« The Other Moderate Voice - New York Times
Rush Limbaugh Versus Democrats Has Deeper Political Significance »



Court Invalidates Portion of Bush Executive Order

October 2nd, 2007
By JEREMY DIBBELL

Print Print

D.C. Federal District Court judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has struck down a narrow portion of Executive Order 13233, a 2001 directive from President Bush which sharply limited future access to presidential and vice-presidential records. The ruling [PDF] came yesterday in the case of American Historical Association et al. v. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the Archivist of the United States, which has been working its way through the legal pipeline since 2004.

While Kollar-Kotelly dismissed much of the AHA’s lawsuit (which is joined by other organizations, including the National Security Archive, the Organization of American Historians, Public Citizen, and the American Political Science Association) for lack of standing, she did conclude that Section 3(b) of the Executive Order violates the Presidential Records Act and its subsequent regulations. The PRA regulations state that once former presidents receive notice from NARA that records from their administration are to be released, “the Archivist shall not disclose any records covered by any notice … for at least 30 days from receipt of the notice by the former president.”

Bush’s E.O., however, states “After receiving the records he requests, the former President shall review those records as expeditiously as possible, and for no longer than 90 days for requests that are not unduly burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester during this period of review or when requested by the former President to extend the time for reviews.” Kollar-Kotelly agreed with plaintiffs that this conflict did not jive with the PRA regulations: “The Bush Order effectively eliminates the Archivist’s discretion to release a former president’s documents while such documents are pending a former president’s review, which can be extended - presumably indefinitely - upon the former president’s request.”

The ruling continues “… Defendants seem to miss that after 30 days from a former president’s receipt of notice of documents to be disclosed, the Archivist may make a discretionary decision with respect to the release of such documents though they are pending the former president’s review. Accordingly, in relying on [Section] 3(b) of the Bush Order, the Archivist effectively denies himself the discretion (and accordingly the need to make reasoned, discretionary decisions with respect to the appropriate length of review) to release documents still under a former president’s review as he is permitted to do …”. Kollar-Kotelly also disagreed that “removing discretion from the Archivist with respect to what constitutes a reasonable time for said review after 30 days has expired would somehow threaten a former president’s ability to make privilege determinations.”

Therefore, the judge “ordered the National Archives not to withhold any more documents based on that section of the executive order.”

Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling did not address the overarching question of whether E.O. 13233 is constitutional or whether former presidents or vice presidents can claim executive privilege as grounds for withholding documents.

White House spokeswoman “Emily Lawrimore said the White House was reviewing the opinion and considering its options.” The decision could be appealed. National Security Archive general counsel Meredith Fuchs said the ruling avoided “the hard questions”.

A bipartisan bill to overturn E.O. 13,233 in its entirety, H.R. 1255, passed the House in March by a vote of 333-93, and has been placed on the calendar in the Senate but faces a filibuster threat there.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm and is filed under As Yet Unassigned. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« The Other Moderate Voice - New York Times
Rush Limbaugh Versus Democrats Has Deeper Political Significance »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.