Branches always test mettle of the others

The Aug. 14 reply by David Shroder to my letter about executive privilege tries to change the subject.

Congress sought access to the administration's decision-making processes. Shroder said how the administration works "is not a state secret," implying it should be made public.

No administration ever did that, any more than any Congress ever did that. In his reply, Shroder (leaving the subject of official privacy) says"...by using signing statements, the president is seeking to reduce the legislative authority ... of Congress."

Presidential or gubernatorial "signing statements" have long been used by chief executives to comment or make proclamations on legislation signed. Some chief executives use the veto more and "signing statements" less, or vice-versa.

That is a very different subject from "executive privilege," i.e., privacy. Since the three branches of government are co-equal, what is good for one is good for the others. If the inner workings of one branch should be a matter of public record, the inner workings of the others should be, too. But no one in office would stand for that.

If Congress wanted to nullify a change made by a "signing statement," a new law could do that. Of course, Congress should then expect to have to override a veto. These are all instruments by which one branch of government can and often does test the reach of its powers, to see how far the other branches will allow it to go.

The use of "signing statements," executive orders, etc., are no more improper than congressional attempts to delve into administrative affairs. That Congress is not operating as "a government of the people, but a government against them" (to use Shroder's expression), is evident and a factor in its abysmal approval ratings.

Voters are angry. There may be big changes coming.

Peter G. Malone

St. Charles