Mr. President, What Are You Hiding?

It's not unusual, of course, for a President to invoke claims of executive privilege when he's got something to hide. Pres. Nixon made an art of executive privilege during the darkest days of Watergate when Congress was approaching him like Indians coming for Custer at Little Big Horn. Executive privilege is more often abused than used to protect genuinely sensitive information, so one might well inquire just what is the Constitutional basis for such power? The answer, as you might expect, is that there is none. That's right, there is absolutely nothing in the US Constitution that protects Karl Rove from being called to testify before Congress. There is nothing in the US Constitution that gives any protection to the White House from oversight by the Congress.

Not that the lack of a Constitutional outline is in and of itself reason to question its validity. After all, as hopeful members of a potential US theocracy are quick to point out, there is also nothing in the Constitution specifically mandating the separation of church and state. Both concepts derive their power from Constitutional challenges and the resulting judicial decisions. It has become a de facto part of the Constitution that the intent of the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of religion was partly to make sure that the affairs of religion played no part in the affairs of state. This was of primary concern to the architects of the US government who were well acquainted with British history and the conflict of interest inherent in having the King of England also be the head of the Church of England.