|
|
|
|
|
|
by goodluckchuck
929 days ago
|
|
|
It comes from the history and tradition of the terms as they were used at the time of the founding. Keeping secrets has always been something a king would do. Consider the alternative. What if the legislature declined to provide authorization? If they decided not to approve a treaty, the nation could survive and the POTUS could still generally do their job. If the legislature denied the POTUS the right to keep secrets, it’d be utterly impossible to fulfill the duties of the office. If - per congressional mandate - he had to truthfully answer reporters questions about out nuclear capabilities and procedures, or explain to a wartime enemy his plans, reveal the identities of spies… These are all things that are so anathema the duties of the executive office that you can’t honestly say someone holds the executive power if they don’t have control over these things. But, yeah, you’re completely fair in the fact that in constitutional law many of the most important aspects aren’t spelled out in great detail and can be up for honest debate. |
|
|
The President regularly needs subordinate executive officers, staff, etc. to know and keep secrets. The Executive Privilege is enough to help them keep the secrets if they’re willing, but sometimes subordinates want to leak secrets. If it’s wartime and they’re sharing secrets with the enemy, then that may be treason, but generally there wouldn’t be any criminal penalties for leaking secrets during times of peace, etc. The classification system exists to support the President. If he says to keep his secret and you don’t, the legislature says thats a crime.