August 11, 2007
by Evans Munyemesha

It is my observation that some writers have gone to great pains to impress upon the mind of the reading public the usefulness of both the Executive Privilege and the Presidential Veto; but in so doing they have entangled themselves in their indefensible legal inventions. As long as mankind is vulnerable to temptations; as long as political power is subject to abuse; and indeed as long as the exercise of executive privilege and the presidential veto, whether singly or in combination, supplies room for grievous oppression of those who are governed, it then becomes propitious and imperative to closely examine these political articles.

This brief examination of executive privilege and the presidential veto is, in a great measure, an examination of the said political powers on behalf of and for the benefit of all those who have either renounced their use of their reasoning powers or surrendered to the legal tyranny that Precedent is sufficient in and of itself to be the basis of an argument.

As all persons are originally equal in their subjection to the laws of Heaven (and apparently to the 'laws' of their own making); and that all are equally bound by the rule of law*, it must then be a matter of curiosity in how some mortals could exalt themselves above the rest by invoking executive privilege, and whether by so doing, afford us all the means to a freer life. In order to gain a clear and proper idea of the design of executive privilege, let us trace it to its source.

Neither antiquity nor the Constitution expressly reveals anything about this peculiar privilege of the executive, but the arrogance of presidents and the vicious ingenuity of legal counsels which divide mankind into antagonistic parties invent it in 1796 and set it up as a precedent. Here then is the origin and rise of executive privilege, namely, George Washington, first American president. Having neither sound basis nor firm foundation, it comes as no surprise that its understanding is cloudy, and its legal interpretation, witless.

Thus far six American presidents (including George W. Bush) have invoked it.  The Executive Privilege was thus first introduced into the world by a Founding Father, from whom the preceding presidents of America copied the custom, proposing, through its invocation, to make it a mainstay of the American legal system. Here, then, we have an instance of how a political chimera, through the force of custom, acquires the nature of   a legal principle.

So established, the executive privilege becomes one of the most creative political devices of the political establishment for the promotion of secrecy and corruption. By declaring certain information inaccessible to all but only to the executive branch and its favored accomplices, this institution furnishes for itself a means by which it could conspire against us all; it excludes itself from any open, independent, and thorough examination. But observe with me that of all professions (if politics is properly a profession!), that which is most attractive to the most base, the publicly dishonest, and the generally untrustworthy is that of the politicians; but it is in this same profession of perpetual immoralities and incomparable ineptitude that we find self-important office-bearers arrogating to themselves the power of securing national secrets (presuming that 'national secrets' is an expression with any conceivable meaning).

But as the exemption of one man from certain laws of the nation, and his elevation so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the principles of equity, nor can they be defended on the authority of legal precedent, for the former is repugnant to justice and the latter must first be shown to be right and impartial, sound reason must expressly disapprove of the legitimacy of executive privilege. Claiming executive privilege as a defense of a particular position without offering additional and incontrovertible proof of that claim is not only impious nonsense but as well sinful self-worship, for no other privilege is prone to abuse than that which lies idly within the reach of some public officer. Idleness, I am reminded, is the father of all manner of mischief.

(Article Continues Below)

To the execrable power of executive privilege is joined the power of presidential veto. But as the first is a perversion of power, the second, a derision of the wisdom of the many.

Now to confer the power of presidential veto to one man supposes that the wisdom of the president is superior to that of the legislators, yet the testimony of experience, attentive observation, and careful study is in opposition to this superstitious and vulgar supposition. If, in general, it is admitted that the product of the combined intellectual efforts of the many is superior to those of one, it is then odd and ridiculous that one man should have the power to veto the product of the efforts of the many. This political arrangement, insensible and odious, could have no support from well-founded philosophy. It certainly is a political product of mad men calculated to darken and stupefy the minds of the human flock.

It is timely for me to ask how the apparently legitimate power of presidential veto descended upon us.

Firstly, the power to veto is a remnant of the ancient and tyrannical republic of Rome.[1] But bearing in mind that there are numberless absurd and mischievous notions from antiquity, which pass readily in the world for sense, integrity, and justice, while in truth they tend only to ally folly with sophistry, fortify error, and encourage  criminal misconduct, it would be less than congruous to contend that the presidential veto, a devious device from a savage age, has any place in a free society.

Secondly, even if the Romans were a wise people in their time, that would still be no grounds for this generation to accept their artful and potentially dangerous concoction, for their political wisdom would be inferior to the political wisdom of this age on account that our political experience is far more vast than theirs was because we know more today than they knew back then. As our political experience is the sum of their political experience and of many centuries thereafter; and, therefore, as far as experience goes, our generation is wiser, and more capable of forming finer political opinions than they were able to.

Thirdly, the position of the president excludes him from the affairs of the legislature, yet bestows upon him the power to veto the conclusions of these affairs. Could there be something more farcical than this?

A close examination of both Executive Privilege and Presidential Veto (and indeed into a million more other such erroneous political and legal artifices) is at this time imperatively needful on account that, to continue holding onto certain practices simply because 'our forefathers practiced them' could never secure for us a proper condition necessary for our freedom or justice, or those of others. And as any old but unexamined vile custom will continue to terrify the mind, so a people obstinately attached to the prejudices of a dark era will be least likely to detect how quickly they could voluntarily sink to serfdom.

Can we honestly, as freethinking persons, testify that these two powers accorded to the president have served their purposes justly, and have not been the tools of political intrigue and abuse? Are we so sure that these two powers are not a greater temptation to secrecy, wickedness, and unwise adventures? If a man could look upon himself as having special powers or rights which are not available to all, and that some of his actions are not subject to open scrutiny, what is there to check his folly and discipline him? If political 'power corrupts', any extra powers intermingled with that initial political power will surely not fail to poison the whole character of a man. Such a man, deluded by his political privileges soon loses sight of the true interests of a free society, seeing himself as a demigod strongly medicated by the poisonous political medicines of Executive Privilege and Presidential Veto!

If you enjoyed this post, please consider the following:

1. Make a donation of $1 or more to help keep this website active.


   click here

2. Click Here to Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

3. Share this page or get the Populist Party RSS Feed

Evans Munyemesha [send him email] is author of soon to be released libertarian book, "Poverty: A Treatise On Its Principal Cause"

************

* I intend to offer my private opinions on the much boasted principle of the 'rule of law' at a later date, principally in opposition to Professor A. V. Dicey's interpretation of it in his popular book, Introduction to the study of law of the constitution (1885).

[1] The Beginnings of Rome: Italy From the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (Circa 1,000 to 264 B.C.); Routledge History of the Ancient World, by Tim J. Cornell