Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....most Executive Orders are administrative.....it becomes an abuse of power when they change the intent of laws enacted by Congress and signed by former presidents.
|
In the original law, to me, it did not seem clear under what circumstances a current President could deem an issue worthy being held in confidence due to for example national security. Also, it did not seem clear to me under what circumstance a former President could deem something personal and not public record. I think Bush's executive order gives the benefit of the doubt to the President and former President - with the issue still being subject to court order.
Quote:
|
And how can historians accurately "focus on actions, inactions and results" if documents pertinent to those actions, inactions and results are selectively withheld?
|
The reason I used Alexander The Great as an example is because I think historians have done a excellent job or reconstructing his political an military strategies and actions/inactions without extensive records of Alexander's, writings, messages, private meetings and conversations.
I have listened/read some of Johnson's phone conversations while he was President - I can't say they added any value to the historic record in my opinion. In Nixon's situation that is different, but he was under no obligation to record all of his conversations - and Presidents after him certainly would self edit what they say on tape. History in my opinion is best served when information his gathered in circumstances where the participants act as they normally would. We don't need staged history.