Does a former president have the right to assert executive privilege?
The question is the subject of some debate among scholars. Citing a landmark 1977 Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of a law ordering Nixon to transfer the White House tapes and other records to a government agency, some legal experts argue that a former president has an implied authority to assert executive privilege.
In the case known as Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, the Supreme Court rejected the government's argument that "only an incumbent president may assert such claims," and it held that Nixon, "as a former president, may also be heard to assert them."
The rationale for conferring the privilege on a former president is the same as the sitting president: If aides believed that a president's executive privilege ends with his presidency, so goes the argument, they'd be loath to dispense frank advice.
But other scholars note the Supreme Court ruling came before Congress enacted the Presidential Records Act of 1978, giving the incumbent president the ultimate authority to exert privilege.
While the Presidential Records Act affirms a former president's executive privilege, in cases of a dispute between a former and incumbent president, it is the current occupant of the White House's authority that matters, according to Schmitt.
"A former president certainly can try to make a claim of executive privilege, but it's still the case that the sitting president has the constitutional authorities and also the constitutional responsibilities to judge whether that claim is appropriate or not," Schmitt said.
Yeah - this will go back to the Supreme Court one day, and likely very soon. Presidential or Executive Privilege is really there so the POTUS can get a wide variety of advice to help him/her run the country - without the advice-giver(s) worrying about having that advice spread all over the world in attempts to embarrass the giver OR the POTUS.
If a current POTUS can override existing privilege from a former POTUS then what good is that privilege? NOBODY will offer advice a POTUS needs if it can be forced out into the open later by a political enemy. The article from VOA is simply absurd, and is the current "leftist" take because they feel they can harm their current enemy. It also shows how stupid they are because it will certainly boomerang on them one day.
From this VOA article:
Yeah - this will go back to the Supreme Court one day, and likely very soon. Presidential or Executive Privilege is really there so the POTUS can get a wide variety of advice to help him/her run the country - without the advice-giver(s) worrying about having that advice spread all over the world in attempts to embarrass the giver OR the POTUS.
If a current POTUS can override existing privilege from a former POTUS then what good is that privilege? NOBODY will offer advice a POTUS needs if it can be forced out into the open later by a political enemy. The article from VOA is simply absurd, and is the current "leftist" take because they feel they can harm their current enemy. It also shows how stupid they are because it will certainly boomerang on them one day.
I appreciate this more in depth context thanks friend