logo for Harvard University Press
Executive Privilege
A Constitutional Myth
Raoul Berger
Harvard University Press, 1974
In Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth, Raoul Berger demonstrates that the presidential claim of authority to withhold information is without historical foundation. This pioneer study is a trenchant refutation of the self-serving presidential “precedents” upon which the executive branch relies. By examining the Parliamentary and constitutional basis for the “claims” of privilege, Berger exposes the shallow and disingenuous “proofs” now on record. His study balances the possible investigatory excesses against the evils which have resulted from resorting to executive secrecy, and Berger maintains that our democratic system is imperiled by the assumption that the people and the Congress may know only as much as the President considers appropriate. If there must be secrecy, Berger concludes, its bounds should be determined by the courts, not by the branch of government interested in concealing unratified policies or misconduct. One of the author's prime examples of how misconstrued power and secrecy have led to disastrous results is the escalation by stealth of America's involvement in the war in Asia. Berger's history is the most complete account of executive privilege ever attempted. His epilogue brings the whole question of executive secrecy up to date.
[more]

front cover of Reclaiming Accountability
Reclaiming Accountability
Transparency, Executive Power, and the U.S. Constitution
Heidi Kitrosser
University of Chicago Press, 2014
Americans tend to believe in government that is transparent and accountable. Those who govern us work for us, and therefore they must also answer to us. But how do we reconcile calls for greater accountability with the competing need for secrecy, especially in matters of national security? Those two imperatives are usually taken to be antithetical, but Heidi Kitrosser argues convincingly that this is not the case—and that our concern ought to lie not with secrecy, but with the sort of unchecked secrecy that can result from “presidentialism,” or constitutional arguments for broad executive control of information.
           
In Reclaiming Accountability, Kitrosser traces presidentialism from its start as part of a decades-old legal movement through its appearance during the Bush and Obama administrations, demonstrating its effects on secrecy throughout. Taking readers through the key presidentialist arguments—including “supremacy” and “unitary executive theory”—she explains how these arguments misread the Constitution in a way that is profoundly at odds with democratic principles. Kitrosser’s own reading offers a powerful corrective, showing how the Constitution provides myriad tools, including the power of Congress and the courts to enforce checks on presidential power, through which we could reclaim government accountability.
[more]


Send via email Share on Facebook Share on Twitter