Zitat

---

But in a decision that is drawing intense criticism from across the ideological spectrum, the circuit court said the president has a "constitutional perogative" not to tell the American people who he or his staff meets with in the White House...."

"...Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton was extremely disappointed by the decision, saying "a president that doesn't want Americans, under law, to know who his visitors are is a president who doesn't want to be accountable. The appellate court decision punches another hole in the Freedom of Information Act, the law which allows Americans to know what their government is up to."

---

I had never seen that phrase 'constitutional perogative' and decided to check it out. I was wanted to see if the court just made it up to provide cover for Obama.

After some quick research, it seems that the concept of executive perogative has been around since the founding fathers. Back then there was disagreement as to whether executive perogative was constitutional or extra-constitutional.

Zitat

---

Locke defined executive prerogative as “the power of the executive to act for the public good in those cases where action by the legislature would be impossible or ineffective”
. . .
At its most essential, executive prerogative acknowledges that unforeseen circumstances sometimes require executive action contrary to the law because the lawmakers—legislatures—are not as equipped for speedy action.
. . .
Thomas Jefferson believed executive prerogative to be an extra-constitutional power. . . .that an extraordinary act of executive power could be both illegal and legitimate”
. . .
in times of necessity, the president could act outside the Constitution, acknowledging his deed and appealing to the citizenryfor justification. Since all power ultimately rests in the hands of the citizens, citizens would judge whether the illegal action was justifiable or not.
. . .
In stark contrast, Alexander Hamilton refused to accept this standard of judgment upon the executive, fearing it would discourage a president from exercising executive prerogative even when necessary.
. . .
Hamilton believed that if extraconstitutional powers were necessary to preserve the nation, . . . Fatovic notes, “Hamilton declared that one of the self-evident and universal truths of politics is the idea that the powers of government to deal with emergencies ‘ought to exist without limitation

---

Despite differences as to where executive perogative existed, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Locke all defined perogative as the power to act in an unforeseen emergency when awaiting action by a government constrained by separation of powers would be detrimental to the common good.

It seems to me that the court, in this case conveniently ignored the part about unforeseen emergency.

http://www.csbsju.edu/Documents/Politica...nner%5B1%5D.pdf
http://www.brown.edu/Research/ppw/Corbett.doc