Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
On a fairly minor issue, but at least a judge has finally told the White House that one of their fanciful legal theories on why the public has no right to know anything that goes on there is wrong. AP reports:
White House visitor logs are public documents, a federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting a legal strategy that the Bush administration had hoped would get around public records laws and let them keep their guests a secret...Visitor records are created by the Secret Service, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Bush administration has ordered the data turned over to the White House, where they are treated as presidential records outside the scope of the public records law.
But U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled logs from the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's residence remain Secret Service documents and are subject to public records requests.
Clearly this judge hates America and is making the baby Jesus cry.
Comments
As a non-constitutional scholar (and a non-American to boot) what realistically happens if the Executive Branch refuse to follow the courts determination?
Have there been many historical examples of this and how are such things normally finally decided?
Posted by: Dave Durant | December 19, 2007 11:19 AM
It does make hope spring eternal when a judge shows courage of their conviction. But Dave's point is also taken. Though I've been wondering what happens along those lines if the President refuses to leave office at the end of their term. I'm seriously wondering if someone who believes God gave him the position will willingly relinquinsh it. Yes, I'm hoping that's paranoid and he isn't quite as crazy as he appears.
Posted by: Donna | December 19, 2007 12:12 PM
The judge can enjoin the White House to turn over the documents. Then if the WH still refuses, the records can be seized by force. If whatever executive officer is charged with seizing them refuses, we would have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
Posted by: chris | December 19, 2007 12:52 PM
We're already in a Constitutional crisis.
But the refusals cited above would clearly fall under the heading of contempt of court, contempt of congress, and even high treason, neatly fitting the constitutional definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'
It would only remain to see whether our milquetoast/collaborationist Legislative branch has the stones/courage/real (neither faux nor Fox) patriotism to pursue it.
Perhaps it is time to consider blanket voting against incumbents precisely because they are incumbents.
Posted by: Farb | December 19, 2007 1:52 PM
Donna is (thankfully) paranoid. I don't mean that as a putdown, just as a statement that Bush will willingly leave office, and will probably show reasonably good grace as Hillary (?) takes the oath of office. I have often asked students to contemplate what would happen if a president refused to leave office, and spun wild scenarios about how that could come about, but I really just can't imagine it here. For all his many faults, Bush just isn't that guy.
As to Dave's question, presidents and the courts have conflicted several times. Fore example, Truman nationalized the steel mills during the Korean War, but handed them back when the Courts ordered him to do so.
Most to the point, Nixon fought a subpoena of his office tapes, but when the Supreme Court ordered him to hand them over, he actually did. And that was Nixon , who identified himself with national security more than Bush does.
Keep in mind this is a lower court judge who has ordered this, so Bush can legitimately appeal the decision as far up as the Supreme Court, and legitimately refusing to hand over the visitor's logs until the Supremes have spoken, because until they do the il/legality of his action has not been definitively adjudicated. My prediction--which is worth as much as any other prediction of the future--Bush will eventually hand over the tapes. After all, he has complied with the Sup. Court in the past, on arguably more important cased (terror suspects), so there's little basis for predicting he won't now.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 20, 2007 12:11 PM
Hope you're right, James, and no offense taken. I'm hoping I'm paranoid. But your class discussions intrigue me since I'm woefully ignorant. What would happen if a president ever did refuse? How does that play out? What protections do we have in place? And do they apply if he arbirtrarily invokes military rule? (No, no paranoia here; poking fun at myself and also playing worse case scenarios.)
Posted by: Donna | December 20, 2007 12:36 PM
Anyone else remember when this federal judge (Royce Lamberth) was a right-wing hero for ordering then-First Lady Hilary Clinton's health care task force to open themselves to public scrutiny, or facilitating Larry Klayman's fishing expeditions into the Clinton Administration? Bet he's off their Christmas list this year.
Posted by: Jestak | December 20, 2007 9:36 PM
I strongly suspect that any president refusing to leave office would have a very hard time getting enough support from the military and law enforcement officers around him to remain at his desk. If I had to make a bet, I would bet that he'd be escorted out by the same people who protected him. The people I've known who have held those types of jobs take them very seriously (as in, "You're a good friend of mine, but if you do that I'm going to have to shoot you" seriously). Anybody trying to dissolve our democracy would probably not get much love from them.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 21, 2007 4:12 AM
This is really late, but just in case Donna checks back to see if I ever replied... I agree with troublesome frog. A President would need military support to maintain his refusal to leave office, and I've yet to meet a current soldier or vet who thinks they would follow that order (which isn't to say there aren't any, but I don't think folks that whacko predominate among the generals).
Since the "President" would then be technically a private citizen, he would be subject to arrest for a variety of offenses, from mere trespassing on up to who knows what. Presumably he would be arrested, if he couldn't actually be persuaded to leave. The Secret Service would, I think, have authority to arrest him, and probably the FBI.
The key to our security is that the structure of our system requires a whole lot of people in responsible positions going along...it can't happen just with the decision of one man. In other words--thank god for bureaucracy!
Posted by: James Hanley | December 27, 2007 12:20 AM