Looks like Poppy and James Baker might get in the hot seat after all.

I hope that this lawsuit goes through. I don't like government officials hiding things, no matter what party. And if it fails, then Clinton can claim executive privilege on the few papers he hasn't had destroyed, as well.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1220.htm "With respect to papers, there is certainly a public and a private side to our offices. To the former belong grants of land, patents for inventions, certain commissions, proclamations, and other papers patent in their nature. To the other belong mere executive proceedings. All nations have found it necessary, that for the advantageous conduct of their affairs, some of these proceedings, at least, should remain known to their executive functionary only. He, of course, from the nature of the case, must be the sole judge of which of them the public interest will permit publication. Hence, under our Constitution, in requests of papers, from the legislative to the executive branch, an exception is carefully expressed, as to those which he may deem the public welfare may require not to be disclosed." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:232

"[The] principle [of the Constitution] is that of a separation of Legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1797. ME 9:368

Jefferson, like all the presidents- including the founders, did what as he wanted with his papers.
Congress had no authority to change that Executive precedent.

""Ours... is a government which will not tolerate the being kept entirely in the dark." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1807. ME 11:168 "

The secrecy needs to be ended Constitutionally- not by a Legislative power grab.

" "The lawsuit filed by Public Citizen, in reality, is an attack on the (1977) Supreme Court decision." "
And a stupid attack at that!
NIXON v. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES, 433 U.S. 425 (1977)
"BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined; in all but Part VII of which WHITE, J., joined; in all but Parts IV and V of which POWELL, J., joined; and in Part VII of which BLACKMUN, J., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 484. WHITE, J., post, p. 487, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 491, and POWELL, J., post, p. 492, filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. BURGER, C. J., post, p. 504, and REHNQUIST, J., post, p. 545, filed dissenting opinions. "
Phew!

The crux of the ruling was that the Executive Branch wasn't being abused ( by this attack on the disgraced Nixon- this is not the PRA but a precursor law) because the President could do just what these guys are suing Bush for doing!

"There is nothing in the Act rendering it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch, since that branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, the Act being facially designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by privileges inhering in that branch. "

"Chief Justice Burger: I find it very disturbing that fundamental principles of constitutional law are subordinated to what seem the needs of a particular situation. That moments of great national distress give rise to passions reminds us why the three branches of Government were created as separate and coequal, each intended as a check, in turn, on possible excesses by one or both of the others. The Court, however, has now joined a Congress, in haste to "do something," and has invaded historic, fundamental principles of the separate powers of coequal branches of Government. To "punish" one person, Congress - and now the Court - tears into the fabric of our constitutional framework."

Justice Rehnquist's dissent, which I hadn't seen before, tells the tale of how this suit should and will fail:
"MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting. Appellant resigned the Office of the Presidency nearly three years ago, and if the issue here were limited to the right of Congress to dispose of his particular Presidential papers, this case would not be of major constitutional significance. Unfortunately, however, today's decision countenances the power of any future Congress to seize the official papers of an outgoing President as he leaves the inaugural stand. In so doing, it poses a real threat to the ability of future Presidents to receive candid advice and to give candid instructions. This result, so at odds with our previous case law on the separation of powers, will daily stand as a veritable sword of Damocles over every succeeding President and his advisers. Believing as I do that the Act is a clear violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, I need not address the other issues considered by the Court. "