policy strategy meetings, such as the VP's energy strategy meetings with his advisors. Opponents have demanded release of meeting information, on the belief that discussions amounted to collusion or some othe unlawful activity.

Answer 11

When you take civics in school...Make sure that the teacher covers separation of powers as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Answer 12

That my friend is what it is all about.

Answer 13

Absolutely not!

Answer 14

No one is above the law, but some people do get away with murder.

Answer 15

To some degree yes. However, claims of Executive Privilege while often abused do not always protect Presidents from wrong doing. Nixon's claim of Executive Privilege regarding the Watergate tapes was rejected. I have no doubt that he would have been civilly charged after leaving office if Ford had not pardoned him.

Answer 16

Simple answer NO. Complicateded answer we don't have

enough time or space on this venue, to go over all the

factors involving executive Privilege. Trust me on this one

please, I have beat my head against the wall a number of times during investigations involving the White House..