shane-o at the mighty corrente building posts on one of my favorite topics: how the bush administration's reliance on executive privilege is directly contrary to its support of "strict constructionism" in interpreting the constitution.
executive privilege is a completely judge-created right. it doesn't appear in the constitution anywhere. in fact, there is less textual support for it in the document than any of the rights that conservatives often carry on about (e.g. abortion, contraception, separation of church and state, etc.). executive privilege is also one of those modern creations of the judiciary--the kind of "new rights" that conservatives always say they don't like. it was first recognized by the supreme court in united states v. nixon, a case that came out the year after roe v. wade.
isn't it funny how bush is committed to a theory of constitutional interpretation, except in those cases when it doesn't favor his own administration?
