Defending and Protecting the Constitution (But Only Sometimes)

The following observation is a little late, given that Condi Rice will now testify publicly before the 9/11 commission, but what the hey:

Does it strike anyone other than me as odd that the Bush administration was refusing to have Rice testify because it was concerned about a Constitutional principle? This is the same administration, after all, that, in the name of fighting terrorism, unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and, whether through overly intrusive elements of the USA PATRIOT Act or through enemy combatant designations, has stripped American citizens of rights guaranteed to them under the 4th, 5th, and 6th (and possibly the 8th) Amendments. For those of you playing along at home, by the way, these are specifically enumerated sections of the Constitution, right there, in plain enough English that almost anyone can read them and understand what the drafters of the Constitution were saying. [link]

Meanwhile, executive privilege -- that is, the right of the Executive Branch not to have to answer to inquiries by the Legislative Branch -- is nowhere enumerated in the text of the Constitution; indeed, one could argue that, to the contrary, that since the President is obliged under Article II, Section 3 to keep Congress informed as to the State of the Union ("He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union"), testimony by the Executive Branch before the Legislative Branch is entirely consistent with the Constitution, and would not violate the separation of powers. To say that executive privilege is a "constitutional principle" is, to my mind, stretching things a bit.

So to hear the President defend a political position by wrapping himself in that same document that he is only too happy to shred in other areas (and for the media to let him get away with it, too) just makes me mad as heck.