By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Justice has determined that the federal law mandating the preservation of presidential records is unconstitutional. This ruling could grant White House lawyers the authority to establish their own voluntary recordkeeping policies. Such a change may significantly alter the long-standing legal precedent set after Richard Nixon’s resignation, which aimed to prevent presidents from retaining control over their records.
Read the original article here
The assertion by the Justice Department that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional is a rather startling development, and frankly, it raises a lot of eyebrows. It’s particularly striking because this act has been the established framework for handling presidential records for decades, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, and followed by every president since Nixon. The notion that a department within the executive branch would suddenly declare such a foundational law unconstitutional is, to say the least, a significant departure from how things are typically done.
At its core, the Justice Department doesn’t possess the authority to unilaterally determine the constitutionality of a law. That power rests squarely with the judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court. It’s as if the Department of Justice is attempting to assume the role of the highest court in the land, which is a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation, of the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. Their opinion on the matter, while noted, is not legally binding in the way a judicial ruling would be.
The rationale being presented for this stance is rather convoluted and, some might say, “insane.” It seems to hinge on the idea that Congress can only pass laws that expand presidential powers, and cannot enact legislation that limits them. This effectively sidesteps the crucial role Congress plays in overseeing and, yes, constraining the executive branch, as outlined in the Constitution. It’s a position that seems designed to dismantle checks and balances rather than uphold them.
Furthermore, the timing of this declaration is quite telling. It comes amid ongoing concerns and investigations surrounding the handling of classified documents. The Presidential Records Act is precisely the legislation that governs the custody and accessibility of such records after a president leaves office. To question its constitutionality now, especially when there are allegations of presidents potentially mishandling or retaining classified materials, smells like a potential cover-up. It suggests a desire to operate in the shadows, unburdened by the transparency and accountability that the Act aims to provide.
It’s also worth noting the implication that if the Act is deemed unconstitutional, it could lead to a scenario where presidents simply shred documents without fear of legal reperdiction, at least until the Supreme Court weighs in. This would create a dangerous precedent, allowing for the destruction of potentially vital historical and governmental information with little immediate consequence. The idea that it’s too “hard” to comply with a law that every president since Nixon has managed to adhere to seems like a weak excuse to avoid scrutiny.
This entire situation feels like a deliberate attempt to carve out exceptions or undermine laws that impose limitations on presidential power. It’s as if the goal is to argue that any law restraining a president’s actions is, by definition, unconstitutional. This is a dangerous path that could pave the way for future administrations to disregard any legislation they find inconvenient, rather than seeking to change it through established legal and legislative channels.
The fact that this declaration comes from a Justice Department that has seen significant leadership shifts in recent times, particularly with close ties to a former president currently facing scrutiny over document retention, only amplifies the concerns about political motivations. The Attorney General’s past role in defending against alleged violations of this very Act, and a potential direct connection to the Librarian of Congress, only adds to the perception that this is not an impartial legal assessment.
Ultimately, the constitutionality of the Presidential Records Act will be decided by the courts, not by pronouncements from the Department of Justice. However, this declaration serves as a significant red flag, signaling a potential willingness to challenge established legal norms and weaken accountability for those in power. It’s a development that demands close attention and a firm commitment to upholding the principles of law and constitutional governance. The implications are far-reaching, suggesting a troubling willingness to bend or break the rules in order to avoid consequences.