DOCSLIB.ORG

Page | 59 EXECUTIVE ORDERS in NIGERIA AS VALID LEGISLATIVE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Page | 59 EXECUTIVE ORDERS in NIGERIA AS VALID LEGISLATIVE OKEBUKOLA & KANA: Executive Orders in Nigeria as Valid Legislative Instruments and Administrative Tools EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN NIGERIA AS VALID LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE TOOLS* Abstract In carrying out the function of the office, the President in a presidential system such as Nigeria and the United States may issue orders to agents and agencies of the executive branch. These orders may set out government policies, issue directives or command action relating to functions of the executive arm. Particularly, when Executive Orders are gazetted and made enforceable with the force of law. An order issued by the President becomes rather controversial when it purports to make law. This paper identifies the nature and definition of executive orders, the questions of use, legality and form of executive orders. The paper also appraises the law on modifying and challenging executive orders. It then ends with a conclusion that executive orders may be law-making in disguise and also serves as administrative tools. This dual nature demonstrates that in Nigeria, there is both separation and sharing of powers. Finally, recommendations are made for transparency and accountability in the use of executive orders. The methodology adopted in arriving at the findings is doctrinal mainly relying on decided cases and existing literature on the subject or related subjects. Key words: Legislature, executive orders, constitution, administrative 1. Introduction Federalism is a “constitutional political system that creates separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government”1 at the national and sub-national levels. The concept of separation of powers is at the fore in the interaction of these three branches of government. Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (1999 Constitution), federal legislative power is vested in the National Assembly (the Legislature), while executive power is vested in the President and the judiciary have the power to interpret laws. In carrying out his executive functions, the President may issue orders to agents and agencies of the executive branch. These orders may set out government policies, issue directives or command action relating to functions of the executive arm. An order issued by the President becomes rather controversial when it purports to make law. This is because law-making is ordinarily within the remit of the legislature while the President is empowered to execute laws made by the legislature.2 Moreover, the 1999 Constitution does not set out to make the Presidency a law- making body working in competition against the Legislature.3 Some legal scholars therefore view executive orders as straddling presidential unilateralism and executive imperialism.4 Indeed many “commentators see executive orders as subverting the vitality of the Constitution.”5 * By Dr Elijah Oluwatoyin OKEBUKOLA, Lecturer/Researcher, Faculty of Law, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, [email protected] 08104512103; and Dr Abdulkarim A KANA, Ag Dean, Faculty of Law, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, [email protected] 08036003675 1 M A Cameron and T G Falleti 'Federalism and the Subnational Separation of Powers' (2005) 35 Publius 245- 271 at 246. 2 Cf. H C J Mansfield 'The Modern Doctrine of Executive Power' (1987) 17 Presidential Studies Quarterly 237- 252 at 238 where it is noted that the power of the President to veto legislation is not executive in the sense that it is not implementing any law rather it is preventing the existence of a law. 3 R Morton 'Beyond the Limits of Executive Power: Presidential Control of Agency Rulemaking under Executive Order 12,291' (1981) 80 Michigan Law Review 193-247 where it is observed that the framers of the Constitution of the USA did not intend the presidency to be an institutional competitor to the Congress. 4 C S Kelley 'Executive Orders and the Modern Presidency: Legislating from the Oval Office by Adam L.Warber (Review)' (2007) 37 Presidential Studies Quarterly 169-170 at 169. 5 J L Fleishman and A H Aufes 'Law and Orders: The Problem of Presidential Legislation' (1976) 40 Law & Contemp. Probs. at p. 5 Page | 59 NAUJILJ 2012 In view of the dearth of academic commentary on Presidential executive orders in Nigeria, this paper gives a general appraisal of the subject. In this regard, the paper identifies the nature and definition of executive orders. Next, it considers the questions of use, legality and form of executive orders. Afterwards, it appraises the law on modifying and challenging executive orders. It then ends with a conclusion that executive orders may be law-making in disguise and also serves as administrative tools. This dual nature demonstrates that in Nigeria, there is both separation and sharing of powers. Finally, recommendations are made for transparency and accountability in the use of executive orders. 2. Definition and Nature of Executive Orders The expression, executive order, is neither defined in the 1999 Constitution nor is it interpreted in any legislation of the National Assembly or House of Assembly of any State.6 Indeed, the very few Acts of the Legislature that contain the expression ‘executive order’ do not define or interpret it.7 The Interpretation Act also does not contain any definition of the expression.8 It is therefore important to start this paper with a working definition of executive order. For this purpose, it is instructive to turn to the United States of America (USA) which has a long history of presidential use of executive orders. Notwithstanding its age-old use in the USA, there has been no statutory or constitutional definition of executive orders. “The only statute on the subject, the Federal Register Act,9 calls for the publication of all executive orders, but fails to define them.”10 In addition to an absence of a statutory definition, none of the tens of thousands of executive orders that have been issued in the USA defines the terminology. Undeniably, several executive orders have provided instructions for the publication of orders and proclamations,11 but none endeavours to give a definition.12 Interestingly, Marbury v Madison which is the first case in modern USA constitutional law resulted from an executive order.13 Despite this early contact with the judiciary, there is no express judicial definition of executive orders. In situations like this where there is no executive, legislative or judicial definition, the enquirer has to turn to the academia for an unofficial but weighty clarification. Although executive orders have received much popular and scholarly attention”14 in the USA, they have till now received no scholarly attention at all in Nigeria. The American author, Mayer, defines an executive order as “a presidential directive that requires or authorizes some action within the executive branch.”15 To Raven-Hansen, “executive orders are presidential policy directives to the federal bureaucracy.”16 Despite the 6 In this paper, “Acts of the Legislature” refer to laws either made by the National Assembly or deemed to be existing law under section ... of the 1999 Constitution. “Laws of the Legislature” refers to laws made by a State House of Assembly. 7 See for example Section 5, Appropriation Act No 4 2006 and Section 5 Appropriation Act No 3 2007 which expressly mentions “Executive Order”, but do not contain any interpretation or explanatory provisions as to the meaning of the word. 8 Interpretation Act CAP I23 LFN 2004. 9 Federal Register Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 501 (1935), 44 U.S.C. 1505 (1970). 10 Fleishman and Aufes op.cit. at p. 6. 11 See for example Exec. Order No. 11030, 3 C.F.R. 610 (1959-1963 compilation). 12 Fleishman and Aufes op.cit. at p. 6. 13 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). 14 Fleishman and Aufes op.cit. at p. 6. 15 K R Mayer 'Executive Orders and Presidential Power' (1999) 61 The Journal of Politics 445-466, at p. 445. 16 P Raven-Hansen 'Making Agencies Follow Orders: Judicial Review of Agency Violations of Executive Order 12,291' (1983) 1983 Duke Law Journal 285-353 at 286. Page | 60 OKEBUKOLA & KANA: Executive Orders in Nigeria as Valid Legislative Instruments and Administrative Tools scholarly attention in the USA, they also do not have a precise definition of executive orders.17 The first definition above is assailable by the observation that not all presidential directives are executive orders. For instance, a directive terminating an individual’s employment is not strictly a matter of constitutional law. Such a directive would not amount to an executive order.18 The second definition can also be challenged with the remark that policy sometimes dictate directives,” therefore not all executive orders are presidential policy. For the purpose of deriving a working definition, this paper will conflate the abovementioned positions of Mayer and Raven-Hansen. The conflation is done in the foreground of the observation that numerous Acts of the Legislature, some of which are analysed later in this paper, contain provisions empowering the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to make legally binding orders. In this sense, the working definition of executive order is a command directly given by the president to an executive agency, class of persons or body under the executive arm of government. Such a command is in furtherance of government policy or Act of the Legislature. The executive order may require the implementation of an action, set out parameters for carrying out specific duties, define the scope of existing legislation or be a subsidiary instrument within the contemplation of section 37 of the Interpretation Act.19 Characteristically, executive orders do not give room for the choice to obey or not. They are therefore not normally directed at individuals in situations where the individual can lawfully exercise a choice of refusal. Thus, an exercise of conferred power to appoint persons into Boards, Governing Councils etc does not amount to use of executive order.20 They may nonetheless be directed at a class of individuals, for example, a class designated under sections 7 and 18 Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.21 This is not to say that an individual cannot be subject of an executive order.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case 1:01-Cv-02447-CKK Document 54 Filed 09/24/05 Page 1 of 24
    Case 1:01-cv-02447-CKK Document 54 Filed 09/24/05 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 01-2447 (CKK) NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (September 24, 2005) I. Introduction Presently before the Court is a dispute over the relationship between an executive order issued by the president of the United States and a statute passed by Congress. Plaintiffs have asked the Court to find that the president has overstepped the limitations on his power by issuing an executive order that alters the terms of a statute. Plaintiffs1 have sued the National Archives 1Plaintiffs listed on the First Amended Complaint, filed July 2, 2004, are the American Historical Association, a nonprofit organization founded “for the promotion of historical studies, the collection and preservation of historical documents and artifacts, and the dissemination of historical research,” Stanley I. Kutler, Professor Emeritus of History and Law at the University of Wisconsin, the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute and library, the Organization of American Historians, a nonprofit organization “devoted to promoting the study and teaching of American history,” Public Citizen, Inc., a public interest organization “dedicated to protecting the rights of members of the public as both consumers and citizens,” the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit “association of reporters and editors dedicated to protecting freedom of the press,” and the American Political Science Association, “the world’s Case 1:01-cv-02447-CKK Document 54 Filed 09/24/05 Page 2 of 24 and Records Administration (“NARA”), and the Archivist of the United States,2 (“the Government” or collectively, “Defendants”), seeking access to presidential records of former President Ronald Reagan that they claim are being improperly withheld by the executive branch.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions?
    Fordham Law Review Volume 79 Issue 6 Article 2 November 2011 Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? Robert V. Percival Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert V. Percival, Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? , 79 Fordham L. Rev. 2487 (2011). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol79/iss6/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHO’S IN CHARGE? DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE DIRECTIVE AUTHORITY OVER AGENCY REGULATORY DECISIONS? Robert V. Percival* Most regulatory statutes specify that agency heads rather than the President shall make regulatory decisions .1 Yet for more than four decades every President has established some program to require pre-decisional review and clearance of agency regulatory decisions, usually conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).2 On January 18, 2011, President Barack Obama joined his seven predecessors in expressly endorsing regulatory review when he signed Executive Order 13,563.3 President Obama’s regulatory review program generally emulates those of his two most recent predecessors, relying on OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to review only the most significant agency rulemaking actions.4 Although this form of presidential oversight of rulemaking is now well established, an important, unresolved question is whether the President has the authority to dictate the substance of regulatory decisions entrusted by statute to agency heads.
    [Show full text]
  • Society of American Archivists Council Meeting Minutes May 22 – 24, 2014 Chicago, Illinois
    Society of American Archivists Council Meeting Minutes May 22 – 24, 2014 Chicago, Illinois Agendas and background materials for SAA Council meetings are publicly available via the SAA website at: http://www2.archivists.org/governance/reports. Each Council meeting agenda comprises Action Items, Discussion Items, and Reports and the number/letter in the minutes (e.g., II.A.) corresponds to an item listed on the agenda. The minutes summarize actions taken and the outcomes of discussions. Reports generally are not summarized in the minutes (with the exception of the Executive Committee report, which details interim actions of the Executive Committee and Council), but provide a wealth of information about the work of appointed and component groups and the staff. To view the reports–and all other background materials–see the SAA website. President Danna Bell called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. on Thursday, May 22. Present were Vice President Kathleen Roe; Treasurer Mark Duffy; Executive Committee Member Bill Landis; and Council members Terry Baxter, Geof Huth, Elisabeth Kaplan, Michelle Light, Lisa Mangiafico, Tim Pyatt, and Tanya Zanish-Belcher. Council member Helen Wong Smith participated in the mega issue discussion via conference call but otherwise did not attend. Staff in attendance were SAA Executive Director Nancy Beaumont, Publications Director Teresa Brinati, Finance and Administration Director Peter Carlson, Education Director Solveig De Sutter, Program Coordinator René Craig, and, for a portion of the meeting, Web and Information Systems Administrator Matt Black. Also in attendance: Dennis Meissner, who will serve as SAA Vice President beginning in August 2014. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Transparency in the First 100 Days: a Report Card
    transparency i n t h e first 100 days: a report card Liberty & National Security Project Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 2 THE FIRST 100 DAYS.......................................................................................................................... 3 I. OPEN GOVERNMENT.................................................................................................................... 3 1. “Day One” emphasis on transparency............................................................................. 3 2. Restoration of presumption of disclosure under FOIA................................................ 4 3. Approach to public participation in policy-making ....................................................... 5 4. Support for the media’s right to report............................................................................ 6 II. PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS AND COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................. 8 5. Initiation of settlement talks in White House e-mails litigation................................... 8 6. Settlement in litigation over White House aides’ congressional testimony..............10 7. Executive order limiting former presidents’ ability to withhold records..................11
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidation of Power: the Use of Executive Orders, Proclamations and Signing Statements During the George W
    EIU Political Science Review Anderson Consolidation of Power: The use of executive orders, proclamations and signing statements during the George W. Bush Presidency Steve Anderson Introduction Like other Presidents before him, George W. Bush used his executive authority to craft policy both domestically and internationally. During both of his terms, he issued executive orders, executive proclamations, and used signing statements as a way to influence policies and assert the authority of the executive branch. Over the course of his two terms in office, President Bush was dealt a series of challenges, including terrorists attacks, war, and natural disasters. His use of executive power has changed the federal government and expanded executive authority. These were not without controversy, as some of his decisions have been met with criticism, legal challenges, and the repeal of some executive orders by his successor, President Obama. Researching the use of these executive tools helps to understand how the executive branch operates within and how it affects other branches and departments of the federal government. These actions of the executive branch can have profound consequences, such as Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of Franklin Roosevelt’s order to place Japanese-American citizens in internment camps. In studying President Bush’s use of signing statements, executive orders and proclamations, I plan to analyze the number of orders and proclamations, how they affected the scope of his authority, and how it was received by Congress and the courts. An executive order can be described as a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government having the force of law.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN HISTORICAL ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:01CV02447 (CKK) ) THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND ) RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) PLAINTIFF PUBLIC CITIZEN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT TWO OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION This motion concerns the public’s right of access to 11 specific documents that are part of the historical records of the administration of the late President Ronald Reagan, who left office more than 15 years ago. The Presidential Records Act (“PRA”) protects records containing confidential communications among the President and his advisers for 12 years after the President’s term ends, but provides that such records must thereafter be made public upon request, unless the release of a particular record would violate the Constitution. Accordingly, despite delays occasioned by President George W. Bush’s issuance of Executive Order 13,233, since the expiration of the 12-year period tens of thousands of records containing confidential communications within the Reagan White House about issues of the greatest sensitivity have been released to the public. The 11 documents at issue here, however, have been withheld because President Reagan’s representative has purported to assert executive privilege to bar their release. The documents, which range in age from almost 16 years to nearly 22 years and concern subjects as diverse as Mrs. Reagan’s use of military aircraft, international economic issues, planning, litigation, the President’s AIDS Commission, the Iran/Contra affair, presidential pardons, and (ironically) executive privilege, appear to have been arbitrarily singled out by the former President’s representative from a host of similar documents that have been released to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Attached List of Organizations RE: Presidential Records DATE
    TO: Transition Team FROM: Attached List of Organizations RE: Presidential Records DATE: November 12, 2008 The records of former presidents are critical resources for the public to understand our nation’s history and role in the world. An accurate and complete historical record of presidential decision-making is vital to our free democratic society. In a statement that is now inscribed at the entrance to his Presidential Library, President Harry Truman said: “The papers of the Presidents are among the most valuable sources of material for history. They ought to be preserved and they ought to be used.” To ensure an accurate documentary history, the Presidential Records Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207, made clear that records of the president belong to the public and are not the property of the outgoing president as he or she leaves office. The PRA created a framework for public access to the records. However, in 2001 President Bush issued an executive order that severely compromised the public’s interest in historical presidential records and reverted to a regime under which a former president may continue to exert ownership in the records, including through his or her descendents. That order purported to create new constitutional privileges to prevent disclosure and to grant authority to block release of records to individuals who never served in an elected office. The Bush order attempted to override the orderly process established by the PRA and regulations of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and created excessive delays that a court subsequently ruled illegal.1 Aside from the executive order that undermines the legal framework, every White House that has used email to communicate has struggled to adequately preserve and archive its email records, even as email has replaced paper records as the primary means of communicating within the White House.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
    Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Presented by Steven L. Hensen, Past President Society of American Archivists March 1, 2007 The Society of American Archivists (SAA) is the world’s largest organization of professional archivists, representing 4,800 members across the United States and in more than 20 nations. Archivists are the professionals who, among other things, are entrusted by society to ensure access to the records of the people’s government at all levels; to ensure the authenticity and integrity of those records; and to preserve and make accessible a credible and reasonably complete historical account of government and other aspects of society. In accordance with these archival principles and the ethical consequences stemming from them, SAA has spoken out frequently when public officials sought to delay or deny public access to their records. Thus it is not surprising that we would react when the records in question are those of the highest elected public office in the country—that of the President of the United States. In the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attack on the United States, President Bush issued Executive Order 13233, claiming national security concerns, among others. The national reaction to the order was swift and emphatic. A number of newspapers, magazines, and journals editorialized against it; organizations, historians, archivists, librarians, and civic activists from across the political spectrum issued statements denouncing the order; and lawsuits were filed. The House Committee on Government Reform, with broad bi-partisan sponsorship, approved legislation directed at overturning the order.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN HISTORICAL ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:01CV02447 (CKK) ) NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND ) RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, et al., ) Defendants. ) ) ) DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT After the Court issued its March 28, 2004 Memorandum Opinion ("Op.") in this case dismissing, on justiciability grounds, plaintiffs' facial challenge to numerous provisions of Executive Order 13,233, 66 Fed. Reg. 56025 (Nov. 1, 2001) ("EO 13,233"), and denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on their principal challenge, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ("Pl. Mot."). Plaintiffs contend the Court's justiciability decision is based on two "critical" (Pl. Mot. at 2) mistakes of fact: (i) that EO 13,233 is "not currently being applied, on an ongoing basis, to Reagan presidential documents (and Bush vice presidential documents)"; id.; and (ii) that plaintiffs "do not contest the lawfulness" of constitutional privilege claims asserted by both former President Reagan and President George W. Bush over 74 pages of Reagan Administration records subject to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207 ("PRA"). See Pl. Mot. at 2. Plaintiffs also submit a declaration alleging that one of the organizational-plaintiffs has pending requests for PRA-covered records at the Ronald Reagan and George Bush libraries to which EO 13,233 is being or will be applied. See Pl. Mot., Declaration of Thomas S. Blanton ("Blanton Dec."). Based on these facts and assertions, plaintiffs contend that "the judgment entered on March 29, 2004, and the Memorandum Opinion filed that same date" should be withdrawn.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act
    Monday, November 5, 2001 Part IV The President Executive Order 13233—Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act VerDate 11<MAY>2000 13:42 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05NOE0.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 05NOE0 VerDate 11<MAY>2000 13:42 Nov 02, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05NOE0.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 05NOE0 56025 Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 66, No. 214 Monday, November 5, 2001 Title 3— Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001 The President Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures implementing section 2204 of title 44 of the United States Code with respect to constitutionally based privileges, including those that apply to Presidential records reflecting military, diplomatic, or national secu- rity secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President’s advisors, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) ‘‘Archivist’’ refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee. (b) ‘‘Presidential records’’ refers to those documentary materials maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to the Presi- dential Records Act, 44 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Order 13233, the National Archives, and the Capture of Presidential History
    THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY STRIKES BACK: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13,233, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, AND THE CAPTURE OF PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY STEPHEN H. YUHAN* In November 2001, after delaying the release of President Reagan's presidential papers, President Bush issued Executive Order 13,233, which limits the ability of the public to access presidential documents by giving the sitting president and former presidents an effective veto over the release of their records. In this Note, Stephen H. Yuhan argues that Executive Order 13,233 is an impermissible aggran- dizement of presidentialpower at the expense of Congress, the National Archives, and the public. In an effort to find the outer limits of the President'spower to issue executive orders, Yuhan looks first to the watershed case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Finding that Youngstown fails to yield any definitive answers, Yuhan then draws on case law and legal scholarship on the President'sappointment and removal powers. Yuhan contends that preventing arbitrary decisionmaking must be the paramount consideration in evaluating executive orders. Because Executive Order 13,233 creates an intolerably high risk that Presidents will exercise their "veto" power over the release of their records for arbitrary or self-interested considerations rather than the public good, Yuhan concludes, the executive order violates separation of powers. INTRODUCTION: PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY BY INVITATION ONLY In its first three years, President George W. Bush's administra- tion has been notable for its unwavering focus on setting the political agenda and controlling the news cycle and the flow of government information generally.1 This has led the Bush administration, among other things, to assert and rely on an expansive notion of executive * Copyright © 2004 by Stephen H.
    [Show full text]
  • The Past, Present, and Uncertain Future of Presidential Records
    �� ���������������������������������������������������������������� Nancy Cricco and Peter Wosh THE PAST, PRESENT, AND UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS THE FOLLOWING PAPERS concerning the recent controversies over presidential records originally were prepared for a symposium held at New York University (NYU) on February 26, 2002. The Archi­ vists Round Table of Metropolitan New York (ART) sponsored this program, which also received support from New York University's graduate program in Archival Management and Historical Editing. Several factors convinced both ART and NYU's archives program that this symposium was especially. Record­keeping concerns have generated extraordinary popular interest and provoked sharp public debate over the past two years. A series of national and local controversies, which may collectively become known as the Records Wars of 2001-2002, provided archival issues with a height­ ened visibility. Questions concerning national security, executive privilege, the Freedom of Information Act, privacy rights, and public access to government records all have come to the fore. Archivists contributed vigorously and intelligently to these discus­ sions. They lobbied effectively, built useful coalitions with various research constituencies, and played an important role in presenting complex issues to general audiences. In the process, archivists also learned much about what unites them as a profession. They dis­ covered that archival perspectives do matter in profound ways, that records issues can resonate with both press and public, and that their unique insights can make significant contributions to a democratic cultural discourse. This appeared to be an ideal time to 86 The Past, Present, and Uncertain Future of Presidential Records 87 probe deeply into these recent issues and generate some profes­ sional debate.1 The 1978 Presidential Records Act appeared under unprecedented attack at the time of the conference.
    [Show full text]