What does Beauregard have against open government?
Posted by BrianSenator Jeff Sessions is publicly putting a hold on a bill known as the Presidential Records Act Amendment of 2007 (H.R. 1255). Just what is this bill?
The legislation would narrow a 2001 executive order from President George W. Bush that gives broad authority for former presidents to prevent public disclosure of their administration records — and for the first time extends the power to former vice presidents.
…
The new records act would establish a 40-day deadline for a former president and the current president to object to the release of records by the federal Archivist.
It would also limit the power of former presidents to withhold their presidential records. Under Bush’s executive order, if a former president asks the current president to object to the release of a record on the grounds of executive privilege, the current president must back that claim. Under a previous executive order issued by Ronald Reagan, the former president could make the request, but the current president was under no obligation to assert the privilege. The legislation under hold would revert to the Reagan system.
The legislation would also eliminate a former vice president’s right to assert executive privilege. “The bill restores the long-standing understanding that the right to assert executive privilege over presidential records is a right held only by presidents,” the coalition said.
Seems quite reasonable. Open government is in the publics best interest. You can read the text of the bill here.
The bill passed the house by a vote of 333-93 with 7 not voting. Alabama’s delegation was nearly split down party lines with Democrats Bud Cramer and Artur Davis being joined by just one Republican, Jo Bonner, in voting yes.
Has anyone read much about the bill? I’d certainly like to know how Sen. Sessions thinks the public is best served by blocking the bill.
Related content:
January 27th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Is there any way to trump a “hold”? Or does W still get to hang onto his secrets as long as there is one senator loyal to him?
Jo Bonner voting with the Dems. Huh.
And this part just seems silly: “Under Bush’s executive order, if a former president asks the current president to object to the release of a record on the grounds of executive privilege, the current president must back that claim.” I mean, what’s to stop “current Presidents” of the future from signing their own executive orders to release whatever they darn well please, no matter what former Presidents might request?
January 27th, 2008 at 11:37 am
From the fine article, it appears not. Reid brought it up for a vote under the “unanimous consent rule”, Sessions objected, thus no unanimous consent. Next step would be for Reid to take the bull by the horns under different rules. My guess, he will not, since the other side takes the rap for the bills failure, he and his get points for bringing up and oh BTW the bill’s demise would benefit Clinton, Gore, and Carter. Could be bad if say a note from Gore to an Exxon PAC turns up thanking them for their donation.
Maybe I am too cynical and too ready to say the fight is fixed .
January 28th, 2008 at 7:14 am
The Mobile Register covered this in their “Political Skinny” column this morning. Sessions:
“I think presidents and former presidents have some right to have personal communications that are not disclosed and we’ve always recognized that,” the Mobile Republican said Thursday when asked why he stopped a quick vote on the bill earlier in the week. Asked whether the White House asked him to do so, he replied, ‘Basically, yes.”
So, there you have it.
Yes, Walt, I read a little Google and apparently they can overturn a hold with a cloture vote, but it’s never done because it would be rude or something. And yes, I’m sure Dem presidents have a lot to lose too—although none of them seem to have been willing to go quite so far to make sure that tick tock, the game is locked.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Del, regarding your last sentence, we’ll see it in 2009.