posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:38 AM
The point of upholding the Presidential Records Act is to ensure that over time we acquire knowledge of all executive office holders, so we can
analyze and scrutinize that information, come to conclusions based on decisions made by those office holders, and possibly publicize those conclusions
so that the general population knows what went wrong or conversely, what went right (if that's of any interest
). In such a case, if members of
the original Bush cabinet remained on the new Republican presidential nominee's (unlikely, but John McCain's) own cabinet, there could be political
ramifications, which limit our ability to keep our executive branch of government in check. If we don't have this essential knowledge we can't make
educated decisions when we vote for presidential candidates. Similarly, if we can not at least bring this information to the attention of higher
members of Congress and Senate to affect a change, then we are incapable of keeping the government in check.
The Presidential Records Act:
Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
Is this for real? I'd like to see a discussion here on these boards on the constitutional basis for such a privilege.
Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value,
once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal.
The current Archivist, Allen Weinstein, appears to be easily impressionable. This is especially apparent in the notable Alger Hiss case. Hiss was a
U.S. State Department official who was accused of being a Soviet spy. Through extensive research, and even after gaining access to highly valued
Soviet intelligence, his initial conclusion that Hiss was innocent of conspiring with Soviet spies was arbitrarily reversed, resulting in a conviction
of perjury for Hiss. Was there a CIA or government influence on this decision? It seems to me it was a matter of retaining solidarity on the issue
within those private circles. Although it may have been true that he was not a spy, the CIA or whatever body responsible for the initial accusation
(we can never know), wanted it to stay that way. And no amount of legitimate research would change that. Is this man qualified to decide whether or
not any of these records have "historical, informational, or evidentiary value?" Or is this man covering up important information at the whim of a
sitting duck President? If we examine the history of these office holders themselves, will we detect a frightening trend, that most of these men were
influenced by the regimes of those times and neglected to preserve the most important knowledge of those presidents for the public to consume? Are
they arbitrarily, or worse, selectively destroying information that might be incriminating to those cabinet members or decision makers of the former
presidents in the future? Doesn't that count as "administrative value"?
Some will argue that the executive branch of government should have the inalienable right to keep the people out of the way when it is in their best
interest (and supposedly of the best interest of the country, which they govern), so that the country will be safe and secure. They will argue that
the President and his cabinet are the most qualified to make such decisions, as their seats in office imply.
Feel free to point out any flaws in my argument. I'm just a casual study. I have no scholarly credentials! But it's people such as myself, that
advocate their ideals for all to see and hear, that make this great nation possible. And although I write this from Canada, my heart will always
remain in the United States of America.
[edit on 11-9-2008 by cognoscente]